Lords Sitting of 30 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 Gloucester.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester
Michael James. Lord Bishop of Rochester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester

  Royal Assent
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Health Act,

  Water Industry Act,

  Tax Credits Act,

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare)

  Act, Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Act,

  University College London Act,

  Imperial College Act,

  HFC Bank Act,

  Cathedrals Measure,

  Care of Places, of Worship Measure.

  Summerhill School
  2.42 p.m.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their response to the recent Ofsted report on Summerhill School.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Ofsted has reported that Summerhill School fails to meet statutory minimum standards of accommodation, welfare and instruction, and is not providing adequate education. We have served a notice of complaint, requiring the school to make specified improvements within a year. We have also asked the school to submit an action plan within three months.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does the noble Lord think it appropriate to consider closing, after 78 years, a unique educational institution in the private sector which has such massive support from pupils and parents? Does he accept that, despite Ofsted's disclaimer that it is not sitting in judgment on Summerhill's philosophy of pupil democracy, that is exactly what it is doing?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the key issue is children's entitlement to minimum standards of
  272
  education and welfare. The Ofsted team was an experienced HMI team. The inspection lasted five days. It took place against a background of many years of promises to take action which were not achieved.
  As to whether it is an attack on the principles of the school, it is perfectly possible to argue that there is no requirement on the school to change its ethos. It is about ensuring that pupils pursue a broad and balanced curriculum, whether through lessons or prim ate study, that their progress is monitored appropriately, and that acceptable levels of achievement are attained.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since when has it been the policy of the Government to take a view about the philosophy and education of private schools? This is a school which attained 75 per cent A to C passes in 1998 and 63.9 per cent in 1999. Those figures are well above national averages. There is no truancy; and there is the highest possible level of parental satisfaction with the school. When those parents are paying their money and know what they are paying for, who are we to take a different view about the philosophy of education in a private school?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the situation is straightforward. There is a duty to ensure that independent schools reach and maintain standards laid down in the 1996 Education Act 1996. The inspection identified problems of attendance at lessons, progress not being properly assessed and poor teaching in a quarter of the lessons observed. The inspection reached its conclusions on that basis, following which a notice of complaint was served.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, does not the Minister's last reply suggest that the remit of the inspectors may not be wholly appropriate in examining schools such as Summerhill, which has deliberately set itself out to promote qualities of character and personal development rather than those of strict educational attainment as measured in classroom performance? Those who, like me, live near the school understand the international reputation which it has gained and the extraordinary effect which will be brought about by its closure and the impact on its friends abroad.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat that the statutory provision relating to minimum standards must be operated. The inspection team concluded that there were serious weaknesses which had to be addressed. Of course it is open to the school to make representations to Ofsted about the inspection and the report. It is also open to the school to appeal to the Independent Schools Tribunal within one month of the service of a notice of complaint. But I am satisfied that the inspection was carried out properly and that the conclusions reached were in accordance with the statutory responsibilities.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, reflecting on the wider implications of the threat to Summerhill School, does the Minister agree that the beacon of innovation, flair, imagination and lateral thinking which ought to

  273
  characterise teaching in our schools has all but been snuffed out by the overload of government prescription and an overcrowded national curriculum? Can the Minister tell us of any government initiative that will assist teachers to re-establish their professional independence and, at least as important, their own innovation?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have certainly travelled some distance from Summerhill School. The Government are concerned to raise standards in all our schools. That is why we allocated extra resources; made the classroom size pledge; published the teacher Green Paper; and are tackling failing schools. That is why the public are supportive of the action we are taking.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, is it not a fact that in many respects Summerhill School has been a pioneer of many educational ideas which have subsequently been incorporated into mainstream school teaching and practice? Is it not also true that to do anything which would destroy such a school, different as it may be from most independent schools and others, would damage the whole educational system?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure that all schools, Summerhill included, have lessons which they can offer to the rest of the school system. However, I do not believe that the inspectors' request that the school effectively monitors the progress of pupils, that acceptable levels of achievement are produced, and that health and safety provisions are properly put into place cuts across the ability of any school to innovate and to develop good practice.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the levels of achievement are well above the national average of our own state schools.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to refer back to the report of the inspectorate. That report identified serious weaknesses in terms of health and safety issues, teaching and non-attendance of pupils at lessons. It also identified that progress was not properly assessed. In the light of those conclusions, it was inevitable that the report would be produced as it was and that my right honourable friend took the action he did.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords, this is a splendid old school which does excellent work. Its standards and philosophy are quite different from those of Mr Chris Woodhead. Thank heaven there is at least one school where they are different. It would be an outrage to close down this school. Parents send their children there because they want to. Its achievements, including its educational achievements, are high. Please do not try to iron out all schools in accordance with the ideas of Mr Woodhead.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no intention of prohibiting parental choice or the freedom
  274
  of the independent sector. However, as I said, the inspection identified serious weaknesses which need to be addressed. The hope is that the school will get down to addressing them.

  Climate Change Levy
  2.51 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What further consideration will be given to ensuring that the climate change levy will not place high energy-using industries, including the engineering steels industry, in an internationally uncompetitive position.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise the need for special consideration to be given to the position of energy-intensive industries under the climate change levy proposals, given their high energy usage and exposure to international competition. The Government intend to set significantly lower rates of the levy for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. Detailed negotiations are now under way with the sectors concerned. The Government will work closely with business on the detailed design and implementation of the climate change levy.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for the information given in Question Time earlier this week. I wonder whether my noble friend can go a little further and cover two points. First, can he make it clear that the Government are well aware of the investment and priorities served in a number of high-energy using industries, especially in engineering steel where a marked environmental advantage has already been secured? Secondly, can the Government make it clear that no British industry will be faced with particular disadvantage or threat of closure by having to bear burdens which are not shared or matched by those in competing industries, either in Europe or elsewhere? Would it not be a great tragedy if cleaner industry in Britain was closed in order that dirtier industry abroad could prosper?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the first question raised by my noble friend, yes indeed, the Government are appreciative of the efforts already made by industry to cut damaging carbon emissions. However, as I stated in response to a similar Question on Monday, the demands of the Kyoto agreements are very strict. We have to produce a 20 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2010. In response to the second question, that is a target accepted by all industrialised countries. The competitive position of energy-intensive industries in all countries of the world will be affected by their commitment to the Kyoto agreements.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in their attempts to reduce emissions of climate change gases, will the

  275
  Government reconsider some of the anomalies in their present proposals, such as applying the levy where the sources are nuclear or hydro-electric and therefore produce no gases—bearing in mind that half the electricity in Scotland comes from nuclear sources—but exempting from the levy hydrocarbon oils which, on combustion, do release the offending gases?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the first question raised by the noble Lord, yes, we are aware of different levels of emissions from energy-intensive industries. Of course, we are prepared to discuss those matters with the industries concerned. We are considering, in particular, a low rate or no rate for renewable energy sources. I have forgotten the second question raised by the noble Lord!
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I asked about hydrocarbon oils.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is an important point. However, those are dealt with by fuel duties rather than by the climate change levy.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether at the end of the consultative process on the document dealing with the climate change levy, the Government will give serious consideration to making more of the proceeds of the levy available for energy-saving purposes? Does he recall that at present, out of the £1.7 billion raised by the levy, only £50 million will be made available for that purpose, apart from whatever arrangement is made with the intensive energy users?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the levy is intended to be fiscally neutral; in other words, all the proceeds from the levy will be returned to business in the form of reductions on national insurance contributions. Our activities in energy conservation, which are not insignificant, are in addition to that return.
  Lord Paul: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of an engineering company. The manufacturing industry has become very efficient. However, at present the main problem it faces is the high rate of the pound. That prohibits more investment which is needed for it to be competitive. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no extra levy, which would add to its costs, and that instead they will allow the industry to spend money on increasing efficiency?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have to achieve the targets to which we agreed at Kyoto, as do all other countries. The competitive position which they have vis-à-vis our industry is the same as that of other countries because the commitments they made at Kyoto.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his gracious welcome the other day. Does he accept that the root of the Government's difficulty with this proposed
  276
  levy lies in the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place on 9th June? He said:
  "Any money raised by the climate change levy is given back to industry through cuts in national insurance costs".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/99; col. 645]
  Is the Minister aware of the estimate which shows 17 major industries paying £742 million more in tax and saving only £64 million in national insurance contributions? I expect the Minister will say that the Government will provide reliefs from this extra tax. However, is it desirable to introduce a new tax and then promptly mitigate its effect by adding a whole new layer of complicated allowances, reliefs, deductions, indexations, exemptions, and so on?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither I nor the Prime Minister has said that the reduction in national insurance contributions would go back exactly to those businesses and industries which were being charged the climate change levy. If that were the case, it would not be worth doing at all. The purpose of the exercise is to reduce emissions, of carbon dioxide in particular. We have to achieve that by increased efficiency, energy saving and emission reduction in the industries which are energy intensive. There is no way round that.

  Disabled People: Access to Justice
  3 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What has been done to improve access to justice for disabled people.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is well known as a champion of the rights of the disabled, in particular for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which he introduced in another place in 1991. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 met many, but not all, of his concerns. It did not establish a disability rights commission. This Government have done just that by their Disability Rights Commission Bill which is before another place today. Royal Assent is anticipated by the end of July and the commission is expected to be up and running by April 2000.
  More particularly, a freephone disability helpline has been set up by the Court Service. It has been operational since March this year. In April 1998 the Court Service introduced provisions to arrange and pay for interpreters for deaf court users in civil cases. A pilot scheme is also running in the magistrates' courts for the appointment of blind and partially-sighted lay magistrates. The Court Service has also carried out a programme of disability access audits in order to plan and prioritise the changes required to court buildings. This involves no less than 341 separate audits.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply, and both to him and the Government as a whole for the urgency with which they are enacting the Disability Rights Commission Bill—an historic advance for

  277
  disabled people. Can my noble and learned friend now say what was involved in the disability access audits; how many have been conducted; and when they will all be completed? And how does he respond to the expressions of concern in and outside Parliament that reform of the legal aid system will be seriously detrimental to disabled people seeking legal redress?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those are two substantial supplementary questions. Court Service staff visited every building on the courts estate—341—to identify where any fails to meet the required standards. The staff involved received special training in the facilities required to meet the needs of all categories of disabled court users. A report has been prepared on each building, identifying how a disabled person would gain access to the building and making recommendations about the alterations or additional facilities required. Ninety-eight per cent of the audits have been completed. Out of a total of 335, only six are outstanding. Those should be completed in the next two weeks.
  As to the second supplementary, I have heard concerns expressed that reforms to legal aid will be detrimental to the disabled. I deprecate that scaremongering which must be very troubling for the disabled. In fact, they have nothing whatever to fear. There is no evidence that legal aid lawyers fail to act for the disabled in cases where they would act for others, and no reason whatever why they should fail to do so. It will be exactly the same under conditional fee agreements.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, given the Government's intention to provide access to justice for all, and given the need to create a level playing field to ensure equality of access to justice for all, how satisfied is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with the present provision, for example, in relation to deaf people who attend court or who find themselves involved at any stage in the legal process? There is a real dearth of interpreters for the deaf in the United Kingdom?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is the first question that the noble Baroness has asked from the Front Bench, to which I welcome her as a fellow lawyer. She will come to learn that your Lordships' House much appreciates lawyers. As I have already said, in April last year the Court Service introduced provisions to arrange and pay for interpreters for deaf court users in civil cases. Since the scheme was introduced, interpreters have been booked for 124 hearings. As the noble Baroness will also know, there are issues about how the deaf might act as jurors in criminal trials. There is no bar on their doing so. The trial judge has to be satisfied that the individual deaf juror would be capable of discharging his duties. A problem is that under the present rules an interpreter for the deaf may not sit in the jury room. The Government are undertaking research into that issue. A consultation paper is likely to be issued next year.
  Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give us an
  278
  assurance that, because of the complications involved with disabled people, they will not be turned down by lawyers and will always have access to a lawyer?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, I can think of no reason why a disabled person would be turned down by a lawyer. Legal aid lawyers act on behalf of the disabled today and there is no conceivable reason why it would be in their interests not to do so tomorrow.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, nevertheless, is not the Lord Chancellor aware of the great concern within the legal profession, particularly among groups which act for minorities, including the disabled, that under the conditional fee system where the lawyer receives double fee or no fee, the prospect is that in difficult cases of low value lawyers will not find it in their interest to act for the disabled in cases where they are now ready and willing to do so under legal aid?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no rational reason whatever—lawyers are rational people—why a lawyer would abstain from acting under a conditional fee agreement for someone who is disabled when he would not abstain from acting for someone who is not disabled.
  Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that members of minority groups who are disabled are doubly disadvantaged in accessing justice? If so, can he tell the House what he proposes to do to redress that inequality?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would require persuasion that a member of a minority group who is also disabled is doubly disabled in relation to access to justice. I accept that he or she is doubly disabled, but not the latter.

  Rover Car Company
  3.7 p.m.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What talks they have had with Karel van Miert, the European Union Competition Commissioner, regarding the aid package to BMW for the Rover Car Company.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the UK met with the European Commission on 11th May to discuss the package of support for Rover's Longbridge plant. This was the first of a series of meetings which are expected to take place. The UK will shortly be lodging its formal notification of the aid package with the European Commission.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, as far as it goes. However, if the Government failed to convince Herr Miert and as his approval is necessary, can the Minister say when

  279
  they intend to meet him again? Is it not unfair to the workers of Longbridge that they have been led to believe that all is well and doubts are now cast on the future of the rescue package?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the words which Commissioner van Miert used were that he, "remains to be convinced" of the mobility aspect of the aid package; in other words, whether there was a realistic alternative to Longhridge for the development of the R30 car. Mr. van Miert has expressed comparable opinions on many occasions. We are confident that at the end of the negotiations we will show that in all respects, as we anticipated, the aid package is in conformity with the EU framework. A series of meetings to which I referred in my first Answer will start on 7th July.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would it not have been far better if Her Majesty's Government had made certain that the Competitions Commissioner was content with the package before it was announced? Are not the Government ashamed at the terms of the press release issued by the Commission when it said:
  "The UK Government gave ample coverage yesterday [last week] to its formal agreement with BMW over an aid package to Rover's Longbridge factory. It should be quite clear that the UK Government must notify the aid to the Commission and indeed withhold any payment until the Commission has formally approved the proposal"?
  Is not that a fairly stiff reprimand? Is it perhaps the reason why neither of the two Ministers who look after the DTI in your Lordships' House have come along today? Will not the Government do this kind of thing the next time, and, before they trumpet aid, clear it with the Commission?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that aid packages of this kind are always subject ultimately to the European Commission. It has always been the case that they have been announced before the final negotiations are complete, always under his government as well as under this Government. This is no exception to the rule. In those circumstances, there has been no breach of existing procedure. BMW, Rover and the United Kingdom Government always knew from the beginning that ultimately European sanction would be needed. We said so at the time and we say so now. As for my presence at the Dispatch Box, I apologise, as always, to the noble Lord for the inadequacy of my answers.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the well known pro-European credentials of the noble Lord who has just asked that question need these days perhaps to be hidden, when one considers the company that he keeps?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is too fly to allow
  280
  himself to be caught with the Eurosceptic philosophy of his party. He always asks questions and makes speeches which fail to reveal his own views.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that these aid packages are dealt with by the Commission in an even-handed way across the whole Community?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course they are dealt with in an even-handed way. The framework is well established. It has been set out for many years. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we are very much in favour of the rigorous application of competition legislation in the European Community. It is enormously to our advantage to see that unjustified state aid is reduced and that genuine competition throughout the European Union is encouraged by this kind of regulation.
  Lord Paul: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the support that they have given to BMW and Rover. It is an essential industry in that part of the country. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will expedite the procedure of the European Commission?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those congratulations on behalf of the Government. It is, of course, a procedure which takes a number of months. There has to be a thorough investigation by case officers into all the matters that are contained within the framework. We will, of course, be doing our part by submitting our evidence. BMW and Rover will also be doing their part by submitting their evidence in sufficient time to ensure that we reach a satisfactory conclusion, of which a am confident, as early as possible.

  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.
  Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 46:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  VOTING RIGHTS OF LIFE PEERS: EXTENSION OF DURATION OF PARLIAMENT
  (" . In respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a Bill providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond five years, no peer appointed to the House of Lords under the Life Peerages Act 1958 during the course of that Parliament shall be entitled to vote on such proceedings.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is a very simple amendment. Under the provisions of the quinquennial Act, which is more properly called the Septennial Act, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, your Lordships have an

  281
  absolute power of veto should the government of the day bring forward a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years. If the Government have a legitimate reason for so doing, such as in time of national emergency, your Lordships might choose to agree with the proposal. It was, for example, with your Lordships' agreement that the 1935 Parliament continued until 1945.
  The power of veto was deliberately left with your Lordships under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911, and again by the Labour Government of Mr Attlee when the 1949 Act was passed. Although it might seem unlikely that the Government would attempt such a thing, it was felt to be so important that this extraordinary and unique provision should remain. Indeed, it is significant that in its submission to the Royal Commission the Labour Party spelt out its view that this power should continue to remain with your Lordships' House.
  During the course of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that the Bill before your Lordships today is solely concerned with the composition of the House and that there is no intention within it to alter the powers of the House. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, repeated this point somewhat forcefully when he addressed this issue in answer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry at Committee stage.
  I would suggest to your Lordships that the Government are being a little naive. Any Bill which removes a substantial proportion of the membership of this House, while not affecting the theoretical powers of the House, is bound to affect the way in which those powers can be used. No one could argue that if one were to reduce the cubic capacity of a motor car engine, it would not have a marked effect on the ability of that car to operate; of course it would.
  In the case of your Lordships' House, the removal of a large number of existing Members would automatically increase the voting power of those who would remain. We have already felt the effect of the uniquely large number of new Peers who have been appointed by the Prime Minister since May 1997. I believe that the House has been happy to welcome them and has indeed benefited from their input. However, there is no denying the weight of their impact, not least in the Division Lobbies. Imagine how much greater that effect would be, whether benign or malign, which is not relevant today, when at the other end of the scale almost half the existing membership departs, as the Bill proposes.
  The situation which this amendment is designed to counter is one in which a future prime minister—and, before anyone gets over excited, nobody has mentioned the present Prime Minister, who, as we all know, is completely perfect in every way—might decide that it is temporarily inconvenient to submit himself to the judgment of the electorate; and he may believe that, with a little help, he can get your Lordships to allow him an extra year in which to persuade the voters to re-elect him. I am the first to admit that this is unlikely to happen. I am also of the view that it would be extremely
  282
  difficult to pack this House with enough new Peers to make a significant difference—unlikely and difficult, but not impossible.
  Although today it may be difficult for us to envisage a set of circumstances in which that could happen, I wonder how many noble Lords sitting in this very Chamber in June 1899 would have predicted that in less than 10 years' time they would be facing a threat from the Prime Minister to pack this House. What is even more significant is the fact that noble Lords at that time clearly believed that the threat to pack the House was both real and possible. It is also interesting to note that the size of the House at that time was broadly the same as it will be when this Bill is passed.
  All that this amendment does is prevent Peers of all parties and no party, appointed during the term of a Parliament, from voting on proceedings to extend the life of that Parliament. In other words, a prime minister cannot pack your Lordships' House with his supporters before asking the House to prolong the term of the Parliament beyond five years, by suspending a general election. Those Peers denied a vote on this issue will still be able to speak in the relevant debate and will be able to vote on all other proceedings as normal. Should the prime minister's request be reasonable, as it was in 1939, the House would, of course, be able to agree to it. The voting prohibition only extends to the term of that Parliament because, following a general election, the prime minister will have defended his policies and received a fresh mandate, or not, as the case may be. In either event, the electorate will have had the opportunity to express a view. My Lords, it is as simple as that.
  I suspect that we shall be told that this amendment is unnecessary in the light of the assurances already given about the parity between the parties and in respect of the proposed appointments commission. Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess the impact of these, since they are not on the face of the Bill, which is what we must consider in isolation. It is equally difficult to assess the effect of the amendment that was accepted by your Lordships last week, setting up a statutory appointments commission, since the Government have already declared their intention to try to remove it from the Bill. In a sense, the importance of the amendment this afternoon is reinforced by the haphazard way in which the Government have chosen to execute the reform of your Lordships' House.
  When my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry proposed his amendment, the response from the Government Benches was largely devoted to destroying my noble friend's solution rather than addressing the problem. At one point the debate almost deteriorated into an extremely unpleasant "hereditary versus life Peers" match. I am happy to say that this amendment does not stray into that territory. I do not believe that hereditary Peers are the sole guardians of the constitution, nor do I believe that the life Peers who will remain cannot be relied upon to act independently or with integrity. On the contrary, I am confident that many life Peers on all sides of the House, who I have come to know and work alongside, can be relied upon with confidence. But none of us can be sure that a future Prime Minister, a person unknown who may not hold

  283
  office until we have all gone to that great debating Chamber in the sky, will not seek to appoint a different sort of person to this House for his own short-term political gain.
  It is for that reason, and that reason only, that my noble friends and I propose this amendment today. In matters constitutional, I believe that we would be failing in our duty if we did not seek to ensure that this piece of legislation is as watertight as we can make it. That is not because we do not trust the Government; it is not because we do not have faith in those noble Lords who will remain when the rest of us have taken our seats in the tumbrels. It is because none of us can see into the future and predict what political turmoil may lie ahead, particularly during the next few years of unprecedented constitutional upheaval.
  The amendment would not stop the Royal Commission making recommendations; nor would it tie the Government's hands. It would not infringe upon the Labour Party's manifesto commitment and it would not alter the main substance of the Bill. Indeed, if the Government fulfil their promise to implement stage two reasonably quickly, the amendment will never come into play.
  The amendment would not change the powers of your Lordships' House in any way whatever: it merely seeks to ensure that its most important constitutional power cannot be undermined. If I may say so, it is the smallest and mildest of insurance policies for a future crisis that may never happen. But if that crisis were to develop and your Lordships had failed to press the issue, we would rightly be accused of neglecting our duty. For some of us, it may be our last opportunity to be of collective service to the British people. I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the amendment said that on the last occasion it was raised I was somewhat strong in my objection. I was strong in my objection then, and I remain strong in my objection today. If it helps the noble Lord, I will coo as gently as a sucking dove in what I have to say, but that will not alter the substance of my view.
  I find it a little ironic that the only time this issue arises is when the Conservative Party is in danger of losing its majority in this House. The implication is clear: it is that the constitution is safe in Conservative hands but unsafe in the hands of anyone else. I reject that view. It is neither accurate nor fair. I think that this side of the House and the Labour Party are just as capable of upholding the British constitution and the principles in which we all believe. Indeed, I believe in them, as, I am sure, do my noble friends, just as deeply as the noble Lord who moved the amendment. With great respect, it cannot be right to say that what has been sauce for the Conservative goose in this House because of its majority cannot be sauce for the Labour gander if, at some stage in the future, we get a majority in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord also knows that we are not even proposing that we should have a majority in this House; indeed, we are proposing rough parity with the Opposition.
  284
  I am afraid that I find the suggestion implicit in the amendment just as offensive today as I did on the last occasion the matter was discussed. It assumes—does it not?—two things in essence. The first is that a Labour Prime Minister will try to do this—not a Conservative Prime Minister because, by definition, Conservative Prime Ministers do not do that sort of thing—and I reject that. Secondly, it assumes that a Labour majority in this House would go along with it. I reject that just as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rejects the proposition that the hereditary peerage on that side of the House would have gone along with a Conservative Prime Minister's suggestion to extend the life of a Parliament.
  There is no suggestion anywhere that we should interfere with the power that this House has in relation to the Septennial Act. It is right that that should remain precisely as it is. But a suggestion—and that is what this is about—that somehow that side of the House can be trusted and this side cannot—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Richard: Noble Lords can shout as much as they like. The fact is that when you actually analyse the essence of the suggestion that is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that is what it comes down to. I reject it; indeed, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agreed with a number of the preliminary points that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made, but I wholly disagreed with his conclusions. He has sought to turn the issue into a Labour versus Conservative argument and an hereditary Peer versus life Peer argument. It is neither. The principle behind the amendment is that the existing House, and the House as it evolves, can be trusted to act as a safeguard to prevent a very specific set of circumstances arriving; namely, a government seeking to prolong the life of a Parliament without a very good reason for so doing.
  What we are saying is quite simple. We are saying that an unscrupulous administration some time in the future—be it Labour, Conservative or even (who knows?) Liberal Democrat—would have the ability to pack this House with its supporters, with people who have given a pre-arranged commitment to support the government in their intentions whatever they may be, including the prolonging of the life of a Parliament. That is wholly different from what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested, which is that Conservatives or hereditary Peers are better at judging these major constitutional issues than life Peers or indeed Labour Members of this House.
  With the Bill that the Government are seeking to pass through your Lordships' House we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to pass a temporary measure, and ill-thought out measure, which the Government recognise will need urgent amendment at some time in the future. All we have is a commitment from the Government that they will bring forward further reform of an unspecified nature and at an

  285
  unspecified time in due course. We know that no government can bind their successors; we know that circumstances change; and we know that priorities in the legislative programme change. We are being asked to approve a temporary set of circumstances, but a set of circumstances which might last for a very long time. We must legislate for the future and we must legislate on the basis that all legislation that comes from this House can stand the test of time and is not just for three or four years. This Bill will go onto the statute book and, until amended, will be the law of the land.
  This is an incredibly important issue. The ultimate safeguard against serious abuse of the constitution is the fact that the executive must face re-election every five years unless there is an extraordinarily pressing national interest. This provision is there. The very fact of the numbers of the House as it stands at present means that it is difficult to pack this place. It is simple mathematics. Many times more Peers would have to be introduced in order to achieve the aims of an unscrupulous administration. With the removal of the vast majority of the hereditary peerage, that would substantially change. It would become much easier for that to happen.
  I return to our central point. We cannot envisage any immediate circumstances in which this situation could arise. We do not know what is around the corner but we have to produce robust legislation. On these vital constitutional issues we have to produce legislation that will serve this country well in the long term. We do not pretend that this amendment will turn a bad Bill into a good one. All we are saying is that it would provide a strong safeguard on the face of the Bill against the terrible circumstances that we have discussed occurring in the future. The Government should recognise—they would be wise to do so—that there is strong feeling that a safeguard is required to prevent serious abuse of the constitution in the future. I believe that this amendment would achieve exactly that. I hope that the Government will accept it. If they do not, I hope that my noble friend will press the amendment.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have no wish to oblige those noble Lords who are "packing" the House to stay too long. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. As he will know, I have followed his name in another context. Unlike my noble friend Lord Richard, I do not just find this amendment offensive. Frankly, I find it rather insulting. It is insulting to all life Peers.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, the amendment is insulting to life Peers. For 18 years and more there was a majority in this House of Conservative hereditary Peers. No one on that side of your Lordships' House thought for one moment that they should introduce legislation to prevent life Peers undertaking this action when assurances have been given that the life of a Parliament will not be extended beyond five years. They will not say that they do not trust any future Labour Prime Minister on this
  286
  matter. They claim the measure is decent, honest, honourable, safe and impartial. Of course all those 400 Conservative hereditary Peers were impartial in taking the Conservative Whip! Frankly this measure is a nonsense. I hope that Conservative hereditary Peers and others—and certainly Cross-Bench Peers—will see this measure for what it is; namely, a nonsense. I hope that it will be rejected out of hand.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he found the measure offensive. Unfortunately, that message was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I think that they have this matter totally wrong. The amendment, spoken to so well by my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Goschen, states the case simply; namely, that if there is a move to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years—we all agree that that is highly unlikely—those who have been created life Peers since the previous general election cannot vote until there has been another general election. That applies to Conservatives, socialists and Liberal Democrats. I do not believe that that is in any sense an attempt either to demean life Peers—of which I am one—or to criticise socialist life Peers. It is an attempt to build an additional constitutional safeguard into the most important aspect of our life altogether in parliamentary terms; namely, how long can a government last?
  In moving the amendment my noble friend Lord Mancroft said quite rightly that I had moved an amendment at Committee stage to discount Clause 1 of the Bill in the event of an attempt being made by a government in the House of Commons to prolong their own life. As was pointed out by several noble Lords during that debate—and as one of them rather unkindly put it—it was not possible to dust off a lot of hereditaries, bring them out of the cupboard and put them back in this Chamber again. That is a sentiment with which, sadly, I agree. But it was clear in that debate that there was a general feeling that some additional safeguard was needed for the particular circumstances of a government extending, or attempting to prolong, their life.
  I hope that I may attempt to divert your Lordships for a moment. I refer to the idea that "packing" a particular party will never happen and therefore there is no necessity for the amendment. I quote from a cutting which is headed,
  "Political Notes. The Creation of Peers. The Whip's List".
  The article states:
  "It has for some time been understood in Ministerial circles that the Master of Elibank, as Chief Whip, has had the preparation of the list of names of supporters of the Liberal Party which the Ministry will submit to the King if the Constitutional crisis ends in a creation of peers. The number 500, with which the public have been familiarised, there is reason to believe was taken as the number that might be required in extreme eventualities, and it is stated that there are more than 500 names now on the list. Some, it is understood, are members of the House of Commons, and a large number are supporters of the Liberal Party outside the House".

