Lords Sitting of 13 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Horse Industry
Baroness Wharton Baroness Wharton asked her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in improving the dialogue between them and the horse industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has maintained its dialogue with the horse industry in respect of the department's responsibilities for animal health and welfare. Moreover, we have actively encouraged all parts of the industry to collaborate to promote the wider economic interests of the horse industry. The setting up of the British Horse Industry Confederation in early March this year was a major step in that direction, which I was able to welcome in a speech at the National Equine Forum on 25th March.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the Government for the steps they have taken to help set up the British Horse Industry Confederation. However, given the fact that over 100,000 people are employed in the industry and some 2.4 million people in this country ride, why has no government department accepted responsibility for the horse, particularly given MAFF's involvement now with the BHIC?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the short answer is because no department has been offered the responsibility or asked to take it. This is a complex area involving a whole network of departments. MAFF deals with some aspects of welfare and a lot of veterinary matters. The Home Office deals with the racing industry, which includes betting regulation and off-farm welfare. The Department of the Environment deals with rating and planning issues involving the horse industry and what might be called the "right to roam " of the horse. Customs and Excise are also involved. It is a complex area. The Government are actively concerned with this question and are looking to see whether they can resolve it. My impression is that the Prime Minister, for whom alone this is the decision, has had other matters to engage him of late.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concerns of the British Equine Veterinary Association and other bodies, such as the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe, that there is
1290
urgent need to review the regulations concerning the provision of equine medicines, both in this country and in the European Union?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of a number of concerns in this area, particularly relating to the European situation. I suspect that the noble Lord, with his great experience, has in mind the problems with the minimal residual levels and the 1990 directive which attempted to ensure that there were not veterinary products in food. Of course, on the continent the horse is seen as a food animal but here it has higher ambitions. We certainly do not want, for instance, our race horses to be prevented from using veterinary products, of which Bute is a prime example. We have been pressing this in Europe quite strongly. I assure the noble Lord that in 1990 we had a statement, but not entrenched, that Europe would be sympathetic to our position. The German presidency has submitted a paper on this matter. It has been considered by a working party which is looking at possibilities such as indelible marking of horses which are clearly not for eating. We hope that that will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. We are still lighting hard for the British position and the position which our vets have so strongly argued to us.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following on from the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, does the Minister agree that the horse concerns MAFF only if it can be eaten or worked'? Apart from that, the Ministry of Agriculture has absolutely no responsibility for the horse. Any of the ministries mentioned by the Minister could equally well have answered this Question. Does he agree that other European countries have ministers for horses? This surely is not a difficult matter for the Prime Minister to decide.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that most other European countries which have a serious horse industry have ministers for the horse who, it so happens, are normally ministers for agriculture. That is a logical position. It is equally true that our problem is that the 1947 Act defined the agricultural horse as being one that works on the farm or is involved in food production. If it is not as defined in the Act, it is not treated as a horse in that way. These complex issues are being considered. I felt that the noble Baroness was going to ask why on earth I was answering the Question. I have to say that the same thought crosses my mind most times I am at the Dispatch Box!
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the majority of cruelty cases have been dealt with under the 1911 Act, and that that Act is now in need of revision? Can he say what plans there are to revise that Act and, in particular, equine welfare matters?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord raises an important issue. The International League for the Protection of Horses is one body which has been to see us. The concern is that the existing Act may be too narrow and requires waiting until there is terrible existing evidence of cruelty to horses before action can be taken.

1291
It is argued that it would be better if it were possible to take action to protect the horse where the behaviour of the owner or manager is such as to raise serious questions that cruelty would arise. That is being considered. However, that is a question for the Home Office, not for MAFF.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have a non-financial interest to declare as the new confederation's representative on the horse and pony taxation committee. Like the Minister, I welcome the creation of the confederation. Whoever the proper Minister to answer the Question may be, I would welcome him. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the work he has done to help bring about the confederation. However, can the Minister say whether, like me, he was disappointed that from start to finish the rural England discussion document did not mention horses? That was a grave omission. Does the Minister think that there is any chance of that omission being remedied?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us about interests. Perhaps I should declare that I own a small, and certainly a rear, part of a very good jumper. However, on rural matters, it is true that our statement in March contained very little reference to horses. Indeed, it could be argued that the horse is a very important part of our rural economy and of rural society. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to take it much wider. That statement, especially the parts relating to the right to roam and access, was about access on foot. We are considering legislation in the area of rights of way, including bridleways. We hope to produce a consultation paper next month and will look to legislation in the future. This is a very important issue. Indeed, the number of accidents on the roads involving horses amounts to anything up to eight per day. I believe it is most important for horse to have the same right of access to the countryside as human beings.

Arms Exports
3.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce legislation on strategic export controls, as announced in July 1998 in the White Paper Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989).
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, as I stated in the Written Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on 29th March (Hansard, col. WA21), the Government are currently reviewing the proposals contained in the White Paper in the light of responses received and are committed to introducing legislation as soon as time is available in the legislative programme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, although I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on that encouraging news which will be widely welcomed by all
1292
who hope for a more stable world, can he improve his response in two respects? First, is it intended to extend controls for the brokering of arms deals and the issuing of licences to manufacture outside the United Kingdom by UK companies? Secondly, will the Government set in place arrangements to monitor the accuracy of end-use certificates?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his opening comment. In trying to be positive about the two particular issues he raises, I can say that the White Paper contained a proposal to introduce controls on traffic and brokering in the most critical areas. Those include arms to all arms-embargoed countries and equipment used in torture. However, there were varying responses to the review as to how far to take any control. That issue, together with the other issues in the White Paper, is currently under review.
In terms of the end-use monitoring, I can tell the House that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that UK exports are not diverted or re-exported to undesirable end-users, in line with our published national criteria. The EU code of conduct sets out the factors to be considered by member states in assessing the risks of diversion. Comments on both those issues are also contained in responses to the White Paper, and will be taken into account.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in looking at the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—namely, the brokering of arms from third countries—have the noble Lord and the Government had any discussions with our partners in the EU, bearing in mind the fact that some of the procurement of weapons from third countries, although perhaps originated by individuals in Britain, is apparently being organised through countries such as Belgium? The procurement of these arms is largely from eastern Europe. Therefore, surely we need also to have discussions with our partners in the OSCE to ensure that whatever decisions are made can be extended throughout the whole region.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, one thing is absolutely clear. In setting up the EU code of conduct, we had discussions with our European partners. As to the specific methodology with which we are taking forward the consultation now in terms of the response to the White Paper, I think it will be wise if I write to the noble Lord and confirm which process we are using to take our internal instruction further with our colleagues in Europe.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, when preparing legislation, will the Minister bear in mind the importance not only of brokering but also of licensing arrangements? For example, does the noble Lord recall the case of British Aerospace which licensed assault rifles, via a German company, to Turkey?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not aware of the case that the noble Lord cites. However, the issue of licensing is taken extremely seriously by the Government. The whole process of the review of licence requests and

1293
the accountability for those responses has been heightened, particularly in view of the fact that we are now publishing an annual report on licences granted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the EU is planning a regime to control the export of what it calls "dual use technology"? Therefore a fairly innocuous thing such as a tyre might require a licence if it can be fixed to a military vehicle. Further, is the Minister aware that there are plans afoot to extend this regime to information conveyed by electronic means, for example by e-mail or fax, or even by the telephone?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, am aware that the export of technology via electronic media is being carefully studied at the moment by both the European Council and the European Commission. I hope very much that the outcome will be positive rather than restrictive because all of us are aware that establishing a good electronic regime for the transfer of information and data is absolutely vital to the competitive capacity of the Union.

Better Regulation Task Force
3.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposal they have to reduce the disincentives for small firms arising from regulations under the recent employment legislation, as described by the Better Regulatior Task Force.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in response to a three-Pour debate on this very subject only yesterday, the Government are committed to tackling barriers to the growth and performance of small firms and are particularly concerned about the impact of regulations. We are reviewing existing regulations so that outdated or unnecessary rules can be struck out. We are taking a strategic approach to regulatory proposals, including EU proposals, which may arise in the future, and we are setting up the Small Business Service which will help small firms meet the demands of regulation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive reply. My Question was of course tabled before the notice appeared announcing yesterday's debate in which the chairman of the task force, the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Haskins, made a notable maiden speech. But did the Government start any action last month when the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, presenting the latest report of the task force, commented that the working time regulations would be a dog's dinner, and called for more clarity and consultation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord says about the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Haskins, which deserves careful study. Certainly the review of the working time directive regulations has been ongoing since they were first introduced. We recognise the force of the task force's
1294
criticisms of the regulations, particularly of the explanatory material, and we have been working on them both before and after the publication of the report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his statement that future EU regulations will be watched closely is extremely welcome? However, will he go a little further and say that Her Majesty's Government, together with other EU countries, will undertake a full review of all the regulations which have been passed and which are injuring businesses, particularly small businesses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that the Commission and Her Majesty's Government may have to suspend other activities for a period of several months in order to carry out a review of the scope that my noble friend suggests. However, his comments on our proposals are welcome.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, further to what the Minister said yesterday in his excellent reply to the debate, and the Answer that he gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, will he tell the House why, if the Government are so concerned about small businesses, they turned down the amendments which we tabled in the other place to the Employment Relations Bill to define such a business as one with fewer than 50 employees rather than one with 20, as everyone in this House knows that the provisions of that Bill will be harmful to all small businesses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose I ought to declare an interest as one who for many years ran a business with between 20 and 50 employees. However, we do not think that the cut-off point for trade union recognition as it occurs in the Employment Relations Bill should be anything other than it is. I am sure the noble Baroness has read the Financial Times this morning and has seen the report published by the CBI which states that new workplace regulations will not dent competitiveness and in particular points out that smaller and medium-sized businesses are less likely to be damagingly affected by employment regulations than larger businesses.

Balkan Refugee Camps: Support for NGOs
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations for contracting out locally the needs of the refugee camps in the Balkans.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the Balkans as elsewhere, the Department for International Development supports the procurement of local goods and services where this is possible, cost-effective, and does not harm the local economy or reduce access of the local host population to

1295
essentials. We strongly encourage the other organisations we fund to follow the same principles. In Macedonia, for example, NGOs supported by DfID's Skopje Field Office have already procured £750,000 worth of goods and services locally.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The Red Cross is doing a fantastic job in the Balkan camps and—this is even more important—in the homes where there are even more refugees than in the camps. However, does the Minister agree that if the Bulgarian Red Cross can feed the refugees in the Radici camp in Macedonia three hot meals a day for four deutschmarks while it is costing 16 deutschmarks for only one hot meal a day in other camps, the Government should not only encourage the NGOs, but also take a much more positive lead themselves, to contract out all aid locally in the Balkans to those countries that have been so seriously affected by the Kosovo war?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in commending the work of the Red Cross, which has done some excellent work in the region. I can assure the noble Baroness that we make every effort to support local procurement. For example, NGOs that we have funded have purchased food, building and construction materials and medical and sanitary supplies from local sources in Macedonia. NATO has also made significant local purchases for building works and also for the running of refugee camps. As I said in my original Answer, in Macedonia itself the total value of our local purchases comes to some £750,000. The Government of Macedonia have requested that international agencies should buy from local firms. I shall certainly convey the noble Baroness's concern in this matter to my colleagues, but we are firmly committed with respect to local purchases.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at a large gathering of the Moslem community last week my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commended the work of organisations such as Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief? In the light of that can my noble friend tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that these organisations are considered for inclusion in any of the Government's future contracting arrangements?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I join my noble friend in commending the work of a range of NGOs. I am aware that Muslim Aid is currently working in Albania although DFID is not supporting it at present. Some time ago Muslim Aid gathered some 50 tonnes of assorted goods and medicines from the British Moslem community and asked DFID to fly that out to Albania. We had to inform them that we already had non-stop flights to the region and we had warehouses which were already crammed full of supplies. That is why our consistent message to the British people—who have been magnificent in their response to this crisis—is that it is better to supply cash rather than goods.
1296
As to my noble friend's other question about contracting arrangements, we have undertaken to have a meeting with Muslim Aid and other agencies once the crisis is over.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the refugees in the camps are many people with skills that are needed—doctors, nurses, teachers, those with previous administrative experience—and whose skills are not currently being used? Would it not be sensible, as far as is possible, to encourage self-help and self-management for as long as the refugee camps continue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Efforts have been made to utilise local skills, particularly in respect of doctors, at the various refugee camps. I am aware that that effort will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be aware that there are difficulties in terms of managing that kind of effort, but it is something we will continue to do.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is effective international monitoring of financial and other practical assistance destined for refugees to ensure that they benefit from it and that it is not diverted to other less deserving channels?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we consistently monitor our assistance as part of our on-going effort. We make every effort to ensure that development and humanitarian assistance are targeted towards places of greatest need and are not diverted.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, how many Kosovar refugees have arrived in the United Kingdom so far? What measures are being taken to ensure that children are reunited with their families?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our top priority has been to ensure that, in the main, Kosovar refugees receive care in the region. We are conscious that refugees have said to us time and time again that they would prefer to stay within the region in order that they can easily return home. Having said that, we have worked with UNHCR in terms of indicating the United Kingdom's willingness to accept refugees on the basis of agreed criteria. As to numbers, 645 refugees had arrived by Sunday, 9th May; one plane arrived on Tuesday, 11th May; and another plane is expected today. I should also say to my noble friend Lord Ahmed that to help facilitate the move of refugees from the region to here, a Home Office team arrived in Macedonia on 9th May to assist UNHCR with the processing.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, do the Government accept as a duty that they and the allies must provide humanitarian aid to all the victims of this war, not simply to the Kosovars?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our humanitarian policy is carried out on the basis of need. If there is a need in

1297
the region we will try to ensure that we deal with it as best we can. The noble Earl will be aware that in Kosovo itself we a-e unable to do anything as we do not have access.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the proportion of European humanitarian aid which is using locally contracted services? There seems to be a problem in that area. If the noble Baroness does not know the answer, will she look into the matter and let the House know?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness. Lady Chalker, that as far as I am aware the commitment of the UK Government to local procurement is shared by the European Commission. I will happily write to the noble Baroness if I find that there is anything I can add to my answer.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, what criteria do the Government use to select the refugees who come into this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the criteria are as follows: that evacuation is on an entirely voluntary basis; that we respect the need for family unity; that priority is given to the most vulnerable refugees; that consideration is given to family links for refugees who already have contacts within the United Kingdom; and that refugees must be medically fit to sustain travel.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment further or the supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Rawlings which drew attention to the extraordinary difference between the costs of meals provided from Bulgaria and those provided from Germany? Presumably there would be an enormous increase in the amount of food available if the source of supply were changed. Is this under consideration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope I made it clear in my original Answer that there is a very strong commitment to purchasing locally. However, we have to recognise that in doing that the countries in the region have to feed and clothe their local populations. There is a trade-off to be made here.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following on from that last point, does the noble Baroness agree that the people of Albania and Macedonia are carrying a very sizeable share of the responsibility? Are the Government doing anything to support the host families, who I gather are helped by the Churches in this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we pay tribute to the host families which have taken in refugees in those countries. The Government are working with organisations such as the Red Cross to give support to such families in the region and we will continue to monitor the situation.