  287
  Thus The Times, on 12th July 1911, a month before the Parliament Act of 1911 was passed. On top of the article, in handwriting—the reference to Nicholson is to Nicholson of The Times—appears the following:
  "These are the Master's notes given to Nicholson in the Chief Whip's Room, House of Commons, on the evening of July 11th 1911 to bluff the Tories".
  That is why the Liberals had to do it. It is worth remembering the history. There had been an election in January 1910 in which the Liberals maintained their majority over the Unionists of two. The question of the Parliament Bill, as it then was, was at the top of the agenda. The Liberals went back to the country again in December 1910 to get the country's support for passing the Bill that gravely reduced the powers of this House. It was only then, following a second general election in December 1910, that the threat of creating more Peers to get the Parliament Bill—with its great reduction in the powers of this House—through Parliament became a reality and they got the support of the newly crowned George V for it.
  We should not forget that history. It all seems a long time ago but this was a case of Asquith taking great care to ensure through a second general election that if he created a lot of new Peers—they would have been hereditaries then—it was on the clear understanding that the aim was to limit the powers of this House. I do not want to detain the House long—
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am following his speech carefully. However, can he address the point which has now been made twice; namely, what was to prevent any Conservative Prime Minister in a period of 18 years doing exactly the same thing? I am sure there is an answer to that, but I am waiting to hear it.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I have no problem with that point at all. In the course of 18 years of Conservative government there never was an attempt to change radically the composition of this House.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, that is clear. Although this Bill is about composition—as Clerks in the Public Bill Office have frequently pointed out to us—it is a fact of life that those appointed by different political parties use their powers differently. That is exactly why the Liberal government of Asquith took care to have a second general election in order to make certain that they had the country's backing for a reduction in the powers of this House. Therefore I very much support the amendment. My noble friends have certainly improved on the amendment that I moved in Committee. Like them, I regard the establishment of this constitutional bulwark in the rapidly evolving process of constitutional charge that is now occurring as of supreme importance. I hope that the Government will therefore accept the amendment without a vote. If they do not, I very much hope that we will pursue it in the Lobbies.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I very much support the principle that this House should have the power to prevent the extension of the life of Parliament—a principle which is well enunciated in Amendment No. 61, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It is of great importance. However, I very much doubt that the amendment is appropriate to achieve that end. I say this not for the party political reasons so robustly advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but on perhaps more dispassionate grounds.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has quite rightly referred to the history of the procedure up to the 1911 Act. It seems to me that the noble Lords moving the amendment appear to have forgotten that the power to appoint new Peers is vested not in the Prime Minister but in Her Majesty. There had to be the two elections referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because His Majesty—as he then was—declined to exercise that power for the sole purpose of swamping the House unless and until the country had demonstrated that that was its wish. It would be the undoubted power—and presumably the proper course—of a monarch who was invited to swamp the House purely to achieve an escape from the 1911 Act to decline to do so until there had been an election. Therefore, if swamping is not to be carried out until after an election, that of itself defeats the attempt to extend the life. If one cannot extend the life until after a new election, one has rather defeated the point.
  Secondly, I fail to understand why this power has suddenly become necessary in the context of the Bill. There has always been, and will remain, a theoretical risk of swamping; however, I do not see why that risk grows with the Bill. Indeed, the House after the Bill will not be a better place but it will be a more evenly balanced place. I do not see that it will therefore require a greater number of appointments to achieve the overall majority to vote this through than it would have done had the Conservative Party made such a proposal in the past.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I fail to understand why it is said that pre-appointed life Peers are less apt or able to defend the constitution. Although it is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, entirely disclaimed that allegation, it seems to me to be somewhat inherent in his proposals.
  Thirdly, I find it a very strange proposal that Peers who were appointed long before the idea of extending life was ever mooted and who had exercised a position in the House for perhaps two or three years should suddenly be disenfranchised from a particular measure. Let us take the situation where a new Government are appointed and they desire to appoint as the Leader of this House somebody from another place or from outside this House. That person is duly appointed and exercises that role with great aplomb and skill and with the admiration of the House for three years. The Government then decide, for good or bad reason, that they wish to seek to extend that life. The mover of that Bill is this very Leader of the House. For some strange reason, that person will be disenfranchised. Because he or she arrived only on the first day of that Parliament

  289
  some three or four years before, he or she would be suddenly disenfranchised for the purposes of that Bill and for no other.
  I would be happy to hear that all my doubts are wrong. But unless and until they are resolved, I shall find it impossible to support the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this story goes back a lot longer than even my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry said. This habit was started by the Tories after the Treaty of Utrecht. They decided to pack the House to make sure that a rather bad treaty went through. The Whigs used it to deal with the 1832 Bill and then the Liberals used it again in 1911. I should say that in no way do I distrust the Government; I give them, completely and utterly, 100 per cent for integrity. I am not saying that they would dream of doing something like that.
  We have had recently a rather large number of ill thought-out constitutional proposals, all of which, I suspect and I am afraid, will end in tears. Therefore it is even more important to have proper checks and balances. Historically, whenever constitutional change has been introduced at such a rapid rate, things have got out of hand. One has only to look at England in the 17th century or France in the 18th century to see that things go wrong. It is essential that we should have in the Bill this particular check.
  Let us assume—it is not a totally phantasmagorical assumption—that this Government potter on for another three years and we then have a general election; and then a stroppy Liberal Government are elected. I admit that it is unlikely. They may think that we do not trust them. We are not saying that we do not trust noble Lords opposite. I completely trust the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington—who would not? The point we are trying to make is that there are others who may not be trusted and we should have checks and balances. That is the way our constitution has worked. The Whig concept of checks and balances is terribly important. It is all very fine and large saying "Oh no, it will not happen" because almost invariably when people say that it will happen. As my mother frequently told me, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and things go wrong.
  No one is impugning the honour of Labour life Peers, Tory life Peers, Tory hereditary Peers or even the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. One is saying, please let us be careful. It would do no harm at all to accept the amendment; it would do quite a lot of good to have it in the Bill. It would show the grandeur—I use the word advisedly—of the Labour Government if they were to say, "Yes, we see validity in your argument. In no way do we think it will happen, but we must be doubly sure". All we are suggesting is that we should be doubly sure. I support the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we accept that there are arguments in favour of the amendment. Those arguments have been put clearly by those who have
  290
  moved it. It is true that both in 1911 and when the Parliament Act was amended in 1949 the extension of the life of Parliament was excepted from the restriction on the powers of your Lordships' House. That is not to be altered by the present Bill.
  As matters now stand, the exception in the 1911 Act can be overridden in two ways: first, by a further Act of Parliament which removes that exception—although, of course, that would take a year if the Parliament Act procedure had to be relied on, as no doubt it would. Secondly, as matters now stand, it could also be overridden by packing the House with new Peers. That possibility has, of course, always existed. The risk of packing is no greater now than it was in 1911 or 1949.
  Extensions of the life of Parliament will happen only in times of profound national crisis and with the consent of all major parties. That is what happened in the First and Second World Wars; and it happened then with the consent of all major parties. When that consent was withdrawn—as happened after VE-Day in 1945—a general election followed immediately.
  No one has suggested that any Conservative Government at any other time have considered exercising the power to extend the life of Parliament; no one has suggested that any Labour Government have at any time considered extending the life of Parliament. The real sanction on a government who seek to extend the life of Parliament without the broadest national consent is that that Government would face rebellion on their own Benches in both Houses; that they would face massive public protests and demonstrations; and that they would face certain and catastrophic defeat when they were eventually forced into a general election.
  The amendment therefore adds nothing of value. We have lived with the risk of packing for 88 years. Why is the amendment being introduced now? Nothing in the Bill makes packing any more likely. We on these Benches will be unable to support the amendment.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to speak because the amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, Amendment No. 61, is linked with Amendment No. 46. Our amendment states:
  "Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to veto any Bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years".
  Those words combined with what has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and others is very compelling. I am not Conservative—I served with a Conservative Government for a period of time but that was quite a different matter; it was on colonial questions only. I was a Cross-Bencher before and a Cross-Bencher soon after.
  It is curious that these amendments, which are bracketed together, should raise such anxiety. I could almost use the word "hostility" on the part of some on the Labour side. I completely trust what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said at one time or another, in writing or otherwise, and indeed what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has said. That is not the issue. The issue is something quite different. It is that one cannot tell what

  291
  the future will hold. No one knows what the outcome of making a major change in the composition of the House would be. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 46 is most ingenious because it in no way affects the powers except if someone threatens to prolong the life of Parliament. No one can tell when that might arise. It could be a Conservative government just as easily as a Labour or even some new government which might, under certain circumstances, try to do this.
  Under those conditions, packing the House is also something that has been threatened before. We have heard the historical side of that. What is proposed in the first amendment prevents that. It gives time and time is of the essence in an issue like this.
  Not only can there not be packing, but there cannot even be the threat of packing which could be a very serious issue. With every power that I have I urge the Government to accept the amendment in good faith in the belief that we are worried as to what could happen in the distant future. I wondered how to express the anxiety about the extension of the life of a Parliament. I came to the conclusion that if it were a statutory statement in the Bill itself, it would not be absolutely effective but it would show what the Peers of this moment are worried about. It would give time, which I think is of the essence here, for everybody, the Government of the day included, to think for a second time and give public opinion, particularly the media, the opportunity to draw attention to the danger that lies ahead.
  It may be said that the first amendment by itself is enough. Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 cover one and the same anxiety and purpose, that we should have a defence which is not only the belt but also the braces. The first amendment is the belt and mine is the braces. The two amendments go together. I beg the Labour Government to realise that this is not intended to be a party matter but one which is for the good of the country and the future, the future may well be in 40 or 50 years time as nobody can tell just what we are really faced with.
  I hope very much that the amendments which are in a sense totally bracketed and belt and braces will be accepted in the spirit that they are put forward.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am pleased that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has very carefully and calmly made much of the case that I want to make.
  I was struck by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that there is a need to build in additional constitutional safeguards. The puzzle on this side of the House is why, when there is a change of political power, there is the need to build in additional constitutional safeguards.
  Reference has been made to the impact of this attempt. I do not besmirch anyone's motives in this matter at all. We are all politicians. We all look at these matters from the point of view of how they affect, among other things, the political fortunes of the party that we serve. We on this side of the House—I speak
  292
  for myself of course—are just a little suspicious that the need to protect the constitution arises this year or next year when it did not in the past.
  You do not need to look into a crystal ball to see what a political party did when it had power in this place. I can recall that, in 1979 when the Conservative Government took over, the Conservatives had a majority in this House over Labour of more than 300. At the end of the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, with that majority of 300, Labour was down by 28 and the Conservatives were up by 32. There was a net difference in the strength of the parties in this House of 60. One might say that was not deliberate, that it just happened. We have to make sure that someone who governs the country in the future who has a different point of view, a different agenda, will not deliberately take advantage.
  One of the matters that upsets noble Lords on this side of the House, despite protestations, is the clear implication that they do not believe what the Prime Minister is saying. What he has said with all the dignity that he can is that it is not his intention to pack the House. In fact, he has taken away from himself the supreme power of a Prime Minister in forwarding to Her Majesty the names of those upon whom she should confer a peerage. The Prime Minister has given his word, which in my view the country will accept and we on this side of the House accept. If the other side is worried about that possibility, let them take my assurance too.
  I remember very well what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. If there were ever any attempt by a Labour Prime Minister to do anything remotely like what has been hinted at, his biggest opponents would be here on these Benches. So if there is a worry, please be assured that the Labour Benches are as much in tune as others about damage to the constitution. We have worked hard. The issue was resolved on 1st May 1997. Whether noble Lords on the other side of the House like it or not, the manifesto was put before the people and we have a mandate to govern; and that is what we intend to do.
  4 p.m.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I may—
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I wish to be as brief as possible. As the Life Peerages Act and the powers under it are being discussed, I should declare that I had some responsibility for piloting it through Parliament in 1958. I was then merely an Under-Secretary at the Home Office; the Home Secretary who introduced it was the late Mr R.A. Butler, as he then was. It will intrigue your Lordships to know that the purpose of that Act, although it was not declared in it, was to enable people who might be offered peerages to become life Peers if they did not want to become hereditary Peers. However, it became clear after a year or so that that would not be the limited purpose for which peerages under it would be created. Indeed,

  293
  in the past 30 years—this is an answer to the noble Lord—no party in your Lordships' House has had a clear majority.
  If in 1958 when the Life Peerages Act was passing through Parliament it had become clear that the powers under the Act could be used for creating peerages to extend the life of a parliament at the behest of a government, that Act would not have been passed into law at that time. No party would have agreed to it; neither House would have agreed to it. We have as a possibility—it is no more than a possibility but it is one that we should guard against—that some government, for some reason, inevitably, I think, an inadequate reason, might say, "Let us use the powers in that Act to extend the life of the government and of the parliament". That would be wrong and that is why I fully support my noble friend's amendment.
  Perhaps I may say as well that Amendment No. 61, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which goes somewhat wider than Amendment No. 46, is also worthy of support.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak as my name is attached to Amendment No. 61. I like Amendment No. 46 for the simple reason that it has real teeth, whereas the other amendment does not. The question has been asked as to why such a provision should now be necessary when it has not been necessary for many years. The answer is that we have not been looking at changing the composition and powers of this House for many years. Therefore, there was no point in raising the issue as it was not an issue. It has now been made an issue, so we are looking at all the implications of what has been proposed. If one notices that there is a shortfall somewhere, it is naturally logical to try to close some loopholes such as exist at the moment under the 1911 Act so that there will not be a problem in the interim House. That is why the amendment is needed.
  I have found it sad that life Peers seem to think that the provision is aimed at them. Life Peers will be able to vote under Amendment No. 46. Life Peers will not be excluded from voting on the measure which will come before the House to extend the life of Parliament. They will be included. The only ones who will be excluded are new Peers who are created immediately before that measure is proposed to the House.
  As someone once said, "I know you think you understand what I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant". The trouble is that people are trying to look for offence when none is intended. This is a perfectly reasonable idea in order to try to prevent problems arising. As a Cross-Bencher, my concern is that the Conservatives, with their larger group, might, if the Cross-Benchers had not come out against, have been able to get such a measure through more easily than they should have been. I look forward to the time when the House is more evenly balanced, as it will then be harder for a Conservative Government potentially to abuse their position of power. On the other hand, if the House is more evenly balanced, it will also be easier to pack it. One will not need to put forward so
  294
  many in order to tip the balance in one's favour. Therefore, with a more evenly balanced House, the danger becomes greater.
  I found the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, slightly naïve in his thinking that Her Majesty might tell the Prime Minister that he could not create new peerages. Those days have long since gone. I fear—and I am not sure that one should say it—that it is now accepted that the Crown will always accept the recommendations of the Government of the day. That is a sad reality. I strongly support Amendment No. 46.
  The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I intervene in the debate, but I have been listening carefully to the arguments. It seems to me that the main objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary. If it is not necessary, why are those on the Government Benches so strongly against it? It will not do them any harm. I believe that it may not be necessary in the near future or in the immediate future but perhaps in the distant future it could become necessary. One does not know what may occur in years to come. It may be that my feelings on this matter are somewhat encouraged by having recently read that great classic by George Orwell, 1984, where one sees things moving slowly towards a state of big brotherhood. There are already signs that the Executive is taking greater powers throughout the land and that Parliament is losing powers to the Executive. One sees the media becoming more dominated by the Left-wing. So the drift carries on towards the situation which George Orwell so clearly described. We should look rather further ahead than the immediate future. Therefore, this could be a worthwhile safeguard.
  Perhaps I may mention this point in conclusion. Noble Lords may not remember that George Orwell's real name was not George Orwell. It was Blair; Eric Blair.
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when I saw the amendment I was very angry. I thought it offensive and insulting. I shall have to temper my remarks and try to calm down. It made me angry for three reasons. First, it flies in the face of history. On only two occasions in this century has the life of a parliament been extended. One was when we had a Liberal ascendancy and the other was when we had a Conservative ascendancy. Never has it been on the agenda for the Labour Party. Secondly, it perpetrates the big lie that the only safeguard for democracy in this country is the House of Lords. That is absolute nonsense. Noble Lords have been talking about packing the House of Lords. I was at a Labour Party Conference in the mid-1980s when Tony Benn made a resounding speech in which he declared that the Labour Party would install a thousand Peers to get rid of the House of Lords. We all cheered that to the rafters.
  After we had had a good cheer, thinking it a terrific idea, I wondered how we would select the thousand Peers to flood the House of Lords. I thought that the sensible way would be to pick the chairs and secretaries of every constituency Labour Party up and down the

  295
  land; and then, knowing a good number of them and having been in the Labour Party for God knows how many years, I suddenly realised that once they were in here they would vote to keep the place going. So the threat that the Labour Party would engage in that sort of activity is nonsense.
  I take exception to the suggestion by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it would do no harm to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. I think it would do a great harm to the House. One of the terrific strengths of this place is that when we come in, whether we are life Peers, hereditary Peers or Peers on the judicial Bench or are on the Bishops Bench, we are considered completely equal; we all have exactly the same rights to speak on the Floor of the House and to vote.
  One of the terrible things that the amendment would do is to introduce the concept of second-class, probationary, apprentice Peers. That would be a grave mistake for the House to make. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, put his name to the amendment because in this Parliament he comes into that putative category of apprentice Peer or probationary Peer. I would defend his right to speak and vote in the House on the same basis as I and every other Member of the House.
  I implore the House to reject the amendment because it is insidious in introducing the concept of second-class Peers.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am not offended, upset or insulted by the amendment. Rather, I think it is self-defeating. I find it strange that the Conservative Benches in particular, which I had always taken to be upholders of our unwritten constitution and of the conventions underlying it, should put forward an amendment which, on the admission of those proposing it, deals with an extraordinarily unlikely eventuality.
  It may be odd for a lawyer, as I am, and part of this House, which is a legislative House, to question the effectiveness of trying to legislate virtue. It has always struck me that the strength of the British constitutional arrangements rests not upon their words but on their spirit and the fact that certain acts, certain denials of a constitutional nature, would be so repugnant to the broad mass of the people of this country, let alone those that sit in this House and the other place, that they would simply not pass.
  Therefore, I have the sense that the amendments, far from sustaining and ensuring that which they purport to preserve and protect, could give a bogus credence to the very notion of packing this House and extending the life of Parliament. They could undermine the very taboo which in a sense they seek to protect.
  While, I suppose, understanding the endeavour of the two amendments, I have confidence in the people of this country and in the occupants of this place and the other place, not only now but in the future. I also believe that ultimately we provide a much greater protection for future constitutional arrangements if we have confidence in the good sense and decency that have sustained us these thousand years.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am not a politician. I am a life Peer though. I find no difficulty in supporting the amendment. It is not about the past; it is about the possible future. The White Paper says that the future powers of the House of Lords should be looked at and reviewed, and we are considering one of the most important powers among them. Indeed, it is so identified in the White Paper.
  It seems to me logical and right that when so much constitutional change is happening—who could have thought two years ago what the extremely changed constitutional picture would be today?—we need to make absolutely sure that any further change, such as extending the life of a parliament, whoever does it, must be stopped and thought about.
  I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that this is an honourable and excellent House, but we are not talking about the constitution of the House as it is now; we are talking about a possible future threat. I cannot see why it is not right to be quite sure that the House of Lords, which I hope will always be the impressive body it is now, can exercise that very necessary brake on possible action by a possible future Prime Minister, who might by then be much more presidential, for instance, than we have ever had. There might not be that much consultation.
  Therefore, I feel very strongly that we ought to put in this safeguard; we ought to do our duty by the future. I do not think that we ought to look at this in terms of one party thinking that another is insulting it. That is irrelevant and it is beneath us. We should not be thinking like that.
  I greatly respect many of my friends on the Opposition Benches. I feel sure that if they think about it they will accept that we are talking about the future of the country. It is all very well saying that the people would rebel. If there is one thing about the British, it is that they never notice anything that is happening to them until it has happened. That is why we always win wars at the last moment. We cannot afford to put this particular liberty at risk.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, speaking from these Cross-Benches, I have no concern with party politics, but I remember one very old proverb: better be safe than sorry. I shall vote for the amendment.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, while I very much support the purpose behind the amendment, I am a little concerned about the reference solely to the Act of 1958. For the amendment to become really important there would have to be some very exceptional circumstances. A Prime Minister, probably with a very large majority in the other place, would have the power, if confronted with the amendment as part of an Act, to introduce another new measure appointing life Peers or Peers Members of this House. Doing that under a completely new Act would get round the amendment. Would that be a problem?
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the undying trust expounded by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the

  297
  propriety of the Labour Party in all respects is matched only by my cynicism, and that of others, I suggest, with regard to a government who make such a major constitutional change without any idea whatsoever what will replace the House as now constituted or how it will be done. That must give rise to doubt.
  My only surprise is that there is no provision in our constitution at present to prevent any government swamping your Lordships' House with sufficient Peers, whether hereditary or life Peers. I am amazed that it has not come in sooner. There were opportune moments. I do not know, I was not there, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has given some indication. It was long before my time.
  This must surely be an appropriate moment, when we are considering a major constitutional change, to write into the Bill this sort of amendment which prevents any tampering—for want of a better word—with the unwritten understanding of how we proceed.
  I leave noble Lords with one thought. Do those who oppose this amendment have something to hide? Is there not something that we should fear? I thoroughly support the amendment.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the trouble with debating this proposal in this country at this time is that this country has been without a revolution for 311 years. Any Spanish or Portuguese people, for example, listening in the Gallery at this moment would be astonished at your Lordships' equanimity. Our anxiety is about a future that we cannot foretell.
  There is common ground on one matter in this debate; namely, it is essential to the health and survival of a democracy that the electors are able remove a government and are assured of being able to do so at regular intervals. The amendment turns on that principle.
  If that ability is lost, the only way of removing a government, as the Portuguese, the Spaniards and many others will tell us, is by violence—by revolution—which sets a country back many generations, costs the breaking of families and lives and is at all costs to be avoided. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid that loss.
  Many noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, foremost among them, focused their attention on the present and said that this could not possibly happen now. Of course it could not. We are not so crass as to suggest that it could. I do not go along with the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, in his doubts about the Government, but even he would not expect them to engineer their survival with the present manning of the Front Bench in this House, let alone the other place.
  We are not thinking about now; we are thinking about the future—and in exactly the same way as your Lordships think about the future of the houses in which you live when you decide to buy a fire extinguisher. You are certain that you will put out your cigarettes before you go to bed; you are certain that the oven will not be left on when you go on holiday—but, just in case, you put in place a provision to take care of that, so that
  298
  someone can put the fire out damn quick before the fire brigade gets there and has to souse the place with water. My noble friend is doing an analogous thing. He is attempting to put in place a provision that will nip in the bud any unfortunate development which could easily take place in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, laughs, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, winds his hand as though I had not finished. He is right; I have not.
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise. I was not in fact referring to the noble Lord.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I gladly accept the noble Lord's apology. It gives me time to draw breath in my excitement.
  There was no bloodshed in the 1688 revolution 311 years ago. We have to go back before that. Did people in 1600, three years before Queen Elizabeth I left the throne, think that there would be a civil war in this country during their lifetime? Certainly not. Did people in 1920, in the German empire, foresee the rise of Hitler and the democratic republic? Certainly not. We cannot tell the future. My noble friend Lord Halsbury is right—wait and see.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I speak as a mother. When you take a child upstairs, put it into bed, listen to its prayers and read a story, you say to the child, "Now, do not move from there until morning". You then say goodnight and turn out the light. Then what do you? You tuck the child in—just to make sure. That is all that this proposal is. You love your child very much, but you tuck it in, just to make sure.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, this amendment is not like installing a fire extinguisher in one's home, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, maintained. It is like taking out an insurance policy against being struck by a meteorite. The odds against such an event are astronomical.
  Noble Lords say that they are not speaking about the immediate future. They are right; they could not be speaking about the immediate future. They must be speaking about a future in which it is not this House that is calling the shots and deciding that the life of Parliament is to be prolonged but the other place. They are talking about a government being installed who presumably have no mandate from the people to prolong the life of Parliament, but they decide, halfway through their term of office that they wish to govern for longer than the five years and present a Bill in the other place to prolong the life of Parliament. They see that that would not go through this House without the creation of a vast number of new life Peers, so they set about bringing in the 1,000 or so new Peers to get the legislation through. That is the point at which the main

  299
  amendment that we are considering comes into play. It states that those new life Peers would not be able to vote on the Bill to extend the life of the Parliament.
  What is happening in the country during that period? Is it contended by those who advance this proposition that a government who do not have a mandate from the people will introduce such a Bill halfway through the life of a Parliament and that they will seek to create this vast number of Peers who will ensure that the Bill goes through this House? That is science fiction. It is way beyond anything that George Orwell thought of. It might be considered that such an event might occur in the year 3000, but if we were to legislate against all such improbable circumstances, why stop at extending the life of Parliament? One speaker mentioned the fact that Hitler came to power even though there was an elected government in Germany, and suggested that that could happen in this country—so we could legislate against any party representing an extreme appointing Peers to this House.
  All kinds of things could happen to change the composition of this House in the future which might be of an extreme or remarkable character. But they will not happen in our lifetime or in the 21st century. Events may occur in the far distant future which are not the responsibility of Parliament as it is composed today.
  It is utterly wrong that fears should be raised by noble Lords who support this amendment. Incidentally, they are not correct in saying that there is a vast public outside this House which is anxious to see what this House does. When I travel on the No. 36 bus I do not hear people talking about the extension of the life of Parliament and how the Lords must be vigilant to protect the country against that. It is not a matter for consideration. To debate it at such length now is not the best use of this House's time. It is not important to the wishes of the country. We should get the Bill onto the statute book and leave these matters for consideration by others in the 36th century.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
  Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a comparative—
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a comparative neutral in the matter under debate, and one who has been accused in the past of propping up governments of both complexions, perhaps I may briefly make a point that was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. With great respect, too many contributors to this debate are living in the
  300
  past. I beg to differ with what has just been said from the Liberal Benches; namely, that some of these events may occur in the distant future. It is not quite like that.
  For 27 years, at the other end of the building, I had the honour and privilege of working with both governments. At that time, one was quite clear as to the procedure. One operated with the Prime Minister of the day, based on a freshly elected parliamentary party. Decisions were made eventually through the usual processes of civilised discussion, both in the Chamber and sometimes outside it. It is not like that now and it will not be like that in the future.
  The part of the United Kingdom from which I come is involved in a very serious crisis; I do not know what the outcome will be by midnight tonight. But one thing I do know is that this present crisis and much of the uncertainty and instability in Northern Ireland could have been avoided had it not been for those whom I call the unelected Whitehall manipulators who sometimes meddle in the decisions made by elected governments, reaching a peak in, for example, the recent Hillsborough agreement and this week showing their hands again. What are we to make, for example, of two schoolchildren being dragged up to Stormont bearing placards transmitting a political message? In certain circumstances, and under other legislation, that might be called a form of child abuse.
  To return to the theme of the debate, I should be happy if we did not need safeguards, but I suggest that we need the safeguard provided for in the amendment and many similar safeguards if the real power of governance in the United Kingdom is not to slip out of the hands of the elected representatives and, ultimately, your Lordships' House.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say that I agree entirely with one speech made this afternoon which I hope the Government Front Bench will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest with care. I refer to the speech of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will have found anything deeply offensive in it and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will not have been deeply insulted by anything that my noble friend said with such eloquence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, began his speech by saying that he would attempt to calm himself down from the point of rage that he had reached. I am bound to admit, in all fairness, that I thought he made a very good job of that! Whether he achieved anything else must be open to doubt.
  We then plunged into this extraordinary argument about trustworthiness. I cannot remember a government who ever claimed to be entirely trustworthy without anticipating a sharp rebuke, usually from the bottom of the hearts of the British public. I do not think we should have an argument about who is trustworthy and who is not. I believe that governments are not in control of events, although they frequently pretend to be. The unforeseen and unpredictable frequently occur. Therefore the undertakings given by government, in

  301
  perfect good faith, become worn in the course of events. I hope that noble Lords will not be too upset when we on this side of the House ask for provisions to be put on the face of the Bill. I recollect that not long ago, during the previous Parliament, the party now in government was most eloquent in demanding that matters should be put on the face of Bills. I even recall—without too much shame—that I supported many amendments against the government, who in name I supported, which sought to put provisions on the face of a Bill. I do not think the party now in government has any reason to claim to be shocked or upset by what is a very innocent request.
  I go back to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I hope that members of the Government Front Bench will be convinced by what my noble friend said that amendments from this side of the House are not prompted by viciousness or a wish to embarrass the Government but by a genuine concern. From that remark I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. What I say this afternoon is milder and more restrained because of the speech made by the noble Lord in response to what I said last time I spoke in these debates.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying one or two things which I hope will preserve my friendship with the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Graham, Lord Richard and Lord Monkswell. Nothing that I or any of my friends say on this issue implies in any way that we think that the present Prime Minister, or anyone we know who is likely to be Prime Minister in the future, is ever likely to try to use the majority in another place to drive through an extension of the life of a parliament unless, as happened in the two world wars, there is general agreement on all sides that that should happen. I certainly do not think that the current Prime Minister falls into any category that deserves suspicion. He may drive down bus lanes, but I do not believe for a moment that he would drive a bus through the very heart of the British constitution. Let us have that clear.
  To those who say, "You did not complain about this over the past 90 years, so you must have been happy with the previous provision", I would say that, on reflection, I think that perhaps the previous provision was not that terrific. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry pointed out, there have been threats in this century to pack your Lordships' Chamber with hereditary Peers. The Chamber could have been packed with hereditaries every bit as easily as it could in future be packed with life Peers. I believe the position is perfectly straightforward.
  Why are we discussing this matter today? It is for the simple reason that the Government have come forward with some major constitutional changes, including the reform of your Lordships' House. Therefore, thinking laterally, it is quite legitimate to look at some of the other aspects of your Lordships' House. The matter referred to in the amendment is one of the most important duties laid on your Lordships' House, a duty which will continue to be laid on the second Chamber.
  302
  My preference for dealing with this would have been along the lines of the Scotland Act, of which I am reminded because I shall be attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament tomorrow. In Section 3 of that Act, which is about the life of the Parliament, the Government themselves chose to put in a qualified majority, not for the extension of the life of the Parliament but for the restriction of its life. The Scottish Parliament is a four-year Parliament and in order for that four-year Parliament to be dissolved early it is required that the resolution is passed on a Division, the number of Members voting in favour being not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for Members of the Parliament. That is a new concept in the British constitution, put into the Scotland Act by the Government because they felt it necessary. I should have liked to see a similar provision to that put into the Bill. Unfortunately, that was deemed not to be in order because of the Long Title of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has come forward with a provision which is almost as good which puts in a protection. If noble Lords on the Government Back Benches think that that protection should have existed before, perhaps they are right. That is a good reason for putting it in today. I think the House should put it down as a marker.
  None of us can foretell the future. A Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or even the Liberal Democrat Party—admittedly, that is an unlikely event—may have a sufficient majority and convince himself and sufficient of his colleagues that, for a number of reasons, Parliament should last a bit longer than five years. As in this Bill we are looking to the future, we should consider how to prevent that admittedly very unlikely event.
  Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will say that this is only an interim measure and that when in three or four years' time—who knows?—the Government bring forward stage two, that will be the time to address the wider powers of the House. I can see that argument, but is it not sensible that today when discussing the changes under stage one we put down a marker in the Bill so that when the next one comes along it is carried forward? Those of us who are here then will realise that they must put in a similar protection for the Parliaments to come. I believe that that is the sensible way to proceed. It is no reflection on anyone living today, but it guards against the possible danger that some day in the future the world will be different. The world will certainly be different in future but it may not be to the advantage of democracy in this country. This amendment is a straightforward protection and is worthy of support.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is heartening to see such a good turnout this afternoon for this particular amendment. I cannot begin to put my finger on the reason for it. I felt downhearted when I heard the in terrorem argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He threatened me, among others, after death with the great debating chamber in the sky. Please, God, no,

  303
  because if I got there I would still find the ranks of the hereditary Peers doing their utmost to hold up the passage of this Bill.
  The amendment together with that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, proposes that some Members of this Chamber should not be allowed to vote on one particular issue irrespective of party, where they came from and why, the quality of their attendance or non-attendance, their contribution to debates or lack of it and their independence of mind or heart. They are, therefore, always to be considered potentially as second class and untrustworthy. As was rightly pointed out, that applies to a number of life Peers presently here who came after the previous election. That remains a fact even though unpalatable.
  It seems to me that two justifications, spoken or not, underlie the approach. It is not said, but sometimes hinted—admittedly, not this afternoon but certainly in similar debates in the past—that hereditary Peers are uniquely independent. Experience demonstrates the contrary. They are no more independent than life Peers. It is suggested that the balance of numbers in the House may make it easier for the government of the day, or any future one, to pack this Chamber. I do not accept either of those propositions.
  I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness, as I always do. I also listened to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I recognise that there is concern, and it is only right that I should try to deal with it. One way of addressing the concern that has always been refused by the Conservative Party and Conservative governments throughout the years is to have a written constitution that can be amended only in the circumstances described generally by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. This amendment does not begin to do that, and I shall demonstrate why.
  I find the amendment wholly unacceptable, not least because it cannot work for two reasons. First, even if passed—I recognise that the present arrangements allow the mover of the amendment and his supporters overwhelming fire power to have their way this afternoon—the amendment cannot bite on any legislation to amend the Act of 1911. It is therefore wholly valueless and meaningless except as a rather superficial, cosmetic device. Secondly, it would not catch a newly re-elected government who had taken the trouble to pack the House shortly before an election. If one looks for the "conspiracy" motive in modern political life, one nee is to bear in mind that anyone with half a grain of intelligence, or even the foresight to read what is being said presently, will not be hampered in the slightest.
  Let us see what powers would remain in the House. Those who were disenfranchised from voting on what one recognises would be an important aspect of your Lordships' duties could still vote on a number of matters. I take some examples across the spectrum. Those noble Lords could still vote on a declaration of war, a state of emergency or martial law. Should they be so inclined, they could vote—perhaps it is doubtful—for the complete restitution of the hereditary peerage in
  304
  this House in its intact and sublime glory. They could also vote for the complete abolition of the judiciary or jury system; and they could vote for the abolition of the monarchy. Therefore, if one wants constitutional safeguards one should make a proper job of it rather than tinker at the edges in a way that will not work.
  The fact is that this is a device. I impugn no one's motives because I take the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It does not take the argument any further to say that an amendment is bad because motive is had. An amendment may be good and motive bad, and vice versa. The fact is that none of this will work. This is a self-indulgent amendment, which I am aware is capable of being passed this afternoon. The amendment will have no effect at all, except to demean—I put it neutrally—what we have been about.
  To conclude, my observations are: first, the amendment will not work; secondly, it is not needed; and, thirdly, it is based on a flawed premise. Apart from that, it is quite a good amendment.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain to a bemused Cross-Bencher exactly why it will not work? I have missed the point.
  Lord William of Mostyn: My Lords, it will not work for two reasons: first, it does not bite on the fundamental statute, which is the Act of 1911; and, secondly, any government can pack the House before the election and the post-election sitting life Peers will have a vote even on the basis of this amendment.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate this afternoon. The quality and breadth of the contributions demonstrate the strength of feeling in the House about this amendment. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is always nice to see a full House, particularly when most noble Lords, suspect, would rather be watching the tennis. I am particularly glad to see so many new faces on the Benches opposite. Although noble Lords opposite do not have the advantage of several generations of experience in constitutional affairs, they will undoubtedly have learnt much which will be of use to them in the years ahead. I accept that not all of those new faces have turned up this afternoon. I suspect that they do not support the Government as much as the Government might like them to.
  I have no intention of attempting to sum up the debate because I am not qualified to do so; and if your Lordships will forgive me, nor shall I attempt to answer the many points noble Lords raised. The House is more than capable of reaching its own conclusion without help from me.
  The only point I wish to make is this: the amendment is not party political. However much the party opposite may like to think that it is, the amendment is not aimed at this Government or this Prime Minister. If noble Lords opposite do not believe that, they may wonder why my noble friends and I do not accept their assurances as often as they might like.

  305
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the care and courtesy with which he presented the Government's case. I am delighted, too, that he thinks that we shall still be debating the Bill when he and I are in that great debating chamber in heaven: that will imply that the Bill has not yet gone through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord's contributions from the Front Bench over the years have won him the respect of the House even though the cases he presents to the House are not always as welcome on this side of the House as they might be. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord to hear that I am a little disappointed with his answer.
  The main argument put forward by the Minister is that the amendment is unnecessary. I accept that the situation is obscure and highly unlikely ever to occur; but it is still theoretically possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, conceded. During the course of the Bill, I have been intrigued by the advice the House receives from noble Lords opposite and in particular from noble and learned Lords. In my commercial life, I am constantly advised by lawyers, both solicitors and learned counsel. When, for instance, an obscure issue is raised during a contractual negotiation which is dragging on—noble Lords know that such matters tend to do so on more than one occasion late at night, in the lawyer's office, I have said, "That's never going to happen. Leave it out". The lawyers always reply, "You're probably right but we should put it in to be on the safe side". I cannot remember an occasion when I have been advised otherwise.
  Here we are dealing here with the most important contract of all, the constitution: the contract between the British people and those who seek to govern them. Your Lordships seek to put a small but vital measure into an important piece of legislation in order further to protect the people. On the Government Benches opposite we have a full team of noble and learned Lords. I wonder if they would be advising the House in the same way if they were retained in their professional capacity. I rather doubt it.
  It is clear that your Lordships regard this as an important issue. I have listened carefully to the Government's response, and I am clear that they have not thought the matter through; neither do they take it seriously enough. Without damaging the Government's Bill in any way, I believe that this amendment solves a vital, if obscure, constitutional problem. More in sorrow than in anger at the muddle the Government are making of this Bill, I think it right to test the opinion of the House.
  4.53 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 283; Not-Contents, 177.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Cross, V.

  Ackner, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Addison, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Davidson, V.

  Ailsa, M.

  De L 'Isle, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Deedes, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Denham, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Denman, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L,

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Arlington, B.

  Derwent, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Astor, V.

  Donegall, M.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Attlee, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Dunleath, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Bell, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Elles, B.

  Berners, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Elton, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Erne, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Blaker, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Feldman, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Flarher, B.

  Brentford, V.