House of Lords Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.71:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL INTERESTS
(". —(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

(2) The function of the Appointments Commission is to make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(3) The Appointments Commission shall ensure that following the passing of this Act persons representing—

(a) agriculture, and

(b) rural affairs, are recommended to Her Majesty for appointment to the House of Lords under the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958.")

The noble Lord said: My main interest in the Bill is to try to extract from the Government what is to be the future, if any, of the House. I doubt whether it will come as any surprise to the Committee that I am most concerned that there should be agricultural and rural representation in any interim or future House. I hope that the Government are aware of the strong feeling that rural and, in particular, agricultural interests have been, and are, being ignored by the Government. As evidence of that I draw attention to the demonstrations which have taken place during the past two years. All the demonstrations have been peaceful but that should not disguise the strength of feeling. I move the amendment in order to obtain a constructive reply from the Government that the agricultural and rural voice will be heard loud and clear in any future Chamber.
The amendment goes wider than agriculture. It deals with a problem which cannot be answered unless we know the Government's intentions as to the job of the House in the future. Obviously, they would prefer a unicameral system.
My interest is in the small print of legislation. Is it the Government's wish that the reformed House, interim or final, should have as its primary job revising and improving legislation? If so, some of its Members should surely be drawn from certain sectors of our national life or economy. The amendment suggests that agriculture should be one of them.
The point was made firmly and well by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in chapter 27 of his report. I therefore find it difficult to accept that the House should be 100 per cent elected. However, I believe, for credibility's sake, part should be democratically elected, apart from the fact that it would

1299
be in line with the Labour Party's manifesto that the Government keep shoving down my throat, or the bits of it that they wish me to eat.
The amendment seeks to point out that minority interests have always been represented in your Lordships' House. Sadly, I have to accept that agriculture is now a minority interest. There is little knowledge of it in the Commons. The Welsh Office, in its explanatory notes on the Welsh Assembly, made no mention of agriculture, although there was the usual platitudinous waffle about the environment. The situation in your Lordships' House has been totally different. Many noble Lords have farming interests. That fact was mentioned and, I think, disliked by the Leader of the House. It was well illustrated by the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, last time we were in Committee. He stated that the greatest number of hereditary Peers—seven—served on Sub-committee D which was chaired at one time by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Most agriculture Peers here have done their stint on that committee.
The amendment asks who will do the vital job of revising legislation. It is not vote-catching. A study of the Commons Committee proceedings proves that. It seemed to me that 90 per cent of the time was devoted to points of order.
As we all know, the devil is always in the detail. That is the case with agriculture. Look at the ghastly mess the European Union has made of the common agricultural policy or the hilarious muddle the Government have got into dare I say it?—over beef on the bone. There have also been the rules about animal cleanliness, demanding the impossible task of shearing cattle's stomachs before slaughter, which no sensible, reasonable or practical farmer would attempt to do. My experience is that your Lordships have dealt with such technical matters conscientiously and well. The amendment is designed to ensure that the future House does the job as well, if not better.
Committee stage in your Lordships' House has not been marked or muddied by party politics. I fear that that will not be so in the future. Each party will nominate full-time party hacks who will have to promise to turn up, regardless of their lack of knowledge of a particular subject. I accept that I am flogging my own horse and there will be no room for amateurs or amateur backwoodsmen such as myself. The House will consist of those who possibly have little experience of outside life. They will be political animals who believe that the sun shines out of their backsides. Sadly, as we all learn, the sun shines out of none of our backsides.
I am therefore anxious to know the Government's view on how they intend to address such problems. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend, but before going further perhaps I may make a plea to the Leader of the House. For the first three days of Committee many of us tried to get the Government to enter into discussions but were met with the stonewall
1300
answer that it was not in the manifesto. That seemed to end discussion. After the reversal of the Government's policy with the acceptance of the Weatherilll amendment, I had hoped that we would enter into discussion on Tuesday evening. Perhaps the emotion of voting against the holy grail of the manifesto proved too much and we were not constructive.
Although it is a great honour and privilege to have one's amendment answered by the noble Baroness, it would make us happier and the proceedings more pleasurable if we received answers to our questions. It is in that spirit and with that intention that I put forward views on the amendments tabled today. I hope that the Government will be more forthcoming than to date.
The amendment can be divided into two parts. One is the function of the appointments committee in making recommendations. It may be helpful if we do not discuss that specifically and take that part of the amendment later when we discuss the appointments committee more generally. It seems to fit better there.
Therefore, the vein of my argument now is to support my noble friend in his request that the minority interests of agriculture and the countryside are represented in any future Chamber. There are one or two notable exceptions on the Benches opposite, but by and large the Labour Party is not—
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. I am puzzled because, under the present system of appointments, which could be enormously improved on, there are a considerable number of life Peers in the House—the Government Chief Whip is one and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Prior, are others—who have considerable experience of agriculture. It would be difficult in this country to have any appointments system that worked at all if it did not reproduce what we already have.
The Earl of Caithness: I was intending to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. There are one or two notable exceptions, but if the noble Lord had listened to what my noble friend Lord Stanley said about the composition of the committees, he would know that the great majority of Members of your Lordships' House who take part in agriculture debates are hereditary Peers. The majority of those who take part sit on these Benches. If we are to have an influx—as undoubtedly we shall—of new Peers in the interim House—the Leader of the House said on Tuesday that about 40 new Peers would be introduced—it is important that the interests of the countryside are taken account of.
Further, as we move into a more full-time House and there is less time and opportunity for people like my noble friend Lord Stanley to attend, it will be essential to hear from those who live and work in the countryside. Too often the view of the countryside is that portrayed by the townie—that the countryside should be preserved in aspic and that it is not a living and working environment. As the Committee knows, that is exactly what it is. It changes and adapts. Therefore, the people who work in, and who have produced, the beautiful

1301
countryside, where many of us live and have the opportunity to work, should be represented here so that it remains a living and viable entity for the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This seems to be an important discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made the point—and I can see why he made it—that there are a number of life Peers under the present system who know about agriculture. But it is a larger subject for this House than the noble Lord probably appreciates. That is mainly because of the European Union where agriculture is, and will continue to be, an enormous issue. The interests of the various member states of the European Union diverge. The interests of this country diverge because our agriculture is different. I know the noble Lord appreciates that.
It takes more than three or four Peers to cover the whole discussion that must go on. The agriculture sub-committee of the European Communities Select Committee is a sizeable one. The subject crops up in other areas too. It is extremely important that there should be a good spread of people who understand the issues.
The problem in regard to agriculture as opposed to other subjects is that it is both technical and cultural. If one lives in the countryside and are engaged in it, one cannot help knowing quite a lot about it, and one can easily find out a great deal more. If one does not live in the countryside, it is rather theoretical and not so easy to deal with. The character of this House would change very quickly if everyone who dealt with agriculture had to "mug up " on the subject, as working Peers must do on various subjects It is important to retain a proper spread of people in this area. If there is to be an appointments commission, there should be some form of requirement on it to consider this matter above all others when the spread of expertise is considered. The noble Baroness laughs. I do not think she either understands what I am saying or wants to understand it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I respectfully say to the noble Baroness that I was exchanging a comment with my noble friend which had nothing immediately to do with what she was saying.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With the greatest respect, that was my fear.
My noble friend's amendment is extremely important. I hope that the Minister's reply will be sympathetic and that the Government will find some way, if the committee itself cannot find one, of placing some requirement on the appointments commission to consider this matter carefully.
Lord Goodhart: This is the first of a considerable series of amendments dealing with the appointments commission. The Government's White Paper proposed a non-statutory appointments commission which will make non-political nominations, leaving the political appointments to be nominated by party leaders. That aim is limited but welcome; it removes the possibility that the making of non-political appointments through
1302
the Honours List can be abused to reward what are in fact political services to an incumbent government—for example, donations to a party.
A large number of these amendments propose to bring the appointments commission onto the face of the Bill and make it a statutory body. All of them, however, do rather more. Some extend the powers of the appointments commission to cover political as well as non-political appointments. This amendment does not do so and I do not propose to say much about it at this stage. Other amendments are concerned with the basis on which non-political appointments will be made, and this amendment falls into that category. It is concerned with ensuring the representation of agricultural and rural affairs in the transitional House.
Implicit in this approach is an important constitutional change in the nature of the creation of peerages. At present, we have two categories of new Peers: first, the political Peers, who are either galley slaves like myself. appointed as political working Peers on the basis of an undertaking to turn up and work; or distinguished alumni of the other place who are appointed through the dissolution or resignation Honours List. The second category of new appointees are the non-political Peers, usually appointed through the Honours List as a result of outstanding service to the country. It is hoped that they will turn up and take part in the work of the House, particularly on matters in which they have expertise, but there is no obligation or requirement on them, moral or otherwise, to do so. Most, but not all, of the Peers appointed through the Honours List take seats on the Cross-Benches.
What seems to be proposed in this amendment, and in some others to like effect, is that Peers who are now appointed through the Honours List will be nominated by the appointments commission in a representative capacity and therefore necessarily on an implicit basis of commitment to take part in the business of the House on issues on which they have specific experience. That creates the new concept of the appointment of a working Cross-Bench Peer. There is a good deal to be said for that concept.
Lord Marsh: Perhaps I may intervene to make a semantic point. The idea of a working Cross-Bench Peer would not be an innovation!
Lord Goodhart: There are of course many Cross-Bench Peers who do a great deal of work. But they have not been appointed on the basis of any kind of undertaking to do so.
If the second Chamber is ultimately to be partly appointed, the concept of expert, working Cross-Bench Peers in the sense in which I have used it—namely, people appointed specifically in order to work—will be plainly desirable; indeed it may be essential. But that is a matter for the Royal Commission and what follows after the commission has reported. It seems to me to be jumping the gun to alter the nature of the appointment of non-political Peers to this House in the transitional stage. I suggest it is more appropriate that non-political

1303
appointments should continue to be made on the basis of outstanding service, which has conferred benefits on the nation, and on that basis only.
Turning to the specific amendment under discussion, I do not think that special representation for agricultural and rural affairs is justified. Many Members of this place have such experience. Indeed, those interests are represented well beyond that which would be justified simply on the basis of agriculture as a share of the economy or employment in this country. That representation may indeed be reduced as a result of the Bill, but there is no reason to suppose that it will be reduced to a level where agricultural and rural affairs will not be adequately represented in the debates and the working of the committees.
In addition, under the Weatherill amendment which has been passed by the Committee, 42 Conservative and 28 Cross-Bench Peers will be elected and will no doubt include a number of people who can speak from great personal experience of agricultural and rural interests. What is more, the grant of special rights for one interest would be bound to lead to a request for special rights for others, which would not be appropriate, certainly not in a transitional House. We on these Benches are therefore unable to support the amendment.
Baroness Strange: I support my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley. Although my words may seem irrelevant, they are not. I wish to talk about the practicality of farming. Some time ago I attended a reception at the Russian Embassy. One of the Russians said in conversation: "Of course, you are a Peer, and I am a peasant ". I said,"That is very interesting. Have you picked blackcurrants and redcurrants, raspberries and strawberries? ". He replied that he had not. I said: "Have you picked potatoes, or planted potatoes, carrying a sack round your waist and putting them down one by one as you go along the drill? ". His answer was no. I said: "Have you milked a cow by hand? ". Again, his answer was no. I said: "Have you ploughed, using a horse? ". He said that he had not. I said: "I have done all those things, so I reckon I am just as good a person as you are ".
Lord Milverton: I support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but my noble friend made some good points which need to be taken into account. Although I have been a minister all my life, I started out in Kenya studying agriculture and practising there for a time. Therefore, I have an interest in agriculture. I have also spent most of my ministry not in a large town or city but in more rural areas. There may be many representatives in this House on agricultural or rural matters. Even so, there could be a danger that those matters are not properly defended, as it were, or looked after.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has given the Committee an opportunity to have a brief discussion on what the
1304
House may look like after reform and the important aspect of the rural community, agriculture, fishing and so on. There is absolutely no doubt that your Lordships' House has a range of people very expert on rural matters, obvious examples being farming and forestry. My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch springs to mind as someone with an unparalleled knowledge of forestry. Although he may not attend often, when he speaks on forestry matters your Lordships listen, quite correctly, attentively.
My noble friend's amendment simply asks for an indication from the Government that when Peers are appointed in future the rural interest may be taken into account and that the balance of new creations is such that the important role that rural communities play in our lives is represented in your Lordships' House. The simple fact of the matter is that the other place is a lot less knowledgeable and representative of countryside matters than it was, for example, when I joined it in 1979.
One takes the example of beef on the bone. The other place voted overwhelmingly to ban it and this House voted overwhelmingly to retain it. From press reports, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are about to vote fairly overwhelmingly to lift the ban. That is an issue which my noble friend Lord Stanley teased out a week or two ago when it was discovered that the Government had made an about-turn from the position explained by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during Committee stage on the Welsh Bill.
The countryside rally held some time ago showed that there were real fears in the countryside that people's interests were being overwhelmed not just by urban interests but by urban interests pretending to be countryside interests. If one looks at the 56 Labour life Peers appointed since the general election and checks their addresses in Dod's and Who's Who, even if one throws in the geographical designations of their peerage one finds only about three with strongly stated rural connections. That may not be a very scientific way of doing it; I may have missed a holiday cottage or two, but it is significant and not very reassuring.
One is also aware—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was also involved in this in part—that the three main accusations made against hereditary Members in your Lordships' House are: first, that too many of them are Conservatives. In my view, that just shows good sense. Secondly, it is said that too many of them went to Oxford or Cambridge. I find that a bit odd. I have just checked and discovered that the three people who lead for the Government in your Lordships' House went to Oxford or Cambridge. I did not. I thought that it had something to do with British vintage motorcars, but there you are. The Prime Minister also went to one of those universities. Therefore, to have attended Oxford or Cambridge cannot be too great a crime, although I understand that for too many of my noble friends who are hereditary Peers it is considered in that light. One can almost say that too many of the senior members of the Government went to Oxford or Cambridge, but a good number attended Scottish universities.

1305
The third accusation is that too many hereditary Peers are farmers and landowners. I do not believe that someone is any the worse for being a farmer or landowner. In its evidence to the Royal Commission the Labour Party said that the House of Lords should be fully representative of the different interests of the country. One wonders whether three new life Peers out of 56 can be considered to be fully representative of rural communities. I hope that the Committee will receive a constructive reply from the Government on this issue so that those who come from rural areas, and those of us who would rather live their than in cities, will feel that in the House of Lords to come rural interests will be properly represented.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that three out of 56 is about 6 per cent, which is more than the proportion of the labour force engaged in agriculture?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: But it is a good deal less than the total land area of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I believe that the point is related to land ownership.
Before I respond to the important points which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, raises in his amendment I should like briefly to reply to the matters touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the way that the Government have attempted to respond to earlier amendments and intend to speak to them. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that, in my estimation and that of most people who judge the appearance and substance of these proceedings, five government Ministers have tried to respond in detail and with great concern and care to a number of issues which, in some cases, are somewhat repetitive. I suggest to the noble Earl that simply because he does not necessarily like what is said in reply to the amendments does not mean that those points have received an inappropriate response.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, this is the first of a number of amendments that deals with the future size and type of membership of the House and the possibility of an appointments commission. I recognise that individual noble Lords wish to speak to their particular amendments, and they should do so. Those amendments deal with specific points to which we shall respond thoroughly as they we raised.
But it may assist the Committee if at this stage I respond fully to the Government's overall attitude to the amendments that deal with a public appointments commission. I recognise that these amendments are intended to be helpful to the workings of the transitional House and to clarify certain mechanisms that may be involved in that. However, the Government are not sympathetic to the principle which lies behind the amendments. We believe that the individual proposals are either somewhat technically flawed or raise more questions than they answer.
1306
Addressing first the underlying principle, I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—as on Tuesday night, I shall not now invoke the manifesto—that the Government intend the Bill to be a self-contained statute to end the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. This Bill is not about life Peers or life peerages; nor does it intend to prescribe the regulation of the transitional House. This is precisely because the Government are resolute in their determination that the transitional House should be just that; that is, a temporary institution. If, for example, the Royal Commission made proposals—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to this—to include nominated Members of the second Chamber that would be the time to consider legislation to achieve the appropriate systems for nominating those Members. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that that would be the time to discuss the functions and future role of the second Chamber.
Perhaps I can most clearly express the position of the Government on the appointments commission and its possible place in this particular Bill by turning the question round. I ask the Committee to consider the reaction if the Government had themselves proposed a statutory prescription for selecting Members of the interim Chamber in this Bill. I can well imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asserting vigorously that that was a clear signal that the Government intended the transitional arrangements to be permanent. The question raised by any noble Lord would be: why go to the trouble of establishing an appointments commission or quotas of different types of Peers in primary legislation for a short-term arrangement? It must mean that the whole arrangement is designed to last for years.
I understand that many of the amendments related to the appointments commission are concerned with the underlying issue. We are engaged in building confidence about the intentions of the Government in this area. I say again that our intentions are as soon as we can to take the action set out in the White Paper on the interim House and to move to the second stage of long-term reform as soon as we can. Everyone who has spoken from the Front Bench on this side of the House in the many debates on this subject, notably my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Tuesday's debate on Amendment No.31, has underlined those long-term intentions. Of course, I am happy to do so again.
In the short term, in relation to the transitional House, I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that our plans meet, or in some instances exceed, many of the proposals and suggestions incorporated in some of the amendments which are to be discussed this afternoon.
I turn to Amendment No.71, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. We have had a brief discussion this afternoon, but we have had several debates on this general point before. This amendment reflects the genuine concern felt by some noble Lords about the representation of agricultural and rural interests in your Lordships' House, particularly once the hereditary Peers have left.

1307
Certainly, the agricultural sector contains a formidable lobby among the hereditary peerage. I shall not hesitate to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said when talking about the unrepresentative nature of the total peerage. We have recognised that that background must extend beyond the ancient titles which, in your Lordships' House, were always based in land, to the representation of more recent interests.
I have no difficulty in reasserting that the Government think that that is one many unrepresentative aspects of the present House and that the balance of the House will be changed—in our view for the better—in terms of being more balanced once the hereditary Peers leave.
Specific interests need to be properly reflected and articulated. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, that is something that I am sure we can leave, with confidence, to the life Peers.
To say that we do not think that there should be a specific or particular representation of agricultural and rural interests is not the same as saying that we think that those interests should not be represented at all. Of course, we believe that they should be represented, but that representation must be commensurate with the importance of those interests in the national economy. My noble friend Lord Desai made that point succinctly in his intervention.
There are a number of important industries whose value and importance to the economy and the general nature of our community must be protected in some way, but none should be uniquely protected. There are many ways of life which are of importance to us all and to everyone who benefits from those different ways of life. The countryside is important to us all, but a vast range of interests is involved in that, and agricultural interests and rural interests are not necessarily the same. I sometimes wonder whether the great attention given to this subject by noble Lords opposite, and other members of the hereditary peerage who purport to represent agricultural interests in general, is concerned more with agricultural land ownership than anything broader.
The key point is that the membership of the House should be "balanced ". The Government's intention is that it should be more balanced once the hereditary Peers leave. We shall make every effort to bring that about and in the future we intend to maintain that broad representation of interests, but not to the particular protection of any one group.
If the noble Lord intends to press his amendment, I hope that the Committee will not support it.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I can seek clarification from the noble Baroness. She has spoken generally of the Government's attitude to the appointments commission. A sizeable group of amendments, starting with Amendment No.75, deals with the general desirability of the appointments commission. Am I right in understanding that those of us who are interested in the appointments commission should speak at that stage
1308
about our views on that commission, despite the fact that the noble Baroness has expressed the Government's position at this stage?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was responding to the particular point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that insufficient attention was paid to the amendments which had been addressed before. Therefore, I was giving a brief "preview " of the Government's position, which I shall hope to develop substantively when we come to the group of amendments to which the noble Viscount refers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. As she went on, the noble Baroness became considerably more helpful than when she started to speak. I thought that she was far from helpful when she said, among other things, that this is a self-contained Bill and that we should not think any further than that.
I was interested in an exchange that occurred when we were last in Committee on this Bill between my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said, words to the effect, that one cannot say that getting rid of the present Chamber would not have an effect. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, replied in the same column:
"Of course I know that it "—
that means "they "—
"has an effect ". —[0fficial Report, 29/4/99; col.461]
I would like the noble Baroness to accept, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard. that in getting rid of the present Chamber and changing the whole pattern, in future agricultural and rural affairs will be represented. I do not disagree with her that we have too high a proportion of agriculturists in the Chamber, as I believe that we do compared with the House of Commons. I simply ask that in future agricultural and rural affairs are represented. That point was made clearly, as usual, by my noble friend Lord Mackay. It is important because, as I said in my opening speech, we feel, rightly or wrongly, that we have been neglected and that is one of the many reasons for so many demonstrations.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness found it more interesting to talk and laugh with her neighbour than to listen to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In mitigation, I must admit that I too often do that when I get bored with what is happening in the Chamber. However, it emphasises the technical and cultural differences between those from the countryside and our politicians. We are very short of agricultural politicians who have a knowledge of what is happening in the countryside.
I agree with the fact—raised by the noble Baroness—that many who think that they represent us, however, do not live in the countryside, and do not really understand what is happening. That has a lot to do with the problems that we face at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also pointed out that there is, sadly, a big difference. The difference is growing wider and wider, as I get older and older. I realise how old I am getting and that is one of the reasons why I must leave the House soon. I am sure that

1309
the noble Baroness will be pleased about that. That will keep her smiling for a little longer. There is a big difference between the way in which we in the countryside think and the way in which Parliament thinks, and I regret that.
Of course, at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I am not sure that I agree with him. I am not sure why he is so confident that agricultural and rural interests will be represented in a future House. I can see no reason why they should be. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.72:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATION
(".—(I) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

(2) The function of the Appointments Commission is to make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(3) The Appointments Commission shall ensure that following the passing of this Act persons representing religions other than the Church of England are recommended to Her Majesty for appointment to the House of Lords under the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958.")

The noble Earl said: With this amendment, I hope that I am pushing at a slightly more open door. On page 28 of its submission to the Royal Commission, the Labour Party states that it believes that it is desirable to extend representation in this House to the other religions and faiths, than the Church of England, that take their place in British society. This amendment seeks to do that. It does not mention numbers—that is for the appointments commission—but it is merely concerned with the principle.
The 26 Lords Spiritual have played an important role in this Chamber but, with respect to them, as they are all from the Church of England, they do not, indeed they cannot, represent the spiritual needs of Britain. In 1995 the Anglican community was estimated at some 26 million. Only about 3 per cent of them were regular attendees in Church—that being some 854,000. The Catholic community was smaller at 5.7 million, but about 23 per cent of those attended regularly, giving an attendance of over 1.3 million, considerably more than the Church of England. However, they have no bishops here to represent them.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church has well defined principles on many controversial issues that face us and we, in this Chamber, are the poorer for not having the benefit of their views on issues such as abortion. But within the Trinitarian Churches many others, such as the Scots, Methodists and Baptists have substantial numbers of regular attenders. They, too, should be eligible to be appointed here. We must not overlook the non-Trinitarian Churches whose religious communities totalled over 4 million in 1995. There must be opportunities for them.
As we approach tile millennium, there is a clear and increasing need for a more comprehensive spiritual input into our lives. For many of us it is vitally
1310
important already, and we could all do worse than to step back from the hurly-burly of modern day living and listen to and act upon the advice of our religious leaders.
I appreciate that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley and myself would mean that fewer than the 24 bishops of the Church of England would be able to attend, but no offence is meant to them. Indeed, I am sure that they would be among the first to agree the need to widen the representation and ability to put forward different views from the Spiritual Benches to enable us to enhance our discussions and probably improve our legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Noble Lords may well ask why I am breaking my own rule by participating in matters that are not agricultural, of which I have personal experience. My answer is that it is extremely difficult to be closely involved in farming without realising that something other than money makes it tick—even though most people think that that is the only issue that farmers think about.
Moreover, as we discuss the tiresomeness of our hereditary genes, I cannot but be reminded that my family fully appreciated the importance and practices of differing religions. Over the past two or three generations, members of my family have included an Anglican bishop, a Roman Catholic bishop, an outspoken Dean of Westminster, a Jewess. the first Peer to become a Moslem, and an agnostic or two or three—I look at my noble kinsmen on the Liberal Democrat Benches, most of whom I believe are agnostic.
I declare my interest. I try to be a practising Anglican although I admit to resigning as a churchwarden through a slight disagreement with a former Bishop of Oxford. The unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Runcie, who was my rural dean at the time, had to act as mediator. I fear that he did not succeed particularly well, but that was not his fault. I fear that I would have similar difficulties and problems with the present right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford; but that is neither here nor there. I am fortunate in having an extremely good rector in the church in Wales.
I have been brought up to realise the importance of a religious belief. That importance should not relate just to church services, far from it. I do not find most of the church services in the Anglican Church thought provoking, devout or indeed inspiring, which I much regret. Religious belief should be part and parcel of our day-to-day life, and in this case our political life, hence the amendment.
As my noble friend pointed out, the amendment ensures that that need is met and that religious leaders will have a right to a place in any reformed House. I accept that that would inevitably mean less Church of England representation, but with devolvement in Wales and Scotland I should have thought it right, in order to prevent further break-up of the United Kingdom, that the Churches of Wales and of Scotland should have representation.
Britain's cultural society is based on Christian principles. Therefore, those religious Members should be predominantly Christian, although, as I pointed out,

1311
I am not banning the Moslem faith. I believe that other faiths should be represented, in particular the Jewish faith on which our own Christian faith was based.
The amendment is widely drafted to give the Government an opportunity to express any view they may have, including the view held by some of my noble kinsmen on the Liberal Benches, which is agnostic.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. However, the Bill is concerned with the interim House. This issue relates more to the work of the Royal Commission.
I speak as a member of the Methodist Church. We regret the passing of Lord Soper, but are delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, is now among our membership. I understand that so far as concerns the Roman Catholic Church, my friend—I speak as a supporter, as is he, of Newcastle United—Cardinal Hume would have been a Member of this House had it been possible for him to be admitted as a Bishop of Rome and not as an individual. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church would not allow the nomination of any of its bishops or cardinals to a political chamber but would have accepted their nomination as a Bishop of Rome.
I trust that the Royal Commission will bear that matter very much in mind. I urge strongly that this issue is considered by the Royal Commission, rather than debated in this Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Subsection (3) of the new clause includes the phrase,
"persons representing religions other than the Church of England ".
There is obvious justice in that proposal. However, do the two noble Lords who tabled the amendment agree that the subsection should also include persons of no religious conviction? From a number of surveys over recent years, it appears that most people in this country have no religious belief. If judged by church attendance, the answer to that question would be clear. I was interested in the figures given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. They seem in part at least to support the case which I now make.
Some noble Lords may not be aware that there is a parliamentary humanist group. It has no fewer than 53 members of all parties and from both Houses. That gives some indication of the state of religious belief in the country as a whole.
I am opposed to the new clause. But if such a change were to be made, Parliament should recognise the reality of the situation in the country, and not limit the provision to that proposed in the new clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, quoted the Labour Party manifesto. The most important point he cited was that all sections of society should be included. That is the point I am making.
Lord Goodhart: I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles underlying the amendment. The argument for this amendment is markedly stronger than for the previous one. Unlike agricultural and rural affairs, it
1312
cannot be said that faiths other than Christianity, or Churches other than the Church of England, are over-represented in your Lordships' House. A number of individuals are members of Churches other than the Church of England and others are members of other faiths, but few of them have the standing to speak on behalf of their Churches or faiths that the bishops have. Nevertheless, for the reasons I expressed in response to the previous amendment, and for the reasons put extremely clearly on this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, it seems inappropriate that any group of persons should be selected in a representative capacity for membership of a transitional House by the appointments commission. Therefore, with regret, we are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Caithness has introduced an interesting amendment, and one which chimes—as it is a debate about religion that seems the correct word—with paragraphs 21 and 22 of what I think is the White Paper. It is a little confusing as to whether such documents are White Papers because although the pages are white, the covers are no longer white. I refer to the document, Modernising Parliament, Reforming the House of Lords which was published by the Government. Paragraphs 21 and 22 address this issue. Paragraph 22 states:
"The Government also recognises the importance of the House of Lords reflecting more accurately the multicultural nature of modern British society in which there are citizens of many faiths, and of none. We shall be looking for ways of increasing the representation in the Lords of other religious traditions. In particular, there is a case for examining the position of the Church of Scotland which is an established church but has never had representation as of right in the second chamber ".
I also understand that when the Church of Scotland was offered the possibility of seats in your Lordships' House, the problem rapidly arose that the "head "—he is not, of course—the chief minister, the Moderator, holds office for only one year. Therefore, there was some difficulty in identifying who might represent the Church of Scotland in your Lordships' House. I understand that the same problem arose when a bishop or archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church was offered a peerage. On advice from the Vatican, he was unable to accept it, which is a great pity.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that the Government in their White Paper have gone some way towards sympathising with the amendment. I am sure that that is what we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she replies. I recall, when we voted on whether the Church of England should allow lady priests, turning to the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and asking him whether when the Division was called he would like a Presbyterian vote. He indicated that he would. As the Church of Scotland has successfully had women ministers for many years, it seemed only right that I should give him that vote. Indeed, the free churches are rightly represented here by a noble Baroness who is a minister.
It is right that the Government have acknowledged that and I look forward to hearing their comments. The Minister may be interested to hear what the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which is currently