  Fookes, B.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Forbes, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Gage, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Burton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Buscombe, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Byford, B.

  Gibson, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Glentoran, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Gormanston, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gray, L.

  Carew, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Halsbury, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L,

  Chadlington, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Hastings, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Henley, L [Teller.]

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hesketh, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Clinton, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Home, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Hood, V.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Courtown, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Howe, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  307

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Ironside, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Iveagh, E.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Patten, L.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Pender, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Killearn, L.

  Perth, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Piatt of Writtle, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Pym, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Knight of Collingtree, B

  Rathcavan, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Rawlings, B.

  Knutsford, V.

  Reay, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Rees, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Renton, L.

  Layton, L.

  Renton of Mount Harry, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Long, V.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Lucas, L

  St Davids, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Luke, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  MacLaurin of Knebworth L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

  Slim, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  May, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Strange, B.

  Middleton, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Swinfen, L.

  Monk Breton, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Monson, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Moran, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Tryon, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Waverley, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Nelson, E.

  Wise, L.

  Newall, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Norrie, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Alli, L.

  Addington, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Annan, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  308

  Avebury, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Blease, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Judd, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Lofthouse of Pontefract L.

  Carver, L.

  Longford, E.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Chorley, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Christopher, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  McNally, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  David, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Orme, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Paul, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Peston, L.

  Gilbert, L

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Glasgow, E.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Porter of Luddenham, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Grey, E.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Richard, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Russell, E.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Serota, B.

  Hayter, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Hoyle, L

  Simon, V.

  Hughes, L.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Strafford, E

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  309

  Tenby, V.

  Varley, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Warner, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Tope, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.10 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
  (" .—(1) A member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2) Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly.
  (3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we may turn our minds to a more limited subject. Amendment No. 47 proposes that:
  "A member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords".
  In setting up a Scottish Parliament, the relationship between Scottish Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament has always caused a problem. Why should Scottish Members of Parliament discuss issues of health, transport, education and so forth as they relate to both Scotland and England, while English Members of Parliament cannot discuss those issues as they relate to Scotland? As your Lordships know only too well, that has become known as the "West Lothian question". As there was no answer to that question, the previous Scottish devolution Bill in 1978 collapsed.
  The trouble is that the Government have gone ahead and set up the Scottish Parliament, but have completely ignored that question. It is interesting to note that on the first page of the document Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords, it is stated that:
  "Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy. Britain needs a two-chamber legislature".
  The Government promptly set up legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are one-Chamber. Therefore, only the Members of those Parliaments can pass Acts which do not go through the House of Lords, but which refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That does not happen in England.
  Despite the fact that with great virtue the document claims that we need a two-Chamber legislature, the Government promptly set up single-Chamber legislatures for those three parts of the United Kingdom. As your Lordships know only too well, the problems
  310
  have just started and we shall wait to see what happens. However, Members of, your Lordships' House can stand for the Scottish Parliament—and in my argument I include the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies—can take part in Scottish affairs, can decide all the matters relating to Scotland and can then come to this House to discuss all the matters relating to England. English Peers have no such say on Scottish matters. In schoolboy language, "That's not fair".
  If noble Lords decide to stand for the Scottish Parliament, in which the English House of Lords has no participation, in order to run its affairs as they wish, in my view it is not right that they should also come down here and participate in the rough and tumble of English party politics. That is the reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 47. I believe that it is a jolly good amendment.
  Amendment No. 47 is even more important because it proposes that:
  "A person who is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords".
  Your Lordships may wonder why the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is written with a lower case "p". That is because the Bill refers to the "Presiding Officer" for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly with an upper case "P", but to the "presiding officer" of the Welsh Assembly with only a lower case "p". I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has a vigorous respect for all such things, will have discovered that Wales is not worth, as it were, "capitalising on"! He may decide to table an amendment at Third Reading to adjust that.
  A person can stand for the Scottish Parliament and be elected; then with all impartiality can act as Presiding Officer (a Speaker); and can then come to your Lordships' House and take part in the rough and tumble of party politics relating to English matters. Perhaps I may give the example of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He is not in the Chamber, but I warned him that I might refer to him. He began life as David Steel. He then became a knight, Sir David Steel, which was very good. He was then elevated to become a Peer, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He then decided to stand for the Scottish Parliament as Sir David Steel. I do not know why he did not stand as "Lord Steel"; perhaps he was ashamed of having the title. He was then elected as Presiding Officer when he will have all the impartiality which goes with being Speaker. He can then come down here and take part in deliberations on English matters such as education, roads, transport, health—matters about which we have no say as they relate to Scotland. And that is when he is an impartial person!
  It is unbelievable to imagine that a Member of the other place can be a political animal, be dragged to become Speaker and then become impartial. I cannot imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons going to the Scottish Parliament and setting about it in a party political manner. Yet that is what can happen with the presiding officers of the three Assemblies.
  I do not believe that that is right. I have nothing against the noble Lord, Lord Steel—or Sir David Steel, whichever he prefers—but I wonder whether when he is here he will sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches or whether he will be impartial and sit on the Cross Benches. If he is impartial, why does he want to come down here and participate in English matters? This is an important point. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I do so with some temerity because today it was revealed in The Times that he is one of the most popular and best speakers in your Lordships' House.
  Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
  Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, there are many excellent and distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, but it goes without saying that they are not Members of the devolved Parliament or Assemblies. It must be wrong for those who have chosen to devote their time and energy to that role to remain or become Members of your Lordships' House. What on earth will they do? No Scottish legislation will come to this House and it would be intolerable for them to intrude, take part in debates and vote on English legislation. After all, there are sufficient Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of this House who can adequately discuss the reserved powers, even after most hereditary Peers eventually go.
  The amendment highlights the fact that the Government have not thought through the consequences of devolution or addressed what has become known as the "English question". Already, Scottish MPs are grossly over represented in another place and unbelievably this will continue to be so probably until 2006 or 2007. That is simply because the Government skulk behind the Boundary Commission, which could easily have put forward recommendations to alter some 70 constituency boundaries in time for the next general election. That is hardly a gargantuan task.
  The White Paper on reforming the House of Lords hints that some Members of the devolved institutions should be sent here. I noted a speech of the right honourable Member for Hartlepool, Mr Peter Mandelson, who approved of that. In a pretty cynical speech on 2nd February (col. 766 of Hansard), he said that the "fissiparous effects" of devolution—his words not mine—required some much needed glue. At least he did not call for a sticking plaster, only much needed glue, to keep the UK together.
  By failing to weigh the implications of devolution, and ignoring the English question, the Government have done their best to crack, if not smash, the foundations of the Union. I find it pretty ironic that the likes of Peter Mandelson are now worrying about the need for glue to stick it together. The Government need to be fair to all parts of the Union, not just Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They need also to be fair to England. That is why I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I could not agree more with what he
  312
  proposes in his further amendment disqualifying the presiding officers of the Scottish Parliament and the national assemblies from membership of this House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these are interesting amendments. They have opened up slightly wider issues, as regards some of which I do not want to follow my noble friend.
  My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned the White Paper. I do not believe that in any future changes to the composition of this House, people should be sent by the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, by the European Parliament, to this House to somehow represent any of those bodies. That is not a sensible way to proceed. It is not clear, constitutional thinking. My noble friend and I are certainly in agreement on that score.
  However, I do not believe that anybody should be prevented from standing and being elected, if that is the wish of the electorate, for more than one tier of government. I have no problem with somebody standing and being elected to the European Parliament and the House of Commons; to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament; to the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I have some questions about whether they would be able to do the two jobs properly, but that is not for me to judge, unless the person was standing in a constituency in which I had a vote. If the electorate wants to vote for somebody and does so knowing that that person is already a member of another parliament, that is entirely for the electorate to judge. I am clear about that.
  Indeed, some of our noble friends are Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas was successful in being elected to the Scottish Parliament. On the Government Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie was successful. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—I shall call him that despite the suggestion by my noble friend—was also successful. I shall return to him in more detail when I consider the second amendment. To show a balance around the House, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has been elected to the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is perfectly fair. I would not debar them from coming here at all. It is perfectly reasonable that they should stand. The electorate obviously knew that they were Members of this House and elected them.
  Equally, a number of Members of Parliament of the other place—all the Scottish National Party Members, two Liberal Democrat Members and six or seven Labour Members—stood successfully for the Scottish Parliament. Two or three stood, one rather controversially, for election to the Welsh Assembly. I have no problem about that. They should be allowed to sit in both Chambers if that is their desire and if they have made that clear to the electorate. I believe that five of our number have been elected to the European Parliament. It is perfectly reasonable that they should sit here and in the European Parliament.

  313
  Therefore, as far as concerns Amendment No. 47, I cannot agree with my noble friend, except in the very limited part of his speech, but not his amendment, that these bodies should not be allowed to nominate representatives to sit in the interim House or the future House.
  Amendment No. 48 deals with the position of the presiding officers of the three devolved bodies. Here, I believe my noble friend certainly has half a point. I want to underline my agreement with that half. Interestingly enough—perhaps this is a positive reflection on your Lordships' House—two out of the three presiding officers are Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I apologise; it is three out of three. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas is the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. It is a huge reflection and credit to your Lordships that we have produced these men. I suppose that in two cases out of the three it actually gives the Liberal Democrats some responsibility. I have to say that in Scotland, judging by the fuss over the invitation list for tomorrow, they are not doing it very well. However, I cannot complain too much because I received an invitation. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I shall attend tomorrow to watch the opening of the Parliament.
  I have no problem with those noble Lords being here as Members of this House. I do not suppose they will attend very much. However, it is right if they do attend, and wish to speak, that they may do so obviously on their own behalf or even if they wish to make a point relevant to the Parliament or Assembly they preside over. That is perfectly fair. It is a channel of communication between this United Kingdom Parliament and the devolved parliaments.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps he would allow me to refer to the fact that some of those Members who are presiding officers may well have difficulties in attending both institutions. I have here a copy of the record of the Welsh Assembly from a debate on 22nd June. Having given up the chair to his deputy, the Presiding Officer participated in the debate. At page 36 he stated:
  "It is impossible for any Member to be a full Assembly Member and to be a Member of the second House in Westminster. It is important that we say that unanimously to the Commission".
  I wonder whether my noble friend would take that on board?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am very interested in that remark from one of the presiding officers. I presume that that means we shall not be seeing him in this Chamber again which, if I guess
  314
  correctly who it is, is rather a pity. However, that is something with which the presiding officers will have to deal. It is interesting that, according to the press, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has decided that he wants to be called "The President of Scotland" and not "The Presiding Officer". I think that is a little pretentious. I have no problem with him being called "The Speaker". Indeed, I tabled an amendment proposing that. However, I believe that "The President" is a step too far.
  My noble friend Lord Ferrers has a valid point. He says that when these three gentlemen come here, they should do what they do in their own parliaments and assemblies; that is, to stand clear of party politics and sit, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on the Cross Benches. Perhaps it is slightly out of date, but Dod's tells me that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships' House. I believe that has now changed and he has resigned from that position—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. That position has now changed. My noble friend Lady Williams was elected some little time ago. The noble Lord must catch up with developments.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wake up every morning wondering what has happened inside the Liberal Democrat Party. That would, perhaps, keep me awake all night. However, I am glad to hear the noble Lord's comments. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is absolutely right. However, he should consider the next step, as should his noble friend, Lord Alderdice; that is, that when they come to this House they should sit on the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, has made it quite clear that he is no longer actively part of the Liberal Democrat Party in Scotland. Clearly, he has slightly moved aside in your Lordships' House. I think that they should both go to the Cross Benches.
  That said, that is as far as I can go with my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The matters of who should be elected to parliaments ought to be left to the good sense—perhaps in the case of one where they elect persons to different parliaments, the not so good sense—of the electorate.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I indicate the attitude that my noble friend the Leader of the House and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and I wish to adopt; that is, having looked carefully at the Companion, we intend to take its guidance that
  "Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report".
  It is perhaps as well for me to indicate that intention because we have a good deal of business to get through today.
  As I said in Committee, we specifically considered the questions of dual mandates in our debates on the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the

  315
  Northern Ireland Bill. Those Acts, as they now are, make express provision that Members of your Lordships' House are eligible to be Members of the respective devolved bodies. It is only a short time since we decided that and put specific provision in the relevant Acts.
  It is true that the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Steel, are a credit to the life Peers in this House, since all of them were elected for their presiding positions. It was a lower case "p" and a lower case "o" in the case of the National Assembly for Wales because we are notorious for being a good deal more modest and shy than Members of the Parliament and the Assembly in the other two jurisdictions.
  When we passed the Bills into law, we did not say that a person should be able to stand only as an independent; we did not say that if the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, were elected in Cardiff he would be ineligible to hold certain offices. As to the question of where such Members should sit and how they should conduct themselves in this House, that is entirely a matter for their individual decision with regard to what is proper behaviour in this House.
  I cannot accept these amendments. By and large, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not surprise me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot accept these amendments because he has not accepted any so far, so that is par for the course.
  I understand the noble Lord's arguments in relation to Amendment No. 47. I can see that it may be thought right that people should be able to leave your Lordships' House. go to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly and then come back here. But his answer in relation to the lower case "p" was, if I might say so, lower case "pathetic". He obviously had not realised that there was a distinction between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Government's Bill. It is obviously a "cracking" and insulting mistake. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will see that it is corrected at the next stage.
  When we come to the business of the Speakers of those Assemblies, we come into a different game. Those people are there as impartial people. Why should a Speaker come to your Lordships' House and participate in all the matters relating to England which their Parliaments have not discussed when they were Speakers of those Parliaments? It is neither right nor fair that they should participate in this House from their party Benches.
  It is true that the noble Lord. Lord Elis-Thomas, is a Cross-Bencher, but he was a Cross-Bencher to start with. It may be that the other two noble Lords will want to sit on the Cross Benches, but there is nothing to insist that they should do S.D. They may well sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  I "Question" with a big "Q" whether it is right for an impartial Speaker to participate in your Lordships' affairs. I draw the analogy with the Speaker of the
  316
  House of Commons. Can one imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons standing for the Scottish Parliament and participating in the rough and tumble of politics in Scotland and then coming down and being impartial in another place'? That is fundamentally wrong.
  From that point of view, I should like to test the opinion of the House, but not in relation to Amendment No. 47. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 48:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  DISQUALIFICATION OF PRESIDING OFFICERS OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
  (" .—(1) A person who is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2)Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to be the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales.
  (3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.").
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
  5.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 165.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cross, V.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Denman, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Blyth, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Erne, E.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Burton, L.

  Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

  Buscombe, B.

  Fisher, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Caithness, E.

  Gainsborough, E

  Caldecote, V.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Carrick, E.

  Gisborough, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Gray, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Hankey, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hayhoe, L.

  317

  Hesketh, L.

  Newall, L.

  Holmpatrick, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Iddesleigh, E

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Inchcape, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Jopling, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B,

  Kenyon, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Pender, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Plumb, L

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Rees, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sharples, B.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Long, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Tebbit, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Waddington, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Alli, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dunleath, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Bach, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Geraint, L.

  Blease, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Burns, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Grenfell, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  David, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  318

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Puttnam, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

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

  Redesdale, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L,

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Russell, E.

  Kirkhill, L.

  St Davids, V.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Serota, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Longford, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Simon, V.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  McNally, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Marsh, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Tope, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Varley, L.

  Newby, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Ogmore, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Whirry, L.

  Orme, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Paul, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Peston, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.43 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 49:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  RETENTION OF ANCILLARY RIGHTS
  (" . Any person who is the holder of an hereditary peerage and who would but for this Act be entitled to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House shall be entitled to continue to exercise the same rights of access to, and use of, the House of Lords and any premises occupied by that House to which he would have been entitled but for the passing of this Act.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, we referred to this amendment the other day. It is an amendment which would allow hereditary Peers to continue to come here and use the facilities of the House once this Bill has been passed. I believe it is fair to say that not many will do so. I also believe that if there is to be a reform of this nature, it would be a pity if it were done without decorum. I believe that it is an indecorous way of going

  319
  about things to say to people who have been in this House for many years that they are to go and may never enter the place again.
  It also raises other problems. As was mentioned previously, if you happen to be a successful Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, you come up to the House of Lords. If, like my noble friend Lord Carrington, you have been a successful foreign secretary in the House of Lords, you will no longer be allowed to come into the House, not even to have a cup of tea. I believe that that is disgraceful, and I do not believe that your Lordships individually would ever wish that to happen.
  It also raises a problem of what would happen in the case of Privy Counsellors. If you are a Lord Justice of Appeal, you are a Privy Counsellor; you are allowed to come here and sit on the steps of the Throne. If you are a hereditary Peer and a Privy Counsellor—and I should declare an interest in so far as I am one, but that is not the point—once this Bill is passed, you would not be allowed inside the Chamber again. Does that mean that you cannot sit on the steps of the Throne, which is one of the rights of a Privy Counsellor? If being a Privy Counsellor means that you can enter the building and sit on the steps of the Throne, does it mean that as soon as you move off the steps of the Throne you may not go to wash your hands or have a cup of tea, but that you have to find your way out of the front door as quickly as possible? If that is so, that is also pretty indecorous.
  In that context, what happens with elder sons? They are allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. Does it mean that elder sons will not be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne? At the moment, as your Lordships know, Bishops and such people are allowed to come back and use the facilities of the House. It seems to me quite extraordinary that your Lordships' hereditary Peers should not be able to do so. I believe that that is wrong.
  I know that there are some people who say that this is a matter for the House to consider and that it ought to be considered by the Privileges Committee or the Procedure Committee. I do not take that view. I feel that if an Act of Parliament says that people should be removed, that Act of Parliament should also say "but they can use the facilities of the House". However, I see that there is an argument for saying, as some people do, that it should be a matter for the Procedure Committee.
  I wrote to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees and told him that I hoped he would propel this idea through the appropriate committee so that it could consider what should be done. I was surprised to have an answer today in which he said that he had no plans to put this to a. committee and that it ought to be left to another Parliament at a later date. I do not believe that that is good enough. There is a problem. I understand that the Government want to get rid of hereditary Peers, to use the charming expression used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
  However, there is a problem. Are people never to be allowed to come back here, whatever the circumstances—Privy Counsellors or not—and however good a service they have given? If that is a problem,
  320
  someone has to resolve it one way or another. Either it ought to be resolved by an amendment or it ought to be resolved by one of the committees of the House. I do not say that I would be more than happy, but I would be happy, if whoever is to respond to the amendment could confirm that. I expect that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Williams, although I see that perhaps it may be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In that case, I may well get a different answer. I would be satisfied if he would agree that there is a problem here and that it ought to be resolved by one of the committees of the House. If he says no, and that there is no problem at all, I might take a different view. I beg to move.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who I understand will reply, will seriously consider the suggestion that my noble friend made in his closing remarks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will know, I have raised this matter with her privately. I have also written to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about the matter. The Minister is looking as if I have said something that is quite wrong, but I make these points because I regard this as a very serious issue.
  I do think—I speak as a life Peer—that this is very difficult for hereditary Peers, many of whom have been Members of your Lordships' House for many years and whose families have certainly been here for possibly hundreds of years. Ninety per cent of them have been told that they are going; just like that. Some have said this afternoon that they find it rather painful. I believe I should find it very painful if someone just addressed me in those terms. But I am not a hereditary Peer, so it does not apply.
  However, I take my noble friend's point about what is becoming to the House of Lords. Indeed, the practice of this Chamber and its civilised behaviour have distinguished it from other Chambers. Even though this particular amendment may not be quite right, I really believe that one of the committees of the House should consider the matter to see whether what I have suggested could be allowed; namely, something like dining rights or the opportunity to come in on a given number of occasions during the year for a meal, or indeed the right to use the Chapel and the Crypt, although that is a somewhat different issue. Nevertheless, it is something to which people attach importance. I think that these issues deserve to be looked at with care and consideration.
  As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, it may well be the case that no hereditary Peer ever wants to set foot in the House again, but that would be their choice. However, to say that none of them can do so under any circumstances seems to me to be something which is not really worthy of the House of Lords and, if I may say so, not really worthy of the Ministers. They should seriously consider this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will tell us that it is the Government's intention that this will be considered by one of the committees of the House.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, we appear to be going round and round the mulberry bush on this

  321
  question of "club rights". Quite frankly, that is what it is all about. That is not to say that I am unsympathetic to hereditary Peers in this matter, but I am totally opposed to this provision being put on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that the pleadings are now becoming completely undignified. There are channels involved, but I do not think that they can be exercised until after the Bill becomes law.
  We must recognise in this House that the Labour Government, despite some people's interpretation of the manifesto, have extended a great deal of sympathy by accepting the Weatherill amendment. They thought that that would get the Bill through in a dignified way. However, we are now finding that noble Lords are totally betraying that Weatherill amendment and raising the same issues time and time again.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very strongly in favour of the hereditary Peers who are not members of the 95 continuing to enjoy what are called the "ancillary benefits" of being a Member of your Lordships' House, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, and, if I may say so, very movingly by the noble Baroness, who is a life Peeress and former Leader of the House. But, having said that, and despite feeling very strongly that that should be so, I presume to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, that this is really not a matter for legislation, particularly if it can be dealt with in some other way.
  As the noble Earl said, the retired Bishops continue to enjoy the "ancillary benefits" of your Lordships' House. As far as I know, there is nothing in any Act of Parliament which says that they may do so. The noble Earl mentioned the Procedure Committee, but I rather think that it would be a matter for the Offices Committee. In my respectful submission, it would be far better dealt with by a favourable answer from the Offices Committee. I very much hope that it might consider the matter and consider it favourably before Third Reading. If that can be done, I presume to think that it would be better if this amendment were not pressed to a Division.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before today—indeed, before a moment ago—I did not know that my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lady Young had written to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. I, too, have written to him and, like my noble friends, I have had what I regard as a wholly unsatisfactory reply. I think it is a matter of great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who has been replying in such an unsatisfactory fashion to so many noble Lords, including a number of Privy Counsellors, has not bothered to be here to listen to the debate. That is a matter of very considerable regret.
  However, I also think that there is a respectable case for saying that the matter ought to be considered by one or other of our committees, rather than writing such a provision on the face of the Bill. But the noble Lord,
  322
  Lord Boston of Faversham, has turned his face against that and he is the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Young, actually mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that they intended to name him and to criticise him in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has just done. I am sure that he would have been present had he been given notice that these personal remarks were going to be made.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have said anything offensive, naturally I withdraw it at once. However, I did not receive the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, until an hour or so ago. Therefore, I have not had an opportunity to tell him that I was going to mention his name. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is an Officer of the House and he must have been aware that this matter would be raised; indeed, the amendment has been tabled for some while. However, be that as it may; if I offended the noble Lord, or indeed transgressed the rules, I apologise and withdraw whatever I said which may have been offensive.
  I believe that it is right for the relevant committee of this House to consider the matter urgently—it is to be hoped before the Summer Recess and certainly long before the Bill, if it is to become law, passes on to the statute book. It is a matter of wide concern to a number of Members of your Lordships' House and it is a matter of regret that it has not yet been found possible for the relevant committee to convene and consider the issue.
  I believe that it would be right for the Offices Committee—if that is the right committee, which I fancy it is—to consider the matter urgently. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is able to give an assurance that that will happen, I shall of course take a different view. I am not certain whether it is the Government's view that the committee should consider the matter now or after the Bill becomes law, but the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has clearly expressed his view on this matter. I regret that very much.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I think that we should pause to consider in a more general and wider sense what we have been doing over the past several weeks, and what we shall be doing possibly over the next several weeks for all I know. We are expelling from this House a considerable body of people, many of whom have been here for many years and many of whom have given substantial and considerable service to this House and to Parliament as a whole. I support the Government in doing this. I have been described as being agnostic with regard to expelling the hereditary Peers. That is true, but I know that the arithmetic is wrong and it has to be put right. This is one way of doing it. However, as we are doing something which clearly must be extremely painful to a substantial number of our colleagues we should pause and think

  323
  perhaps of being merciful. It is not too difficult to be merciful to one's opponents when they are defeated; or it ought not to be. A small thing is being asked for here. It is requested that hereditary Peers should be allowed to utilise some of the facilities of this House after they have ceased to be full Members of it. I do not think that is a terribly awful thing to ask.
  I recall that when I ceased to be a Member of another place—by popular demand—I was still allowed to use certain, admittedly limited, facilities in that other place. I did not use them because I felt that if I turned up there I would feel rather like Banquo's ghost and not wholly welcome there. As we are taking away from people something which they value, we should not take away everything. We should give them something to soften the blow. Like my noble friend who has spoken, I am not sure whether that measure should be put on the face of the Bill. Perhaps this matter should be decided by a committee or by my noble friend Lord Boston. I do not know about these things. However, it should be done somehow. What I really seek from my Front Bench is a demonstration of mercy and a hand offered to our colleagues which they might grasp. That would alleviate the passage of the rest of this Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take note of that—although I do not know that he will.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I rise to seek guidance from the Government Front Bench because I can see a real problem here. Am I not correct in thinking that the eldest sons of Peers have the right to attend the State Opening of Parliament? Am I not right in thinking that the eldest sons of Peers have the right to sit on the steps of the Throne? Am I not also correct in thinking that they are able to do so not because of any resolution of this House but because of custom? If that is the position, they cannot be deprived of what they have now as the result of a meeting within the House of some committee and a determination by that committee. It seems to me that unless this matter is addressed we shall be faced with a confusing situation—it is for others to judge whether it is just or unjust—where the sons of Peers can sit on the steps of the Throne, but Peers cannot. As I say, there is a problem here which needs to be addressed. I agree with the speech made by my noble friend Lady Young. I really think that we ought to recognise the service given by hereditary Peers over the years. We are not asking for anything very great here.
  But quite apart from that, I should like some advice as to where we are going here because I think that we shall end up with some extraordinary situations if we just sit back and say, "We do not have to do anything for the time being".
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is an even jollier irony. All those Irish Peers who are no longer representatives can sit on the steps of the Throne and can use the facilities of the House but we old, ex-UK Peers, or GB Peers, or Scottish Peers, or whatever we are, will not be able to do so. However, the Irish Peers from the Republic of Ireland with wonderful names such as Malahide, McGillicuddy of the Reeks, or Clonmel, will be able to clutter up the steps of the Throne.
  324
  However, sensible people such as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be barred from the premises. I must admit that I nearly wept with joy at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It was an awfully sweet speech. There is an element of decent behaviour and niceness here, and, for want of a better phrase, good manners. I think that in many ways the Government are keen on good manners. It would be a good mannered gesture to accept the amendment and it would do no one any harm.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I think that one part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has been overlooked. Those of us who have sat in the House of Commons have access to the buildings of Parliament as a right. I am perfectly entitled to go into the Members' Lobby and Central Lobby any time I like. Is the House to say that police are to be posted at the point of access from Central Lobby to this House to make sure that no ex-MP who is wandering about can get in here? It would mean posting policemen and all kinds of officials around, with or without guns in their pockets. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in his initial plea for good manners and mercy missed a technical point. This issue will cause difficulties. If we are to be kept out of here, despite former membership of the House of Commons, which gives us access to the dining rooms downstairs and the Central Lobby and so on, that will be a complicated situation to administer.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, the tone of the debate suggests that we are asking the hereditary Peers to leave rather a pleasant club. This is not a club; it is a place of work. Ancillary facilities are provided because we have to attend this place of work at lunch time, in the evening and at times when we should be able to eat on the premises, and so that we have a place to entertain guests. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that we should be a little kind and gentle in this regard but it seems to me that there are other ways of doing that rather than treating the facilities of the House as if they were the facilities of a club.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, much of what I was going to say has already been said much better by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. However, I want to make three points. First, I very much welcomed the splendidly civilised speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I differ from him only in suggesting that the relevant word is not "mercy" but "civilisation". I point out incidentally that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill expressly state that
  "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".
  May I suggest to the Government Front Bench that that suggests to me some kind of an indication to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that he and the committees should be considering this matter, and indeed that the Government expected that to happen? I believe that it would be best for that to happen before Third Reading; otherwise there will be an extraordinarily difficult gap, and that would be wrong.

  325
  Incidentally, I take the point about refreshments. I have a splendid new suggestion; namely, let us take back the Pugin Room. There is plenty of space that end now. That would ease matters. I believe that were a decision to be taken with regard to dining rights, that would help to ease any pressure. However, I come back to the point that we are not talking about a club; we are talking about a place where people have lived, worked and devoted themselves to service for many years. They are entitled to decent, civilised and honourable treatment by those of us who are staying. It is not a question of mercy; it is not a question of clubs; it is a question of civilisation. I have great faith in this House and I hope that even though this amendment may not be quite right, definite commitments will be given by the Government Front Bench that the matter will be considered by the committees of the House and that some proposals will be made. A clear indication has been given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill issued by the Government.
  Finally, it will be much, much easier for the servants of the House—the Attendants and all the others who have served us and worked for us these many years—if they do not have to say one fine day, "I am sorry, my Lord, you cannot do that". The matter needs to be sorted out. We need some express privileges decided and offered—and we should offer them without any question of mercy but as recognition of a good job well done.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand the very strong feelings of my noble friend and others who have spoken during the course of this short debate. In Committee, I was struck by the strength of feeling on the other side of the argument. It is true that the House is not a club; I deprecate the phrase "club rights". The phrase suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of "ancillary benefits" is much better.
  As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said, the other place extends privileges to former Members; we, in turn, extend privileges to retired Bishops. The service of some noble Lords to this Parliament is enormous. For example, my noble friend Lord Ferrers is a Privy Counsellor; he was for many years a Minister; he is a former Deputy Leader of this House; he entered this House in 1954. There are others even more senior. I wonder if the Leader of the House will give orders to the Doorkeepers to bar my noble friend from the premises in November. Will he be sent to queue at St. Stephen's entrance? Will he have to wait his turn while the Pass Office conducts security checks? That is an unthinkable scenario. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, agrees; he is right so to do. Is it the Government's view that no privileges should be extended to former Members, except retired Bishops?
  It is no good the Government saying that this is a matter for the new House. They will be the Government in the new House of Lords and they will have to make their view known in that new House. I will come clean with my view. I believe that certain privileges should be accorded to former Members. Does the Minister agree? Or does he not want to see former Members hanging
  326
  around? Even if he cannot give the Government's view, perhaps the Minister will share his personal opinion with the House.
  This is not a matter to be determined on the face of the Bill; these decisions should not be placed in the hands of another place. However, that the matter should be addressed—and addressed promptly—I have no doubt. I have suggested a way in which this could be done and carried forward. I very much hope that the Government will support that suggestion. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said, this issue is causing unnecessary ill-feeling. The churlishness behind being ready to look at the matter now is demeaning to the House.
  We took a decision on the rights of retired Bishops when the right reverend Prelates were present in the House. We should not use the presence of hereditary Peers as a bogus pretext for deferring a view on the oldest element in our House. I very much look forward to a response from the Government.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we have had this debate on a large number of occasions during the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. Indeed, we have discussed the matter once already on Report during the debate on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. We are now debating it for a second time at Report stage. It would be wrong in those circumstances to go through the details in the debate today. I should say that if those who took such pleasure from the eldest son sitting on the steps of the Throne had been listening the last time we had this debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved his amendment, they would have heard that the only eldest sons, according to custom, who can sit on the steps of the Throne are those eldest sons of Peers who sit in this House. That completely dealt with the conundrum that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, found so jolly.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my conundrum concerned the Irish Peers, not the eldest sons.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl may know, that is the resolution of 1806—which he would have heard, had he been listening, when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was moved on the last occasion.
  As far as concerns the matters to which the amendment refers, I think everyone agrees that they are not matters for legislation but for this House to determine in whichever way it thinks appropriate. It will be for this House to determine; not both Houses to determine.
  The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would allow not only people who have sat in the House to enjoy certain club rights but their heirs and successors as well. In 1957, the then Marquess of Salisbury said:
  "This House is not a club; it is a place for legislation."
  That must be the starting point for the resolution of this issue. It is not for the House to resolve it in the course of legislation; it should be resolved at the appropriate