1313
meeting, has had to say about your Lordships' House. It is being presided over by the Queen's representative, the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. Indeed, the Church of Scotland is well represented in this House, although not by the clergy but by many elders of the Church. A noble Lord who has recently taken his place on the Government Front Bench is married to an elder of the Church. So we are represented, if not by the clergy. However, I do not believe that your Lordships are too keen to hear a moral lecture from me—perhaps from some of the other elders, but not from me.
The Church of Scotland, in its supplementary report on church and nations, published this week, said this about your Lordships' House:
"Indeed, given the role the House of Lords has usefully played so far in revising, or 'mopping up', the actions and mistakes of the House of Commons, it could be said that it would be better to delay decisions on reform of the House of Lords until one can see more clearly the various corrective roles a reformed chamber may be able to play with regard to various parts of government ".
Before the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tells me that I am slightly out of order, perhaps I may say that, surely, people with such judgments thoroughly deserve a seat in your Lordships' House.
The report goes on to say that the committee wishes to argue for a strong second Chamber doing a worthwhile job. I believe that in that the position of the Bishops has been important. The Bishops have not always agreed with me; the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Oxford and Ripon in particular proved troublesome for me when I was a Minister in the Department of Social Security. I recall one day going into the Division Lobby on some other issue and seeing a Bishop—neither of those—I looked at him and said, "I have an awful feeling that one of us must be in the wrong Lobby ". He assured me that we were both in the correct Lobby on that issue.
I believe that the Bishops have played a very important role. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who sits on the Cross Benches, has made some very interesting speeches on moral issues. Even if one did not agree with them, one had to agree that they were made powerfully and on a well-argued case that should be heard. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk performs a service as a kind of unpaid Whip for the Roman Catholic Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, who was recently in his place, gave us an indication of the attitude of the Moslem faith to issues such as the age of consent.
All of us can agree: that such contributions strengthen your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is important that my noble friend's amendment will allow the Government, in the person of the Leader of the House, to underline their commitments made in the White Paper to ensure not only that other parts of the Christian Churches in the UK are represented here, but other faiths which play a significant part in life in many areas of our country and—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand—those of no faith at all. It is important that your Lordships' House in future represents a broad cross-section of the British people. That includes the religious persuasions of that broad cross-section.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: Perhaps the noble Baroness could help me and some of my noble friends on these Benches who follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. This whole issue about appointments committees will be discussed by the Royal Commission and we are going over the ground that we shall go over after the commission has reported. This is a fine way of wasting time and I ask the noble Baroness to express her own feelings on the issue, although I do not wish her to take a lead.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I shall reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. As I cannot always get the line of sight over my right shoulder, I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when we discussed the previous amendment. I then made it clear that the Government believe that much of the substance of the points being made is legitimately in the domain of the Royal Commission, and I emphasised that in response to the previous amendment.
However, noble Lords have raised particular issues and, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Government believe it is appropriate to make full replies to those points. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Annan, that underlying some of the points is a discussion that it would be more relevant to have in the future. I am happy to agree on that and I shall make the point again in my remarks.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be encouraged to hear me say that the Government entirely sympathise with the principles lying behind the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for reading out the appropriate extract from the Government's White Paper. I am only sorry that he did not appreciate or recognise the reproduction of the "racing colours " of the House of Lords on the front cover because that was designed to be attractive to your Lordships. Obviously. it has failed in that.
Turning to the role of the right reverend Prelates, their representation ex officio clearly has its roots deep in the country's history. Those roots have as much to do with economics and politics in the past as religion. But, clearly, religion and the religious aspects of their representation have become much more prominent in recent years. However, the Government sympathise with the concerns of noble Lords who have spoken to introduce the amendment that the Bishops' Bench probably no longer adequately reflects religious feeling in this country. It is perhaps surprising that no right reverend Prelate has intervened to challenge that, but there has been agreement around the Committee that we have become a multi-faith, multi-cultural society and it is important that that is represented in your Lordships' House. As several noble Lords have said, that need not be through official representation. As has been pointed out, since the legal disabilities were removed. the Roman Catholic Church has been strongly represented by lay members, although its clergy continue to be barred by their own laws from taking an active part in this type of political activity. Similarly, as has been

1315
mentioned, there are a number of distinguished Jewish Members of the House. There are as yet fewer Moslem or Hindu Members, but perhaps that will change in the future.
However, it is difficult to think how one might achieve the understandable desire to have more official representation, at least in the present circumstances. Many denominations rotate their senior officers, sometimes even annually. Others have no central organisation to speak for them, so it might be difficult to identify who was truly representative. Some, by their very tradition and history, find it very hard to accept the kind of formal leadership of that nature that would necessarily be involved in selecting someone to represent them in this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was kind enough to remind us, the Government's White Paper asked the Royal Commission to look at this matter and try to find an appropriate way forward, particularly on this difficult issue of appointing sensible and appropriate representatives. Perhaps I may take it one step further, in the light of the Royal Commission's present deliberations, and refer to the Labour Party's submission to it, not the Government's. The Labour Party's submission, which was published early this week, states:
"The Labour Party believes that the Royal Commission should explore the options and opportunities for extending representation of the other religions and faiths which take their place in British society. The Labour Party believes that this is desirable as Britain becomes an increasingly multi-cultural and multifaithed society ".
I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, of the intentions of both the political party and the Government, as represented in the White Paper.
In the meantime, however, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Walton of Detchant, and Lord Goodhart, that these matters are appropriately left to the Royal Commission. I do not think that it would be sensible at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill or at this stage of the proceedings of the Royal Commission to—
Lord Aldington: Has the Leader of the House taken account of the fact that in the White Paper the appointments commission comes in the chapter on the transitional House? Why, then, is it wrong for my noble friends, and later me, to talk about these very important matters on this Bill?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: There is absolutely no question but that the transitional House is the subject—and it is the subject of further amendments, which we shall address in a substantive group—of the appointments commission. All that I am saying, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in regard to his Amendment No.71—the same arises on this amendment—is that the amendment refers to long-term membership of the House of Lords, as it should be reformed, and therefore that is not necessarily an appropriate matter for this Bill.
1316
I was about to say that we do not feel it sensible to prescribe to the appointments commission, or the Prime Minister under this amendment, what is desirable or workable in terms of the transitional House. But it is important that the noble Earl and the noble Lord have raised these matters of general principle, which I think have been generally accepted in that vein around the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I must first apologise for being slightly late for this amendment, in which I have some interest when we come to the tangential Amendments Nos.89 and 90. Surely the Government could give this undertaking: "We will make sure in our appointments procedure that these various groups and interests are represented by suitable life Peers ". If that happens, we make the transitional House a better House. Those of us who have doubts whether the House of Lords mark 3 will arrive by Lady Day of next year will be happier if we see that the Prime Minister's power of patronage is—not destroyed or reduced—but much more transparent. That is what those of us who want a representation of interests and groups wish to see: that the Prime Minister's power of patronage shall be transparent.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That is precisely the matter that the Committee intends to discuss under those amendments which describe various forms of appointments commission, amendments which I hope we shall come to shortly.
The noble Earl was right to mention that he was not here for our earlier discussion on why the Government felt it inappropriate to prescribe these matters in the way that they are prescribed in the amendment. I am sure that we shall return to those general points when we come to the later group.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for dealing with the matter so fully. If nothing else, we have moved a step forward, because what she said was more positive than what appeared in the White Paper or the submission to the Royal Commission. The noble Baroness did not go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Onslow wanted, but I hope that with a little more pushing we might get her to be a little more positive on this at a later stage.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Walton, said that they did not like the amendment because it was for phase two. No, this amendment is for phase one. This is a stand-alone Bill. We are thinking about the next House, the successor House; we are not looking two away. Many of us believe that the successor House will last a great deal longer than a short, interim period. As the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Walton, will be aware, in 1968 the House of Lords agreed that the hereditary Peers should go, but nothing has happened since. We might approve this Bill, but it is really up to another place, which has always been the stumbling block to further reform.

1317
Therefore, I am concentrating on the transitional Chamber, in which I should have liked to see a wider representation on the Spiritual Benches. I understand some of the problems about appointments; for example, the transitory nature of some of the senior positions, such as the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. If nothing else, I hope that the amendment has taken the matter a step forward, and I am grateful for so much consensus within the Committee. beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.73:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
(". The Senior Salaries Review Board shall keep under review the salaries, expenses and allowances paid to members of the House of Lords, having regard in particular to their functions and duties as members of that House.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to refer to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and raised continually by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, which is basically that we should not be discussing the future role or the constitution of the House of Lords, but should leave these matters to the Royal Commission, the Government or A. N. Other. With respect, or perhaps, as lawyers would say, with "the greatest respect ", I cannot agree. I believe that before I, or indeed we, depart, it is our job to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that the future House of Lords is as good as or better than the present one and to establish what it is likely to look like. However, in replying to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness was considerably more helpful than earlier, when replying to my Amendment No.71.
My reason for tabling this amendment is the statement made in the Government's Explanatory Notes, printed on 17th March, which state in paragraph 27 that the financial effects of the Bill "will be negligible ". The Committee is surely entitled to know what the Government have in mind with regard to the future expenses of the interim Chamber, or whatever it is called, and what Members will be paid. My amendment suggests that if the powers of the House are to be the same as, or similar to, those of the present House, and if, as the Explanatory Notes state, the financial effects of the Bill "will be negligible ", future Members of the interim House should not be paid a salary of any kind whatsoever, but should be reimbursed for their expenses in the same way as noble Lords are today.
I must admit that because I live 260 miles from your Lordships' House my expenses are nearly always greater than the amount I may claim. Coffee and tea on the train are neither cheap nor particularly good. I am not complaining about that. Indeed, I am strongly of the opinion, which is very old-fashioned, that once you are paid for doing something, you are always in hock to
1318
whoever pays you. You lose your soul and your independence. We do not want that to happen to members of the interim Chamber.
Lord Avebury: Does my noble kinsman not think it a good idea to take a Thermos with him on the train?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not think that I could persuade my wife to do that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am giving her dinner this evening. My noble kinsman was not here while I was having a go at him about his lack of religion; he is obviously having a go at me now.
Before I am accused of having been put into a position by my forebears of being sufficiently rich to take such a view of not being paid, I assure the Committee—and I am sure my noble kinsman will agree with me—that my forebears squandered my family's wealth on themselves, thus leaving very little indeed for me to similarly indulge myself. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I wish to seek the Government's views on the existing system of allowances and expenses. Do they consider what prevails now to be fair and equitable? Secondly, do they believe that the current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from membership for lack of adequate resources?
That is a particularly important question in view of the imminent expected influx of at least 40 new Labour Peers. I remind those who are waiting in the wings that this is an incredibly cheap House to run. The average per capita cost per Member is £37,000 whereas for an MP it is £366,000 and for a Member of the European Parliament, £948,000. So any prospective Peer will not get rich quickly coming here.
I also remind those waiting in the wings that on many occasions our daily attendance equates on an hourly basis to less than the minimum wage. That is even more so if one takes into account the amount of time one spends preparing for debates if one is an active Member.
Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the excellent report of my noble and learned friend Mackay suggests that as most Members of the phase 3 House will sit full time, salaries and allowances should be paid commensurate to those paid to MPs. Do the Government agree with that statement by my noble and learned friend? If they do, do they consider that that transition should happen suddenly, when phase 3 comes in, or should it happen on a gradual basis so that during the time of the interim House allowances and expenses ratchet up to be more in line with those of another place?
Lord Elton: For the record, and for the guidance of the Table, will my noble friends confirm that they are speaking also to Amendment No.105 which is grouped with this amendment? I take it that they are and I shall give way if I am wrong.

1319
I wish to put this point which is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others said earlier. I know it is considered bad manners by Members of the Committee opposite to refer to it but we must countenance the possibility that, in spite of their great commitment and very best intentions, the Government may not be able to replace the House we are creating by this Bill with another. The question of whether or not it is to be a salaried body is, therefore, extremely germane because if it is a salaried body it will be quite different from the House as it is at present and will behave differently. Its Members will increasingly see their attendance and work here as almost their exclusive occupation, as people at the other end of the Corridor consider it to be theirs.
One of the important balancing factors which your Lordships provide in the constitution as it is at present is a large of body of people who attend and pay critical attention to legislation, major issues of policy and detailed matters of drafting based on considerable experience outside this building. They bring in that experience; that is their value. If the principle of my noble friend's amendment is not accepted, that is liable to be lost for ever. It will be a very substantial loss indeed. Therefore, the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who is to reply, should know of our concern that if, in spite of his best intentions, the transitional Chamber is in place for a long time, it should not be unintentionally changed into something quite different.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Elton wondered whether his noble friends were speaking to Amendment No.105. Unfortunately, due to the alacrity of my noble friend Lord Caithness in getting his feet, I was unable to suggest that I might speak to my Amendment No.105. Although grouped with Amendment No.73, my amendment is fairly different.
My noble friend Lord Caithness is anxious to see that those who participate here should have their expenses paid properly. We all agree with that. But my amendment states:
"The salaries and allowances payable to the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be the same as those payable to members of the House of Lords on the day before this Act comes into force ".
The transitional House, the Government have told us, is to be of short duration. My great fear is that once there is an appointed House, its Members will say,"We have been sent to do a job. All the hereditary Peers have gone. We must do the job properly. In order to do the job properly, we must have secretaries and research assistants. The accommodation is impossible and we must have better accommodation ", and the whole thing will escalate out of all proportion. That is wrong.
The whole idea of the amendment is to ask the Government to give an assurance that that will not happen, with those remaining, once the hereditary Peers have gone, in receipt of very considerable expenses and all the extraneous facilities that go with them. We have seen the building on the other side of Bridge Street for Members of the other place. The cost was £250 million. It does not need a great stretch of the imagination to
1320
predict that it will not be long before someone says, "We'll have one of those too, please." I ask the Government to give an assurance that that will not happen.
Lord Lyell: It may be worth bearing in mind that I am following in the footsteps of the great Prime Minister Lord Attlee who said that periods of silence from one of his colleagues might be welcome. For various reasons, I was not able to be present for the Second Reading debate. However, looking at this amendment, I believe that it merits scrutiny from the Government and the Minister who is to reply.
I reiterate everything said with great humour by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. But what my noble friend Lord Caithness said made me gasp. When I heard the figures he mentioned and what Members of the European Parliament earn, I wondered whether that was in lira, drachmas or roubles but I am told it was pounds sterling.
I hope that the Government will take on board what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said about the salaries and allowances that are paid today. I am sure that there is enormous misunderstanding outside your Lordships' House, not just about the nature of the Bill but about what Peers "get ". We heard from my noble friend Lord Stanley about his expenses. I am—and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, may confirm this—one of the more remote Peers. My noble friend Lord Rankeillour may be more remote than I am. I live 70 miles from the nearest airport and 25 miles from the nearest railhead. I am a fairly regular attender and, since the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness in 1971, I have been attending about as regularly as he has. The calculation of my expenses to attend the House and to get home each week will therefore be of some interest to your Lordships.
One of the benefits of the system we have grown up with is that every single Member of your Lordships' House is placed on an equal footing once he or she comes past Redcoat or the Doorkeeper at the Peers' entrance. These expenses which we are entitled to claim are set out, as the accountant said to me about 30 years ago, so that "Your Lordship does not lose in coming to your Lordships' House." I take with a pinch of whatever refreshment might be necessary what was said by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderney. I have to advise him, as those noble Lords who regularly fly on the Anglo-Scottish routes will testify, that we are pretty well fed in the lounges, let alone on the plane.
There is a rather dangerous point here. I believe we should never equate these allowances with earnings. The allowances that Back-Bench Peers are allowed to claim are fairly reasonable; certainly, they are something which could be agreed through the usual channels and fairly quietly. Perhaps the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms can arrange through the usual channels that the Senior Salaries Review Body keeps these expenses permanently in mind on the current basis.
What was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers is of great relevance. If a newly reformed and modernised second Chamber comes about, some questions may be

1321
asked by the Inland Revenue as to exactly the nature of our duties. That might very well end up being to the detriment of Members of your Lordships' House as it may be constituted in six months' time, in a year's time, or in five or 10 years' time. It could very well provoke some rather difficult questions. I beg the Government to take this amendment on board. Above all, I ask them to consider the main text of what has been argued by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
5 p.m.
Lord Nickson: For six years I was chairman of what is now the Senior Salaries Review Body. We used to call it the Top Salaries Review Body but the word "Top" had a rather unattractive connotation and we persuaded the then administration to change it. I say that I had the honour to hold that post. My predecessor, when handing the job over to me, said that it was the ultimate poisoned chalice. We had some rough times with the previous administration trying to persuade them of the importance of paying our top 2,000 public servants, including the judges, the senior civil servants and the military, a reasonable and acceptable figure.
However, I am not responsible, and I take no credit or any blame, for the expenses paid to your Lordships because during those six years they were not referred to the review body. There were certain great pleasures; for example, seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is not in her place, who, when she was leading the First Division Association of civil servants, used to come and sit opposite me once or twice a year. That was very congenial.
The two amendments are very different, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I see no problem—I may be wrong—in the Government referring to the Senior Salaries Review Body, as they have done in the past, the matter of expenses and remuneration of whatever House is in being for comment at any time. A great problem is highlighted by Amendment No.105 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because it deals with a different matter—the question of permanent salaries.
During my time we had to advise the Government on what we thought should be the appropriate remuneration and expenses of another place. We gave a perfectly excellent report as to how the other place should be remunerated; we took enormous trouble over it. We made comparisons with the Chambers of other Parliaments in Europe and throughout the world. We were rather proud of what we said and the previous administration did lot appear to disagree enormously with it. But what happened? The other place voted themselves an enormous salary increase, greatly in excess of what we had recommended. The increase covered researchers and everything else.
There are two points of principle here. The first is that, whether we are talking about a phrase-two House or a phase-three House after the Royal Commission, I can see no problem in the Government referring the matter to the Senior Salaries Review Body at any stage. That is always open to them. If I may say so with due diffidence, I cannot see a case for including Amendment No.73 on the face of the Bill.
1322
As to Amendment No.105, an important point of principle was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. That applies both to the successor body to this House and to what the Royal Commission says, which is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle which this House needs to debate and on which the Government need to give a view; that is, whether future Members of this House and future Members of the House after the Royal Commission has reported—stage three—should be paid a salary or should merely be recompensed for their expenses in coming here. I do not believe that that matter can be left in the air. The Government, if I may respectfully say so, have to come to a conclusion on the interim House, as is suggested, and the Royal Commission will no doubt give its views in due course as to what any successor body should do.
Lord Crickhowell: I was brought promptly yet very briefly to my feet by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elton who referred with approval to the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My noble friend quoted the paragraphs concerning pay and allowances. The first paragraph starts with the following reference:
"Granted that most members of the reformed chamber are to sit full-time, they should be salaried accordingly ".
Neither in the reformed Chamber nor in the interim Chamber must we make the assumption that Members will be full-time. One of the great strengths of this House is the experience that is brought in from outside. It would be a deplorable step if we went down the road of assuming that everyone who came to this House should be full-time. It would be a step backwards.
Incidentally, if there are those in this Chamber who are concerned about remuneration in the future. perhaps they should hang their coat-tails on to the Welsh Assembly where they should not be full-time but are to collect substantial remuneration packages, removal packages and other packages of one kind or another. There will be 60 people sitting in that Chamber doing the job three Ministers used to do when I was Secretary of State. I calculated the other day that I have a back pay claim due for my eight years or so as Secretary of State, together with my two colleagues who served with me, of something over £30 million, perhaps with interest accumulated for the time since.
There is no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is right; there is a grave danger that the costs will escalate in future. I suggest that reasonable remuneration and expenses should be paid. I believe that they will need to be paid if we are to attract the sort of Members (from all sides of the House) that we need. I would press for a reasonable remuneration. We need to have a balance. We do not necessarily want to assume that it will be a full-time House, either in the interim or the long term. We want to try to contain some of the vast escalation of costs that seems to be taking place in other deliberative assemblies.
The Earl of Onslow: I was interested to note that when my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made that

1323
rather good joke about his back pay, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was laughing. The rest of the Front Bench opposite were not. That amused me somewhat.
My point is apposite to the Liberals more than anything else. People paid vast sums of money to become Liberal Peers. Unfortunately for them, they then became Tories. That is one of the reasons why the Liberals are so bored by having so few representative Peers. Having said that, there may be a serious point here. People are desperate to become Members of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, when he was Lord Privy Seal there were people queuing up outside his office, banging on the door, longing for ermine and coronets. As people are so keen to become Members, I thought Mr. Adam Smith said that we do not have to pay them very much; they are paying anyway in some form or another. I apologise. I shall take that back completely. I did not mean it. However, it has happened in the past. The Government do not need to pay people any more. Above all, to be serious, we do not want a professional House. We want a House of interests, with Members who can come and go when necessary. The moment we start paying it to become a clone of another place, it will be disastrous.
I hope that with the combination of amateur in its best sense and the yearning to adorn these leather Benches, the Government's cash limits are quite happily contained without having to pay people large chunks of money to come and sit here.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about having a proper sense of balance in Peers' expenses. I cannot help noticing that the Chamber is much more full for this debate than it was for the previous debate about religious representation in this House.
When I was a local councillor in Wandsworth, the mantra repeated among my colleagues was that the expenses for local councillors should not act as a disincentive to being a local councillor. In those days, the early 1990s, as a local borough councillor I received a few hundred pounds per year. I understand now that my successor receives around £7, 500 as a back-bench local councillor. There has been a huge change in the effective level of pay of local councillors.
I am one of those noble Lords who juggles part-time jobs with trying to support a small family. I am under constant domestic pressure to go out and get a proper job. However, I try to hang on here as much as I can because I believe it is an important place to be and I try to make a contribution. Peers such as myself should not be barred from taking an active part in this House because of the cost of not having proper jobs. I believe that should be reflected in the expenses system of this House.
Lord Swinfen: I rise to support Amendment No.105 tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I believe that it should be amended to allow the position to be reviewed from time to time; otherwise, expenses will stay exactly the same and no one will turn up.
1324
Expenses were first given to Members of this House when it was found that some of the life Peers, when first created, physically could not afford to attend, particularly from far parts of the country.
A large proportion of Members of the other place comprise professional politicians; men with very little experience outside politics. It is extremely valuable that those who are Members of this House now and in the future should earn their living outside the House so that the House can continue to benefit in the future from the vast amount of experience present among its membership today. It is essential that that outside experience is brought to bear on legislation and the business of the country.
Lord Jopling: I should like to add a word of what I hope is realism to the discussion on this issue. I do not necessarily disagree with the comments of my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Crickhowell. However, the implication of everything that has been said is that we turn our backs totally on any future component of this House being elected. I believe that it is totally unrealistic to expect people to stand for election to this House in the future on the basis of the expenses which we now receive.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, he will understand that this amendment refers only to the interim Chamber, as does the Bill, and not to the successor Chamber, whatever that is.
Lord Jopling: I understand that. However, I believe that like it or not whatever we set up with regard to the interim House will have an influence on the future. My noble friends have been implying that they do not, under any circumstances, want salaries to be paid to Members of this House. My point is that once we have elected Members, we are bound to have salaries. It will be impossible in the longer run to have a two-tier system in this House whereby elected Members are paid salaries but appointed Members are not. I am merely trying to make the point that once we have elected Members, we shall have to pay salaries to all Members.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I hope that in consideration of this matter the Government will not ignore two words which I believe to be hugely important; that is,"duty " and "amateur ". I hope also that all noble Lords agree that whatever their feelings about the hereditary peerage, these are particular virtues of the whole House which we should strive to maintain, even in the interim House. The question, therefore, is how that can be achieved in the short term. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may have imperfections so far as the wider issues are concerned, but it does, at least, provide a mechanism to achieve that objective.
There is one other small point I should like to tease out. My noble friend Lord Caithness drew the attention of the Committee to paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Memorandum. That contends that the financial effects

1325
of the Bill will be negligible. The Bill was originally drafted to remove approximately half those noble Lords who regularly attend the House. It seems to me, therefore, that there will be a substantial saving as a result of the enactment of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that this could be described as "the trade unions' half-hour ". It is only appropriate the chief shop steward, the Government Chief Whip, should reply to it. My noble friend Lord Jopling made an important point. This is not just a simple issue; it ties in to a much bigger issue. The salaries or expenses of Members of your Lordships' House in the future will be entirely dependent on the nature of the House. If we come, in stage three, to have an elected House, it will be an elected House in which salaries are paid, which I hope will be commensurate with those paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and not the House of Commons. I gather that the computer companies have had a heyday in both of those new organisations in the supply of PCs, desktops and goodness knows what else.
It is obvious that elected Members would, quite naturally, expect to be paid, but they could be paid only if they were full time. We are talking here of the interim Chamber, or perhaps of the Chamber that might be stage three. If one reads the Government's evidence to the Royal Commission, it certainly looks as if matters are pointing in that direction.
If we have that kind of Chamber, which is not dissimilar to the one we have at present but without the hereditary component, it seems to me to be essential that we keep away from salaries. I say that because those noble Lords who come here and who have other jobs outside obviously do not attend anything like all the time. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, appeared yesterday to make his maiden speech. Despite the best endeavours of a chief shop steward, I have no doubt that he will not be coming here all that often—otherwise, I might consider selling my shares in his companies; that is, if I had any.
Clearly, one of the strengths of your Lordships' House is the fact that there are Members who do not attend all the time. Therefore, one could not possibly give them full-time salaries. My noble friend Lord Nickson, although now retired, was in your Lordships' House when he held the important position of chairman of the Clydesdale Bank. That inevitably meant that his membership of this Chamber would not occupy all the days that the House sits. That is only right. I name my noble friend because he actually took part in this debate. In fact, I could look round the Chamber and pinpoint certain noble Lords, although some of them are not here, who have very demanding jobs outside but who, nevertheless, play a valuable role in the House. That is one of the strengths chat I hope we can actually maintain in the future. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I totally agree with what he is saying; certainly, I do not want a full-time House, nor indeed a totally elected House. We do not know what is going to happen. However, does the noble Lord agree that there
1326
is a serious problem in terms of people who live way outside the metropolitan area? If those people have a job, they cannot leave it to come down here. I suspect that one of the problems of this debate is that we cannot really reach any sort of conclusion until we know what the new House will look like.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is right. Let us take, for example, the Scottish academic institutions. I was going to say that they are not nearly as well represented but, in fact, they are not represented at all in comparison to the triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge where people can carry on their academic studies and work. I have in mind people like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is sitting in the Chamber today, and many others. They play an important part in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in that respect. It is important for us to stick to the kind of system that we have at present.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but I do not know whether I feel the same about that tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I just wonder whether the latter is a case of, "Well, I don't want to see the expenses going up after I've gone; indeed, I don't see why you lot should be paid more than we are ". It is important for us to suggest gently to the Government that they, in turn, suggest gently' to the senior salaries review board that it could perhaps come forward with a report. If I recall correctly, the board took evidence in 1996–97 on the question of your Lordships' position. It was not just a matter of the expenses; indeed, it was also the salaries and pensions of Ministers.
I gave evidence at that time, while working as a government Minister. I did not give much evidence about Ministers' salaries, but I thought it was right to give some evidence about ministerial pension provision, as you would expect a pensions Minister to do. In fact, some of the anomalies have been highlighted by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a retiring—if I may use that gentle word—or a retired, Leader of your Lordships' House, received absolutely no pension at all for the time he spent in that position. Perhaps the noble Lord did not really need it because he might have got a pension as a result of having been a European Commissioner. I am sure that such a pension would look after someone pretty well. None the less, he might not have had such a pension. Therefore, having given a few years' service to your Lordships' House and to the Government, it would seem quite unfair that he could be left without a pension just because of the way that the pension rules rest with the ministerial pension fund.
I also gave considerable evidence regarding the role of the Opposition. Those Members concerned worked a great deal in your Lordships' House. My example was my then opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Bluntly, I gave evidence on her behalf and she also gave evidence on mine. It is possible that both of us thought that we might he changing places in the very near future. However, we never admitted that at the time. I trust that I can use the