  327
  time. I think that the appropriate time for the House to resolve it is not now but once the new House is constituted. It is for the new House to decide the appropriate privileges to give.
  In those circumstances, we think the amendment is misconceived, is not in the right form and is not a matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, what is his authority for the proposition that it is only the sons of Peers who sit here who are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Companion is the authority.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is the authority for that proposition?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has a better source than the Companion, no doubt he will tell me.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he reply to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers about Privy Counsellors? Can they sit on the steps of the Throne when they are former hereditary Peers?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as concerns privileges in the future, those matters should be decided by the House and not in the course of legislation.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord's reply—not only with what he said but, if I may say so, with the manner in which he said it. He displayed no sympathy for this very real problem; I am not saying sympathy for hereditary Peers. He said that this is a matter for the new House to consider. I do not think that it is. When the Government are producing a Bill such as it is, with radical effects, it is quite right that the effects should be considered by your Lordships. It is, all very fine for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity—who has been here for all of two years—to say that it is fairly undignified—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that we are all a little exhausted by the very personal references being made this afternoon. I referred earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He then explained that he had not had time to acquaint the noble Lord, Lord Boston, with what he was going to say about him personally. Presumably the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may say the same.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal seems also to be fairly touchy. I told the Chairman of Committees that I would refer to this. I see nothing wrong with that. I did refer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity—as one does refer to speeches of other noble Lords—and he did say that he thought it was fairly undignified and that, as the Government had given
  328
  the Weatherill amendment a run, we ought therefore—not his words; my interpretation—swallow the rest. I do not think that that is so. I think that what upset the noble Baroness was my reference to him having been here for all of two years. That is not particularly insulting; it is merely a fact.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right; I have been here two years. But I am here because I am qualified to come here by what I have done, rather than by who I was born to. As far as concerns good manners and civilised behaviour, it is a two-way Floor; they should come from that side of the House as well.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am beginning to agree with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. This is becoming a little personal on the part of the noble Lord.
  There is a problem here. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted that there is a problem and have just kicked it into the long grass and said that it is for the new House to consider. I do not think it is. When your Lordships are considering a Bill that will have very radical effects, it is right that we should consider what the effects of that Bill are. I do not disagree with the noble and learned Lord if he says that it is not right to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. There are plenty of people who would use that argument. However, it is right that it ought to be considered and it ought to be considered by the appropriate committee.
  I wrote to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. He said that he was not considering doing so at the moment. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord did not feel it appropriate to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees to consider the matter earlier. I think that he should. I think that the noble and learned Lord is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 50:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be known as "members of the Selected Chamber".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we may be able to lower the temperature a little. Amendment No. 50 is joined with Amendment No. 74. They are coupled together. Amendment No. 74 changes the name from "House of Lords" to "Selected Chamber" and Amendment No. 50 says that people should be known as "members of the Selected Chamber". This will no longer be the House of Lords with its different composition and the different character of people. It will be a selected Chamber. I think it will be right for it to be so called and I think it would be correct that those people who are members of it should be called Members of the Selected Chamber. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 has been grouped with Amendment No. 50. I have written to my noble friends on the Front Bench, to the noble and learned Lord the Minister who is to reply and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers to say that we want to decouple it.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first is a serious historical reason why it should be opposed and the other is a purely aesthetic one. Our constitution has evolved over the years. The Bill as it now stands is completely different from how it was when it first came here. The Government, in spite of slight stroppiness over access rights and one or two other things, have behaved with considerable good sense throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That is my serious reason.
  My not quite so serious but in some ways more important reason is that we could not possibly have the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, not called Lady Jay. There she is. She looks just like the best 18th Century Duchess of Devonshire and we could not under any circumstances not have her called the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, because she is the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, intends Members of your Lordships' House to be called Members of the Selected Chamber and also Members of the Lords. In Committee a number of attempts were made to change the name of your Lordships' House and the style of address for Members of the House. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wanted Members of this House to be known as "members of the Appointed Chamber" and styled as "Lords of Parliament". We did not agree then and we do not agree now. As was said in Committee, there is no reason for change. Even after this Bill becomes law there are nearly 100 hereditary Peers among us who will remain in the House of Lords. This place should therefore continue to be known as the House of Lords. Members of the transitional House will be Members of the same Chamber of Parliament, carrying out the same functions, with the same roles and responsibilities, terms and conditions as they presently have. The majority of them will be the same individuals. There is quite simply no need to change the name used to describe them. To change our style of address for the short period before the second stage reform gets under way would be unnecessary and confusing. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I am in order to speak, and I am not entirely certain that I am—
  Noble Lords: No.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a good way of shutting up my noble friend. I did not frankly think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would accept the amendment. It is funny how the Government want to change everything except the style and the title. The fact is that it is a selected Chamber. There may be 100 Peers, and we keep on being told that that still may not
  330
  come to pass. There may still be 100 hereditary Peers but they will all be selected. It will not be the same as the House of Lords as it used to be. However, I do not see a great head of steam over this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED CHAMBER: STYLE
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the Selected Chamber of Parliament shall be styled as "Members of the Lords", with the initials "ML" appended to their name but without reference to their rank in the peerage.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a different kettle of fish altogether. We have already discussed this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that I referred at Committee stage to "Lords of Parliament". That is perfectly true. I have altered the amendment this time to describe them as "members of the Lords". That should please the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he is not replying to the amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord is to reply. Ah, a change of bowling. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was to reply because he did so last time.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the same bowler but a different batsman.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt that the ball will get caught anyhow.
  I put down this amendment to try to help the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal because—I am mindful to rehearse the fact again just to remind your Lordships—back in August she wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph. It stated:
  "Baroness Jay, the new Leader of the Lords, wants life peers to be stripped of their aristocratic titles and called MLs—Members of the Lords. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, she said she was keen to remove the elitism of the names used in the Upper Chamber. 'I am not sure that I would not like to move to a situation where you had ML after your name, Member of the Lords, rather than being called Baroness Jay of Paddington', she said. She went on to say, 'I would not mind not having the title although some of my some of my colleagues might think it terribly sad to get rid of them'."
  She then said that it was important to create a way of differentiating between Peers who are born with their titles and those who have won a seat in the Lords on their merit, which of course would include the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity.
  The amendment seeks to put into the Bill exactly what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House wants. I therefore thought that it would be good to have it down and to help her.
  During the course of the debates on the Bill we have listened to the hereditary Peers being vilified and told that they have no place in the constitution and that they are undemocratic. All that was before Weatherill came in and then the Government rather changed their tack

  331
  because they said that some hereditary Peers are desirable. The fact is that those in another place have always disliked the House of Lords because they feel that when they pass a Bill the House of Lords should accept it, and of course they become upset when we do not accept it. Therefore, the Members of the Commons have always disliked Members of the Lords, and none more so than Labour Members of the House of Commons.
  The curious thing—I have had occasion to say it before—is that they all queue up to come here. They do come here and the curious thing daily is that, having come here, they have, as I have suggested once, acted rather like cuckoos and tried to chuck out of the nest the very eggs that have given the place its character, its style and possibly its attractiveness. The hereditary Peers are, after all, the people who have over the years given the place the character, the courtesies, the practices, the ambience and the civilised behaviour. We are now going to get rid of all of them and all the life Peers will say, "We do not want hereditary Peers here at all but we are quite happy to be called Lords and take all the trappings of being a Lord". I began to think that that was a little strange. If you are against everything, why is it that you then come up and take on the mantle of what you have cast off?
  Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was actually entirely right over this: that you ought in fact to put "ML" after your name and not call yourself "Lord". My noble friend Lord Onslow said that she is glorious as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and of course she is. She might be Margaret Jay, ML, and she might be Mrs Michael Adler, ML. That is not quite such a glorious title.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Earl Ferrers: Of course it is a glorious title, but in a slightly different way. After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would be perfectly happy to be called Falconer ML. He does not want to be called "Lord" or anything like that. But what will happen when a Prime Minister asks someone to serve in the Upper House? He will say, "Will you go and serve in that Upper House? You have to be there every day; you have to"—as your Lordships may know, particularly if you are a member of the other party—"sign in and sign out when you have arrived there so that they know what is happening; you have to be there most clays to vote; you will not receive any payment but you get a hit of expenses; but you can call yourself a Lord". Then, of course, they will all say, "Yes, we would love to go to the House of Lords". But if you say, "Will you go to the second Chamber? You will not be paid; you have to be there the whole time; you have to vote; and you cannot call yourself a Lord either", no one will want to go. Of course they will not. So why do they all come—because they want to call themselves Lords; and, if I may suggest it, because their wives like to call themselves Ladies.
  In this great egalitarian day and age, I think it is quite right that people who are life Peers who will be Members of this great, new body that will be far more
  332
  democratic than ever was the one that preceded it, of which we happen to be the lucky Members, should be called "members of the Lords". For once, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is right. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend goes through the most delightful moods—between self-immolation and teasing; and I think we enjoy both very much. In the days of unegalitarianism one used to hear the phrase, "It takes three generations to make a gentleman and clogs to clogs in three generations". I do not know how many generations the noble Earl thinks it takes to make a Lord. Presumably, if there were logic in his amendment—I do not suppose for a moment that he assumes there is because it is based on the rather amusing words used by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in the Spectator or Tribune article, whichever it was—he would feel that hereditary Peers of the first creation should never have been called "Lord" and, indeed, that life Peers, since 1958, should never have been called "Lord". I should be interested to know at what stage he thinks the blood changes sufficiently for the epithet to be added.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is slightly too hasty. I wonder whether the House would agree that few more beguiling amendments have come before the House than this one. Perhaps the most entertaining part of our depressing proceedings in Committee was when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suddenly expressed a deep sense of the value of continuity and tradition with regard to the past and the future of this House. That was, as noble Lords may remember, when it was suggested that the titles of the peerage should be separated from the right to sit and vote in the House.
  If I may paraphrase the noble Lord and indeed other noble Lords opposite, "No, we see no need to change. We like being called 'my Lord'. We just want the older Lords to be tipped out of here". Yet there was one exception to that somewhat contradictory position, and that was the principled position taken by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. In her interview, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated, she expressed her distaste for some of what she felt was the flummery surrounding the House. In a modern era a modern title should suffice and the idea was floated that Members of your Lordships' House should be known simply as Members of the Lords. That inspired idea was floated in the air by the noble Baroness and it has today been plucked down from the air by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It is inevitable that at some stage the title "Lord" must be separated from membership of this House. Equally, as I have said, I see some merit in keeping the name of the House of Lords itself. The simple description "ML", parallel to that of "MP" for another place, as proposed by the noble Baroness and my noble

  333
  friend is logical. I congratulate my noble friend on his amendment and I would be very surprised if the noble and learned Lord the Minister did not accept it.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so beguiling is the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has broadly repeated the same speech that he made in Committee for those among your Lordships who missed it on the first occasion. The Companion suggests that arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
  In answer to a previous amendment on Report, I made the point that it seems sensible, if we continue to be called the House of Lords, that we continue exactly as before. My noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington has authorised me to tell the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that she will be writing in a personal capacity to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to put her own suggestion to him. In the meantime, the sensible course is to continue as before. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment for the second time.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is in a bellicose mood. He is always telling one to stop making speeches, that they have been made before and that they must not be repeated. Of course I made the same speech as I made before because, rather like the noble and learned Lord when he comes to answer, he says the same thing as he tends to think that he is right. The reason I said what I said is that I altered the amendment. I altered the amendment to make it even more gracious to the noble Baroness. I thought that your Lordships might therefore not know the complete reasoning behind the amendment.
  I was surprised that the noble Baroness put up her junior to speak, if I may so describe the noble and learned Lord, although not in an offensive way. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that in his profession a junior is very senior and is a capable and able person. The noble and learned Lord is very senior, very capable and very able. The fact is that I moved the amendment in order to try to help the noble Baroness to get through what she obviously wants.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say it again: that the Government think that what the noble Baroness wrote was a whole lot of "All my eye and Betty Martin". The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was not certain quite what that meant as it was Latin. I looked it up in Fowler's Dictionary of English Prose. "All my eye and Betty Martin" is all nonsense, bosh and rubbish. I suppose that that is what the Government think of the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
  I think that the noble Baroness was right over this. I come back to the same point. The reason people will come here in the future when they will not be paid, when they will receive only a small amount of expenses and when they will have to be here the whole day is that they will be able to call themselves "Lord" and their wives will be called "Lady". I think that is a bad reason. Therefore, I fear that we must have a vote on the amendment in order to test the opinion of the House. I
  334
  think it would be quite fun to see all the noble Lords go through the Lobby to call themselves "Lord" and to see which way the noble Baroness goes. I beg to move.
  6.38 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 153.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ailsa, M.

  Kintore, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L

  Moyne, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Newall, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

  O'Cathain, B.

  Fisher, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gray, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Hankey, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Torrington, V.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Inchcape, E.

  Tryon, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wise, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Chatteris of Amisfield, L.

  Addington, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Alli, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Amos, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Bach, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  David, B.

  Blease, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Donoughue, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Carew, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Exmouth, V.

  335

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Newby, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Glenamara, L.

  Nichol, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Gordon of Stralhblane, L.

  Orme, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Paul, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Peston, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Grantchester, L,

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Grenfell, L

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Rea, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Richard, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Russell, E

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Serota, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Simon, V.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

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

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Strange, B.

  Judd, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Ludford, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller.]

  Tope, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  McNally, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Varley, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Warner, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.48 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 52:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF LORDS
  (" . The maximum number of persons entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House is 659.").
  The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will go with the grain of government thinking. It has been joined with Amendment No. 55, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The only thing that
  336
  distinguishes the two amendments is the numbers: my amendment has a maximum of 659 and the maximum number in the amendment of my noble friend is 830.
  The principles behind the amendment are twofold. The first relates to the specific number and the second to the notion of an overall limit.
  So far as concerns the specific number, it does not take a great brain to recognise that the figure of 659 was drawn from the number of Members currently in another place. I readily admit, however, that the recent list of life Peers makes that figure no longer realistic.
  There are, as I understand it—or were, before the announcement in June—499 life Peers, and 26 Bishops. If we add to that the 92 so-called Weatherill Peers and the new list of 38, which derives from the list of 33 working Peers and the five life Peers whose names appeared in the Honours List, we arrive at a figure of 655.
  Clearly, a margin of manoeuvre of four is inadequate when it is considered that the Government have the principle of overall parity between themselves and the Official Opposition in mind, and will have to appoint between 30 and 40 life Peers to match the 92 Weatherill Peers. I see the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal nodding. So it is clear from the figures that we are talking about a cap of somewhere between 700 and 725, or perhaps a slightly higher figure, to allow both for the principle of parity which the noble Baroness has explained to the House on several occasions, and to give the Government an overall margin to make a modest number of new life Peers.
  I readily accept, therefore, that the specific number in my amendment is inappropriate and, for that reason alone, shall not move it this evening. However, I urge upon the Government in general, and the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in particular—I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Lord in order in speaking to an amendment that he does not intend to move at this stage?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, justifiably, makes a fair point. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I do intend to move it. I apologise. He is quite right to intervene and I beg the pardon of the House.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Acton, is a stickler for procedure in the House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
  What is important about this amendment is the notion of an overall cap on numbers in this House. We have had, on a number of occasions from the Government Front Bench, an undertaking that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is keen to limit his powers of patronage in relation to this House. A number of related undertakings of an informal nature have already been given in that respect.

  337
  Therefore, it is my submission that the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House should have no difficulty in accepting an overall cap on numbers. It seems to me to correspond with the Government's wishes. With an overall cap, it will be impossible for the present Government, or any future government, to manipulate numbers in this House in order to obtain a particular result. If the Government really mean what they say about their wish to limit their powers of patronage, it is difficult to see how they can have any difficulties with this amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley is grouped with this one. It is therefore appropriate that I speak to it. Our amendment is also a serious attempt to define a limit to the number of Members in this House. Otherwise, it is on an exponential curve, depending on which government is in power, with unlimited patronage, to be able to create as many new Peers as they want in order to see their business through.
  On 11th May, the noble Baroness Lady Jay said:
  "Let us say that we have agreed that x will be the number … That is a guarantee of the overall ceiling".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; cl. 1194.]
  What the Government have not said is what x should be. There have been rather confusing statements on what it is likely to be. Therefore I hope that this time we shall receive a more satisfactory answer.
  In our amendment I have put forward a figure of 830. That has been carefully calculated. I have sent my workings to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I have also given them to my Front Bench. I was about to place them in the Library for the convenience of the House when the new list of life Peers came out, which distorted my figures, so I thought it best not to do so.
  The question of Conservative and Labour Peers is fairly easy to address because the idea is one of broad parity. I disagree with my noble friend about the precise figures. I think it more likely that 64 Labour life Peers will be needed to bring the number up to parity with the Conservatives when the Weatherill amendment is taken into account—which not all of us have accepted as the right solution to the future of this House.
  The Cross-Benchers are more of a wild card. I calculated that their influence would be reduced from 28 per cent of the House to 17 per cent. Then, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confounded my figures even further. On 22nd of this month, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, he said (at col. 896) that the Government's intention was to keep the Cross-Bench Peers at about 26 per cent.
  I then come to the Liberal Peers. My noble friend Lord Kingsland did not mention them, but they seem to me to be the party that should bear the best in terms of new creations, if statements in the Labour Party manifesto and answers to questions put to the Government are correct. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in a Written Answer on 9th June
  338
  (col. WA 157) that the number of Liberal Peers would be proportional, and referred to the manifesto. It states that the number of Peers should be proportional to the number of votes cast at the last election, and the Liberal Party received 17 per cent of the vote. So, in my figures, I allowed the Liberals 17 per cent in the revised House, which brought them an increase of some 90 Peers—hence my figure of 830. I also had to include the other parties which received 7 per cent of the vote at the general election. They, too, were to be represented according to the Government's manifesto. That was my serious attempt to arrive at a figure of 830. Clearly we need to set a limit. I do not want to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Kingsland said on that point, as he put it far better than I ever could.
  What concerns me is what exactly the Government mean when they refer to proportionality with regard to the Liberals. That is one of the unanswered questions. I reiterate a point that I have made previously. In the revised Chamber, unless a cap is set on the numbers, the ability of the interim reformed House to ask the executive to think again will be seriously reduced.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should be grateful if he could help me. I am more than slightly confused. Is he putting forward the figure of 830 or is he not?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I tabled the amendment, that was the closest I could get to an accurate number on the information I had received from the Government, both in this House and through Written Answers. I have now said that that figure is wrong because of the new list of life Peers. As the noble Lord knows, four Conservative life Peers were created in the last list, which means that, to match those for broad parity, on top of my total there need to be a further four Labour Peers.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Lord therefore saying that this is in effect a probing amendment at Report stage?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, far from it. There are two strands to this amendment. One is the need to set a limit. I thought that it would be helpful to the House to work out, to the best of my ability, what that number should be. I have tried to explain to the House. I am sorry if the noble Lord has not fully understood me; that is entirely my fault. I sought to put in a figure as close as I could to what I think would be the realistic figure, given what I have been told so far.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I think it is probably still in order to address noble Lords as "my Lords", although pace the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, some of us have titles which we think are rather superior to "Lord".
  We have strayed yet again into the debate which I hope we shall have next year and beyond on constructing the new House of Lords. Something is clearly bewitching noble Lords opposite in that they

  339
  would rather debate that matter than the Bill before your Lordships' House, a point which has been made several times.
  It is clear, in my judgement, that when, next year, we get on with the business of constructing the new House, we must talk about its size. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will find that he will have no difficulty persuading noble Lords on this side that we must have a view on that matter. It happens that, in my view, the numbers we are talking about are not very sensible; I would go for a much smaller Chamber. However, I do not think that this is the occasion to discuss that matter.
  The only point I want to make is the singular inappropriateness of the number 659. It is one of a class of numbers—namely, the prime numbers—which one would not choose in setting up a legislative assembly because of the difficulty of dividing it. I know that the amendment refers to "the maximum number"; none the less, I utter this word of warning: when the time comes, we should accept a number which has many divisors. Six hundred is the kind of number I have in mind. The noble Lord said that he would not test the opinion of the House on this matter. I should like to encourage him to come back to topics of this kind next year or the year after; I shall certainly want to do so. I hope that he will agree with me in due course that we should go for a number with many factors so that we can divide the parties and the Cross-Benchers in a sensible way.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I recall that on 11th May we considered Amendment No. 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others which proposed a new clause. The figure contained in that amendment was 615. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, explained carefully how that figure had been reached. Few Members of your Lordships' House agreed with him. I put the figure higher than that; the noble Lord, Lord Desai, added in the Bishops; I think it was the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who said that the figure should be 630; and my noble friend Lord Newby also came up with some good figures. We all knew that we were not very good at mental arithmetic, and it was a jolly but rather pointless occasion. At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agreed that he must have got the figure wrong. That is where we left the matter.
  We now have another amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said that they have got it wrong again and that 659 is not the figure to which we add up.
  I should like to go through all the figures which I believe the House should consider.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I freely admitted that I had got the figure wrong; but, at the time the figure was selected, we did not anticipate that there
  340
  would be such a long list of new political Peers. It quite took us aback. We chose a figure quite innocently but arithmetically mistakenly.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, again I find this very good fun, and we all enjoy it, but the noble Lord could have withdrawn the amendment and put another in its place. He had aeons of time to do so.
  I shall read out the figures but not explain what they are: 174; 179; 51; about 130; 92; 26 and eight. 'They do indeed add up to 659 or thereabouts. But, as the noble Lord said, that does not allow anything at all for balancing, which the noble Lord indicated was the policy of his party. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, helpfully said, these figures do not allow for the important consideration of proportionality as it applies to members of this party.
  In the debate last Tuesday, the noble Baroness. Lady Jay, the Leader of the House, reiterated the Government's position about proportionality. She said nothing new but defined again what the White Paper said. I have not heard anything at all from the Conservative Benches about proportionality. I should be pleased to give way if the noble Lord would like to rise to tell me what his party's policy is. If he is not going to rise and tell me whether he supports the figures in paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 and paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the White Paper, is he prepared to tell the House whether he agrees with proportionality as defined in the White Paper?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I listened to, and subsequently read very carefully, the speech of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the last occasion. As I recall, she was not prepared to go further than to talk about general parity between the Government and the Official Opposition. I am simply repeating what she said.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, that is not the case. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard, he will see that the noble Baroness referred to proportionality. The word "proportionality" was mentioned in her speech last Tuesday and it is the word which appears in the White Paper. I was asking the noble Lord whether, on behalf of his party, he would declare that it was the policy of his party to accept proportionality as well as a rough parity between the two main parties in the transitional House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I do not want to extend that debate. If the noble Lord means proportionality in the sense that the numbers in this House should reflect the most recent numbers in a general election, my response—I say this without authority—would be emphatically "No". The whole purpose of your Lordships' House is to provide a counterpoint to another place. If it simply mirrored the political forces in another place, there would be no point in having your Lordships' House.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful; that is a very positive statement and a major

  341
  advance. Although it was a very unsatisfactory reply, I now recognise the importance of having this short debate.
  I shall not bother the House further with the figures which would be necessary to achieve broad parity between the two principal parties in terms of numbers and proportionality for Members on these Benches. I simply remind the House that the problem has been greatly aggravated by the Weatherill amendment, which has added a disproportionate number of Peers to the Conservative Benches. The total effect is likely not to be 92 further Members of this House but something like 150 if the point about broad parity and proportionality is carried through.
  However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I do not think we should bother ourselves about these figures. Whatever they are, they are rather smaller than the figure of 1,290 with which we have apparently lived very happily for many years. I do not believe that we should consider any other fixed figure for the transitional House. I would rather look ahead, when the time comes, to stage two. In those circumstances, I share the view expressed by others that a House of 200 or 300—perhaps 350—would be about right. The Commons is far too large today and should not have more than 500 Members, and your Lordships' House should be rather smaller.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like many noble Lords and others outside your Lordships' House, I suspect that the interim House that we are creating by virtue of this Bill will last rather longer than has been suggested. Be that as it may, it is right that there should be a cap on the size of the House. My noble friend Lord Kingsland suggests one figure and my noble friend Lord Caithness suggests another. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, suggests a rather smaller figure. However, there must be a figure. I hope that the Government accept that principle. If they have a figure in mind I daresay that a manuscript amendment to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland will be allowed so that the matter can be settled.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I and I am sure my noble friend Lord Caithness agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is much better to have 600. I would rather have 300, but that is neither here nor there. As my noble friend points out, the Government have put on record that the House should be made up as they have said and its composition will be our figure of 830. I should like the Leader of the House to explain how the figure can be less than 830, bearing in mind her past comments.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with an upper limit in principle. However, does the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, agree that even 659 working Peers would give us one of the largest upper Houses in the world? We do not have 659 working Peers at the moment. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble
  342
  Lord, Lord Rodgers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, could confirm that the proposal would make this one of the largest Chambers.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I strongly believe that we should define the upper limit of the membership of your Lordships' House. I tabled a similar capping amendment in Committee. I have taken the liberty of looking at the bicameral systems of other countries, such as Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium. In those cases one finds that the numbers of the upper houses are either half, or in some cases one quarter, of those of the lower houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others who believe that the ultimate revised Chamber will have a lower number.
  Lord Islwyn: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes other countries and suggests that their second chambers have lower numbers. Will he take into consideration population? Our population is far greater than that of the countries he cites.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. However, my point is that the numbers in the upper houses in proportion to those in the lower houses are always lower by half or a quarter. I found one exception, Italy, whose population is almost precisely the same as the UK's. In that case there are 315 members in the upper house and in the lower house. That is less than half the present number. I do not think that that detracts from the argument that the interim House should have a cap on its numbers. We have an opportunity to ensure that the future House has a better framework, not one that for ever worries the Opposition that the government of the day will get their way by flooding your Lordships' House, or a revised version of it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, since the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appears at the top of the amendment, perhaps I may ask him and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether, if they decide to bring this matter back at a later stage—it having turned into a probing amendment at Report stage, which I find astonishing—they will put down on paper their final figure and stick to it.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I am anxious to probe further—with all apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Acton—the question of the proportionate creation of Liberal Democrat Peers. I hope that my noble friend will succeed in obtaining further information from the Leader of the House. At Report stage I tabled an amendment to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland that dealt with the appointments commission. I hoped at that stage to discover why the amendment did not provide for the commission to report on criteria related to the nomination of Liberal Democrat life Peers. When I saw that my noble friend had increased the cap from 615 to

  343
  659 I hoped that between the two figures I might find the proportionate creation of Liberal Democrat Peers. However, that seems to have disappeared into thin air.
  If my noble friend on the Front Bench is listening, perhaps he can say where he finds the proportionate Liberal Democrat creations and what he meant when he said in reply to my amendment (before I had moved it) that,
  "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".— [Official Report, 22/6/99; col. 825.]
  At the moment, I am not aware of the Government's proposal.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not very good at figures and, listening to this debate, it does not seem to me that a lot of other noble Lords are much better either. What puzzles me—perhaps it is a ridiculous puzzle—is that if there is to be a cap of any number a decision must be made on the principle as to how to arrive at the maximum. If one has a maximum and all the time one has more life Peers entering the House that maximum is a floating figure that is not definable. To me, the whole matter appears to be almost beyond definitive resolution, unless from time to time the question is referred to the usual channels, a Standing Committee or whatever to arrange what is right. Perhaps I am wrong but, listening to the debate, I do not see how, on any logical basis, there can be a cap.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite unwittingly he did my noble friend Lord Caithness an injustice. My noble friend was referring to the numbers in this House of Lords, and the use of that term includes the transitional House. We are not concerned at all with the successor House.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not speak to the figures, which do not appear to be very relevant. I would prefer a maximum of 600 Members of what is called the transitional House. I have a simple solution. If we scrapped the Weatherill clause—noble Lords will be aware that I was not madly in favour of it to begin with—there would be 92 fewer Peers and we would get very much nearer the 600. Without intending to upset my noble friends, I had it in mind to table an amendment to remove the Weatherill clause. I believe that that is a sensible way out of the problem, particularly as noble Lords opposite do not appear to be able to understand their own figures. I shall not move an amendment at this stage because I should like to hear my noble friend Lady Jay reply to the debate, if that is possible.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the amendment contains a serious point—unlike the previous amendment. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the new House is likely to last a considerable time. It is not for the Opposition to give a figure. It is perfectly legitimate for my noble friends to press for a figure which should be on the face of the Bill. I realise that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be unable to produce a figure tonight.
  344
  The life peerage system began in 1958. Therefore on an actuarial basis over the next few years there is likely to be a considerable diminution in the number of life Peers. That may enable the figure to be lower than it otherwise would be.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to regard this debate as somewhat unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was kind enough to discuss privately with me his concerns in general terms. I was happy to do so. But for the Front Bench of the Opposition and another noble Lord to put down amendments at Report stage, the substance of which they state in their opening sentences to be incorrect, is rather strange.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was slightly irritated when we pointed out at Committee stage that his figures were wrong. However, as has been pointed out, he was sensible enough to say that he knew his sums were wrong but that it was a probing amendment to consider the general principle. We discussed the general principle at some length. The Government's position on the general principle is unaltered. The noble Lord has tabled an alternative amendment which his noble friend says is again inaccurate for the reasons he explained clearly. The noble Earl has also suggested that his figures are inaccurate. To be honest, I am not sure what we are discussing. We are discussing points made by several noble Lords about the need, as my noble friend Lord Peston rightly put it, to think about the longer term. He also helped us greatly by trying to achieve a substantive number which was appropriately divisible in the way he described.
  The noble Lords who moved and spoke to Amendments Nos. 52 and 55 seemed to suggest that they are unworthy of consideration. In those circumstances, my position is somewhat extraordinary.
  However, for the purposes of the record, if nothing else, let me say that it is true that the Government accept that there are potentially 519 life Peers in this House, 27 Law Lords, and 26 Bishops. To those figures, as has been mentioned several times this evening, 92 excepted Peers will be added as an integral part of the agreement by which we achieved Clause 2—although, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, that is not necessarily immutable if he were successfully to move an amendment to take out the clause.
  However, let us agree on the figures as they stand at present. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us that the Government have stated explicitly in their White Paper—I repeat it again, as was noted by the noble Lord in previous debates—their pledge to a proportionate creation for the other parties. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that those numbers add up to something over 700 on the existing predictions of numbers. So the suggestion that we should stop at 659 is as inappropriate as he suggested. For that reason alone the amendment runs counter to the whole of the Weatherill agreement. On that basis alone, it would be unacceptable.

  345
  The noble Earl stated that his figure is more generous. But the 830 referred to would require an extra 140 life Peers. I assume that the purpose of achieving the target which he states is theoretical is to do what has been discussed again in different contexts today; to challenge the rights of the Prime Minister and to seek to create a statutory framework around the scope of patronage. Even if all those 140 extra life Peers were Labour Peers—and that would run counter to every commitment we have given, and every commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Government in the course of these extremely long-drawn-out proceedings—the number would be 360. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that that is still less than an overall majority in this House.
  Again we are in very theoretical realms. In a sense we are achieving nothing. Noble Lords are probably exhausted by my repeating the commitments in the White Paper, the manifesto and speeches on this Bill. But as there are noble friends on this side of the Chamber who are somewhat exhausted by the arguments from the Benches opposite, I intend to repeat the commitments. I shall do so quickly. These are the commitments on which we believe that the power of the Prime Minister should not remain unfettered and on which we have given explicit undertakings. We have said in the White Paper that no political party should seek a majority in this House. There should continue to be a significant independent Cross-Bench element. Respective party strengths should at the most, and over time, reflect the votes cast in the preceding general election and for the time being only broad parity between the two main parties is sought, with the proportionate creations of life Peers which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned today.
  We have said also that there should be an independent mechanism for identifying Cross-Bench Peers. On the basis of our proceedings at an earlier stage, I understand that those rules are now so attractive to the party opposite that they want to see them in statute. We did not see them abiding by them in their previous period of government.
  As my noble friend Lord Peston stated clearly, and he was supported by other Lords, we are talking here about a transitional House. We are talking about a House much of whose membership is already fixed for life. We are talking about a House where there is no provision for retirement or resignation. Noble Lords complained in earlier debates when they sought to make a different point that the House, as it results from the Bill, will be too small to carry out its functions properly. Which argument do they stand by tonight? We on this side of the House do not think that that is right.
  We believe that the numbers I have described are more than adequate to fulfil all the functions of the second Chamber in the appropriate way for the transitional period. But let us suppose that they are right. Let us suppose that it proves necessary to increase the nominal size of the House, taking into account the
  346
  principles I have outlined yet again. A statutory limit on the size of the House which would allow enough headroom to accommodate that possibility would also provide the headroom for an unscrupulous Prime Minister—this bogeyman who sits at the corner of all our debates—to fill the House with a disproportionate number of his or her own supporters. And once that ceiling was reached, it would still be open to the Prime Minister of the day to adjust the numbers in his or her party's favour. So a ceiling high enough to accommodate legitimate options would have to be high enough to accommodate illegitimate options, and, frankly, we should be no better off.
  As I have said before, I do not think that an amendment on these lines would improve the Bill. I do not think that the amendment would deliver the intended results. I cannot conceive a scenario where any amendments with such positive, precise figures would achieve the intended results. The figures on the amendment are wrong, as the movers admitted.
  The amendments add nothing to the pledges that the Prime Minister and the Government have made, although I realise—it has been said on many occasions today—that undertakings by the Prime Minister and the Government are regularly disregarded by your Lordships. I of course do not accept that position. I repeat what my noble friends on the Front Bench have repeated several times today. I ask the House to take this issue seriously. Arguments deployed fully in the Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. That is in the Companion.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should be grateful if she would answer the specific point I raised. I found her answer disappointing because I indicated well over a week ago to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, how I calculated my figures. For the noble Baroness to say what she did was out of line with what is normal in this House. I remember as a Minister regularly answering amendments of the party of the noble Baroness where the principle of the amendment was what mattered. I come back to this principle of the definition of "proportionate". What does the noble Baroness mean?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is Report stage.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, but I am speaking to an amendment that has been grouped with this one, which I shall not have another opportunity to do. The noble Baroness did not answer the question.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl has already spoken.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have indeed spoken, but I did preface what I said before the noble Baroness answered. Will she answer the question I