1327
noble Baroness as an example, despite the fact that I have not given her notice. I do not believe that she will mind.
When we had social security Bills, which were to be dealt with on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had to come down to London on Monday and appear in the House, despite the fact that she had no other business, if she was to collect her attendance allowances, and so on, for that day. She could probably have spent the time much better and much more to my detriment if she had managed to stay at home and work there, fashioning the bullets to fire at me, rather than having to take the train to London and come here. I emphasised to the senior salaries review board that I thought at least some Members of this House could have a dispensation from having to clock in every day because of the important role that they played either on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches, the Opposition Front Benches (the Labour Front Bench as it then was) and, indeed, in certain parts of the Cross Benches.
I do not want to go on at any great length, but there are some serious points that we should address with a view to keeping the remuneration of your Lordships' House clearly focused on the attendance allowance and on expenses. That is the right way to proceed. If we do end up with a House where membership is by appointment, which certainly seems to be the direction that the Government's evidence is taking, it would be sensible not to go down the salaries route for future Members. I believe the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley is certainly to be recommended, but I cannot say the same for that of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
Lord Carter: My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made the point that I intended to make; namely, that the Chamber has filled up remarkably since we started to debate this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to me as the shop steward on the Government Front Bench. Indeed, having heard the debate, I can see why my noble friend the Leader of the House asked me to deal with the amendment.
The effect of Amendment No.73 would be to require the senior salaries review board to keep under review the salaries, expenses and allowances which are paid to Members of the House of Lords. It would substitute a legal statutory requirement for the present situation where the issues in question are within the board's terms of reference as matters on which it, from time to time, should advise the Prime Minister, but for which there is no statutory requirement.
The amendment deals with the question of remuneration of Members of your Lordships' House. It suggests that such matters should be kept under review, having regard to the functions and duties of the House. That, of course, is unexceptionable. It is, indeed, the present position. Peers' allowances already fall within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body, to give it its correct title. Therefore, there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill.
1328
However, we do not think that there should be any change in the status of the review body's remit during the period of the transitional House. The review body is a non-statutory body. It advises the Prime Minister about Peers' allowances on the same basis that it advises on pay, pensions and allowances of Members of the other place and of Ministers. Why should the basis on which it deals with Peers' allowances be changed for what is an explicitly temporary arrangement?
I turn now to a few of the points raised during the debate. A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others, about what will happen if there is no stage three. We have said over and again that we intend there to be a finally reformed House. We have said so endlessly. So there is no need for me to speculate on something not happening which we fully intend to happen. It really is as simple as that. The Royal Commission will make recommendations. These will then be considered by a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses—an important point—and then the Government will take the appropriate action. As I said, there is no need for me to speculate on something not happening which we fully intend to happen. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: Will the Minister accept a simile? When the Pilgrim Fathers sailed for America they expected to make the journey in about five weeks but, fortunately, they carried stores for about 14 weeks. You cannot count on arriving somewhere where you intend to arrive; indeed, you can only do your best.
Lord Carter: That is a statement of process; I am dealing with a statement of policy. The policy of this Government is that there will be a finally reformed Chamber. We are not quite sure what the policy of the Opposition is on this matter. We have made our intentions entirely clear. I do not intend to speculate on something not happening which we know will happen. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made a shrewd point when he referred to the difference between allowances and earnings. The Committee will be aware that at the moment allowances are tax free.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: Exactly! The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made the point indirectly that if we start to put all this on the face of the Bill and start to discuss salaries, that would be inappropriate as regards the transitional Chamber. What we have to consider is the principle of allowances or salaries, which is a matter for the Royal Commission, and the level of allowances, which is a matter for the review body on senior salaries. All Members of the Committee can give evidence to the review body. I shall return to that point.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, laughed when the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to his back pay of £30 million. I laughed because I knew he was joking, but my colleagues on the Front Bench thought he was being serious.

1329
I quote from page 31 of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. That will make a change for the Committee from hearing quotes from the Labour Party manifesto. The evidence states:
"The Labour Party believes that a modern chamber should have modern working conditions and arrangements…The Labour Party believes that the Royal Commission should consider the physical and other conditions necessary for the new body to carry out its work in an efficient manner, having regard to needs such as office accommodation and meeting rooms ".
Under the heading "Allowances ", the evidence continues:
"The Labour Party would welcome an examination of this issue by the Royal Commission, to determine whether current arrangements fairly meet the needs of members. The Royal Commission should consider whether the current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from membership for lack adequate resources ".
The view of the Labour Party on this matter is entirely clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, commented on the nature of the Chamber and on elected Members. Those are matters to be decided in stage three. They are matters to be decided by the Royal Commission, and not in this Bill. As we have said endlessly, this Bill is not about stage three. The noble Lord was quite correct to say that the evidence was previously taken in 1996–97. I think I am correct in saying that the question of allowances was deferred until either 2000 or 2001. That might be thought appropriate in terms of the transitional Chamber. It looks as if the review body will consider allowances in that timescale. It has considered the salaries of Lords' Ministers a little earlier than that, as we have just discussed.
I shall discuss a point which is slightly tangential to this amendment, but which I think is relevant. It has been implied that once all but 92 of the hereditary Peers have gone, we shall need additional resources to attract people to do the work of the Chamber. We do not believe that that will be the case. We believe that the 500 life Peers who will remain are competent to keep the work of the Chamber going. We have now added to that figure 92 hereditary Peers. Thus we shall have a total Chamber of well over 600 Peers. Life Peers have always been prepared to come forward on this basis in the past and we see no reason why they should not continue to do so in the few years that the transitional Chamber will last.
I now mention what I call a Chief Whip's point. Due to the size of the various groups in this Chamber and the relative strengths of each of the groups, Labour Peers do not comprise more than 30 per cent of the membership of any of the committees of your Lordships' House. I have a list of life Peers who are willing to serve on committees but I cannot accommodate them. Therefore, it is clear that there will be a sufficient: number of life Peers to carry out the work of the committees and the other work of the Chamber.
When the time comes, depending on the outcome of the long-term review, it will obviously be relevant to consider the question of remuneration. That will depend on the composition, role and functions of the reformed second Chamber. There will be decisions to be taken about whether Members of the second Chamber in the
1330
future should continue to receive allowances or should be paid a salary. However, that is a matter for the reformed Chamber. There will be decisions to he taken about the degree of administrative support to which they should have access. We have already made it clear to the Royal Commission that the cost of its recommendations is one of the issues to which it should have regard. However, these are matters to be dealt with once we know what the long-term picture is; they are not matters for the present Bill. The review body already has a role; it should retain that role, but not strengthen it.
I turn to Amendment No.105 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The effect of this amendment would be to fix the salaries and allowances of Members of the House of Lords as they were on the day before the Act came into force. The noble Earl has many good friends in this Chamber and I count my self as one of them. However, if he is really suggesting that all our allowances should be frozen for the foreseeable future, I believe that the number of those friends will considerably diminish! Just as we rejected the idea that there should be a statutory requirement on the review body on senior salaries to review noble Lords' allowances, so obviously we reject the idea that there should be a statutory bar on changing those allowances in the lifetime of the transitional Chamber.
We are not, of course, proposing to make significant changes in the way in which we remunerate life Peers in the transitional Chamber, as I have said already. However, that is not the same as fixing the present allowances in stone. Although under the economic policies of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inflation is at historically low levels, it is still with us. The noble Earl's amendment would not even allow for the uprating of allowances in line with inflation. Even at 2.5 per cent a year over four years, that would amount to about a 10 per cent cut in real terms. However, I note that it is more than that because it is a geometric and not an arithmetical progression.
I do not believe—nor do I think the Committee will believe—that it is equitable to fix allowances in this way at this point. As we know, these are, after all, mostly expenses allowances. Leaving room to consider changes in the costs which they are meant to cover seems to us to be only reasonable. I cannot promise of course that any particular level of remuneration will be offered when the allowances come to be reviewed. That is a matter for the review body. I simply make the point that the removal of the hereditary Peers is not a reason for changing the system that we presently have, and is certainly not a reason for removing from it all flexibility.
As I said on the previous amendment. the advisory remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body extends to all Members of both Houses of Parliament. In our view, there is no justification for singling out Peers alone for statutory treatment.
We have had a useful debate. The Committee has expressed its views on this matter extremely clearly. Most of the views that have been expressed did not surprise me. However, when the Committee has

1331
considered the arguments I have produced and the background to these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The Chief Whip was firm about the Government's commitment to stage three. Can he give us some idea of the time-scale the Government have in mind to back up that commitment? Will the noble Lord answer the questions I asked originally? Does he think that the current allowances and expenses are fair? Further, does he consider them to be a deterrent to any future potential Peers becoming Members of the interim Chamber?
Lord Carter: As regards whether they are fair, we can all submit evidence to the review body which will report next year. I believe that most Members of the Committee believe that they are a little on the low side. That point is often made to me. I am sure that all noble Lords will have the opportunity to make their case on expenses and allowances and the way in which they are paid when the review body begins to take evidence next year. As regards whether the allowances are a deterrent to those who may seek to become life Peers, if the contents of my postbag are anything to go by, they are certainly not a deterrent.
As regards the time-scale, I do not have the slightest intention of setting out a timetable from this Dispatch Box. We have set out what we intend to do. We have asked the Royal Commission to report by the end of this year. It is a tight timetable, but the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has said that he thinks he can meet it, or within a month or two of that date, as he said on the radio yesterday. The Joint Committee will then report and the Government will have an opportunity to respond. We intend to deal with the matter quickly, but I am not saying exactly how long that will take.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have certainly enjoyed it. More importantly, some very relevant points arose. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Mackay will understand when I say that I cast out to catch a minnow and somehow caught a shark; some very important points were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a point which I could not understand in so far as it seemed to me that the Labour Party comments that were made in that pamphlet differed from the Explanatory Notes. The Explanatory Notes said that the costs would be negligible. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that the costs are bound to go up. I cannot see any way that they will not.
Lord Carter: The quotation that I gave was from the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission for stage three. The Explanatory Notes refer to the costs of the Bill, which deals only with the transitional House.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the Minister for clearing up that matter. But, one way or the other,
1332
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that, whether or not they relate to the interim House or the final House, both will cost more.
My noble friend Lord Nickson has not been in the Chamber recently. He must realise that as he has rural interests—and indeed having served not only with me but with my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Middleton in the Coldstream Guards—he falls into the category of people that the Leader of the House considers to be over-represented in the Chamber. Perhaps I might quote back to him: he is in great danger of receiving the poisoned chalice that he spoke of.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised an interesting point. However, I disagree with him. It will be impossible to be a backwoods Member of your Lordships' House in the future. I find it difficult enough already to be a backwoodsman; it will be far more difficult in the future. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was supporting my noble friend Lord Crickhowell when he said that there would be specialist Peers, but I think he will find it very difficult to appoint them.
My noble kinsman Lord Ponsonby can afford an unpaid job because my great-uncle so stupidly gave property away to his grandfather. He was able to squander that on himself rather than I being allowed to squander it on myself. I would have enjoyed that far more, I am sure, but perhaps it might not have been frightfully good for me.
A serious point was made by my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I raised the point in Amendment No.71 but I do not think the noble Baroness quite answered it. We badly need an answer as to what the interim House is going to do. The sort of person one wants in the House and, dare I say it, how much the House will cost, depends upon what the House is going to do.
I will leave the amendment now. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers will come back to the issue in his amendment. I hate to disappoint my noble friend Lord Mackay, but I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his amendment and I, too, would keep all the costs the same for ever and ever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley move Amendment No.74:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
STYLE OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
(". From the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed, temporal members of the House of Lords shall he referred to and known as Peers.")
The noble Lord said: I hope I am pushing at an open door with the amendment in as much as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have both said that in future Members of the House should not be called "Lords ". I do not know whether they said what Members of the House should be called, but they said they should not be called "Lords ". The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spelt out a number

1333
of reasons for that, from modernising the appearance of your Lordships' House, which I agree with, to the avoidance of any one confusing those who stay on as Members of the second Chamber with those such as myself who will retire to the real world outside. They said it would make the job easier for those responsible for the electoral register and we would not be pushed off the list of voters in a general election. I presume that those who stay here will not be able to so vote. It would also prevent citizens asking hereditary Peers about political problems. assuming that they still had some influence—not that we had very much before. Perhaps it should be the other way round and we hereditary Peers should relinquish our titles. I 'certainly would not be unhappy to agree. It would avoid an awful lot of begging which one has to submit to. If the Government wish to do so. I shall not object. Unfortunately, that is not in the Bill. The Government are not showing any signs of accepting any amendments to the Bill, apart from the Weatherill amendment—I shall not be caught out—that do not suit them. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be permitted to say one or two words. My Amendments Nos.101 and 102 are grouped with this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he was pushing at an open door. No doubt I shall discover that I, too, am pushing at an open door. I have suggested in Amendment No.102 that from the day on which the Act comes into force the Members of the second Chamber of Parliament should be known as "Members of the Appointed Chamber ". The Chamber will be an appointed one and therefore it is appropriate that it should be called the "Appointed Chamber " and not the House of Lords. After all, there will no longer be a mixed and unpredictable membership of your Lordships' House and it will therefore no longer be a House of Lords.
In the olden days people became Peers; and when they were Peers they joined the House; and what did they join? They joined the House of Lords. Now, of course, that is being totally reversed. The hereditary Peers will be removed from the House of Lords and those who are here will be here because they have been appointed. Sometimes when they are appointed, as I understand it—I have not had direct experience of it—people are asked whether they are prepared to attend and whether they are prepared to vote in certain ways; they are told they will have to do this, that and the other; and make little subscriptions here and there. Having gone through all those formalities they are then appointed to the second Chamber. Whereupon they say "Ah! I am a Peer ". That is completely the wrong way round; they are not Peers as such. I know that they are described as Peers now, but the House of Lords will not be a House of Lords; it will be an appointed Chamber. It would therefore be right to refer to it as an appointed Chamber.
I have had the temerity to table a later amendment that the Bill should be changed from being the House of Lords Bill to being the Appointed Chamber Bill. That is a satisfactory amendment which, in this thoroughly democratic era in which we live, I am quite sure that
1334
those on the Government Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the Leader of the House, will be willing to accept.
Perhaps I may speak now to Amendment No.102, which also stands in my name. I apologise for cluttering up the Marshalled List, but my amendments are quite modest and quite short. Amendment No.102 states:
"From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the Appointed Chamber of Parliament shall be styled as 'Lords of Parliament', with the initials 'LP' appended to their name but without reference to their rank in the peerage ".
As they will be Members of the Appointed Chamber—they will not be Earl so and so, Viscount so and so or Duke so and so—and as they will not be Members of the House of Lords, it is rather pointless that they should refer to themselves as "Lords ".
I know that the amendment will have the sympathy of the Government Front Bench, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She has great influence in these matters. From her speeches during the course of the Bill it has been obvious that she has a great influence over what goes into it. She pontificated on the subject way back in August of last year. There is an article about her in the Daily Telegraph. I know that normally one cannot believe anything the newspapers say, but one can sometimes, particularly when what is said is in quotations. It was said that Baroness Jay, the new Leader of the House of Lords, wants life Peers—life Peers, not hereditary Peers; the noble Lords behind the Front Bench are in for it too—to be stripped of their aristocratic titles. Presumably that is because they are not aristocrats, I do not know. She wants them to be called "MLs ", Members of the Lords. There is not a lot of difference between Members of the Lords and a Lord of Parliament, as I have suggested. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the noble Baroness said that she was keen to remove the elitism of the names used in the upper Chamber. She said:
"I'm not sure that I wouldn't 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 ".
A great sign of humility on which I congratulate her. She said:
"The proposal would mean that the only people able to call themselves Lord or Lady would be hereditary peers— "
so we are being looked after by the noble Baroness—
"who under the Government's plans for reform would no longer be entitled to vote in the Upper Chamber ".
She goes around as if in Boadicea's chariot, knocking people off left and right. Those who stay are all right, but they must not be called "Peers." Those who are thrown out can be called "Peers ".
The noble Baroness added that she would be happy to be known as Margaret Jay ML:
"I wouldn't mind not having the title—although some of my colleagues might think it terribly sad to get rid of them ".
I reckon she could say that again. The article continued:
"She said it was important to create a way of differentiating between peers who were born with their titles and those who won a seat in the Lords on merit ".
Now we are differentiating. I thought we had been told earlier that we must consider the House as one where all people are Peers, whether hereditary or life Peers.