  347
  asked her? What does she mean by "proportionate" for the Liberal Democrats? Is it proportionate to the numbers appertaining to the House as it is now, or is it proportionate to the number of votes at the general election?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have made that absolutely clear this afternoon and on many other occasions. Perhaps for the record the noble Earl would care for me to read out the section in the White Paper which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and by my noble friend Lord Peston and others who have contributed. Let me read it again. Paragraph 7 on page 32 of the White Paper says:
  "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"
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to say first of all, in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine and in response to what the noble Baroness has just said, that one of the reasons why it is essential to have a cap on the number of Members of the House is the principle of proportionality. If the proportions of the parties in your Lordships' House are adjusted every time there is a general election, there will be no limit on the numbers. They will simply go up and up. This is an additional reason for having a cap.
  I should also like to make it clear to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal that there is no intention whatsoever by the Opposition to call into question the sincerity of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister in respect of his intentions with regard to this House; but I share the doubts of many of your Lordships that the arrangements which are likely to ensue as a result of the passage of this Bill will be short term.
  History suggests that they will be far from short term. If that is so, no doubt in the course of time one government will follow another and, constitutionally, in my submission it will be highly desirable to have a specific restraint on the behaviour of governments to appoint Peers to your Lordships' House in such a way as to ease the passage of business in another place.
  It is for that reason, above all, that I think it would be prudent to have an overall cap. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said that she did not think it would add anything. If she does not think it would add anything, I would in turn say that it certainly would not subtract anything from the position of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister—and for that reason, although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall also reflect upon reintroducing it at Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think this will be a good moment to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Selection in Education
  7.33 p.m.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to accept that some selection in education has value.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the problem we are discussing tonight has bedevilled English education for the past 60 years. Let me give your Lordships an example. In 1938 the Association of Education Committees, in evidence to the Spens Committee which was meeting that year, spoke in this way. They said that there had been a concentration on grammar schools as compared to other schools, particularly those providing courses leading up to the work of advanced technology.
  One of the problems of the Board of Education was that though it developed grammar schools it deliberately did down technical schools. The Association of Education Committees went on to advocate the development of technical high schools. After 1902 the English state, later than any other state in Europe, provided grammar schools which served about 15 per cent of the most able age group. Nothing was provided for the rest, and they left school at 14 and were expected to seek apprenticeships or other forms of training.
  There were some technical schools. They were in short supply and mainly existed in certain cities. Hence, before 1914, selection meant privilege for a clever few and nothing for the rest. That is a fact that we must face and that is the background of this debate tonight.
  The problem was not unique to this country. In France the academic Lycée dominated education and the same was true throughout most of Europe. Only in Germany did schools other than the academic enjoy similar prestige. This debate is occurring against the background of history, and the fact is that the meanness of the right, if you like, of my party, and the ideology of the left, your party, meant that we attempted to solve this problem universal to Europe in a different manner from our continental neighbours. This is the core of what I am presenting to your Lordships tonight. We got rid of selection and put all pupils in area comprehensives. We forgot that selection really means placing pupils in schools and colleges which best suit their interests, abilities and aptitudes. We forgot that this is not wrong in itself, but it is wrong if it only satisfies one element of ability, those who have one particular ability, which in England was academic.
  This universal problem was solved by our continental neighbours in a different manner. I repeat, in order to drive the point home, that it was a universal problem. In Germany, Holland and many other countries they

  349
  solved the problem by giving equal prestige to schools other than the Gymnasium—the grammar school—and by creating and fostering technical and other schools, as well as establishing highly respected and free standing—note the word "free standing"—vocational qualifications. The result in Germany, Holland and Austria was that selection was not then seen as passing or failing. I accept the criticism of the English system of selection as it existed in the 1940s, 1950s and up to the 1960s.
  What it meant as far as they were concerned was providing different training for different abilities. It may be of interest to your Lordships that when East Germany was united with the west, all the states apart from Berlin abandoned their comprehensive system and took over the West German tripartite system.
  In France and the Latin countries, Spain and Italy, schools are comprehensive up to the age of 16, when pupils again separate selectively. They go either to an academic lycée or quasi-vocational institution each with their own separate examinations. It is the baccalaureate professional in France and the academic baccalaureate. The same is true in Spain and Italy.
  I turn to our system; the result of the great revolution of the 1960s. It is the method we followed to deal with the universal problem. If we are honest, we must admit that the results of our answer to the problem have not been as successful as theirs. Independent schools cater for about 8 per cent of the population. I speak from being involved in them for many years. They are mainly non-selective, only 40 or 50 being selective. Apart from the need to pay the fees, anyone can go to them. We must worry about a system where 72 per cent of pupils in independent schools achieve A to C grades in mathematics. They are from schools such as Milton Abbey, which I govern and which takes pupils of all ability. However, in comprehensive schools 32 per cent achieve A to C grades in mathematics. As regards French, 62 per cent of pupils in independent schools pass at grades A to C compared with 20 per cent in comprehensive schools. Those figures are for 1994.
  Our continental neighbours, who have largely adopted selective systems, do better. In 1992–93, a survey was conducted of their intermediate examinations. It is published in a book by Michael Sanderson about academic education compared with industrial performance. The survey showed that in England and Wales 27 per cent of pupils passed at A to C grades compared with 62 per cent in Germany. In Northern Ireland, which still has a selective system, more pupils from families in Social Class III M-V, which is the manual worker class, were accepted for higher education; 38 per cent compared with 23 per cent in England. I hope that the Minister will not argue that Northern Ireland has a culture so different that we cannot compare it. I should like the Minister to comment on these figures which are a reflection of the policy we followed in the 1960s.
  It is that, not political ideology, which has lead me to put forward the debate tonight. I beg the Government to reconsider their dogmatic views on selection. Ideology is a bad guide to performance either in politics or in
  350
  education, as history has often shown. Our neighbours show us that selection does not mean pass or fail, as I accept it did in England in the 1930s. It provides institutions which best suit the different abilities and talents. If we are to realise that and to follow our continental neighbours, that means allowing schools to specialise and choose pupils for the specialisations which best suit their talents. Above all, it means restoring technical schools in every area.
  I do not want to bore your Lordships with history. Germany led the world in technical schools, from the Sunday schools of Saxony which became technical. I can assure your Lordships that in late Victorian England we were well on the way to matching them. Then we destroyed it all. We destroyed it, first, with the Board of Education after 1902 and then we annihilated them in the 1960s. I beg the Government to think practically about that.
  During my brief period on the Front Bench when I dealt with the Education Bill, I realised that the Government seem to have an affection for specialist schools. Yet I am puzzled—and I should like the Minister to comment—about how their dogmatic views on selection will enable them to decide which pupils will benefit from the specialist schools. There has been talk of language schools, science schools and mathematics schools.
  Surely, selection is demanded. It need not be as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. We could refine it and produce a model like Germany where going to different schools is not seen as passing or failing but as enhancing opportunities for all. At present, we do not seem to be fulfilling the potential of many of our young people and the results speak for themselves. Good structures produce high standards. Attachment to ancient dogmas based on a vanished past is no guide to a successful future.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have been lenient with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, but I must warn all noble Lords, apart from my noble friend the Minister, that no noble Lord may speak once the clock shows "3".
  7.46 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, it is always fun to be in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I enjoy it. However, tonight I have reservations about some of the things he said. He was more accurate about what happens in Europe than he has been previously. I do not believe that he was entirely accurate about Northern Ireland. However, I was glad to hear his condemnation of selection. Selection leads to rejection, which is what we had before the change to comprehensive schools. The noble Lord was also wrong in suggesting that comprehensive schools had not been a success and he quoted figures. But he did not explain the way in which the pass rates at A to C grades have risen since comprehensive schools took over. That is the success story.
  I am pleased to say that we have had commitments that we shall not return to selection—to the 11-plus—which is a relief. However, some of us fear that

  351
  specialisation, which has been allowed, can bring us desperately close to selection, with all its social implications. The Secretary of State has said that he would expect schools with specialisms to share their expertise with other schools in a local network; that they could promote expertise throughout a community. Could the Minister tell us whether specialisms will make up an element of admissions policies? I hope that that will not be the case.
  With a co-operative network of schools, surely children could gain the benefits of the specialisms while being enrolled in any school in the network. That would allow admissions policy to be based on other rules which would be less open to abuse. One sees the tendency to selection if specialisms are allowed to continue entirely in one school without others being involved in it. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance as to that.
  7.48 p.m.
  Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for asking this Question. I believed that the time has come when we ought to drop the word "selection" because to those of us who lived through the 1950s and 1960s it suggests a permanent distinction between the apparent sheep and the apparent goats. It was a bad system. If we dropped the word and concentrated on what the Government are obviously understanding—namely, the differentiation and diversity of educational provision—we could forget the poor record of the past and examine the development of the specialist schools.
  It is quite clear that though there are very specialist schools such as music schools, ballet schools and the dramatic school in Croydon, there is a kind of specialist school growing up from the technical colleges which concentrates on a commitment to hard work, both on the part of parents and children and the provision of an environment in which clever or less clever children are allowed to be ambitious, whether in sport, music or technology.
  In the past the real problem has been the difficulty that ambitious children have in showing their true colours. They have lived in an environment in which it is despised to work and absurd to express an interest in a subject. I am afraid that this has had an even worse effect on girls than boys. Girls are still supposed to be attractive and not know too much.
  The provision of an environment which we could call specialist if we wanted to but which encourages children and expects an enormous amount of commitment, both of the children and their parents, provides for the real needs of a wide range of children. I warmly congratulate the Government on being able to perceive that this is a new way forward. In my view, it would be far easier to follow this and encourage the specialist schools by not talking about selection any more.
  Of course the children who go to such schools will be the children of parents who are interested in
  352
  education. That means cutting right across all kinds of class divisions. People will have a choice of whether to send their children to specialist schools. But, when they have done so, I believe we shall see an enormous improvement in the commitment and standards reached by those children. I should like to make clear that this is a new way of looking at differentiation for children's education. If we could put an embargo on the word "selection", we should do ourselves a very great favour.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I declare an interest in that my children went to comprehensive schools. They were ambitious. Their teachers were ambitious for them. For 30 years I have been a supporter of comprehensive education. I am as strong a supporter today as I was then. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that that makes me a member of the "Left", which is the first time I have ever been referred to as such.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has asked the Government a Question. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will answer it. I can only answer for myself. By "selection" I assume we are talking about entry into secondary education, as that is what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to. Is selection of any value? My answer is "No, tout court". Is it of any value when we are discussing so-called specialisms within schools? (Here I am being disobliging to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.) My answer again is "No". Selection is inefficient. The overwhelming evidence is that we are unable to select satisfactorily both generally, for academic purposes, and specifically within the context of the specialist schools. I refer to the "aptitude concept" which my right honourable friend invented in the past year or two.
  I therefore remain, without any doubt, an opponent of selection for entry into secondary education. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lady David that the comprehensive schools of this country have been a success. The original, earlier mixed structure was a failure, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, to a large extent.
  One of the difficulties in discussing this issue is that many commentators confuse the problem of comprehensive schools with the problem of the inner cities. I do not doubt that there is a problem in some of our inner cities. That is a problem of economic deprivation and poverty. It is a social problem, not unconnected with the economic problem. It leads to family breakdown. I have little or no doubt that in any approach to education family support is of enormous importance. However, it is not to do with selection or comprehensive education; it is to do with the way we run our lives and how we neglect in certain cases our fellow human beings.
  I should like to ask my noble friend what is again a disobliging question. However, I must ask it because this is my only chance. We are not likely to have a similar debate at this time. I thought that this party was committed to the abolition of selection in secondary

  353
  education. As far as I am concerned, "selection is selection is selection". Can my noble friend tell us whether there has been any diminution of selection in entry to secondary education in our country in the two years since our Government were elected?
  7.55 p.m.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for asking this important and central question to education. Delighted as I am to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is to reply, perhaps he could explain why the Minister for Education is unable to be present. That would be helpful to the House.
  I take a different view from my noble friend. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I see a great deal of selection being practised by the present Government. After all, we have selection for music schools, ballet schools, various drama schools and art of one sort or another. We have specialist language schools, which were first developed when we were in Government. I am very pleased to see that they are being continued. I believe there are to be schools for mathematics.
  That all seems to me a highly desirable development. Whether we call it "specialisation" or "selection", children are being chosen for a particular kind of education to suit their needs. A number of Government Ministers believe in education selection. I would have thought that the Prime Minister was a prime example of that. I think we all agree with him. He has chosen what he regards as the best schools for his children. I have no doubt that they are very intelligent children and will do well. Of course, Mrs Harriet Harman chose a grammar school for her son. I even see that Mrs Jeremy Corbin has joined the ranks. It is never too late for a sinner to repent. That is a very interesting development.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should say that he saw no value in selection. I believe that the Government have said that £60 million (I may not have the figure right) will go into sport. I do not know whether that will go to every school to encourage everybody to be good at sport or to encourage people who are talented in sport and who do extremely well. However, as the Secretary of State has decided that compulsory sports will no longer be necessary for those over the age of 14, I can only suppose the money is going to help talented or prospective sports people to do well. Good luck to them. That is selection of another sort. It is simply finding proper ways to encourage people to develop their talents.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peston cannot just say that only the inner city comprehensives have problems. The problem which the Government have identified, and which we identified when we were in Government and which has so far defeated governments of both parties, is what do we do with the least able? They are the ones who are doing so badly in the system. They are not receiving the teaching they should. They are leaving school without qualifications. They have no commitment to getting a job. They therefore become dependent upon the welfare state and get themselves
  354
  into trouble. There is no use in making excuses for all of that. We need to address ourselves to dealing with those children whom the education system has failed. We should find an answer to that problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, pointed out some examples of success with the least able.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on initiating this important debate. All parents want the best in life for their children. Obtaining the best education one can for one's children is surely the key responsibility for every parent. But over the many years that I have listened to, and sometimes participated in, the national debate in relation to education, standards and how to raise them, I have come to realise that those debates often take place with two sides talking about the same subject in totally different languages. The reason they talk in different languages is because they have totally different educational experiences and different aspirations about the education they seek and receive.
  That is what I call the "95 per centers" and the "5 per centers"—although the noble Lord. Lord Pilkington, and I may disagree on the percentages. Those of us in the 95 per cent were educated in the state sector, myself in an excellent comprehensive in my native city of Bradford. We are ordinary folk who come from families who have always seen education as the way to get on in life, to get a good job and, in our turn, to try to ensure that our children have a better life and perhaps more opportunities than our parents and ourselves.
  The problem for the 95 per cent, until the general election, was that our education system was in the hands of those who, by and large, experienced education only in the non-state sector; that is, the ones in the 5 per cent. Frankly, many of them had no real understanding of, and I am afraid that some of them did not even care about, the aspirations and needs of the majority. What a relief now to have a government who are concerned about the standard of education of the many and not the few, my children among them I am glad to say. We now have a government who put education at the centre of their programme.
  This is too important a subject for political point-scoring. We need to look to the Government's record and what they are doing for the 95 per cent. The Government's aim is clear and unequivocal. They aim for every state school to be, and to be seen to be, good enough so that each and every parent will be happy to send their children to it.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, my concern lies mainly with those kids whose intelligence is not principally academic, but finds itself in one of two areas. I refer first to those who understand and work well with people. They are the foundation of a successful entrepreneurial and industrial society and we do not look after them well in schools. I refer also to those kids who become disenchanted by what is going on in school—even in primary school; let alone in the early years of secondary

  355
  school—because the curriculum is so biased towards the academic system with which we have all grown up and which those of us who have been to state schools or grammar schools have seen in action.
  We need to find a way of looking after those children better. I look at many schools during the course of the year and it is my experience that schools which specialise in looking after that sort of child—those which are broader; which have more of a direction in which to lead those children—do better for them. It is difficult to combine that in any sensible way with pursuing high academic ideals in the way that grammar schools do.
  I heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, express a distaste for selection. He said, "I don't think it works. It always produces idiotic results. We get people who are disappointed by not getting into a school for which they are probably not suited anyway and it is not a pattern to which we should return". But I applaud what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about differentiation. That is the right road to go down. We should be offering parents and children the choice of different kinds of school. It should be a parental choice; it should not be the choice of the school. Schools should not be choosing children; parents and children should be choosing schools—and we should be offering them a good choice.
  That is what happens in the private sector. Not everyone wants to go to Winchester. But in the private sector there is a whole range of schools which suit different kinds of children, and parents spend a lot of time and money finding out which school is best for their kid. I do not see why that should not happen—or something as close as we can get to it—for the rest of us.
  8.3 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in the few minutes available I will concentrate on an illustration from a famous school to which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, rendered never-to-be-forgotten service over a long period of years. I refer to Eton College.
  When I went to Eton 80 years ago it was non-selective. I do not say that people who are now said to have what are called "learning difficulties" actually got in, but everyone else could. There is no doubt that once there the boys met people of all sorts, of all intellectual calibres. I am not referring to the college, where the 70 so-called "tugs" were assembled, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and later the noble Lords, Lord Denham and Lord Hurd. But the college was an exception. The rest of the other 1,000 boys—there are more there now—used to go to school, meet each other and mix with all kinds, except in classes. The classes were separate from the rest of the life. The clever boys were in the clever classes and the stupid ones in the stupid classes.
  That was the way it was. It worked well academically. It also meant that the boys had a social life. To put it in a sentence (and that is all I have got!) it may be said that it is relatively easy to do that in a large boarding school. I may be asked how we can apply that principle in a day school. I suggest only that one could learn from
  356
  the experience of Eton. One could work together with ordinary people all one's life, except in classes; and then one works with one's intellectual equal.
  8.5 p.m.
  Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for introducing the debate this evening. I shall not talk about selection for entry to a secondary school.
  A few weeks ago in your Lordships' House there was a stimulating debate on sport. During that debate the Government Deputy Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said,
  "We are determined that our top sportsmen and women should receive world class backing to give them every chance of achieving international success".—[Official Report, 9/6/99; col. 1476.]
  In other words, the Government—I congratulate them on this—clearly accepted that selected athletes will be given the coaching and training they need. I have just come from watching top-class athletes competing at Henley—highly selective crews rowing their best. It has clearly been the responsibility of their coaches to select the most promising crews and then train them to the utmost of their athletic ability. I could make the same point about ballet dancers. Imagine the horror of Swan Lake if all-comers were accepted for the corps de ballet.
  My question to the Government this evening is this: is not there a place for academic selection for those students who are academically gifted and in their sphere deserve world-class backing?
  Let me make it clear that I speak tonight as the chairman of a large comprehensive school. I am fiercely proud of it. I am especially proud of the help, coaching and training which are given to those of our students who have difficulties with their studies; those who have "special educational needs". We also have students with other kinds of special educational need—a need to be helped and coached to fulfil their outstanding academic potential. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that there will be money to pay for special academic coaching for the academically gifted as is planned for the athletically gifted; but it must be earmarked.
  8.8 p.m.
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I anticipated a radical and liberal few words from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, because he asked a cunning and I felt deceptively simple question; that is, whether the Government,
  "are prepared to accept that some selection in education has value".
  But the noble Lord shattered my expectations. He took us for a bit of a wander down memory lane. He took us via some examples of continental Europe—a continental Europe I thought it was now de rigueur for the Opposition to be critical of.
  However, there are some facets of selection in education which have value, and I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would lead us into some of those. I offer one or two examples, by no means an exhaustive list, of selection areas which have value. It is of value, for example, to select schools in areas where there are

  357
  large numbers of pupils with diverse mother tongues, as exist in many of our inner cities, in order to focus upon those schools in greatest need specialist English language teaching skills—a scarce resource. That is a form of selection in education which I believe has great value and a great need which is currently not fulfilled. It is equally of value to select areas of great deprivation, social deprivation, physical deprivation, the areas to which good teachers tend not to go because of poor physical conditions, and to select them and provide additional education resources for them in order to break the cycle of deprivation.
  Therefore, I very much welcome what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in order not to get too hung up on the word "selection". While I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston about the usual sense in which this word is used, I believe that there are areas of selection which are extremely valuable educationally. I regret that my expectation that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was going to lead us into some of those areas has remained unfulfilled.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, for missing the first minute of his speech, which started rather sooner than I had expected. I was going to begin by offering my answer to the question that he poses to the Government: of course, some selection has some value for some people in some circumstances. In other words, the answer is that "It depends". It is as simple as that.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he presented the question and the way in which he spoke. We have had an all-too-brief but excellent debate, some very good points having been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has many times made continental comparisons in our education debates. I am very glad that he spent a little more time developing that point because I believe that he hit on a crucial difference. He is quite right that selection exists in the way that he described in many continental countries. The key difference between those countries and our country is that it has never been, and certainly is not now, as divisive in those countries as it is in this country. One key reason for that is because continental countries, particularly Germany, value their technical and vocational schools at least as much as their academic institutions. In this country we have always worshipped academic education—we still do—and undervalued the less academic, the non-academic, the technical and vocational.
  The noble Lord referred to "succeed or fail" as belonging to the 1930s. I have to tell him, speaking from a borough where we still have full selective education, that it is still a question of succeed or fail. It ought not to be, and we all say that it ought not to be, but the reality is that it is. Many children who fail the 11-plus or fail to get into a grammar school regard themselves as failures. Their parents have put so much store on their succeeding in getting into that school that, when they do not do so, they inevitably feel that they have failed.
  358
  The noble Lord made comparisons between comprehensive schools and independent schools. We have no time to develop that point. However, I thought that they were enormously invalid comparisons. I accept that in a sense many of the independent schools are, as he put it, "all ability, except for the ability to pay". That is a fairly crucial difference, not only in relation to wealth, but also because it defines the nature of the home background from which the children come. It refers to the motivation of the parents, the children, and the teachers. Most, if not all, independent schools generally have much smaller classes and so on. It was an invalid comparison.
  I, too, am looking forward to hearing the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As he knows, I share his view about opposition to selection because it is such an imperfect means of education. If I understood him correctly, he asked the Government whether they were still committed to the abolition of selection and, indeed, what progress has been made over the past two years. We are shortly going to hear from the latest in a succession of government spokesmen who attempt to tell us what they see as the difference between selection by ability, to which they remain resolutely opposed, and selection by aptitude. We went through this in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I do not believe that anybody told us what the difference was and how the provisions on it will be applied. I believe that tonight is this Minister's first attempt to come up with a satisfactory definition. I greatly look forward to hearing what that difference is and how the provisions will be applied.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords. I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pilkington for this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, both my noble friend and I were educated completely within the state system; two of my children were educated wholly within the state system, and my other two children, when we were an Air Force family moving from posting to posting, spent a short time in prep schools but spent the whole of their secondary education in the comprehensive system. So such experience is not the preserve solely of noble Baronesses opposite.
  I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lady Young that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, once again is not answering such a debate. I always understood, as did my colleagues when we were Ministers on the other side of the Chamber, that parliamentary business was the very first call on our diaries.
  We have heard yet again, depressingly, arguments for a monolithic melting pot for all our children, irrespective of aptitude and ability. What is important for our children is that they should receive an education according to their need, their aptitude and their ability. However, "selection" is the word that dare not speak its name as far as the Government are concerned.
  What is so hypocritical is that selection by interview and/or examination has been enjoyed by the very Ministers of this Government who are denying that same

  359
  choice and opportunity to others. My noble friend Lady Young has already mentioned the Prime Minister, Harriet Harman, Mr Kilfoyle and others, who have all taken advantage of the selection process for their children. Indeed, there is a considerable anxiety on the part of a number of parents who feel extremely disadvantaged because the Prime Minister's daughter was selected by interview for a place at a highly popular school in London.
  Can I ask the Minister why it is that such opportunities are denied to all other children and whether there should there be any disquiet about the mention of individuals? I defend my right to do so on the ground that the Government have been responsible for denying these choices to other parents' children.
  Will the noble Lord the Minister also confirm that selection by test, examination and interview is taking place in our grammar schools, in our specialist schools, in our city technology colleges and our Church schools? Another question for the noble Lord the Minister is whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish all forms of selection, other than, of course, selection on the ground of religion.
  My noble friend has given pertinent statistics to make the case for selection. He chose Northern Ireland as an excellent example, where all children do better than their counterparts in England and Wales. I know that I am not permitted to ask a question of the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I know also that my noble friend Lord Pilkington has checked his figures on Northern Ireland with an expert who has produced a learned piece on that country. Therefore, it would be interesting to know why the noble Baroness believes that the information he gave was incorrect.
  If children are to be educated according to their need, their aptitude and their ability in order to deliver a differentiation, somebody has to "pick" the children, "choose" the children, "select" the children. Whatever the word is, we should not be afraid of it. But some form must be used to determine the appropriate provision for children. The Government should be expanding opportunity, diversity and choice for all our children, the highly academic and children at all other levels of aptitude and ability. I support wholeheartedly the case put by my noble friend.
  8.19 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on a characteristically honest and analytical speech. The fact that he spent the first five of his 10-minute speech attacking selection, shows what an honest man he is; indeed, I admire him for it. In response to those noble Lords who have asked where my noble friend Lady Blackstone is, the answer is that she is hosting a function arranged a long time before this debate was tabled for the University for Industry, which is her prime responsibility within the department. Therefore, I apologise on her behalf, but I believe noble Lords know that I took a very active part in this section of the school standards and framework legislation last
  360
  year and I did not hear any complaints at that time. However, I shall wait for the complaints after I have finished my speech.
  I want to respond to the fundamental question which the noble Lord has raised and I have to answer it in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, answered it. Of course, by definition, we cannot say that there are no circumstances in which any kind of selection for any purpose for any pupil in any part of the country would not be legitimate or proper. My noble friend Lord Peston is a purist on these matters. Indeed, both he and I have been allies in that way for far more than the 30 years since we were members of the Haringey association for the advancement of state education.
  Clearly the issue before us tonight is about the circumstances under which the Government believe that selection might be appropriate and those under which we very firmly do not believe that it is appropriate. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the Government have not changed their views since the school standards and framework legislation was debated about a year ago. Indeed, I can quote in evidence the Prime Minister from his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers at the beginning of this month, when he said:
  "People don't want to go back to a system which divides 11 year olds into successes and failures. I know there are people who still support that system but I personally meet people for whom rejection at 11 was the most devastating thing that had ever happened to them as children and stayed with them for the rest of their lives".
  That is the Prime Minister's view and it is good enough for me.
  In our manifesto we made it clear that we do not believe in selection by academic ability. We believe that academic selection is divisive and that it divides children into successes and failures. We want every child to reach his or her full potential, so we have ensured that there will be no new grammar schools. Again, our commitment on grammar schools was entirely clear at the time that the school standards and framework legislation was debated. They are an established feature of the education system in some areas; indeed, there are some 160 of them. Therefore, existing grammar schools will only have to remove their selective arrangements if local parents vote in favour of change. At present, LEAs cannot propose ending selection at the majority of grammar schools. From September, they will be unable to do so at any grammar school.
  In answer to the question of the noble friend Lord Peston on progress, I can say that the first year in which ballots could take place was curtailed by the delay in the passage of the school standards and framework legislation. We do not know, but we do not expect there to be a significant number of ballots, if any, in the period which ends on the 31st July. Two grammar schools in Bristol have already gone comprehensive of their own volition and with the support of their local authority. However, if I may put it this way, I think that the "season" for ballots will be in the next academic year rather than this year, although there have been inquiries to the agency about the threshold numbers which are appropriate.

  361
  However, we have not ruled out partial selection by academic ability where it already exists. If local communities are happy with such arrangements, they should be able to continue. But where they have created difficulties and have not been supported by local parents, we have enabled the adjudicator to rule out these arrangements following complaints by another admission authority, or parents, if he considers that they are not in the best interests of parents and children in the area.
  I am rather glad to say that a great deal of this debate has been about the question of selection by aptitude and ability. Indeed, much of it has been semantic rather than real. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, did not want to use the word "selection" and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would prefer to call it "differentiation". I am not terribly interested in the difference between words, just as I have to say that some of the distinctions which are made between aptitude and ability do not hold water.
  The Government have a very clear view on the difference involved: the difference is that as regards aptitude, which is applied to very specific specialisms—for example, modern languages, the performing arts, the visual arts, physical education, sport, design, technology and information technology—we could identify potential capacities to succeed. But that is very much not dependent on prior or current education achievement. Where that happens and where these schools exists (there are something like 400 of them), up to 10 per cent of children can be chosen on the basis of their aptitude for that specialism. The Admissions Code of Practice is clear on that point and we are not opposed to that kind of differentiation, to use the preferred word of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
  Of course we recognise that there is a risk if this goes too far—and I refer now to the point made by my noble friend Lady David—as one would be losing the ability to have adequate teaching in those areas in all the other schools, which are not specialist schools. That must be a constraint on specialist schools.
  We want all pupils to realise their full potential and all schools, whether comprehensive or selective, to meet the needs of their most talented pupils. I am responding here to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. We are developing a national strategy to improve the education of gifted and talented children, concentrating initially on pupils at secondary schools in the "Excellence in Cities" areas, which are the six largest conurbations.
  Every school will have a trained co-ordinator for gifted and talented pupils who will be responsible for implementing an effective whole-school policy, including a teaching and learning programme for able pupils. Schools will form local support networks to help spread good practice and provide a wider range of study support activities for able children. We are developing world-class tests, initially in maths and problem solving, so that the most able can compare their performance with the best in the world. Similarly, we are providing guidance to help primary teachers—again, this was a point raised in the debate—to meet the needs of their
  362
  most able pupils. That does not mean that we reject the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has consistently expressed his concern for the less-academically able pupils. I admire him for that. He did so throughout the passage of the school standards Bill. However, it means that those criticisms of our provision for the most able pupils are really not well justified.
  I do not agree with the noble Baroness's interpretation of what I said about top-class athletes. I really think that there is a difference between training people to win matches or races and training people for the wide range of activities which comprise adult life. I do not believe that anything that I said in a debate on sport can be transmuted to education as a whole—
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as the Minister only has three minutes left to speak, could I beg him to comment on the 27 per cent compared to the 62 per cent figure in Germany, and only 20 per cent of pupils getting A to C grades in French? That is indeed a worrying situation for a state system.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I had just about reached the point where I was going to say that I would respond to some of the points raised in the debate. Perhaps I may start by utterly rejecting the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—and, I am afraid, of my noble friend Lord Longford—that independent schools can somehow be called comprehensive—
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I never said so!
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend said that Eton, 80 years ago, did not select by ability.
  The Earl of Longford: Yes, my Lords; but I did not say that it was comprehensive.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's correction. However, if the definition of "comprehensive" for this purpose is not "selected by ability", which I think has been the theme of the debate, there is, nevertheless, some validity in my point. Of course that is not the case. Academic ability depends not only on innate ability but also on all kinds of social factors, as we know perfectly well from education statistics gathered in every country in the world over many years. The idea that performance in independent, fee paying schools—what are laughingly called public schools—can be compared with that in comprehensive schools does not hold water. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made that clear.
  I was asked particularly about Northern Ireland. I am sure that the statistics that have been given with regard to the social origins of those who get into university are valid. However, I believe it is also true that the gap between the achievements of the lower and the higher deciles in Northern Ireland is greater than in this

  363
  country. It is also true—the noble Lord ought to recognise this—that Scotland which has a completely non-selective system has high academic achievement.
  As regards exam results, my noble friend Lady David discussed that point effectively and pointed to the rise in examination results both at GCSE and A-level over the period during which comprehensive schools became prevalent in this country. We must recognise that although, as I said, some forms of selection for some purposes—for example, in particular subjects within schools—may be justifiable, we shall never go back to the abstract concepts of intelligence which were dreamed up or calculated by Sir Cyril Burt, whose memory is somewhat tarnished, and which achieved a quite unjustifiable scientific plausibility in this country in the years after the war. Those concepts are utterly unacceptable. The concept whereby—the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, recognised this—it was possible to say to a vast majority of the children of this country, "We have assessed you on a single scale at the age of 11 and you are failures" is a concept to which we shall not return.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, do children who do not get into the Oratory or into St Margaret's in Hammersmith and Fulham also feel that they are failures because the education they receive is not as good?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not answer questions about individuals. I never have done and I do not think that the noble Baroness should ask such questions.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.35 p.m.]