1335
But no, the noble Baroness wants to differentiate. I think that is a remarkable comment to make. I can quite understand her saying she would be quite happy to be called "the right honourable Margaret Jay LP." I can quite see the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, being happy to be called "Miss Crawley LP."
Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Under his amendment the initials might be "LP" after the name, "Lord of Parliament ". Would the noble Earl mind being mistaken for a member of the Labour Party?
Earl Ferrers: In that case "LP" would not stand for "Labour Party." I have been mistaken for many things but never for being a member of the Labour Party. But one never knows what will come next.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is having a cup of tea. I am sure that he would not mind being called "the right honourable John Mackay LP." What about the noble Lord, Lord Steel? He was quite happy to come here as "Lord Steel "; he has climbed up the Christmas tree and now finds himself Speaker of the Scottish Parliament. He says that he wants to be called "Sir David Steel ", another act of humility. Perhaps he prefers not to be identified too much with such a retrograde place as the House of Lords. It was said the other day that when he returns here doubtless as a Speaker he will have to sit on the Cross Benches. That is interesting. What would he be called? Would he be called "Lord Steel? " It is a bit of a rum do if he is "Lord Steel " when he is here and "Sir David Steel " when he is up in Scotland. I am sure he would not mind being called "Sir David Steel LP ".
We come to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Empathising with this proposal will cause him no difficulty because quite a left-wing heart beats under that glorious right-wing exterior. I am sure he would be happy to be called "the Right Honourable Gareth Williams LP ".
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he was pushing at an open door. So am I. Perhaps the Committee wishes to consider this fascinating subject which the noble Baroness happened to start, inadvertently, in a newspaper article.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Earl sits down, if Amendment No.101 is accepted we would become MACs, and we would surely quickly be known as "Big MACs ".
The Earl of Onslow: I wish to speak strongly against the amendment. I do so because it would spoil my life if the noble Baroness ceased to be "Lady Jay." She has grandeur and aristocracy; she looks every bit in the mode of an 18th century duchess. She inherited it from a long line of distinguished Labour Peers, so she is, if nothing else, a hereditary Peeress manquée who, bless her cotton socks, will stay through stages one, two and probably three as well. We cannot possibly not call her "Lady Jay ".
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wish to go further than the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like the
1336
reformed House to be called "the Senate " and its Members to be "John Smith MS." I do not like the idea of Members of the House being called "Lords of Parliament " and I shall tell the Committee why. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not yet have had time to read what I sent him. He says he has. It concerned the old Scots peerage and why the lowest rank in the Scots peerage is not baron but lord of parliament. That will lead to great confusion because there are those of us who sit in this House and who are about to be kicked out who are of the lowest rank of the Scots peerage, like myself and noble Lords who are not in their place such as the noble Lords, Lord Forbes, Lord Gray and many others. I am looking round for one or two of them but I am sorry I cannot see them.
This will lead to considerable confusion because we are lords of parliament; we are lords of the old Scots Parliament. If future Members of this reformed House are to be called "Lords of Parliament ", goodness me, the mind boggles, it will be very confusing.
I go further. If I read the paper correctly, I thought that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said some months ago that she would like the reformed House to be the senate. She shakes her head; perhaps I am mistaken. I cannot go along with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for those reasons.
Lord Annan: To cut through the badinage on this amendment, the noble Earl will be surprised to know that I am in sympathy with it, except that it seems muddled. The first amendment he proposes is that this be an appointed House. Then we are to be called "Lords of Parliament." I agree entirely that we cannot change the name of this place into "Senate." It would lead to infinite confusion and the pretension that we are in some way comparable to the United States Senate. We are and have been for centuries the House of Lords. But there is a difference, once the hereditary Peers go, between ourselves and the hereditary peerage. I honour the hereditary peerage, I have no wish to see the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, called "Citoven Cecil ". I want him to keep his title, and I want the noble Earl to remain an Earl and someone whom I respect and honour.
However, I do not want to have pretensions to those titles. I have never earned them and never had, in any sense, pretensions to the noble lineage which I see opposite. The whole business of calling people "Lords " when they come here reinforces the snobbery endemic in our society. That is why the noble Earl so cleverly put what we ought to be called, "LP", "Lord of Parliament".
There is one reason why that is not a good title. When I said to my daughter that it was the kind of name I wished to be called, she said: "You do know what `LP' stands for: long-playing record ". By George, we have had some good examples of that today.
I do not know that I shall be able to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, but he is right that in a reformed House we should not try to ape a splendid body of people who, as we know, have given great service to the nation but are no longer to be Members of this place. We should content ourselves with being called "Lords of Parliament" and de-erminise this House.
6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I have found myself in agreement for some time with the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Annan. However, I should tell the noble Lord that I was recently approached by someone—who shall remain nameless— who said to me: "I see, Cranborne, that you have inherited all the regrettable radicalism of members of your family ". So "Citoyen Cecil " may not be too far away from what I shall become.
There is something to be said for attempting to differentiate between the House as it is now, and the House as it will be following the passage of this Bill. It is right to say, as I have understood by implication from some speakers, that to be called "Lord Snooks " does not necessarily mean that you are a Member of this House. The appellation "Lord " does not automatically entitle anyone to a peerage. I believe I am right in saying that only at the beginning of the 15th century did it become customary for heredity to be the only qualification for membership of this place. I believe that, before then, people were summoned here, not always because of who their father or mother was. We also know that, since 1958, it has not been necessary to be a hereditary Peer to be a Member of this House. Equally. Irish Peers, and Scottish Peers before 1963, were entitled to call themselves Lord Mac-Something because of who they were, not because they were Members of this place. There are plenty of other examples.
Nevertheless, the present House is dominated by the ethos of the hereditary principle. The Labour Party does not like that fact and is trying to change it. But in spite of the increasing proportion of life Peers, particularly among those who attend this House, I submit that the courtesies and habits of the hereditary peerage dominate our proceedings—and the proceedings are none the worse for that.
After the Bill's passage, that will change. If we believe that language means anything, it is at least sensible to differentiate, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested. between someone calling himself "Lord Snooks ", which by the evolution of history has come essentially to imply a hereditary peerage, although it did not start that way, and someone with membership of this House, which from now on will, I suspect, be largely by nomination if the Prime Minister gets his way.
It will be interesting to decide what the new Members of this House will be called. It would be a mistake for them to pretend by implication that this place is still a House of "Lords ". As the word "Lords " has come by custom to mean effectively a hereditary order, it therefore seems extremely sensible to change that—
Noble Lords: Not so.
Viscount Cranborne: I hear murmurs of, "Not so". I have acknowledged that since 1958 that has emphatically not been the case. Nevertheless, the appellation "Lord", in spite of the number of life Peers in this place, has all the trappings of the hereditary peerage. Indeed, is it not curious that life Peers are introduced in the full panoply of ermine, when, after
1338
all, hereditary Peers are not? That implies at least some connection with the hereditary peerage even though it is more apparent than real, for the reasons that my noble friends behind me suggest from a sedentary position. It would be extremely sensible to drop the appellation "Lord" in the new House.
I am all for differentiating Members of the new House from members of the public, and indeed Members of another place. I am doubtful about calling them "senators ", for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. There is merit in some form of continuity in terms of popular language. I suspect that in the "Dog and Duck " it will be difficult for people to talk of a senate; inevitably, the upper House will be forever associated with the idea of "Lords ", no matter who is a Member of it. The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers is probably about as good as we shall get.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I did not think that at any stage in this debate I should be substantially in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, but let me assure the Committee that the amendments that they propose commend themselves to some of us on these Benches.
Let us be absolutely clear about the situation. Many of us believe that we are involved in the Bill's passage as a small step towards improving what is, inevitably, an imperfect democracy in this country. All democracies are imperfect and can be changed by intelligent reform. Our democracy is less perfect than some. It certainly remains imperfect while such a substantial role is played in our deliberations by the hereditary peerage. That is why the Bill is before the Committee and why we support it.
But many of us who are Members of this House and who play our part in advancing democracy have no pretensions at all to joining the aristocracy or to glorying in the title that we now enjoy. I use the word "enjoy " in this sense: I have my title because it is the only way in which I can participate in the work of the upper Chamber. I had to become a Peer. I did not take the title because I had any wish to be associated with the attributes of the aristocracy through the ages—quite the opposite: the whole of my political life has been dedicated to challenging so many of those values. I am well aware of the element of affection that gave rise to the expression,"Everybody loves a Lord ". I have not noticed it a great deal in my own particular circumstance, but that may be because I do not have the hereditary quality which is a crucial dimension. However, I assure the Committee—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. The noble Lord's remarks are fascinating. If he had such a huge dislike of coming to the House of Lords, why did he do so? Why did he not go to the House of Commons?
A noble Lord: He did.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I did not say that I arrived in the House of Lords in preference to the House of Commons. I have had a series of opportunities to serve in the lower House. I should certainly have welcomed

1339
the opportunity, had the Boundary Commissioners not done such damage to my seat, to remain a Member of the House of Commons. But in the circumstances in which I was not privileged to be able to sustain my position in the Commons, I assure your Lordships that I welcomed the opportunity to serve in this place. It is the second Chamber of our legislature. It has a role to play in advancing the interests of our people and enhancing our democracy. That is the precise purpose upon which we are bent at the present time. The noble Earl sometimes employed a rather tongue-in-cheek approach to the amendment, but we subscribe to the view that a reformed Chamber should assuredly take a different name—of course it should. As it will be radically transformed, that is a necessary change.
The only reason why the amendment is possibly misjudged is that the real change that is to be effected must surely follow the Royal Commission's report and the establishment, not of an interim House but of the new second Chamber. That will be the time to consider this. I hope that the Royal Commission will receive endless representations regarding this matter.
Whatever happens, the Second Chamber needs its name changed from "House of Lords ". I am by no means convinced that that should apply to the interim Chamber. I fear that if we give a semblance of radical change to the interim Chamber precisely the anxieties expressed so often on the Benches opposite, that the interim Chamber will appear to be a sound enough reform for no further progress to be necessary, may come to pass. For that reason I am not sure that the amendment should be applied to the interim House. But I assure the noble Earl that if he is not part of our counsels in the future—I wish him well with regard to the interim Chamber—very many of us on this side of the House will argue the very case that he has made today.
The Earl of Erroll: It is important not to pretend that the transitional Chamber will be a continuation of what is here now; it will not. It will be a complete break from the present situation. To rename it at this stage will be to highlight the great constitutional change that is taking place. I find some inconsistency in the approach of those life Peers who wish, as if by association, almost to take on the cloak of the hereditary peerage that is about to disappear.
I agree and disagree with my noble kinswoman Lady Saltoun. I agree that there is a problem in the use of the term "Lord of Parliament ". It would cause great confusion in Scotland if one had lairds and Lords of Parliament. That expression means something very different. However, to add "MS " after one's name may have sclerotic connotations. I tend to think of it as denoting an unfortunate disease from which certain friends suffer. I would hate that to be associated with the interim or transitional Chamber, or any future Chamber for that matter.
I was also interested to hear that Sir David Steel wished to be known as such. Once again there is confusion, in that "Sir" may denote a title of merit—in
1340
other words, the conferring of a knighthood—but it may be associated with a baronetcy, which is a hereditary honour.
Lord Marlesford: The Government have done a most wonderful job. At last, beneath that aristocratic exterior I find in my noble friend Lord Ferrers a Maoist spark burning deep down. I remind your Lordships that for the first 20 years or so after the liberation of China all ranks were abolished and officers wore exactly the same clothes as everybody else. For a while badges of rank did not change but the cut of the uniform began to change. As the cut became better one realised that the rank was higher. Now they have gone back to the gold braid and everything else that everyone so much enjoys.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, at whose feet in matters of political philosophy I used to sit many years ago as an undergraduate, referred us to the more relevant example of the period of the French Revolution. It is terribly important that we give proper due to those of our hereditary brethren who have served so well and who may be leaving us. I believe that we should reflect what they have done. The French had a very good system. I suggest that those who are departing should use the French prefix—or perhaps suffix—"ci-devant ". The term "Lord of Parliament " is correct and those who are departing should have it but should be known as "ci-devant LP ".
Lord Stanley of Alderley: When French Peers left the aristocracy they lost their heads.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: I do not want to be a party pooper, but I disagree with almost everything that has been said in this debate, particularly by hereditary Peers. I believe that much of what has been said is sour grapes. We are dumbing down the status of the upper House. I believe that the titles, including those of life Peers, are very important. One is selective about how one uses one's title, whether one has a hereditary or life peerage. For instance, when the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, writes in The Times he does not write as Lord Rees-Mogg but as William Rees-Mogg because it is appropriate to that situation. But, given the background to this House, to change the name would be crazy. People understand the House of Lords and like it.
I believe that life Peers are worthy followers of all hereditary Peers. After all, all hereditary Peers way back—it does not matter when the title was bestowed—did something which was considered worthwhile at the time. I had an ancestor who was rather good at fighting the French and that was how he got his title. The great thing about life Peers is that they are a slice of the meritocracy. When one comes here one takes part in ceremony and is clothed in ermine. One takes on the mantle of all others who have served here. It would be a great mistake to ditch all of that and adopt a Maoist approach or the method adopted by the French during