  House of Lords Bill
  8.36 p.m.
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 53:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  PEERAGE CLAIMS
  (" . Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to entertain a petition from a claimant to an hereditary peerage to succeed to that peerage or the provision made by that House for such a petition to be referred to the Committee for Privileges.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the Bill as presented to your Lordships' House is to eliminate hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. But it is not—and never has been, as I understand it—the declared aim of the Government to have eliminated the hereditary peerage itself. So long as there is a hereditary peerage there has to be some way—a legally authoritative way—of determining disputed rights of succession or contested claims. Hitherto these disputes
  364
  have been determined in the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House, where the authority of noble and learned Law Lords has been available to guide your Lordships' House.
  The Crown is the fount of honour. But the Crown has delegated the role of determining questions of a claim to a title, or proving succession to a title, to your Lordships' House. This amendment touches on a matter which is important to the integrity of the hereditary peerage. It affirms that present arrangements should remain intact. We hope for a categoric assurance from the Government that they have no intention of advising the Crown on, or proposing to the House, an alteration in present procedures. If they have, it would be helpful to your Lordships' House to have some insight into their alternative thinking now for members of the hereditary peerage. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. We have no intention of changing any of the rules of succession and inheritance of the hereditary peerage. We do not intend to remove any of the rights or attributes which do not relate to membership of Parliament. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has expressed this matter. I can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary because the Bill does not affect the rights of either the House or the Committee for Privileges in this matter. They will continue to have their present jurisdiction in relation to all hereditary peerages, just as—I hope to add this as a word of comfort—they retain it in relation to Irish peerages, even though the latter have no right to be Members of this House.
  Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful and constructive reply. In those circumstance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Torrington Viscount Torrington moved Amendment No. 54:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL
  (" . The Secretary of State shall petition the Sovereign as to the striking of a commemorative medal to be awarded to peers who have received a writ of summons to attend the present Parliament and who become disqualified by this Act from attending any Session of Parliament after the Session in which this Act is passed in right of an hereditary peerage.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Liverpool, I must at the very outset admit—for those of your Lordships who have not yet twigged—that it is a device to raise a slightly more serious subject.
  While some of your Lordships who may possibly be forced into early retirement by the passing of the Bill may enjoy or appreciate a long service medal, there is the bones of a case for something just a little more tangible or at any rate more useful. The connection between that and the medal of the amendment is simply that medals struck and awarded on the Sovereign's orders can, and sometimes do, I understand, carry an entitlement to a pension or stipend.
  As far as I know, this subject has not previously raised its head in our formal debates on the progress of the Bill. I know that it has generated a little heat outside this Chamber and to give it an airing today might, as it were, clear the air a little. There is an argument which usually runs along the following lines. Since Peers receive only expenses and not remuneration, if they lose the right to sit in the House they no longer incur the expenses of coming here, and therefore they are not in need of any compensation for loss of their rights to sit here. I believe that is a slightly disingenuous argument.
  I wish at the outset to get away from the use of the word "compensation", whether for loss of rights to sit, loss of office or whatever. Yes, of course, there is a respectable argument that hereditary Peers are losing a valuable right, a right which, if assignable, could command a very substantial value. Lloyd George proved this in the early part of this century in spades double vulnerable, and I think there have been one or two cases since. There is even an arcane argument which runs that the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House is a form of real property.
  I do not wish to advance either of those arguments, I promise your Lordships. Even I can see that to advance the idea that the taxpayer should, in effect, have to buy back rights from people who are perceived—not always correctly—as members of a wealthy and privileged class is clearly an argument which will not go very far.
  My proposal is that those who are being forced into premature political oblivion by the passing of the Bill should perhaps be entitled to some modest recompense for past services in the form of a little assistance, where needed, for the future. As I pointed out in Committee a short while ago when my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare raised the idea of a compulsory retirement age for life Peers, the Labour Party's own evidence to the Royal Commission shed some interesting light on this matter. That evidence, in paragraph 6.10, states:
  "The Labour Party is not in favour of a retirement age for existing life Peers who were appointed for life and who may have organised their affairs accordingly".
  In my opinion, in coded language that means that many life Peers probably have not made very effective pension arrangements and probably expect to rely on their attendance allowance to maintain, or at least supplement, their lifestyles. I asked the other day, if life Peers have organised their lives that way, is it not reasonable to expect that many hereditary Peers have organised their lives in the same manner. Clearly it would seem that the Labour Party believes that its life Peers must be financially protected but that the Tory hereditaries can be thrown to the wolves.
  The ending of the right to attend and the loss of allowances that go with it will in quite a few cases lead to dislocation and the need for expensive rearrangement of Peers' personal affairs. Some will need to sell London flats or houses, the outgoings on which have been funded by the overnight allowance; others will have to seek employment for which they have no particular skills or suitability; yet others will simply have to accept a greatly reduced lifestyle, being past employment age.
  As I have frequently heard admitted on the Benches opposite, many hereditary Peers have given distinguished service to this House, and thereby to the country, out of a sense of duty over many years. Accepting that duty, that obligation to serve, which hitherto went hand in hand with the right to a seat, has often been a burden and a restriction on the proper development of an alternative career. Now these same people are about to be unceremoniously slung out, with their financial receipts reduced and their source of day-to-day intellectual interest cut off. I particularly mention "intellectual interest" because your Lordships are noted for your longevity. I am sure that it is a sense of continuing involvement, however peripheral, in the great affairs of state which accounts, at least in part, for that longevity. It is quite conceivable that some of your Lordships will die younger than they otherwise might as a result of the Bill. I will not push the point, but it is a possibility.
  Members of the other place live with the ever-present possibility that their political careers may be long or short. Either way, as I understand it, they earn the right within a single Parliament to a pension entitlement. Peers are awarded no such consideration.
  All of those points seem to suggest that some form of readjustment allowance, relocation expenses, terminal bonus, modest pension—call it what you will—based perhaps on length of service, for forcibly retiring hereditary Peers would not be unjustified. My amendment does not set out to say what it should be or try to quantify it; it merely provides a conduit through which some modest largesse could be delivered. Those Peers who are particularly wealthy could give it to charity; those who are in need of it will at least have some recompense for their past services.
  If adopted, my amendment will do the Bill no harm whatever. At worst, from the Government's point of view it would cost a few pounds to run up some cupra-nickel discs with the polite version of "Good riddance" on the back. Much better, it would provide the Government with a chance and a way to show a little magnanimity in victory and that they have a caring heart; to be merciful, as the noble Lord. Lord Howie, said earlier on the subject of ancillary rights.
  Of course the easiest and most painless way to deal with this matter would be simply to leave all Peers here and adopt the format of the 1968 Bill or the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. Sadly, I feel that the latter is too mathematically complex, even for my noble friend Lord Ferrers—I am sorry that he is not in his seat—and too much of a sensible British compromise for the Government Front Bench; it is insufficiently cataclysmic or macho. But it has merits and should be considered. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, to which I have added my name. I support his speech in totality.
  I wish to focus on his point about recompense. It is important that we understand why we, as hereditary Peers, attend the House. We do not attend because we

  367
  have an hereditary Peerage; we attend because we are summoned by Writ. That Writ is sent under the seal of the Queen's most Excellent Majesty and is personally addressed to us by name. I should like to read the wording of the main passage of the writ because it is important. It reads as follows:
  "Whereas Our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church is now met at Our City of Westminster We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and the dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament with Us and with the Prelates Nobles and Peers of Our said Kingdom to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid And this as you regard Us and Our honour and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and Church and dispatch of the said affairs in nowise do you omit".
  I quote that because at the age of 24 I was in receipt of that summons; that is 31 years ago. I took that Writ most seriously. It came from the highest authority in the land. It may not therefore surprise your Lordships to know that I regarded it as my duty to attend this House. There were privileges and duties and this was a duty which I believed it was incumbent upon me to discharge.
  The point I want to make is that I do not know where my career would have gone if I had not responded to the Writ. To say that I could possibly have landed up being chairman of ICI may seem preposterous to some noble Lords and I might actually agree with them. I did respond to the Writ: my life took a course as a result of that. In fact, there are many noble Lords who attend this House on a regular basis to whom this point applies equally.
  I think my noble friend's argument that some recompense should be provided to those hereditary Peers who will be denied a place in this House if this legislation passes is wholly relevant. Indeed, I think a good case could be made to the Court of Human Rights at The Hague. I await with interest the Minister's response to this amendment, which I support completely.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I hope I shall not disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, too much by not talking about points they have just raised in respect of the Writ of Summons, on which we have had at least five debates which must have lasted at least 10 hours, and the other questions relating to recompense which are not mentioned at all in the amendment. I shall speak to the amendment.
  I have an admission to make. This amendment has split the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Some of my colleagues are very hard hearted and believe that the principle by which people who do not stand for election or get defeated in election then receive a medal is alien to the tradition of British democracy. I do not support that contention. However, although having considerable sympathy with the concept of striking a commemorative medal for those hereditary Peers who will no longer be Members of your Lordships' House after autumn, I feel that I must enter a caveat. I could not support a proposal to strike a medal for those who are no longer here unless a similar medal, possibly in several classes, were struck for those Members of your Lordships' House who have sat through the debates on this Bill.
  368
  In my view, there is an overwhelming case for having a special class of medal struck for those very few Members of your Lordships' House who have voted on every Division called by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Those Members of your Lordships' House who were not here at 1.15 in the morning when we voted on an amendment as to whether there should be an "a" or an "an" in the Bill in relation to the phrase "hereditary Peer" may not realise why I feel so strongly on this issue. I hope therefore that in responding to this debate, the Government look not only in detail at the terms of the amendment, but will consider the points which I have made in terms of extending its scope to deal with those of us, life and hereditary Peers alike, who have sat through the entire deliberations on this Bill and helped to develop a more modern constitution in this country.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I too rather share the view that a medal would be a nice thing. I am not so concerned to support the financial proposals that I have heard raised, but I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that a medal in different classes would be appropriate. Speaking for myself, I rather fancy one with oak leaves and something to hang around my neck. I think that would look rather good.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the contributions of my noble friends Lord Torrington and Lord Liverpool range rather wider than one might have suspected from the subject matter of the amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect on the content of those speeches. Meanwhile, as to the question of a commemorative medal, for the first time in my life, I find myself in sympathy with the views expressed by the Liberal Front Bench and I think the medal ought to be confined to those who have served throughout your Lordships' many debates during the Committee and Report stages. I am quite sure that both of my noble friends would receive medals of the highest class as a result of their own contributions.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, in responding to this amendment, it is quite clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, are not aware of that injunction in the Companion which says that a debate should be relevant to the Question before the House. The Question before the House is the issue of a commemorative medal and, as I understand it, the intention is that those hereditary Peers who are to be excluded will receive this medal. This question of the pension, stipend or whatever was then introduced. I do not think I could have put the answer to the question about expenses any better than did the noble Viscount: that is, if the costs are not incurred, the expenses will not be paid. It is as simple as that and I think that is the attitude that the Revenue would take.
  I was also intrigued by the idea that the hereditary peerage has an assignable value. How would you handle it? Would you auction it at Sotheby's?
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I never suggested that it had an

  369
  assignable value; I was merely asking whether it had an assignable value. Perhaps Lloyd George gave us some idea of what that assignable value might have been.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend has just said that they could pawn it. I am not entirely clear whether noble Lords want the money or the medal or both. That is something we shall have to find out.
  We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we greatly value the input of some hereditary Peers to the work of your Lordships' House. However, we do not think the effect of this amendment is the right way in which to show our gratitude to those among us who will be leaving at the end of this Session; certainly not in the form of a pension or a stipend. I was interested in the remark about the loss of the day-to-day intellectual interest of your Lordships' House. That has been particularly marked during the passage of this Bill, I have to say.
  I think that there are many among us who would think it unfair that medals should be handed out to all who leave this House under the provisions of the Bill. It would be invidious to name names but there are some Peers, hereditary and indeed life, who in the previous Session failed to attend your Lordships' House for even a single day, despite the injunction in the Writ of Summons asking them to be present, which was read out. There are also Peers who not only attend regularly but also contribute effectively to the work we undertake in this House. This amendment will, of course, give all such Peers a medal and presumably a pension, irrespective of their attendance level and, more importantly, irrespective of their contribution to the effective running of your Lordships' House.
  What of the hereditary Peers who will remain in your Lordships' House? What should they get besides the "Iron Cross with Bar" that all of us should get from sitting through this Bill? It seems that the 92 who stay will not be entitled to a commemorative medal although I have to say that I doubt very much whether this factor will have them refusing to stand for election.
  We should really take this seriously. I could not help wondering what the inscription on such a medal might be. Reflecting on the number of defeats this Government have suffered since the election, your Lordships should be interested to know that, in the first Session, the Government were defeated 38 times. On the votes of life Peers, they would have been defeated five times. In this Session, the Government have been defeated 15 times. On the votes of life Peers, they would have been defeated once. So, the defeats since the election have been roughly three times the level of defeats of previous Conservative governments. I think the appropriate inscription might be, "Conservative hereditary Peers rampant on a Government Chief Whip couchant".
  The sentiment behind this amendment is kind but misplaced. Of course there should be something to mark the departure of the hereditary Peers, but it is not as though we are removing their peerages. Those hereditary Peers who will leave once this Bill becomes law will retain their peerage. I would argue—I am sure
  370
  they would agree—that that, rather than a medal, shows far more clearly the service that they and their forebears have given to the nation. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I was about to say I think it is an achievement to have split the Liberal Democrats, but then the Liberal Democrats came about as a result of a number of splits, so that perhaps is not such a great achievement.
  I was hoping for, and I suppose I have just had, some warm words from the Government, but clearly they have a cold heart. I should like to thank my noble friends and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I had slightly hoped that perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have replied to this debate because I have been considering what my ideal medal would look like. I was thinking in terms of a nice piece of ribbon attached to something about the size, for those of you who are old enough to remember it, of a silver thruppenny bit, something that was called a "tickey" in my South African upbringing. Naturally, on the obverse side would be her Majesty's head. On the other side, I thought we needed a nice device, something heraldic, possibly the Royal Coats of Arms. I think it is called the Privy Seal. Then I began to think that perhaps the Keeper of the Privy Seal, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, herself might have made a very attractive "tail" for this medal. However, I fear that it is not to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 56:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  STYLE OF DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . The expressions "Lord of Parliament" and "Peer of Parliament" shall not include any person who is disqualified by Section 1 from attending, sitting or voting in the House of Lords.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been told that we need to get on a little. I shall therefore not move Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
  [Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
  9 p.m.
  Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 58A:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  HEREDITARY PEERS TO RETAIN RIGHT TO USE CHAPEL OF ST MARY UNDERCROFT
  (" . Hereditary peers who cease to be members of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act shall retain their right to use the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns those hereditary Peers who will have to relinquish their rights to use the Crypt Chapel if and when the Bill becomes an Act. To approach the Crypt Chapel, one goes through Westminster Hall. One has no need to go into any other areas of the Palace of

  371
  Westminster. The Members of your Lordships' House who utilise the Crypt as a private sanctuary and for christenings and weddings have done so for many years. Many of your Lordships' families have used the prescribed hereditary rights for generations. That is the main difference from the rights that are used by Members of another place.
  The Crypt Chapel is in the authority of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I suspect that it will not be possible to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. I suppose that I should apologise for bringing the amendment forward at this stage. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to have brought it forward at the Committee stage. However, I think there is merit in having a small discussion on it. I hope that the Government will see fit to offer some sympathetic words and not give that as a reason for a short answer.
  I have brought forward the amendment in order to clarify the consequences for hereditary Peers if and when the Bill becomes an Act and to gain perhaps a small amount of support and sympathy from your Lordships for that dilemma. I am optimistic that your Lordships will slim some compassion and express a feeling of sympathy for those hereditary Peers. It is to be hoped that their expression of feeling will be such that they will wish to see the retention of those prescribed rights of access to the Crypt for religious worship and for the continuity of their families who have worshipped there for generations.
  The future reformed House, I suspect, may well wish to say something on this matter at a later date but I think it is important to stress that if the hereditaries were allowed to continue to use the Crypt Chapel it would in no way infringe on any accesses, rights or privileges in the rest of the Palace of Westminster. I have also taken the opportunity to approach various appropriate authorities of the Crypt Chapel. They have indicated that there would be little difficulty in its ability to accommodate the present practice. I shall listen with interest not only to what other noble Lords have to say on the amendment but also to the Government's response. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I have to declare an interest. My three children and my three grandchildren have all had religious services in the Crypt Chapel and it is very much my desire that my son and my grandson, if not myself, should continue to have the opportunity.
  As my noble friend said, this is in the gift of the Lord Great Chamberlain. The only thing I would ask the Government Front Bench to offer is a statement that they would not intend to impede the Lord Great Chamberlain in his desire to accommodate those hereditary Peers who wish to use the Chapel for their services.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, there is a great deal of merit in this amendment. One can understand the argument that dispossessed Peers, so to speak. would crowd out the Library, the bars and the dining rooms if
  372
  they were allowed to continue to use them, but that argument does not apply to the Crypt Chapel. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response.
  The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment. As I said when we were debating Amendment No. 54, I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for 31 years. It has also been my privilege regularly to attend services in St Mary Undercroft. I very much hope that the Government will be able to look with some sympathy on the amendment, despite the fact that this is in the gift of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I hope that I shall not be denied being able to seek spiritual guidance in St Mary Undercroft and being able to use it as a place of sanctuary and as a place for quiet reflection and worship.
  Lord Annaly: My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill since the Second Reading debate. I wish simply to add my words of support to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. At the same time I declare an interest in that my father, after my mother had died, married a second time in St Mary Undercroft in about 1960. I had a sister who was christened there. After my father had died, I led one of my sisters up the aisle of St Mary Undercroft. So I declare three interests on that score.
  If one happens to live in a village and have connections there one can make arrangements to have one's children christened or whatever it may be in the village church. This is a slightly different situation from the Library, restaurants and other facilities. I hope that the powers that be, in the form of the Government or the Lord Great Chamberlain if it is his prerogative, will consider this matter favourably.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although we do not think this matter should appear on the face of the Bill, we think that the principle behind it is laudable and hope that noble Lords opposite, both Government and Back-Bench, will do everything they can to ensure that when it comes to dealing with the arrangements of former hereditary Peers, should we reach that stage, this matter will be dealt with with the utmost sympathy.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that however sympathetic any of us might be to the thought behind the amendment it is out of the hands of Parliament. The Chapel of St Mary Undercroft is ecclesiastically part of the Royal Peculiar of Westminster Abbey, as has been said. It is located physically within the Palace of Westminster. Control of its use is the responsibility of the Lord Great Chamberlain. It is nothing to do with the House of Lords or indeed the House of Commons. In practice, the Chapel and access to it are managed by Black Rod, in consultation with the Speaker's Chaplain. This is not a matter for legislation to decide, or indeed for the Government to express a view on. It is for the authorities of the Palace of Westminster. If there were to be a proposal for any change in the arrangements, it would be a matter for the Lord Great Chamberlain to discuss with the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Lords.

  373
  For those reasons, we obviously cannot accept the amendment. We understand the thought behind it, but it is not a matter for this Bill or this Chamber.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who supported my amendment. I suppose that I should also declare an interest, in that I am a godfather to the grandson of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam.
  I detected a slight hint of sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I hope that if various mechanisms take place at a later stage others of your Lordships will express sympathy then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 58B:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  CONSTITUTIONAL BILLS: VOTING RIGHTS OF HEREDITARY PEERS
  (" . Section I shall not apply in respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a constitutional bill or a bill including constitutional provisions, and any person who was the holder of a hereditary peerage and who was entitled to a writ of summons to attend that House on the day before this Act comes into force shall continue to be entitled to sit and vote on such proceedings.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg the House to reflect on our responsibilities—I say this as a Cross-Bench Peer—as politicians, not party punching politicians. Many Peers have sought legal advice from counsel and counsel's opinion. Some of your Lordships have already received that advice. I am sure that they are aware that it was obtained as a result of private finance. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, talks of the legal advice given to the Government. Where is it? As it has obviously been financed by the public, surely it should be in the public domain.
  I do not think the House will find the rationale for my amendments—we are considering Amendment No. 58C with Amendment No. 58B—at all obscure or surprising, since they follow the logic of comments from most parts of the House over past months. Most of us started on these reforms with the intent of arriving at a more legitimately balanced House, as part of a Parliament that can represent the people in controlling the executive. Probably most of us think that we are not achieving that, least of all with the Bill as it stands.
  Let us make no mistake. This is not a party matter of a compromise to be agreed through the usual channels, however strangely used, that is not negotiable, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks—and says throughout. If that were true, the whole House would be compromised. For the argument is between Parliament and the Executive, and what executive ever relishes a parliament that can control it? Nevertheless, any government, like every man, can become wise only by taking into account what others say and believe.
  In the Bill we have to deal with the interim House, and it may be a very long interim. So of course the ideal would be for the interim House to mirror the House as we hope it will become so far as it is in our power—
  374
  that is, without legislation—to achieve it. But legislation should at least not stand in the way of that, especially as the Bill does close out both now and for the future the best that the House has shown itself capable of. That is why the watchword of this House has for so long been "No stage one without stage two". Have we now truly forgotten ourselves?
  We must take into account the contributions of my hereditary colleagues, especially in the developing system of committees in the field of government. This development, ranging from Europe to science and technology, interest rates, deregulation and so on, has been the startling but undramatic achievement of the House over the past decade. No one can seriously maintain that a suggested limit of 90 hereditary Peers could do anything but damage that. In fact, the compromise is worse than having no hereditary Peers at all. To have none would be plainly seen at once as the work of a self-serving Executive.
  This House must not unduly hamper the Government in getting their proper business through. On the other hand, it cannot allow the Government, for their own convenience, to dismember Parliament. All Peers have a duty to ensure a better successor House. Therefore, I have proposed two new clauses which I hope will be seen as a fair compromise between this House and the Government. The clauses do not hamper the Government in getting their business through, unless it is business related to constitutional matters. Perhaps I may remind the House that we spent 18 days debating the Scottish devolution Bill; 10 days on the Bill to set up the Welsh Assembly; eight days on the Northern Ireland Bill; eight days the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill; two days the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill; and we have dedicated our time, thought and effort to the Jenkins voting system in five separate debates.
  Of hereditaries, only the Cranborne-Weatherill 90—if they do not make the Bill hybrid—stay both to sit and to vote on ordinary business. Under my proposals, other hereditary Peers will be unable to vote at all against the Government on non-constitutional matters. So the Government will have for the first time the chance to see what the life Peers really think of them, unmasked by any hereditary vote. That should be revealing and salutary.
  But hereditary Peers should always be able to attend and speak. They will have the chance to show what the power of logic can do, even unsupported by a vote. The duty to "advise and counsel" is what this House is here to perform. But conversely, the House should remain as it is in the interim for the purpose of ensuring its effective successor—in a Division if need be. Sadly, we have all learnt that this is not a listening Government. The overall result of the new clauses would be a better balanced interim House, better able to build on the best of what we already have and to hold the Executive to account.
  The Executive is not compelled to listen to Parliament as things are if it does not want to. It merely repeats itself, throughout. As a Cross-Bencher and independent, I can now reveal one hereditary right to which throughout our debates no one has yet referred. It is this.

  375
  Every government inherits from their predecessor, of whatever colour, the interest to evade or weaken the power of Parliament if they can. It is that hereditary interest—to evade and weaken the power of Parliament—which, above all, this House must continually eject. All governments are "born to rule"—but only through a Parliament that can control them.
  Amendments tabled previously—and perhaps I may mention to the Minister that I have still not received the Standing Orders for the Weatherill-Cranborne amendment in Clause 2, for which I asked on 25th May—have had similar underlying aims. I refer, for example, to those tabled by noble Lords who want, before the legislation takes effect, a referendum on reform proposals and/or a sight of they Royal Commission's findings. One good way at least of achieving those and further aims is embodied in the new clauses. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg t o move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord wished us to approach these amendments as parliamentarians and not as party politicians. I accept that. Let me try to do so. As I understand the two propositions, all existing hereditary Peers should continue to have the right to sit in this House and participate in debates, but that on constitutional matters, however they may be defined, not only should they have the right to sit and debate, and argue and present their point of view; they should also have the right to vote. I cannot accept that. The object of this reform which the Government have set their hand to, presaged with great precision in the manifesto upon which we won the last election, was not to ameliorate the position with regard to the anomaly of the hereditary Peers' parliamentary rights but to remove it.
  I can perfectly well see that, if I were in the position of the noble Lord as a hereditary Peer, I should be saying that, by my contribution, my argument, my powers of persuasion and my force of character, I should be able to persuade all those who had a vote that they ought to do what I urge them to do. I do not know—I have never been in the position of a hereditary Peer—but I suppose that, if I were, when it comes to infringements of the constitution of the country it is only the hereditary Peers that can be relied upon to behave with independence and propriety in order to safeguard the constitution, the Monarchy and the Crown—I nearly said "the Empire": I am sure that a few decades ago that would have figured in the speech too.
  With great respect, what the noble Lord proposes may seem to him a reasonable compromise between the existing position of the hereditary Peerage and extinction, but from my point of view—and I hope I am speaking in as parliamentary way as he would like me to—we have not come here in order to produce a compromise for the hereditary Peers but to remove their constitutional and parliamentary rights to participate as hereditary legislators in the United Kingdom. I cannot accept what the noble Lord urges.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has done the House a great service in bringing forward these amendments. He is right in much of what he says. But, sadly, the noble
  376
  Lord, Lord Richard, has laid out what the Bill is about: it is to remove the right of the noble Lord, of myself and of many others to sit and vote in this House. Therefore the arguments that the noble Lord has put forward so cogently have fallen on deaf ears. I suspect that the Government will repeat, more or less, what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. It is because the Government are so stubbornly refusing to consider the case for "no stage one without stage two", about which they have been remarkably consistent over the course of the past two years, that I think these amendments are dcomed to fail. I, for one, regret that.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that I am sorry that he has not discovered the draft Standing Orders in the Library of this House; they have, in fact, been available since 31st March and have obviously been read by a number of your Lordships.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has taken an assiduous interest in the Bill. Having been slightly cross with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, earlier when he made personal remarks about other people's attention, I hesitate to say that some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord would suggest that he has been equally inattentive. II is certainly the case that the principle and burden of these amendments have been discussed on Second Reading and in Committee and the principle has been discussed many times in ancillary debates on other amendments.
  I recognise that the noble Lord has taken account of comments which were made in earlier debates on his and other amendments and has changed his proposal to one that includes only existing Members of this House and not their heirs. However, in my view and that of the Government, it suggests in principle that there is a danger to our fundamental constitution if the hereditary Peers do not continue to be Members of your Lordships' House in such great numbers as they are at present. This does not address two of our fundamental problems with the present situation and the proposals we are putting forward, as my noble friend Lord Richard put it so elegantly a few minutes ago.
  To follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I do not need to repeat my own arguments on this subject; I can simply quote from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who, in debate on a similar amendment put forward by Lord Renton of Mount Harry on 29th April, raised the issue:
  "as to how sensible it is to imply that any group of people outside the membership of either House of Parliament should have a reserved constitutional role which acts as a sort of guardian for Parliament … this is the sort of question which properly belongs in Parliament … I find it constitutionally odd that Parliament itself should not be trusted to perform one of its central functions in its control of government".—[Official Report, 29th April 1999; col. 466.]
  That is, current Members of the Houses of Parliament. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount: Parliament is the guardian of our constitution.
  As I am sure the noble Lord is aware—I shall not weary the House by repeating our arguments on this particular point—the Government also reject the

  377
  implication that only hereditary Peers, whether current Members of your Lordships' House or those who will not be excepted Members of your Lordships' House in the transition, can be trusted to be independent. The amendment contains the fatal flaw, which was pointed out last time this matter was discussed, that it does not define what is a constitutional Bill, let alone one that contains constitutional provisions that are supposedly the subject of these particular exceptions to the terms of the Act. The amendment is fundamentally at odds with the scheme of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Richard explained; and, with the commitment to which Clause 2 gives effect, the amendment is doubly at odds. I urge the House to reject it.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will forgive me if I deal briefly with Amendment No. 58C. It proposes that hereditary Peers should retain the right to sit and speak in this House but vote only in the circumstances described in Amendment No. 58B. We have debated the idea of the so-called "two-Writ system" many, many times but, beyond debate, it is one of the very few issues that have been put to the vote. The House has already decided twice that it is not interested in this approach. It decided it once positively on the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on 27th April, and it decided it again, by implication, on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on 11th May when the House voted overwhelmingly to include what is now Clause 2. This approach really is exhausted, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the very few noble Lords who have spoken to my amendments, most of whom are on the Government side. It is sad that, predictably, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is inflexible in his approach to this matter. None the less, everyone has the right to an opinion, and I respect that. I must correct one observation of the Leader of the House. I did not ask for the draft Standing Orders—I was well aware that they had been available since March—but the Standing Orders.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Standing Orders have not been agreed because the Procedure Committee that has been summoned to consider them has not yet met. I understand that arrangements are being actively pursued through the usual channels to do that, but the Standing Orders per se cannot appear until the Procedure Committee agrees them.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps if a letter had been sent to me to explain that, I would not have brought up the matter this evening.
  I did raise the constitutional question to some extent. I spoke about the various elements of devolution and election in relation to particular parts of the United Kingdom, once upon a time, and with regard to Europe. Perhaps the Leader of the House will forgive me for correcting her on that.
  378
  My amendment promotes the idea of reform as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It does not disagree entirely with the amendments to Clause 2 which were moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and my noble friend Lord Weatherill, but it amends fairly an amendment which was passed by about 300 Peers. Nearly 1,000 did not take part in that mandate. It strikes me how similar those figures are to the proportion of the electorate who gave the present Government a majority of 179 in another place.
  Just as the majority, almost 70 per cent, should have attended the polling booths at the general election, I feel that this House should not feel embarrassed if asked to "adjust the helm" just a little further for the sake of this country and others affected by our Parliament's constitutional practices.
  The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and passed by a majority in excess of 100, related to guarding our constitution. Amendment No. 58B relates closely to the same matter: a balanced constitution and a fair Parliament. I understand the comments on the amendments standing in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 58C not moved.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 58D:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 1: NON-VOTING PEERS
  (" .—(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 2, at any one time no more than 90 peers by succession shall be excepted from section 1 by this section in accordance with Standing Orders of the House, and they shall be entitled to sit but not to vote in the House or in any Committee of the House.
  (2) Standing Orders shall provide that the 90 hereditary peers so excepted shall consist of the following categories—

  (a) no more than 2 peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers;

  (b) no more than 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

  (c) no more than 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers;

  (d) no more than 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers; and

  (e) no more than 15 peers elected by the whole House.

  (3) A person may be excepted from section 1 by or in accordance with Standing Orders made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section.
  (4) Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is more modest than Amendment No. 58C to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, spoke. It allows 90 hereditary Peers to remain in the interim House with the right to sit and speak in the House or any Committee, but not to vote.
  This is not a matter which has been disposed of in earlier debates on the Bill, nor in Divisions, whether actual or implicit. At the cutting edge, the amendment is intended to include the right to move amendments and

  379
  to ask for the opinion of the House or any Committee but to exclude the right to give voice on "Question put", or to take part in Divisions.
  There is a parallel here with the procedures already adopted in this House over the past decade when a Public Bill is referred to a Select Committee called a Public Bill Committee. The right to speak, but not to vote, on legislation is not a new concept.
  The amendment envisages that the speaking Peers will be elected by the same electoral colleges as will elect the Weatherill 90 and in accordance with Standing Orders to be made by the House. There is the crucial distinction of which I am much aware. I am in no position to prescribe the Standing Orders. I cannot gridlock the House. There is a certain amount which can and should be on the face of the Bill, including the substance of this amendment which, if agreed to by the House, would, in accordance with the advice of the Clerks, make the Bill prima facie hybrid. But if I seek to press the amendment, I shall surely be met by some such rejoinder as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor uttered on an earlier occasion at col. 818 of the Official Report of 25th May. He said:
  "So far as this Chamber is concerned … whether the relevant provisions are in the Standing Orders or on the face of the Bill makes no difference. However, there is the signal advantage of having these provisions in the Standing Orders; namely, that it excludes the possibility of the other place not only having views on these subjects—which it certainly does—but also having the opportunity to assert different views".
  There is also the problem of hybridity which dogs the amendment. If I do not press the amendment today, it will be because of this matter and because I wish to test feelings on various aspects of the concept of speaking Peers—that has not yet been addressed—and because I shall have decided to bring back an amendment at Third Reading which would commit the House to include speaking Peers but would leave the detail to be worked out by the Procedure Committee and the House itself.
  When I was young there were tales of a bird, until quite recently thought to be extinct, the mugwump. It had the unique characteristic that it would sit on the fence with its mug on one side and its wump on the other, and it would magnificently keep this up for months at a time.
  The last time that we had a full debate on the matter of speaking Peers was in Committee on the 27th April. My noble friend Lord Ferrers moved his amendment to keep all hereditary Peers here on an hereditary basis for the interim House but without voting rights. All that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had to say from my Front Bench (col. 271) was that my noble friend Lord Cranborne had made some very interesting points on the issue of sitting and voting, speaking in an earlier debate, with which he, Lord Strathclyde, speaking as a former Chief Whip, had every sympathy.
  Perhaps I may ask my noble friend some questions. Others on these Benches may be as interested as I am to hear his replies. Does he agree that to have 90 speaking Peers is in no sense at all an affront or an alternative to Weatherill? However, it is sometimes described in that way. It is in fact a supplement. The
  380
  proposal would supplement Weatherill without affecting the political balance of the House. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not dealing with this debate tonight is surely an indication that this amendment has nothing to do with Weatherill, because the Weatherill amendment is the particular baby of the noble and learned Lord whom I once referred to elsewhere as the Pied Piper.
  Does my noble friend agree that there is a bank of experience among hereditary Peers which would be of value to the interim House? The 42 Weatherill Peers to be elected from these Benches would most desirably, from the point of view of those on these Benches, be committed to the House on a full-time working basis. Other hereditary Peers would not wish or would not be able to assume that commitment, perhaps because they are elder statesmen, perhaps because they are relatively young and work full time, perhaps again because they would only wish to participate in regard to their particular concerns and interests and from their special parliamentary experience. Does my noble friend see no advantage in having these people here? These are important questions.
  Before I conclude, may I add that at present I hold no particular brief either for elections or for any particular form of election of speaking Peers. The method of selection I presented in this amendment is really no more than a convenient and familiar starting point. In my opinion it also makes sense. With that, I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, until the noble Lord spoke I am bound to say that I had not appreciated the full flavour and grandeur of the amendment that he is proposing. As I understand the position, if this amendment were to be carried there would be 90 so-called Weatherill Peers who would be elected by their various constituencies and who would have the full rights that hereditary Peers have at present in the House. In addition to that there would then be another 90 to be elected from the same electorate. I am not quite sure whether the electorate would then include the 90 that had already been elected or whether it would not, but there would be another election from the same electorate which would produce another 90 hereditary Peers who would continue to sit in the House but who would not have the right to vote.
  If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, were to be accepted, we would end up by having 180 hereditary Peers permanently in the House, 90 of whom would have the right to vote and 90 of whom would not have the right to vote. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head in agreement. I am obliged for that. If that is seriously being suggested tonight, I can only repeat, but I will not for the sake of brevity, what I have said on a number of other occasions. It would seem to me to run totally contrary to the purpose and the objectives of this Bill. As such I would find such proposals profoundly and totally unacceptable.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree in principle with a great deal of what my noble friend, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said in support of his two amendments

  381
  moved just now. I did not rise to support him because I thought there was not the slightest chance of his amendments being accepted. However, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, are very much more modest and I think that they do deserve serious consideration.
  It is not always appreciated what a tiny proportion of our time we spend in this House trooping through the Division Lobbies. Many a week goes by without a single Division taking place. But during those weeks a great deal of work is done both in the Chamber and in Select Committees. A great many novel or insufficiently understood ideas and propositions are expounded, some of which are subsequently taken up by the Government or one of the Opposition parties. Non-contentious drafting errors in Bills are drawn to the Government's attention. Penetrating Questions, Starred and for Written Answers, are tabled and asked. Voting is only a small part of the constructive work which this House does. Indeed, tonight, some Members of the Government Benches may believe that voting is very far from constructive.
  Noble Lords who have been Members of this House for a few years know in their hearts, even if they will not admit it openly, that if only 92 hereditary Peers remain, a great deal of expertise will be lost to Parliament. Permitting an additional 90 hereditary Peers to continue to contribute verbally, although not otherwise, would ensure that Parliament would continue to benefit from that expertise without upsetting the political balance.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coleraine challenged me to answer a few questions and I am delighted to be able to do so. First, perhaps I may say that if I were sitting on the Government Front Bench, seeing this kind of amendment would immediately urge me to rush along to whoever I had to obey and recommend acceptance of it. It deals with so many of the objections which have been made by noble Lords opposite during the course of the debates. It is very humble in its attempts to deal with the problem that a number of Peers who have enormous experience and knowledge outside this House will be excluded and that experience and knowledge will be lost. That is the answer to the question which my noble friend asked me.
  Furthermore, the proposal is not an alternative to the Weatherill amendment. It is a complement to it and can work side by side with the amendment, which is now Clause 2. The comments I made at an earlier stage related to the general principle of the entire hereditary peerage returning to sit but not to vote. As a former Chief Whip, I would have found it tiresome to listen to many Peers speaking on an issue and delaying the vote. But under the terms of this amendment, there would be so few sitters but not voters—"Coleraine Peers", if I may christen them that—and I believe that it is acceptable.
  382
  It would be nice to hear the Government suggest that this may be a way forward. I do not know the answer to the question of hybridity, but no doubt the Minister will have a reply. I hope that we shall hear a positive reply.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, urged me to rush along to the person I have to obey. I have done that and she told me not to accept the amendment! It is interesting that the passionate support which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gives to the amendment does not extend to calling on his troops to vote for it. But we have become used to that during the past weeks.
  As always, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, put his points most moderately, courteously and persuasively, but he failed to persuade me. He suggests that there should be another 90 Peers in addition to the Weatherill Peers who would be entitled to speak but not to vote. Bearing in mind that we spent eight days in Committee on a one-clause Bill, I thought that there might be some attraction in stopping them speaking and just letting them vote! I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was putting his two questions to me. Obviously he was putting them to the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, so I need not trouble to answer them.
  This is now at least the eighth time—one forgets; time goes so quickly when one is having fun—that we have debated the idea that there should be some Peers with different voting rights to other Peers. We have had at least 16 different amendments. That is in addition to the rather truncated debates we had on Clause 2 and other alternative schemes. It is right to say that after all this time we have decided very few things. We have decided two at least: first, that the House does not wish to see a two-Writ system, which is what the noble Lord, in effect, contemplates; and, secondly, that the House does not wish to alter the numbers in Clause 2.
  I therefore cannot support the amendments. I invite the noble Lord—as I believe he has indicated—not to put them to the vote.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his response to my amendment. He called it a humble amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to it as having a certain grandeur. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, realised that I was trying to double the number of hereditary Peers in this House for the period of the interim Chamber.
  As regards the suggestion that the amendment is contrary to the intention of the Bill, nothing could be more contrary to the intention of the Bill than the Weatherill amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that possibly the reason my noble Leader did not invite his friends behind him to join me in the Division Lobby was that he sensed I would not divide tonight. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 58DA:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  CONSULTATION WITH CROWN DEPENDENCIES AND OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  (" . Before the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall confirm to both Houses of Parliament that full consultation about the impact of this Act has taken place with the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom Crown Dependencies, in Britain's Overseas Territories and in the countries in which the terms of the Statute of Westminster 1931 may apply.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 58DA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63A and its listed schedules and Amendments Nos. 78A to D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
  In my previous speeches on the Bill and with my noble friend Lord Chesham I introduced the matter of the Commonwealth in relation to a reform of this House. I do so again because of the concerns about the apparent lack of consultations with the 53 governments of the Commonwealth states. I have widened the amendment to take into consideration the needs of the United Kingdom Crown dependencies and Britain's overseas territories. I do not believe that their views will be taken fully into account.
  For Commonwealth states, the purpose of the amendment is to reflect the spirit and intent of the Statute of Westminster and the various Acts following that Statute so that this Bill does not become law until consultations with all the Commonwealth states, Crown dependencies and overseas territories have been concluded.
  The amendment is introduced also in recognition of the courteous and friendly understanding by which each nation respects the laws of others, without prejudice to its own rights and interests; that is the Comity of Nations. It is also designed to uphold the constitutional rights of those hereditary Peers who are citizens of the Commonwealth states other than the United Kingdom as well as those of the Crown dependencies and Britain's overseas territories.
  There has been some acrimony in the debates, both in and out of Parliament, about the effect of the Bill on the sovereign's hereditary rights. Much of that focuses upon the effect of the Act upon the sovereign's rights and titles. Some Commonwealth citizens in authority now complain about the pressure exerted on them to extract consent to the changes that the Act would make to the sovereign's rights and titles.
  There seems to be a weaving of webs—of distraction and confusion—about the interpretation of simple facts. However, I cannot regard pronouncements made by Ministers as given law. Therefore I continue to challenge and differ with them. I see that the lack of support for many of the amendments proposed, designed to improve the Bill or to acknowledge existing laws and international commitments, allows the Government seemingly to ignore the legal rights of Commonwealth states and citizens. Perhaps I should be content to leave these matters to the courts.
  However, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to some basic facts about the Commonwealth. It has a population of 1.7 billion; that is one-third of the world's total population. The composition of its peoples is overwhelmingly not Caucasian. This Parliament is representative of less than 3.5 per cent of the Commonwealth population, yet it now legislates on matters concerning more than 96 per cent of the Commonwealth peoples who are certainly ethnic majorities. That is not a democratic credential for the Bill.
  In my speech at Committee stage, I stated that this Bill purports to remove the sovereign's hereditary right to create hereditary Peers with rights to attend this House. It is clear that the sovereign's right to create hereditary Peers as they now exist, will not be precisely the same if this Bill is enacted into law.
  Allow me to draw an analogy to illustrate my issue by use of a question; namely, that as citizens we are generally all entitled to leave our unencumbered property and possessions to whomever we wish. However, if Parliament enacted a law which changed that right by saying that we may not leave our property to a political party, would that right be precisely the same after such a Bill was passed, as it was before? The answer is clearly "No". Thus, removing from hereditary Peers the right to attend and sit in this House, also removes the sovereign's right to create a hereditary Peer who has such a right. The former right is not the same as the latter. Thus there would be a change to the sovereign's hereditary titles and rights. That being so, we must look to the statutes which protect the sovereign's rights; in this instance, to the Statute of Westminster 1931.
  Several eminent counsel have advised that this Bill cannot be lawfully presented for the Royal Assent unless and until the consent to the changes to the sovereign's titles have been given by the Commonwealth states. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will wish to expand on that matter. It has been well argued that the sovereign's hereditary title as Duke of Lancaster has been changed by the Act because as a Royal Duke, the sovereign is barred from attending and sitting here. That surely is a change to the sovereign's title. That dukedom's rights would no longer be what they were before the Act. Thus a specific hereditary right of the sovereign will be removed by the Act.
  The Statute of Westminster 1931 is of immense and profound importance in our constitution. It represents, indeed enacts, a solemn promise made by our United Kingdom Parliament and a former sovereign not to legislate unilaterally on matters touching upon the Crown and the succession. The Government have not reported to Parliament, despite requests in this House, concerning any discussions, consultations or dialogues with any Commonwealth country concerning the effects of the Act. It is claimed that there is considerable disquiet among Commonwealth countries about this Bill. If that is unfounded, surely the Government can assist to allay concerns and fears by reporting to Parliament about their dialogues with the Commonwealth concerning this Bill. I ask that for a second time.
  It is of equal importance to recognise that this Bill seeks to remove specific rights of Commonwealth citizens who are hereditary Peers, and in so doing it also seeks to legislate for states such as India, Canada and New Zealand. That being so, the Act would breach the Commonwealth principle of equality between nations incorporated in the Indian Independence Act 1947. That is just one example.
  Both amendments provide recognition for the "comity of nations", designed to ensure proper respect for the constitutional rights of those hereditary Peers who are citizens of Commonwealth members other than the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth has a proper and legitimate interest in the Bill. As one example, for the 16 Commonwealth countries of which the sovereign is also head of state, their interest is that the Act would remove their sovereign's hereditary rights and those of the heir.
  There are many hereditary Peers who live in the Commonwealth and who are citizens of Commonwealth states. This Parliament, by its own enactments, does not have the power to legislate for the removal of the rights of Commonwealth citizens without their consent. So, from the heroic island of Malta to the solitary St. Helena; the far-distant Pitcairns; the rich prairies of Canada and the teeming cities of the Indian sub-continent, all Commonwealth members are equally to be involved in consultation and consent. That is an enormous but dutiful task to be accomplished. To proceed further with this Bill in its present form without seeking and obtaining the consent of all Commonwealth members would be an affront to those sovereign states.
  It is already regarded as yet one further stealth manoeuvre away from the Commonwealth towards a so-called more democratic and perfect Union, an exclusively European one upon which British voters have recently thrown doubt, to say the least. The stealth is revealed as a step into the new Euroland and away from the Commonwealth, to the members of which we owe so much.
  Are we really confronted by the spectre of a Government who are so determined to exercise their parliamentary majority and pass laws clearly in violation of international obligations? What example would this give to other states about violating international obligations and laws? What example would it be to our fellow citizens?
  Finally, I am most conscious of my oath of allegiance to our sovereign. It is my personal belief that by supporting this Bill without amending it as I am proposing, I would violate that sworn oath which requires me to uphold the rights and titles of the sovereign and her heirs and successors. If my amendment is not accepted, the Act will change and diminish the sovereign's rights. That being so, I will keep my oath to uphold those rights, and I recommend the same view to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, it will be well nigh impossible to match the speech presented by
  386
  the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. He has certainly set me a difficult task, but it is not insurmountable. The task is to remind your Lordships of the significant passages in the Coronation Oath, Letters Patent, the 1926 Report on the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of that year and the 1931 Statute of Westminster II.
  We have been reminded that we have seven hereditary peers who are Canadian. We also have, as a matter of interest, four New Zealanders, 11 Australians and several others from the other countries that your Lordships will see. From St. Lucia, we have one; from South Africa, four; from Zimbabwe, one. That is just to add a few. I am delighted to see the number of life Peers who represent the culture, the ethnic feelings, the beliefs and the talents of the Commonwealth countries so closely associated with the monarchy.
  On 2nd June 1953, Her Majesty the Queen laid her hand on the Holy Gospel and solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon (as it was then known), and of the possessions and other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective law and customs – the Comity of Nations.
  Whether we be hereditary or life Peers, the opening lines of our Writ of Summons reinforce the dignity and the status of our monarch:
  "Elizabeth II by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith".
  The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, spoke of the number within the stated Comity of Nations—53. As your Lordships will see, these are listed in Schedules 78A. B, C and D. At the 1926 Imperial Conference, it was stated,
  "We think it should be placed on record that the Constitutional Practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster applying to a Dominion should only be passed with the consent of the Dominion concerned".
  This was the basis for Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1931, which provides:
  "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof—.
  Our foreign policy, our defence policy and our policy relating to international trade are promoted by our monarch and debated in our Parliament (in this House) and take account of views expressed by Commonwealth Peers; Peers from the Comity of Nations. How can that Comity of Nations have any confidence in the monarch's position, her sovereign status as stated in the Coronation Oath, when Her Majesty's Government propose agreements, legislation, which are tantamount to contradicting her Oath, and ours for that matter?
  During the previous government's tenure of office it was proposed to share the governance, the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, between Dublin and Westminster. No one knows what will happen to the sovereignties of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man with a

  387
  Government who surrender so much to Europe: corpus juris now replaces habeas corpus; the pound sterling is an endangered species.
  We admire the way that the Gurkhas volunteer as members of Her Majesty's forces and the way that the Government have safeguarded and guaranteed financial support to the families of the Gurkhas recently killed in Kosovo. Nepal is not part of the Commonwealth.
  Please let us riot forget what our Commonwealth friends—that Comity of Nations, our family—did for our monarch in the last two World Wars. Please let us not surrender our long-term friends piecemeal. To avoid conflict within the Commonwealth as a result of failure to consult before presenting the House of Lords Reform Bill, exacerbated should the Bill be passed, Her Majesty's Government must surely consider re-phrasing the Coronation Oath, revising the Statute of Westminster II and reviewing the Oath of Allegiance taken by every Peer.
  I should like the House to remember the lines of J.M. Edmonds who, when reflecting on our commitment to the Commonwealth, said:
  "When you go home tell them of us and say, for their tomorrow we gave our today.
  Went the day well? We died and never knew, but, good or ill, Freedom, we died for you".
  The monarchy, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth are the living history of us all and the heritage that assures our future. All Members of this House, as an integral part of Parliament, are to a large measure their custodians. That living history this House must continue to protect. I support the amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, sits down, perhaps he could answer a question which might clarify his amendment. If a parliament of any of the members of the Commonwealth set out in later amendments, say, in subsection (1A) of Amendment No. 63A—that is, Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is not head of state—put down a resolution opposing the Bill and stating that it should not come into force, is the noble Lord really saving that, on a wet Friday afternoon in Vanuatu, Kiribati, The Gambia or Fiji, there may, so to speak, be a Private Members' debate on the Bill? That is implausible but not impossible. We know from what the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said that there is considerable disquiet on this issue across the Commonwealth. But is the noble Lord really saying that if the Kiribati Parliament passed a resolution that it wished this Bill not to pass, this Bill should not pass?
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I can probably help the noble Lord—he is quite right to ask me that question—by asking him to read Hansard tomorrow. He will understand that I was talking about the courtesy—the diplomacy most of all—of alerting all of the nations in the schedules of what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government on such matters as a constitutional change of this nature. I hope that will help the noble Lord to a degree—I can see that it will not
  388
  help the noble Lord the slightest bit—and of course I quite understand that there are certain dominions which are quite respectful (in fact most respectful) of this Parliament. They will obviously not try to interfere, but they should be alerted to what we are doing. That is why I read out the Statute of Westminster et al.
  Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments because they re-emphasise the importance of the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. Perhaps at this stage I should declare an interest because I was born in Malta more years ago than I care to reveal to your Lordships. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Viscount Waverley: My Lords, consultation at any time is always a useful and worthwhile step. In this case, with so much at stake, I believe that it is an absolute imperative. A way forward must be identified which commands the wholehearted support of all sides.
  The issues are indeed complex—I refer in particular to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—and raise in my mind unanswered questions. If the Statute of Westminster relates only to those territories named as dominions in 1931 there might be no case to answer. If, however, the relationship since 1931 with our dependencies, realms and the wider Commonwealth has so evolved as to create serious knock-on effects in capitals across the Commonwealth, clearly we have a duty to scrutinise closely and to consult.
  What are the implications for the realms, for instance, those independent countries where the Queen is head of state, whose final court of appeal is the Privy Council and whose legislation is closely, if not inextricably, linked to ours? Clearly changes for us must signify changes for them at least. This is not to suggest that any kind of veto power is inherent in our relations with the Commonwealth family. Rather I believe that in the interests of maintaining and fostering the vital "partnerships" which Britain has carefully developed over the decades, one can do no less than to support the calls for consultation—always with Britain's best interest in full view.
  Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie has mentioned my name in connection with this group of amendments and I am grateful to him for that. I am slightly surprised to note that when we are discussing something like the Commonwealth we do not have a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister present. I think that perhaps that is an indication of the Government's attitude towards it. I believe that the Government have been totally discourteous as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. I cannot understand why the Commonwealth countries were not consulted—that is not too difficult a task—unless the Government believe that the Commonwealth is not important. I do not believe that it is too late for consultation to take place. I ask the Government to take steps to repair the damage that is being caused by their attitude.

  389
  There is conflicting legal advice as to the requirement for consultation; however, common decency should require the Government to do so.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish in a few words to support from my heart the amendment. This is not a question of "the Act shall not pass"; it is a question that the Act should not pass before there has at least been consultation with the Commonwealth. The question was asked but the difference is fundamental. All one is asking for is consultation. Having served alongside forces of the Commonwealth, I feel that that is something for which one should be entitled to ask. The Government should take this on board. The speech of my noble friend Lord Norrie was reasoned, well researched and worthy of the serious attention of the Government. I ask that that is given.
  There are occasions when a government—any government—seem to forget or omit something of consequence in the drafting of a Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will remember, that happened during the human rights legislation. I tabled an amendment on the ecclesiastical aspect, which had not been considered. That matter was resolved amicably and went to sleep. Then I tabled an amendment on the impact on the Armed Forces. I was not supported by my own Front Bench; I never am. I do not expect to be; I am an independent Conservative. In the result, I received a letter from the Ministers and they set up the very kind of court which I had hoped and expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might perhaps be set up.
  The point is not whether one won or succeeded, or whether one was supported by any political party, on a question such as this. It is not a political question; it is not a question for a political party. The point is that in the drafting of a Bill any government can fail to appreciate a matter of fundamental importance. I respectfully ask the Government to take the speech and the amendment of my noble friend on board.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I expect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, having heard what has been said, is rather wishing that he had asked a Minister from the FCO to come and answer this particular debate.
  I commend the tremendous amount of work and research that my noble friend Lord Norrie has put into this subject and the eloquent way in which he introduced the amendment. He made a plea to the Government—perhaps "plea" is too strong, but certainly a request—that the questions he posed should be answered. He gave the impression that they have not been answered before. Perhaps I may urge on the Government Front Bench that I fully endorse the questions of my noble friend Lord Norrie. If he does not get a proper reply, I suspect that he will want to bring the matter back at Third Reading. I do not know whether or not noble Lords opposite want that to happen, but that is what I suspect my noble friend will do.
  Amendment No. 58DA asks for something very simple, an element of consultation with the countries of the Commonwealth. If, as my noble friend Lord
  390
  Campbell of Alloway pointed out, a mistake has been made in the drafting of the Bill, the Government do not necessarily have to accept the amendment to put that right. They could simply give a commitment to consult. I can see that there is no harm in doing so.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have had this debate on a number of previous occasions and the same points have been raised again. They obviously cause concern so I will go through each of the points and indicate what seems to me to be the answer to them legally. I should also make it clear that there is obviously no intention on the part of this Government to do anything in any way to undervalue the Commonwealth or to insult it. Any suggestion to that effect is, with the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, completely misconceived.
  Perhaps I may deal with the three points that have been made which are said to give rise to legal confusion and on which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has the advice of eminent counsel that they require consultation with the Commonwealth countries.
  First, Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, which is the foundation of these amendments, says, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said:
  "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof—.
  This Bill, if it becomes an Act, does not extend to any dominion. The fact that certain Members of this House may have dominion citizenship does not mean that this Act extends to that dominion.
  I give two examples which demonstrate the point. We pass Acts in this country which affect the criminal law. They will affect Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians in this country. We do not consult the dominions about that. We are not required to by Section 4.
  Another example is that we make laws in this country about the ownership of property in this country. The fact that there is an Australian citizen in Australia who might have a right under that law in relation to property in this country does not lead us to consult these legislatures before we pass those Acts. There is no difference between those situations and this situation. Therefore, Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster does not provide the foundation of the case which the noble Lord has sought to put.
  A secondary point has been raised. It is said that there is a debate between lawyers—eminent counsel—about what is meant by the word "dominion" in Section 4. According to Section 10 of the Act:
  "The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and Newfoundland".
  As far as I am concerned, that is pretty clear. Despite that, the amendment refers to 13 countries and 16 provinces and states. I cannot think what possible debate

  391
  there could be about the scope of Section 4 though I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that eminent counsel has advised that there is some debate about what this means.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is an important point as regards Section 4, but the House may have noticed that I did not take that point. I am not an eminent counsel. I am taking the point of the fundamental relationship between the Commonwealth and our country and I am asking only for consultation. I am not interested in legalistic arguments. I am arguing on the basis of a relationship which is of enduring importance.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments are based on the Statute of Westminster. The noble Lord is suggesting that we consult our friends in the Commonwealth about changes to the composition of the second Chamber in our legislature. Are there other allies that we would consult as well? With the greatest of respect, it is a matter for this country to decide. It is not a matter on which we should consult our allies, take into account their views and then proceed. With the greatest respect for the sincerity and passion with which the noble Lord put forward his point of view, I think it is misconceived.
  Perhaps I may go on to the legal position on which the two noble Lords rely. Their last point relates to the position of Her Majesty. I assume that the position is that they are relying on the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster because there is no other part on which they could rely. It states:
  "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
  The Bill, as is obvious, does not affect the succession to the throne; nor does it affect one jot the Royal style and titles. Her Majesty's title as Duke of Lancaster is not affected in any way by the Bill. I should say in parenthesis that that title is not the title which gives Her Majesty the right to sit in the House.
  I have dealt with all of the points raised in relation to the Statute of Westminster. With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, both of whom have carried out immense research in relation to it, I suggest that there is nothing whatever in the points they have made in relation to the Statute of Westminster. There has been no disrespect to the Commonwealth in relation to the passage of the Bill. There is no legal requirement with regard to any of the matters that they have raised. With the greatest respect, I suggest that they withdraw the amendment and do not proceed with it at Third Reading.
  Lord Chesham: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he not understand the difference between courtesy, disrespect and a legal requirement?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I have explained what the legal position is and I have explained what is our position as a matter of substance in relation to the passage of the Bill. With the exception of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said in his speech, until now the position has always been put on the basis of the Statute of Westminster. That is how it has been argued. With the greatest respect, there is no foundation for the amendment in that. Equally, I have dealt with the arguments advanced that we should consult our Commonwealth colleagues in relation to something which, in my respectful submission, affects only this country.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned my name. By leave, may I ask him whether he will accept that I accept wholly his analysis that it is for us to decide? All that I am suggesting is that it would be reasonable and appropriate to consult. That is all.
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not out of order.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. I accept that the noble Lord accepts my legal analysis of the position.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to insult, why will they not consult?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thought that I had explained painstakingly to the noble Lord why there is no legal obligation to consult and why, separately from the legal position, we take the view that it is not appropriate to consult. I could deliver my speech all over again—
  Noble Lords: No!
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: But I detect that the House would not be enthusiastic in that respect.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining that yet again, but at this stage I reserve the right to bring the matter back on Third Reading, if I have to do so. I am in consultation with High Commissions, and I should like to see what they say about it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 58E:
  Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert—
  (".—(1) The enactments mentioned in Schedule (Amendments) are amended as specified there.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 59:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be known as "Members of the Interim Chamber" and shall be styled as "Member [surname]" in any proceedings of the House.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment was, for very good reasons, decoupled from Amendment No. 50, and the House was notified of that. Many of the arguments that I was going to deploy were used on Amendment No. 51 by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Therefore, I can be very brief. I do not expect any great response from the Government, because we divided on that amendment.
  I say only that the reason why my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley chose the interim House was to remind those who will be in the successor Chamber that it is the hereditary Peers who are going this time, but on the next occasion it will be the life Peers. If the Government really believe that a long time is being taken with this Bill, they will find when it comes to the stage-two Bill that they have a considerably longer programme ahead of them because of the number of life Peers that will need to be appointed on a working basis in order to fulfil what the Government have said.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, this is an amendment about names. I said last time that we are the "House of Lords"; let us keep on calling ourselves that.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 60:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . The salaries payable to the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be payable only to those office holders who were eligible to receive a salary on the day before this Act comes into force.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I may not be quite as brief as on the last amendment, but I shall be brief. We had a very good discussion on this amendment in Committee, when I was particularly taken by what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, although his amendment was more restrictive as to future emoluments than is this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
  I seek a little further clarification from the Government as to exactly what their intentions are. As I understand it, at present the only salaried Peers are Ministers with departmental responsibilities, and they are funded from the departmental funds. The Opposition Leader and Chief Whip are funded from the Consolidated Fund, and the House pays a percentage of the salary of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Committees.
  Without question, there will be a larger regular attending House than we have now. I have no doubt that the time of the Back-Bench part-time Peer is coming rapidly to an end. The number of life Peers that will have to be created to fulfil the Government's commitments which we discussed earlier will mean that regular attendance will increase. Already it is quite difficult to find somewhere to sit in order to take part in Question Time if one is not here immediately after Prayers. Many of the debates are now so long that it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to do something outside the House and take part in the work of the House. Even debates at Committee stage, which were normally long lasting until the matter had been fully discussed, are being arbitrarily curtailed.
  Yesterday, those of us who served on a committee found trying to find the appropriate committee room rather like playing musical chairs. That was because of the number of committees sitting, which meant that we were moved from one committee room to another. Those problems will only get worse.
  In Committee, in response to Amendment No. 73, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fact that we should need to examine the facilities of this House to enable it to operate in an effective way. Clearly, those facilities are already stretched by the number of regular attenders, and will be stretched considerably more in the future.
  This House is cheap to run in comparison with another place and the European Parliament. Many of us do not wish to see costs increased as a result of further salaries being paid. I should like confirmation from the Government on that point. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my Amendment No. 71 is coupled with this one. It makes a slightly different point. First, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is an inexpensive House to run—I shall not say "cheap". The average cost per Peer is something like £35,000. That is 10 per cent of what an MP costs, at £350,000; and an MEP costs nearly £1 million. So the taxpayer receives extremely good value from this House. Last year, some 4,000 amendments were sent back to another place, and most were agreed.
  What is the Government's view on the longer term financing of the interim House? When I say "longer term", that is not to interfere with a possible stage two House. At what stage will they wish to involve the Senior Salaries Review Board in regard to the salaries, expenses and allowances paid to the groups mentioned by my noble friend?
  The point behind this is that, as 50 per cent of the active House will be leaving, a certain amount of pressure will be brought to bear on those who are left behind. Since most Members of this House are, by definition, part-time, what adjustments will be necessary to compensate Peers for possibly giving up more lucrative work outside this House in order to do the valuable work of this place?

  395
  I shall be grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord's response, both to this point and to my noble friend's amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend Lord Caithness that there is not the slightest likelihood of the Government accepting this amendment—first, because they do not accept amendments of this genre; and, secondly, because it is obvious that in due course Members of this House will be paid. Otherwise the Government would never get anyone to do the work. What will happen is that they will be paid, they will want more secretaries and research assistants, and then bigger premises, and so on and so forth. What is a very inexpensive Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde described it, will become an expensive parliamentary building. I should be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord who will reply whether it is the intention in due course to pay Members of this House.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I have taken the view for many years that the great value of Back-Benchers in either House is that they are not whole-time Members, but they bring to the work of the House the experience that they gain outside in various occupations—in the professions, in business, in farming or whatever else it may be. If Members of this House are to become salaried whole-timers, the value of the work of the Back-Benchers will be diminished. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I totally support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope that the Back-Benchers will never be paid anything more than their attendance expenses. We should get the wrong sort of people. They would not be worth the light.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the concerns raised by these two amendments are similar and our response to both is effectively the same. Noble Lords have made it clear that they believe that the existing system of remuneration works perfectly well for the present House and will continue to work in the transitional House. We agree. The Government have no intention of making any changes in this respect for the transitional House. This is not the appropriate moment to change the financial arrangements of the second Chamber. The Bill as it stands leaves those arrangements completely untouched. In the light of what I have said about the Government's intentions, the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appear to me to be unnecessary.
  The question of remuneration is one for the longer term. The Royal Commission, in the consultation paper it issued in March, sought views on this specific issue. The Labour Party, for its part, made clear its views in its submission to the Royal Commission, as was explained in Committee. In the context of the wider examination of the role and functions, as well as the composition, of the fully reformed House, obviously it
  396
  makes sense to look at remuneration, and the Labour Party therefore welcomes the Royal Commission's interest in those matters. But in the shorter term, the Bill does no more than remove hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. The role and functions of the House will remain unchanged in the transitional phase, and so will the terms and conditions of its Members.
  With those assurances, and bearing in mind that redundant provisions give legislation a bad name, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his reply and for further clarifying the Government's position as set out in Committee. As was pointed out by my noble friends who were kind enough to support my amendment, as long as there are part-time Back-Benchers who can contribute fully to this House, and as long as the House is organised to enable them to do that, I think the noble and learned Lord need have no fear. My fear is that the Bill will alter the composition of the House and drive out the part-time Back-Bench Peer. It is through the revised composition of the House that pressure would be put on the Government to pay salaries, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out.
  I am grateful for the statement on government policy as regards the interim House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 61:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  DECLARATORY
  (" . Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to veto any bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to know that I shall be brief on this amendment, which was grouped with Amendment No. 46. There was a long debate on the two amendments and Amendment No. 46 was passed by a considerable majority.
  Both amendments are concerned in different ways that the life of a Parliament should not exceed five years without the House of Lords so agreeing—if the House of Lords uses its power of veto on this point. I know that my amendment is not watertight but it provides time for public opinion and the all-powerful media to focus on what is happening. The amendment provides for a statutory declaration written into the Bill which, it is to be hoped, would make the government of the clay hesitate and think again before trying to extend a Parliament's life.
  I look upon Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 as one and the same; they provide a belt-and-braces defence against an unknown future—perhaps another Cromwell. I absolutely accept the word of the Government that they have no intention to seek to extend the life of a Parliament. That has been made clear in writing by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for which I am grateful, and in

  397
  other ways. Remembering the passing of Amendment No. 46, I very much hope that the Government will also accept Amendment No. 61, which is linked with it.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is of very great value and guidance. It may well be that he does not intend to divide the House upon this matter tonight, but if the amendment can be regarded by the Government as valuable guidance for the future the noble Earl will have performed a good service. The amendment is much wider in effect than Amendment No. 46; indeed, I would have voted for it had there been an opportunity at this late hour. It is very important that the Government understand that it is the will of the House within the terms not only of Amendment No. 46 but Amendment No. 61 that there should be no attempt to extend the life of a Parliament.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I spoke in opposition to Amendment No. 46 and voted against it. On the other hand. I support this amendment. If it is the intention of the Government—as I vaguely suspect it may be—to reverse their defeat on Amendment No. 46 at a later stage, I very much commend to them Amendment No. 61. I suspect that whoever is to reply to the debate will say that the amendment is unnecessary because it already exists in law. In technical terms, I accept that that answer would be correct, but there is no great harm in occasionally enacting something that is merely declaratory of present law. There is undoubtedly suspicion, whether or not justified—I do not believe that it is—that the consequence of this Bill may be to make it easier for the Septennial Act, which is now quinquennial, to be repealed. That suspicion may be fortified by the reversal of Amendment No. 46 either at a later stage or in another place. I commend to the Government the idea that if they accepted Amendment No. 61 nobody could be suspicious of their intentions if thereafter they deleted Amendment No. 46. It may be unnecessary, but it is wholly desirable and totally harmless.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, this amendment is much neater, more easily comprehensible, and therefore much more user-friendly so far as concerns the general public, than Amendment No. 46, which was passed earlier today by a majority of 106. Unlike Amendment No. 46, this amendment is not open to the objection that it creates two classes of Peer. I trust, therefore, that it will be accepted without hesitation, but if by some mischance it is not I hope that my noble friend will press it to a Division.
  10.45 p.m.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, as always, I wish to support my noble friend, kinsman and clan chief.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that the arguments on Amendment No. 46 and on this amendment are disparate. Let us not go into the details.
  398
  On Amendment No. 46—and the question goes to both amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked a perfectly reasonable question: "Why, suddenly, do you, the Conservative Party, ask for a fundamental constitutional safeguard when you did nothing for 18 years, and now the Labour Party have arrived on the scene?" I think that is the question he asked. I longed to answer it but there was not time and no one wanted to listen.
  The answer is quite simple. Although we did nothing for 18 years, at least we did nothing. What the Labour Party has done is to upset totally the constitutional apple cart with devolution, this Bill, and no doubt other things. There is a new drive to alter the whole constitutional structure. It is because of that that I respectfully suggest that it is reasonable to ask for a fundamental constitutional safeguard along the lines of these amendments.
  I accept that the arguments in support of both amendments are disparate, but I support the argument on this amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will be relieved to hear, I trust, that I shall not engage in a robust defence of Amendment No. 46, although it well deserves it. Nor shall I rise to the fly so deftly cast over me by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I simply say that the Opposition believe that Amendment No. 61 happily complements Amendment No. 46; and we shall be very pleased if the Government will agree to include that on the face of the Bill—as a declaratory statement but one that the Bill thoroughly merits.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot support any of my noble kinsmen in this House because I have none. But I have an argument, which may sometimes be of greater assistance.
  Quite simply, this amendment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, accepted, has no effect. It simply declares that the Bill does not affect the power of the House of Lords to veto the amendment or suspension of the Septennial Act, as it originally was. Since the Bill says nothing about powers, self evidently the Bill as it presently stands does not affect your Lordships' powers.
  It is not true that apparently meaningless expressions in legislation are always necessarily harmless. They are not. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked for a fundamental constitutional safeguard. One can have that, as I said earlier, in a written constitution which is not able to be amended except with certain majorities. But a bare statement of the self evident, such as this, is neither fundamental, nor a safeguard, nor particularly constitutional.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he did not feel able or inclined to defend Amendment No. 46. I paraphrase what he said. The amendment has been

  399
  described as a belt and braces provision. If Amendment No. 61 were the braces alone, the trousers would fall down, because it is utterly and completely valueless.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the convention in this House to accept amendments in the same grouping as the first amendment which has been agreed?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, and that is why the noble Earl, Lord Perth, scrupulously developed this theme and his argument on Amendment No. 61, which is different. That is why I have responded in this way. The noble Earl was correct and I am correct.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported my amendment. It may well be that it has no effect in the sense of having a statutory right or preventing something happening in relation to the duration of a Parliament. However, it will undoubtedly ensure that people think again. "What is all this about?". If Parliament wants to extend its life, it is important that the country as a whole and the media know what is happening. The amendment is designed to achieve that.
  Even if the amendment has no effect, in the light of the support that I have received I should like to test the opinion of the House.
  10.51 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 83.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Berners, B.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Monson, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Craigmyle, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cross, V.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Ferrers, E.

  Shannon, E.

  Gray, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Strange, B. [Teller.]

  Kinnoull, E.

  Swansea, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Blease, L.

  Addington, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Bragg, L.

  Alli, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Amos, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Bach, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Berkeley, L

  Chandos, V.

  Blackstone, B.

  Christopher, L.

  400

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Judd, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract. L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris. L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Richard, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Hampton, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Simon, V.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Simon of Glaisdaie, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

  Turner of Camden, B.

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

  Whitty, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
  11.1 p.m
  [Amendment No.62 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [commencement and transitional provision]:
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 64A:
  Page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Sections 1 to 4 (including Schedule (Amendments) and the Schedule)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords. I must inform the House that if Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 66A.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 2, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("not").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. I understand that some of my noble friends may want to speak to Amendment No. 66A at the same time, bearing in mind the strictures of the Chairman of Committees with regard to my amendments and the ones that follow.
  These amendments are not tied to a specific date but require the commencement of Clause 1 to be deferred until after the Royal Commission has reported. I believe, as do many others, that this Bill is being brought into

  401
  force with too much haste, without time being given to consider the implications both for this House and the other place.
  The effects of the Bill will not only touch on this House; they will inevitably lead to a change in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and that change needs to be carefully thought through. The Government have not suggested that any such consideration has taken place; certainly, we have heard no suggestions as to what the future legislative relationships are likely to be. Are we not entitled to be given some idea of how things are likely to develop? It must be right that, having set up the Royal Commission, the Government should allow time for due consideration to be given to its recommendations before doing anything so fundamental as turning out so many of your Lordships who have served so well over so long a time.
  I understand that the Government envisage a Joint Committee of both Houses being set up to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When is that to sit? How long will it take? Perhaps consideration should be given to delaying the operation of this Bill before those reports are available. I beg to move.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be good enough to remind the House on how many occasions we have debated this specific issue. Is it four, five, six or a great deal more?
  I will say one thing to the Leader of the House: when the interim House comes into operation, one urgent matter which should be put before the Procedure Committee is a measure to prevent episodes of this sort taking place again and again. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House and should be opposed with all the energy at our command.
  Lord Boardman: My Lords, with regard to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it is strange, or perhaps not so strange, that those Benches do not appear to be interested in what is going to happen at the end of this contretemps. They are going on blindly. In Amendment No. 66A, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I are both inquiring as to what future lies ahead. The amendment is designed to allow Parliament to obtain a view of what is proposed for this House before this House is constitutionally radically altered. It is a logical move. Frankly, we all want the same thing. We want a House of Lords which is sensible, rightly composed and has the right powers. I am sure that that is the ambition of us all. We may have different thoughts about how it may be achieved, but that is our ambition.
  The Royal Commission will put suggestions to us. The intention of my amendment is that when the Royal Commission has done that, a Joint Committee will be set up—that proposal appears in the Labour Party manifesto and other documents—to look at the Royal Commission's proposals. When it has looked at these proposals and recommends that this Bill, which will
  402
  become an Act, should take effect, the trigger will be pulled. We shall move on to stage two, in the knowledge of what is before us and the prospects that lie ahead.
  I suggested a Joint Committee of both Houses. That suggestion was not part of my amendment previously but did appear in that of my noble friend Lady Blatch. I believe that it is sensible and right to have a Joint Committee of both Houses that can take a balanced view of the issues and a balanced view of the Royal Commission's findings and can say, "You now have the proposals before you; go ahead". The amendment provides that when this Bill becomes an Act, it will not take effect until the Joint Committee has seen the Royal Commission's report and has said "Fire!"
  I believe that the amendment is sensible; I believe that it will avoid the messy period of an interim House, which presents many complications and many uncertainties. It would be very nice to do what many of us have always wanted to do; that is, to get on to stage two without waiting too long for stage one. Yet we meet stage one, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has previously stressed to me, which implements the manifesto commitment relating to the alteration in the number of hereditary Peers, although a limited number of hereditary Peers will remain in the House.
  I therefore hope that the Government will see the merit of a delay while the Royal Commission looks at this, after which the Joint Committee can say, "This is all right for you all to look at", and we can then pull the trigger to enable the Act to take effect. We have been looking at this problem since 1911 without finding a solution. We can now provide the House with an opportunity to look at the Royal Commission's report, pull the trigger and say that this Act will now take effect. I beg to move.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time we are entering into the argument on whether to have one or two stages. I recall a number of speeches made over the past six months during which this matter has been before us at one level or another. One speech that I will always remember was the cogent argument of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who reminded the House that he had an important position in the government in 1968 when they attempted to do that which Members opposite are urging should be done on this occasion. I am a little suspicious in thinking that this amendment is intended to achieve the same end. In 1968, the then Mr Callaghan said that he was convinced that they were wrong in trying to do everything.
  The main principle to which Members on this side of the House cleave, as I believe do many people outside the House, is that it is constitutionally and morally wrong to have a legislative Chamber which contains Members who are here not as a result of what they did but of what their ancestors did. I am not being offensive; it is a statement of fact. What we have seen today and on other days are the efforts of those who profess to want to take the two stages together but who, in my view, do not want any stage at all. They are using this opportunity to try to delay.

  403
  Let us look at the practical aspects involved. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, says that we all want to get on to stage two and that there is not much difference between us. I can tell him that, if both he and I sat down with a piece of paper, we would probably come to substantially the same view as to what the second stage should contain. The Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, may very well produce the same recommendations and the Joint Committee may well recommend to us what we should do.
  We may, individually, have a view on what the second stage should contain but rather than contaminate the freedom of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and of the Joint Committee—or, indeed, of anyone else—by prejudicing what recommendations are made and by telling them what we want at the beginning, the Government have said, "Let those who have a view express it unfettered by saying in the back of their minds, know what the Government want, but there is going to be a battle on the Royal Commission, and in other ways'".
  I sincerely say to my noble friends on the other side of the House that I recognise that they are trying to use the opportunity, which they are entitled to do both parliamentarily and procedurally, to delay the implementation of stage one. I say to them very kindly that if they are really serious about having a better House of Lords or second Chamber, better shaped in their view and in that of others, the best way to achieve that is to agree not to oppose the implementation of stage one. I can assure them that Members on this side of the House will support them in getting a better stage two.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for myself, although I think I do include my noble friend, I can say that there is no question of opposing the implementation of stage one. The Government have entered into a so-called, "free-standing", as they call it, stage one, process, without any idea so far as to what will follow. That seems unbelievable not only to us on this side of the House but also to many people outside. Indeed, I was interested to meet some strangers only last week who were in the Gallery Listening to our debate. They simply could not believe that the Government had embarked on this kind of constitutional change without at least a strategic view about what should follow.
  Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris Greenwich, who was, not for the first time, exasperated. Indeed, it is entirely characteristic of him to be in a bit of a lather about such matters. I can tell the noble Lord that the reason we have a First Reading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, a Third Reading and then a Bill do now pass stage as regards each of the Bills that we consider, is so that arguments can be made and revisited. It also allows new points to be introduced and enables the Government to do what we had to do when we were on that side of the House when the very same people, including the noble Lord, who complained today about procedures, produced amendments, withdrew them,
  404
  brought them back, argued about them again, withdrew them again and, indeed, brought them back on Third Reading.
  However irksome I might have found it as a government Minister, I always felt at the end of the day that the arguments had been tried and tested and that we had been called to account. We had to defend the arguments. I have no conscience whatever in ensuring that the present-day Ministers defend their arguments. In this particular case, I do not think that they defend them terribly well.
  Time and again, the noble Baroness has talked about this so-called, "free-standing", one-off, Bill. Yet, at the same time, we are constantly being reminded that there is to be a stage two and that stage two will follow on from stage one very quickly. If that is the case, neither the amendment in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Boardman nor indeed that in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne poses any threat whatever.
  If, as some of us are predicting, stage two will last rather longer, I believe that our amendments act as an impetus to make sure that the House addresses the importance of thinking through properly the formulation of the composition, powers and role of a second Chamber more quickly. Either way I believe that one of these two amendments—I have no strong feelings whether it is my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—should be accepted.
  Further, if we take the noble Baroness at her word—I have no reason to doubt her word—the Royal Commission will report within about 10 weeks of the end of this parliamentary year. We do not know exactly when the parliamentary year will end but we know that there will certainly be an overspill if we are to cope with the business of the House that is yet to come before us, unless we are to sit in August and September. We know that there is a narrow gap here. We are not talking about great delays. If the Royal Commission is to report by December, the Joint Committee could do its work in January and could report by early spring and both Houses would have an opportunity to express a view about the work of the Royal Commission.
  Therefore I do not believe that these amendments prejudice the Bill at all. The Government know that they will get their Bill in its present form. We are simply talking about the implementation of stage one when at least a strategic view is taken about the powers, roles, function and composition of the second Chamber in stage two. I support my noble friend and I support my amendment. I would not go to the barricades to say that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne should not be accepted. However, I think the Government would do well to take one of these amendments seriously.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have heard this argument; I think it is about the seventh so far. I am reminded of the Congressman in America who was sitting through a long, filibustering debate. He turned to his neighbour and said, "But everything has been said". His neighbour replied, "Yes,

  405
  but not everyone has yet said it". With great respect, that is what is going on here. There is nothing new to be said on this amendment. We have heard it all before and indeed we have heard it all from the same people.
  As the argument has been raised again I wish to make three brief points. First, the Labour Party's strategy for the reform of the House of Lords could not have been more specifically set out before the election. We said that we would do it in a number of stages. We said that we would have a freestanding Bill which would result in the removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. That is what we said. We then said that there would be a public consultation exercise either in the form of a joint—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, insists upon shaking her head at me. The previous time she did that, I said that the only effect of that is that her head shakes. With great respect—
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have not delivered their manifesto pledge. They are not removing in stage one the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote in this House.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness is now nodding her head at me while standing up. I should have thought she would be pleased. As I understand the position, the Benches opposite stood up and cheered the Weatherill amendment. If anyone has the right to complain about the Weatherill amendment it is this side of the House, not the Benches opposite.
  What are we presented with tonight? Let us look at this amendment. The amendment suggests that this Bill, which was telegraphed in advance as a freestanding reform to be followed by subsequent reforms—I trust that there is no argument about that, not even from the noble Baroness—should not be introduced until,
  "the date fixed by a resolution of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which is appointed after the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords has reported".
  Let us suppose we went along with what has been suggested. Let us just think what would happen. The Royal Commission reports, the Joint Committee reports, and then what would happen? The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, the Conservative Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would all say in this House, "You must not remove the hereditary peerage from this House until you have implemented the proposals of the Royal Commission. What is the point of doing it in two stages? We now know what will happen; let us do it in one gulp rather than in two". This is a transparent recipe for delay. I do not accept for one instant the somewhat lofty proposals which are put forward as the motives for this set of amendments.
  We have debated the matter, I think, seven times before. I do not have anything particularly fresh to say about it; I hope the House does not have anything particularly fresh to say about it; I hope it will come to the same conclusion tonight as it did on the last occasion.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to refer to the Labour Party
  406
  manifesto and so on, but that was the basis upon which the Government supported the Bill—until they made a massive U-turn in total breach of the manifesto. After that, to have to listen today about the manifesto commitment and the will of the people is really, with respect to the noble Lord, a bit rich. He knows as well as I that the wish of two-thirds of the people is that there should be no stage one until they know what on earth is going to happen. The Government said, "We have a manifesto commitment, so we can override that"—and then they took a U-turn. They said, "Never mind. We like the Weatherill amendment; it suits us for various reasons. We have drafted it to our instructions and now we will do a U-turn". All right, one has to accept it. The House has accepted it. I have never accepted it; I defer to it.
  I support the amendment. I have never masked my opinions or my own personal views. I am not using it for some novel or strange purpose. I commend to the House the way it has been presented by my noble friend; I could not have presented it better. However, I maintain that the Government should defer to the wishes of the people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that this argument was raised, explored and defeated on my referendum amendment; it was fully explored at the Committee stage; it requires no repetition. I defer to the House, but I still think that the argument is right—and I am sure that the people think the argument is right. The Government should defer to the wishes of the people. I support the amendment.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I am one of the few Members who have not before taken part in this discussion, but I have looked back to see what my noble friend Lord Boardman said. There are not many people, in either House, with such a wealth of parliamentary experience as my noble friend. I respect the fact that he has consistently argued the valid, logical point that when one is dealing with a large constitutional change every effort should be made.
  We have now gone a long way with the Bill. It started probably as a monster and has got better and better. We are now getting towards some conclusions—which is good—but when it is possible that the Royal Commission will report even before the Bill reaches the touchline, it seems rather strange that we cannot stop, hold back and not let the Bill come into force until the constitutional changes have been properly examined. I see no harm in that.
  I was disappointed with the skilful, dazzling Welsh words used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the last occasion. In dismissing my noble friend's amendment, he said that the Bill was a desirable objective. I am sure that that came at the end of a long discussion. I am sure that he did not mean it in any wrongful spirit though it was said in a slightly dismissive way. The truth is that the Bill is a desirable political objective which is not really worthy of constitutional change of this nature.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is sometimes necessary to return to an issue four, five or six times simply in order to obtain a proper response from

  407
  government. It strikes me that, when it comes to the quality of Ministers, the Government are better served in this House than they are in the other place. In the other place, Ministers quite simply do not answer questions. In this House they quite cleverly do not answer questions. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have hardly responded to any of the points I have raised and I am not living in any great optimism that it will be any different this evening.
  I rise strongly to support Amendment No. 66, which strikes me as eminently reasonable. The amendment does not prevent the Government from getting their Bill nor, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does it prevent there being a two-stage process. It simply allows Parliament to lead the country and to see what is proposed for the second Chamber before this measure takes effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Graham, claimed that this was a delaying amendment. Any delay deriving from this amendment is entirely the fault of the Government. They could have appointed a Royal Commission two years ago. We could by now know the proposals for stage two. The fact that we do not should be laid at the door of the Government. It is not the responsibility of this side of the House. We know where we are moving away from but I think it is eminently reasonable to argue that, before we make the move, we should know where we are going. I think that responsibility rests on the Government to explain why that is not a reasonable claim to put forward.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that one aspect of the debate has puzzled me and it has perhaps been encapsulated most in the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, seemed to take the view that there was something wrong in trying to amend the Bill because it was against the principle of the Bill and the whole philosophy and concept which lay behind it. This seems to ignore the fact that many of us believe that this is a thoroughly bad Bill anyway. Whether it was in the Labour Party's manifesto or not is a matter of total irrelevance. Many of us believe it to be a bad Bill and we want to amend it and improve it in every way we possibly can.
  The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, seemed to be exasperated that we were spending so much time in returning to arguments that have been deployed and developed before. That is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, exactly what the proceedings of this House are about. We have stages of the Bill which enable people to come back to arguments which may have been deployed before and may have been dismissed before, but to put them forward again in the hope that they may throw some new light upon the proceedings and give people an opportunity again to express their views.
  It is understandable that it may be irksome for some people to sit late at night and hear arguments deployed again and again. Of course it is irksome. The whole system of conducting the parliamentary business of this country can sometimes be irksome. When we are involved in a constitutional transformation—a constitutional revolution—of the kind which the
  408
  Government are now proposing, I do not think we should be too worried about sitting late at night once or twice and even hearing arguments deployed once or twice or even three times.
  I believe we would be very unwise indeed if we were to think that what we are doing with the Bill was a waste of time or pointless. We have, as one noble Lord has said, improved the Bill enormously already. We have in Clause 2 caused the Government to make a complete U-turn and to do something which was in direct conflict with their manifesto commitment. I believe there is much more that can be done to amend the Bill and I hope that we shall not shrink from doing it because we have been kept up late on a few nights debating the issue.
  I support the amendment. However, I want to make the point that all that we are doing in this House on the Bill is very, very necessary if we are to discharge our proper responsibilities as the Upper House of the British Parliament.
  11.30 p.m.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I was going to hold my fire until we reached my amendment but I cannot resist supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who, after all, as a former Leader of your Lordships' House has held one of the highest offices in the land, should descend to such comments as that there are those on various sides of the House who want to filibuster and delay the Bill. That really is the most terrible accusation to make. The Bill will have enormous consequences but what it proposes is tied up in a few pages. The Government cannot in a few pages summarise and bring together all the ramifications relating to the Bill.
  Amendments have been moved about noble Lords being able to host charity events. What about all the parliamentary activities that go on? What about the Parliamentary Golfing Society? What about one of the oldest cricket clubs in England: namely, the Lords and Commons Cricket Club? Will Peers be eligible? Such points have not been addressed. They may seem to be de minimis to those who wish to get the Bill through but they nonetheless should have been addressed. If noble Lords wish to produce amendments in order to try to have these matters addressed, it is only fair and right that they should do so. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, feels that there is an element of filibustering. As far as I am concerned, there certainly is not.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, so many eloquent and pertinent speeches have been made in the debate on this amendment that it has made my task very easy. At various stages of the Bill members of the Opposition Front Bench have given full support to the principle that lies behind the three amendments in this group. The Opposition support the amendments this time for, among others, the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boardman.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his

  409
  extremely brief response. Does that mean that if these amendments are put to a Division the Opposition Front Bench will support them?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we shall wait to see what happens.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to say that it is one of the elements of repetition in the discussions on the Bill, which is of some frustration to my noble friends, that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench are inclined regularly to explain to your Lordships how enormously important they find the measure proposed to them and how much they support the underlying principle of it but that they do not intend to support it in the Lobbies.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way with her customary courtesy. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition Front Bench has been entirely consistent in its approach to the matter. If the noble Baroness wishes, the Opposition Front Bench will vote on every amendment with which it agrees. I am sure that she would not wish for that. So do not tempt us too much!
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: Well, my Lords, that was an interesting intervention which I am sure will be noticed by all hereditary Peers who sit in the House at present and presumably wish to continue to do so under the regulations of the transitional House which have been agreed by Clause 2 of the Bill. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were present, he would be interested to hear that intervention.
  I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as he directly asked me how many times I had personally debated this issue, that I agree with him. I think it is seven. We have debated this issue on every single occasion on which your Lordships have considered these points. I accept what the noble Baroness says, that it is legitimate to bring back points at different stages. However, I would re-emphasise to the noble Baroness, since she tried to draw a contrast between her behaviour in government and the behaviour of the Government Front Bench at present, that the Companion of the House states that, as we have repeated on several occasions in the course of debate this afternoon—the noble Baroness may not have been present all the time, and there is no reason why she should have been—arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. The Government Front Bench has stuck courteously but firmly to that guidance in the Companion. We intend to continue to do so.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that I have breached the rules of the House? Is she suggesting that the length of time I took to make the points this evening was also in breach of the rules of the House?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. What I am suggesting to the noble Baroness is that the
  410
  Government Front Bench does not have to repeat at length arguments which it has deployed at Second Reading, in Committee, in debates on the White Paper, at the earlier stages of Report and so on. I shall reply to the points which have been raised in a new form on this group of amendments, and not to the Second Reading debate points which have been made on several occasions by noble Lords who have contributed this evening.
  With regard to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has changed his wording from that of the amendment he moved in Committee. He has dropped his insistence that the findings of the Royal Commission should be accepted by resolution of your Lordships' House before the Bill comes into force. I am afraid that although he has made that change in response to some of the points we made in Committee it does make the amendment any more acceptable to the Government.
  The amendment now does not require your Lordships' House to debate the findings of the Royal Commission, nor even to agree to them. The Royal Commission's report must merely be laid before the House, and that would be the trigger, as I understand it, for the Bill to take effect; it would take effect whatever the Royal Commission said. Several noble Lords responded vigorously when it was suggested that simple delaying tactics were their motivation, and such tactics seem to be the motivation here, because if it does not matter what the Royal Commission says in order to trigger the stage one Bill, then it really is not relevant whether or not the Royal Commission has reported.
  This is simply a delaying tactic in terms of the implementation of the Bill. It could mean, for example, that the provisions of the Bill would take effect in mid-Session. We have heard today at great length, and I think with genuine concern, from noble Lords around the House that they feel there is disruption to their lives. The amendment could mean that laying the Royal Commission's report before the House on, say, a Wednesday would immediately trigger implementation of the Bill, and all the hereditaries would be out on Thursday. I cannot imagine that that was really what was intended in terms of easing the transition from one stage to another, but that is the effect of the amendment.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is equally unacceptable, for the simple reason that, as I am advised, it is impossible for a Joint Committee of both Houses to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament. The amendment is therefore technically defective.
  As I have said, we have been round this course on six, now seven, separate occasions. The Government wish and intend, and have pledged themselves, to proceed with reform of your Lordships' House in two stages. We intend to continue on that course. We do not accept that we need to delay in doing so. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton pointed out in the course of his remarks on the amendment, it is not sensible to do that, for all the reasons which those who spoke about their experience in earlier attempts at reform have expressed most eloquently.

  411
  One noble Lord referred to the comment of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn at an earlier stage that the Bill was a desirable objective. The Government stick precisely by that position, and we seek to move ahead with it as quickly as we can.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like most respectfully to ask her whether she could reconsider the charge she made that the amendment is a delaying tactic to delay implementation of the Bill. Does she accept that if the Royal Commission reports by December, January or February, concern about time really cannot be fairly considered as a delaying tactic? Certainly, it is not my intention to indulge in that.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should always accept the contribution of the noble Lord in regard to his own intentions and motivation, as I hope he would equally with me. I was not making the broad point that this was a delaying provision, merely that that would be the effect. Whether or not it would substantially delay is a point that we could discus more generally. I was responding to the precise points of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which, because they do not require any consideration of the Royal Commission's report but simply that it should be laid before your Lordships, have the effect only of creating a time difference between the implementation of the Bill at the time that the Government would wish to see it and the time proposed in the amendment. Therefore, all the proposal achieves is to delay implementation.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. It is not my intention to inject significant delay into the process. The reason why I changed the terms of the amendment that I moved at an earlier stage to the terms that I have placed before the House today was to respond to the points that had been made by Ministers when we discussed the matter in Committee. I am sorry that I have not gone far enough.
  As to the point made by the noble Baroness that the Royal Commission report might be laid before the House on a Wednesday and the Bill come into force on the Thursday, it would of course be in the hands of the Government as to when the Royal Commission report was laid before the House. It could be done sooner or later, as the Government preferred, once it was in their hands. I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not think that that would be a good way to proceed.
  I resented the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I care for this House. I care for the institutions of Parliament. I am sorry that the noble Lord appears not to.
  Lord Harris of Greenwhich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down in a paroxysm of feigned anger, or indignation, is he aware that the noble Baroness read out the terms of the companion? The speeches that we have heard this evening are totally contrary to the spirit
  412
  of the Companion. If the noble Lord is worried about the reputation of this House, he might at least at some stage read the Companion himself.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to respond. My anger is not feigned; it is genuine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if either Amendment No. 66 or Amendment No. 66A is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 67 or Amendment No. 67A.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 66A:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("force") to end of line and insert ("upon the date fixed by a resolution of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which is appointed after the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords has reported.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that this. debate had taken place seven times. This amendment came up in Committee. I kept careful note of the points that were made from various parts of the House, and I withdrew it. Amendment No. 66A was therefore constructed to take account of the previous debate. It is only the second time that the amendment has appeared on a Marshalled List.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in that debate. They were unanimous in their feeling that an amendment of this nature is necessary. I am deeply sorry that the Government do not appear to have taken any notice of that. We are looking towards the future of this House—a future in which we all share a belief. It would be a tremendous advantage if we had before us the findings of the Royal Commission. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has preferred to remain blind to that. It is all too often the trend of this Government that they start something without looking forward to see where the objective may lead. It is an unfortunate trend, and one that I regret.
  In view of the importance of this issue and the fact that I do not want to raise it again, I beg to move and I believe it is right that I should now test the opinion of the House.
  11.44 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 81.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Attlee, E.

  Caithness, E.

  Berners, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Chalfont, L.

  Boardman, L. [Teller.]

  Chesham, L.

  413

  Coleraine, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Cross, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Gray, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Monson, L.

  Wise, L,

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Addington, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V,

  Hayman, B.

  Alli, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Amos, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

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

  Blackstone, B.

  Blease, L.

  Judd, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L,

  Levy, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Carlisle, E.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Newby, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  David, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Rea, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Richard, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Falconer of Thornton, L.

  Simon, V.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Tordoff. L.

  Hacking, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hampton. L.

  Uddin, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Whitty, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.55 p.m.
  Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out ("Session of").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 68 because the amendments are intertwined.
  At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the amendment is in some way a delaying factor. I recognise that the Government have a mandate to introduce such legislation as is necessary during the lifetime of this Parliament. But I do not think that the manifesto went so far as to state that these measures had to be introduced by the end of the second Session of
  414
  Parliament. I see little difference between the first, second or third Sessions, or however many Sessions one wishes. The reference is to Parliament. Therefore to terminate the hereditary element in your Lordships' House by the end of this Parliament would be entirely in keeping with the election manifesto.
  I tabled similar amendments at Committee stage. At the risk of incurring your Lordships' wrath, I have to say that I was ill on the day that they were called. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, kindly made reference to the fact that I was not present. I wish to make some points which are not repetitive; and I ask the indulgence of the House.
  If the Act were to come into play at the end of this Session of Parliament, it would be interesting to know when that will be. With the number of amendments being debated, I smell a rat or two. I have a suspicion that this Session of Parliament could go on for some time in order to get the Bill passed. It is a matter of regret that we do not have a fixed date for the end of Sessions of Parliament—but that is another matter. If the Bill is enacted at the end of this Session of Parliament there will be a period of time when noble Lords who are not entitled to attend this House will not be represented effectively in Parliament. That is a point which should be borne in mind.
  My underlying concern relates to the Writ of the sovereign to noble Lords to attend this Parliament. It says nothing about attending this Session of Parliament. I understand and accept that Parliament is omnipotent. Parliament can, and from time to time does, control—if that is the right word—the sovereign. It calls the sovereign to account and keeps the sovereign within the bounds of our accepted constitutional procedure.
  Having said that, and I have said it before in your Lordships' House, if one wields such tremendous power, that power should be exercised with courtesy and discretion. Otherwise the only way that one can govern is by consent. If one does not govern by consent one cannot govern unless it becomes a dictatorship where one dictates what will happen.
  The people of this country have accepted the way in which our Parliament, sovereign and constitution work. I am not sure that people would rest content if the heat were turned up and respect for the sovereign were undermined. There is the question of a precedent which may be created.
  I am concerned that in enacting the Bill by the end of this Session of Parliament instead of at the end of this Parliament, we shall be going against the command of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Writ to your Lordships. That is not satisfactory.
  I want quickly to refer to something which happened about 15 years ago: the abolition of the Greater London Council. The Conservatives were in power and we got ourselves into a terrible muddle because they said that the Bill would be enacted 11 months after the local elections in May. Councillors were to be elected for only 11 months before everything was abolished. The Government then said, "Look, it is the most frightful waste of money to have all these elections and therefore we will make appointments.". That did not go down too

  415
  well simply because the appointment of councillors would have been politically tainted and where there were Labour elected councils, for some reason a Conservative majority would have replaced them. That was totally undemocratic and I said so at the time.
  I came forward with a suggestion which The Times kindly called the "Mountgarret amendment". I have it here, but I shall not bore your Lordships. I said, "Surely, the sensible thing to do is to allow the existing councillors to continue in office for another 11 months until the thing is disbanded and we can all get on.". The long and the short of it was that, broadly speaking, the proposal was accepted.
  I feel the same about this amendment. Why not allow our present composition in this House to continue until the end of this Parliament instead of rushing this Bill through at the end of the Session? I try, but I simply do not understand why. I shall be interested to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and to know whether she can tell me why it is so necessary to kick us out on the street in July or perhaps November. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Midnight
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that he hoped he would not incur my wrath. Of course, he does not. I remember well that he was not present in Committee to move then the amendments which he has moved tonight, so of course he is entitled to move them. But let us be under no illusion: the issue has been discussed previously on a number of occasions. Whether the Bill should take effect at the end of the Session or at the end of the Parliament is not a new issue for the House, although the advocacy of it by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is a Few factor in our debates.
  What is the effect of the amendment? There is nothing about waiting for the report of the Royal Commission, for the Joint Committee to report or anything of that kind. It is straight, pure delay. During the previous debate, noble Lords heard me say that the effect of the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Boardman, was delaying and they thought that I had bitterly offended them all personally by saying that. There can be no other description of this amendment other than that it seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill from the end of the Session to the end of the Parliament. It is a very short, very simple issue.
  I thought it just a little rich of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, to complain that we have not put the proposal in the manifesto. For months we have been sitting here listening to torrents of abuse poured on the manifesto from the other side. The first was that the manifesto does not matter because no one reads it. It is said that only 2 per cent of the population pay any attention to it and apparently 70 per cent of the population disagree with it. Although we were elected on it with a somewhat substantial, indeed comforting, majority, now the noble Viscount says, "Ah, you can't do this because it isn't in the manifesto". There seems to be a slight inconsistency in the general approach, if I
  416
  may put it in that way, without dreaming of trying to offend the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. This is a delaying amendment. As such, I cannot support it
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is always fun to listen to. It is interesting to note that when he says, "We've heard all this time and time again", he then makes another similar speech and we have to listen to his speeches time and time again. It is rather like a gramophone record on which the same old music is played. The noble Lord may find it rather boring listening to us, but we are fascinated to listen to him, even if it is a little repetitive.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may remind him that some records are more worth listening to than others, and more often.
  Baroness David: Oh, get on with it!
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, in this case at any rate, being rather unfair. The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount Lord Mountgarret, and Amendment No. 68, might have the effect of delay, but there is a real issue behind it. As your Lordships may know, a Motion has been tabled in my name to refer the question of the status of the Writ of Summons to the Committee for Privileges. It is the view of the Opposition Front Bench that there is genuine doubt about the legal effect of the Writ of Summons.
  A Noble Lord: No!
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, perhaps I may finish what I was saying. There is genuine doubt in the view of the Opposition about the status of the Writ of Summons. Therefore, there may well be great weight behind these amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. It would be wrong to say that they simply reflect an intention to delay, even though they may have that effect.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that the purpose of the amendment was to bring about delay. I entirely recognise what he said. It had the virtue of clarity and, in that particular context, absolute brevity. I quite understand his point. He wants delay because he would prefer that the Bill, as an Act, had effect at the end of this Parliament rather than the end of this Session. That is really the purpose and the point of the amendment; to leave out the words, "Session of". We do not want delay beyond the inevitable delay that has subsisted since 1911. I cannot enlarge upon that.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, that is not a very good argument put forward by the noble Lord. 'Too much play is put on the word "delay". The fact is that delaying, if that is the word which the Labour Party wish to use, enables the sovereign's writ to be honoured. That is far more to the point. It is with that that we are concerned. I have heard nothing to persuade me that it is anything but entirely correct to wait until the end of this Parliament before the Bill is enacted.

  417
  Having said that, I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It would be far better for a layman such as myself to try to bring these points to the fore at this stage but to allow experienced and professional politicians to put their point, with the assistance of everything they have at their disposal, to the Committee for Privileges. I can only say, from the bottom of my heart, that I wish them well.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for giving way. I have a sense of resistance to the description of being a professional politician. I regard myself as very much a part-time politician and hope that the noble Viscount will accept that.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It was a bad description. He is an experienced Member of your Lordships' House who understands the workings infinitely better than I, though I have been here for a long time. I am rather like the Bourbons; I have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 67A:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out ("it") and insert ("this Act").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 68A:
  Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("unless it has been issued to a person who, at the end of the Session, is excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain a little of the purport of this amendment. I have looked at it. I do not expect her to speak at any great length, but a little clue as to what it means would be greatly appreciated.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment at an earlier stage of the Report proceedings. I can briefly explain to the noble Lord that Amendment No. 68A ensures that an excepted Peer, identified as such by the end of this 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 needs to receive a new Writ of Summons.
  418
  There is no reason to delay this amendment until Third Reading. It is internally consistent with the Bill, including Clause 2, and it is necessary to keep it in the Bill to maintain that consistency. Not to have it in the Bill would leave the Bill in an inconsistent mess?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does that mean that the Bill is in an inconsistent mess?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I said precisely the opposite. I said not to have the amendment in the Bill would leave the provisions around the excepted Peers in an inconsistent mess. I thought that was clear.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I too can ask a question. Has the noble Baroness taken advice on hybridity, given that similar classes of Peers are being treated differently in the course of this Bill and with the introduction of this amendment?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have taken a great deal of advice on this subject and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn replied on several occasions to points made about this.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords. I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 69 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 70.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 not moved.]
  Clause 6 [Interpretation and short title]:
  [Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 74A:
  Before the schedule, insert the following new schedule—
  SECTION 4(1)
  ("SCHEDULE
  AMENDMENTS
  Peerage Act 1963 (c.48)
  1. In section 1(2) of the Peerage Act 1963 (disclaimer of certain hereditary peerages) for the words from "has" to the end there shall be substituted the words "is excepted from section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 by virtue of section 2 of that Act".
  Recess Elections Act 1975 (c.66)
  2. In section 1 of the Recess Elections Act 1975 (issue of warrants for making out writs to replace members of the House of Commons whose seats have become vacant), in—

  (a) subsection (1)(a), and

  (b) paragraph (a) of the definition of "certificate of vacancy" in subsection (2),

  for the words "become a peer" there shall be substituted the words "become disqualified as a peer for membership of the House of Commons".
  3. In Schedule 1 to that Act (certificate of vacancy), for the words "has become a peer of Parliament" there shall be substituted the words "has become disqualified as a peer for membership of the House of Commons".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76A and 78.
  [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 76A:
  Page 3, line 4, column 3, leave out from ("1") to ("(3)") in line 7.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 77 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 78.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 3, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert ("Section 5").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 78A to 78D not moved.]
  Preamble:
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if any of Amendments Nos. 79 to 80A are agreed to, I must put those matters differently.
  [Amendments Nos. 79 to 80B not moved.]
  In the Title:
  [Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 84.
  Line 4, after ("Commons;") insert ("to establish an Appointments Commission with functions in relation to the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon one that was moved and carried earlier. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past midnight.