1341
the revolution. We should be very careful before we change it. I am highly dubious about this amendment. I believe that this is a matter of sour grapes.
The Earl of Dudley: Without disrespect to the Committee, I believe that this debate serves to remind us that this House is and has been for many centuries very much like Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. It is a wonderland fiat has served this nation well over many generations. Some of the suggestions made this afternoon will do nothing but take away the magic of this wonderland. That magic should remain as part of the whole tradition of this institution and should not be lost even when we hereditaries go. Any hereditary Peer who believes that outside this House in this computer age he has control over how he is described needs his head examined. As a computer cannot cater for more than eight bits I am variously described as "Mr. Earl ","Lord Dud " and, fortunately, both as far as the Inland Revenue is concerned. I hope that we disabuse ourselves of the thought that we can go around insisting on being called "Earl of Dudley " or whatever it is. The odds are very much against it, particularly as the computer age develops.
The Earl of Caithness: On this amendment I was a little slower in getting to my feet than on the previous one, and I have been able to follow my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I have one difficulty with my noble friend's Amendment No.101 which refers to "Members of the Appointed Chamber ". As a result of the Government's U-turn it will not be just an appointed Chamber, it will have 90 hereditaries. Whoever they are, I am not sure that they will wish to be cast as "appointed " because they will not be so.
I prefer Amendment No.74 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley. It is important to differentiate the second Chamber from the first. Doubtless there will be a differentiation when it comes to the third Chamber. If one is to excommunicate the vast majority of hereditary Peers, the successor Chamber to this one must change its name to reflect its different role and the different personnel sitting in it.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was quick to criticise but did not have any solution to the change in name—at least not that I heard. I would be very interested if he would come forward with a proposal. He was very keen to get rid of ermine. I believe that he will have a lot to say about stage three, but as to stage two he does not appear to have any ideas.
Lord Annan: To answer the noble Earl, I said that I was wholly in favour of "LP".
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not listen to him as carefully as I should have done. I hope that he will change his mind and just become a Peer.
Lord Rotherwick: Everybody appears to have a terrible hang-up about these handles. One remembers being told most carefully that as an officer one is saluted not because of one's position but because of the
1342
commission that one holds. One is beholden to live up to that commission. It is a great way of informing people about oneself. If you are a managing director, or whatever, that title informs people of your position and what you are expected do in life. Equally, someone who has a tag to his name is beholden to live up to that. Therefore, it is helpful that people who are Members of this House have such a title so that people are informed that they are a Peer or a Lord.
It would be very confusing if people called themselves "Sir Something" in one part of the country and "Mr. Something" in another part. We should try to inform people what we are about. As we have a historical name here, it is appropriate that people hold that name of Peer or Lord.
Lord Lucas: It is important that we recognise that we are making a substantial change to this House, as the Government would no doubt claim and agree. Symbols are important and we should recognise this change and the way in which people look on the House when considering a change of name.
As to the amendments before us today, I favour that in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. After all, we all refer to the Door downstairs as the "Peers' En-trance "!
Lord Henley: As my noble kinsman Lord Stanley moved this amendment some time ago, it is appropriate for yet another of his noble kinsmen to respond from these Benches.
Clearly, a change in this House that will remove about 90 per cent of those of us who sit by succession, but have the informal style of "Lord " is likely to create some confusion in terms of those who remain and those who do not. It is clear that the separation of the privilege of peerage from the right to sit in Parliament, which is the explicit aim of the Government expressed from time to time, is a deliberate policy and must have the logical effect at some point of detaching the style of "Lord " from the right to sit in this place.
As is made clear by Clause 2, Members of your Lordships' House will be able to sit in another place in the full flower of their title should they so wish. I wonder, in passing, whether my right honourable friend, the current chairman of the Conservative Party, may wish to reapply his proper name. If some of us seek election to another place, I wonder whether we would want to call ourselves by the names that we have held in this House.
My great-grandfather sat in another place as an Irish Peer, but always called himself Lord Henley. I once speculated in the local press that I may stand for election to my local constituency, Carlisle, should we be abolished, to which the response from the PPS of the Lord Privy Seal was that Carlisle was not ready for a "toff". Since then, Carlisle has returned to the Conservative fold after 23 years. If I were to stand for

1343
election in such a place, I would be keen to stand as Lord Henley, preserving the name that I have had for a number of years.
Earl Ferrers: I see that the noble Lord takes great pride in his name. He really should not do so because the only reason that his predecessor was made Lord Henley was to ensure that my predecessor was executed.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is correct in saying that it was a direct forebear of mine who was ennobled as Lord Henley so that he could preside over a trial of a forebear of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The forebear of my noble friend in that trial made the rather odd mistake of defending himself—by not employing counsel—on the grounds of insanity, which meant that if he did a good job he was not insane and he would go down, but if he did a bad job he would go down anyway. I can assure the House that my noble friend's forebear did go down and was hanged, in due course, with that privilege of peerage, by means of a silken cord.
I am descended from another Lord Henley, of different creation, a son-in-law of that first Lord Henley. I do not sit as Lord Henley in this House, as the title of "Lord Henley " relates to an Irish peerage. I sit as Lord Northington, a name that I have to remember once every five years when I take the Oath.
Returning to the amendment, it may be disappointing to some noble Lords. It is not disappointing to many noble Lords on the Benches opposite, as was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. It seems inevitable that the title given to Members of this House must change at some point after reform. Whether that is after an interim stage or another stage is a matter for debate.
Three suggestions have been put forward, one from my noble kinsman Lord Stanley and my noble friend Lord Caithness, and another two from my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I would not wish to be the one to adjudicate between those suggestions. No doubt the Government will have a number of responses to those and they will give us, no doubt, their views as to the appropriate one. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn will respond, or should I say the right honourable Gareth Williams LP or LS or MS, or whatever he will be called in due course. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to assist us in terms of what would be the appropriate name.
At this stage, I do not want to judge between the different suggestions made by my noble friends. Having heard what the Minister has to say, I am sure that my noble friends may wish to return to this at a later stage of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I have waited, with mounting indignation and impatience, throughout these five days, to get to the only point of this Bill that really matters. We have spent hours on trivia such as the Weatherill amendment and the question of the appointments commission instead of getting on with what really matters!
1344
I almost said, "This has been a unique occasion", but I have so often thought that, that I know in a few weeks' time there will be another such unique occasion.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the soul progenitor of the "West Cranborne" question, told us that the behaviour of this House had always been modelled on the habits of the hereditary peerage. I wonder which particular defined habits he had readily in mind. I thought of illegal immigration in 1066, followed by theft, pillage and usurpation over the succeeding centuries.
Viscount Cranborne: I rather anticipated that such a crack might be forthcoming from the noble Lord, so I was careful to differentiate between the medieval period, which was not hereditary, and the later medieval period and the subsequent period, which were. I am the first to admit that in subsequent centuries the habits of the hereditary peerage outside your Lordships' House were rather less elegant than they were inside.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I continue. The alternatives put forward are fascinating. This is a serious question of importance to the public, the outcome of which the world is awaiting. Our post-nominals are extremely important.
I remember prosecuting a case in Swansea Crown Court when I first became a Queen's Counsel. Afterwards, with trembling hand, I looked at the success which I would undoubtedly be accorded and which would be recorded in the Swansea Evening Post, known locally as the "Two Minutes' Silence " because that is all it took to read it. I was horrified—my mother even more so—to find the immortal phrase on the front page:
"Prosecuting for the Crown was Mr. Gareth Williams, w. c."
I thought of complaining to the editor, but all my friends told me that there would be little point.
We have had interesting offers from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We have heard references to the French Revolution. I remember Phillipe Egalite, the renegade, and I suppose that if the madly determined dash of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the lowest common denominator continues, we shall have to call him "Robin Egalite " because beneath his Right-wing exterior there beats a radical heart.
It has been quite wrongly suggested to me that the hereditary Peers may be known as PCs, Pedigree Chums or something of that sort. The possibilities are endless. The fact is that we see no reason for change. I hope that that robust approach of no change in any circumstance commends itself in particular to the hereditary element of this House.
There is an internal contradiction to be detected by the unkind eye in the two amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Amendments Nos.101 and 102 are mutually exclusive. Amendment No.74, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, wants everyone to be known as "Peers ". We think that there is no point in that, except as the subject for an amusing debate of this

1345
type. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wants us to be called either MAC or LP. We should not lightly throw away the inheritance of the centuries.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am still puzzled by the noble Lord. Throughout all the debates the Government have said that we must change; we must modernise. The only times when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, refuses change is when, first, he says that we cannot have "an " and must have "a " hereditary Peer for the good reason that the parliamentary draftsman has said that that has been so for years; and, secondly, as regards an obviously correct provision such as the amendment today. Again, he says,"No, we must not change." I wish that he had used that expression a little more and earlier in the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank all noble Lords for their contribution. If I did not hook a shark on this occasion, perhaps I may say that it was a noble salmon. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dudley. I, too, have heard that the Bill is commonly called a sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on many occasions, I wonder whether he is a reincarnated Lewis Carroll because he plays the part extremely well.
Perhaps I may refer to my noble friend Lord Onslow as my noble kinsman. His comments were wrong.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord tell us how many noble kinsmen he has in the House?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It depends how many are legitimate. The question of illegitimacy arises, in particular with one quite close to me at the moment!
I am not sure what side my noble kinsman Lord Henley is on. It was probably the wrong side if he was a kinsman, needless to say. His family were fortunate enough to inherit lands and wealth due to the extreme awkwardness—I could use a worse name—of a female member of my family who died not all that long ago.
I think that he should be grateful and perhaps might buy me a drink on occasion.
I commiserate with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I understand that former members of his family were not called to this House in the 15th century. I am sorry about that, but I suppose we all have to start somewhere.
I conclude with the serious point of the amendment. The House which remains will be different from the present Chamber. It should be made quite clear that it will be different. My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies. It is a serious point which the Government should address. I do not mind what the Members are called. I picked out Peers because it was the first name, I am sorry to say, that came into my head. But there must be a better way.
It is a valid point. We are changing. Let us not hide it. The noble Lord; ought to hide behind his bushel. Let us make clear that we are changing in fact. in ceremony
1346
and so on. Let us make up our minds what we shall be called in future. I may return to the point. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington moved Amendment No.75:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
LIFE PEERAGES COMMISSION
(". —(1) There shall be a Life Peerages Commission ("the Commission ") which alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(2) During the two years immediately following the passing of this Act the Commission shall recommend to Her Majesty the conferment of life peerages to the extent necessary to ensure that—

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

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

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

(3) In each subsequent year the Commission shall recommend to Her Majesty the conferment of no more peerages than is necessary to continue to ensure as nearly as possible that—

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

(b) the Govemment has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party, and

(c) a significant independent Cross Bench element is maintained,

and in no circumstances shall the Commission recommend the creation of more than fifty peerages in any such year.

(4) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council appointed by the Prime Minister.

(5) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party, and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.")

The noble Lord said: I can assure the Committee that we now deal with a matter of considerable substance. There is nothing Alice in Wonderland about this amendment. Many of the words in the amendment will be familiar to Members of the Committee. They are all taken from the Government's White Paper.
The Government state that they do not want one party to dominate what they call the transitional House. That is what the Government have stated at page 4 of the White Paper.
The Government say that they will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in this House. That is what the Government have stated as their intention at page 9 of the White Paper.
The Government say that they will maintain a significant independent Cross Bench element. That is the Government's stated intention at page 31 of the White Paper.
If that is what the Government say they want for the transitional House, let us put that in the Bill. Let a statutory body receive nominations from the political parties, the Prime Minister and others, and then carry out the duty of recommending peerages in numbers and

1347
from the various parties in accordance with what the Government say are their own intentions. What possible objection can there be to that?
Even if it were guaranteed to last for only a limited time, no harm would be done by writing the Government's intentions into the very Bill creating the transitional House. But in truth there can be no guarantee as to how long the transitional House will last. The fact that it might last quite a long time provides another reason—some might say an even stronger one—for writing appropriate provisions into the Bill creating the transitional House.
I must emphasise that to doubt whether the transitional House will last for only a short time is not to question the Government's good faith. I state the obvious. It is that no government can guarantee that another Bill providing for long-term reform will reach the statute book. On Tuesday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he could guarantee that stage two would come about. He said that speculation that stage two would not take place was fanciful and without foundation. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been about the place in 1968 he would have learned that some matters are not always in the government's control.
I have to give exactly the same reply to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. She stated today that the Government are resolute in their determination to have stage two. Sometimes members of the Government seem to forget that it is Parliament and not the Government which ultimately decides whether a Bill will reach the statute book. Whether a Bill reaches the statute book depends ultimately on Parliament. I recommend to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal what her noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Shepherd said on Tuesday last. I commend in particular to the Committee what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said at col.1111 of the Official Report of 11th May. He said that there were a number of reasons why the transitional House might be with us for a long time. One is that with 600 noble Lords in the transitional House and 600 in the other place, there would be 1, 200 different views as to what kind of second Chamber there should be.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whether or not it is more likely that there will be an indeterminate interim period if a clause such as this is introduced into the Bill and will it not greatly reduce the pressure to introduce stage two?
Lord Waddington: I do not agree with that for one moment, but if the noble Lord were right it does not alter the fact that if the Government say their intentions are clearly stated in their own White Paper it is difficult to mount a powerful argument as to why they should not be put in the Bill.
I submit that what I say is plain common sense. In view of the Government's declared policy, it would not disadvantage them to write their intentions into their Bill. The argument advanced by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal earlier today—that the time to discuss
1348
methods of appointment of life Peers will be when we come to stage two—is no argument when, first, there can be no guarantee of a stage two in the foreseeable future and, secondly, the Government have announced a detailed policy for appointment to the transitional House.
One thing must be made clear. The new House without most of the hereditary Peers will be a much smaller House. If the power of appointment of life Peers were left in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day, it would be much easier for him to make sufficient appointments to gain an absolute majority in this place. In no way is it an aspersion on present life Peers to say that in future a government less scrupulous than the previous one or their predecessors could appoint people who were concerned more to do the government's bidding than to protect the constitution.
It has been argued somewhat faintly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on more than one occasion that if the Prime Minister's power to make appointments poses a danger, it is a danger that has been with us for a long time; that nothing has gone wrong as yet, so there is no need to do anything. That is not much of an argument. The Government are making a big change to our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister acknowledged in his own White Paper that the present system of creating life Peers is far from ideal and needs some change. Very well, let us deal with these shortcomings in our present arrangements and, as we are legislating, let us deal with them in this legislation.
We have no right to throw away the opportunity to put things right by legislation when the opportunity is right here staring us in the face. We have no right to ignore the present rather unsatisfactory constitutional and legal position that is open to the Prime Minister and, if this Bill is not amended, to any future Prime Minister to secure for himself an absolute majority in this place and render the House completely ineffective as a check on the executive.
The wording of the amendment is clear enough. Admittedly, there might have to be a large number of new Peers to create the new balance envisaged both by the Government and by this amendment. Later, it should be possible to stick to a statutory maximum, and to have a statutory maximum is desirable as a safeguard against abuse. The amendment envisages the statutory maximum being imposed after the first two years; a statutory maximum of 50, as set out in subsection (3).
The House will also note that subsection (2) seeks to ensure that:
"the proportion of Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act ".
That is an attempt to put in clearer and more felicitous language the Government's assurance at page 9 of the White Paper that they will maintain a Cross-Bench representation at around the present proportion of life Peers. Strangely, and for reasons best known to themselves, the Government used less precise language and gave a less generous undertaking at page 31 of the White Paper. The words there are:
"We shall maintain a significant independent Cross Bench element ".

1349
Again, we have picked up the Government's own words in order to drive home the point that we are aiming to do no more than put in statutory form the Government's own policy. If on reflection the Government regret having used two different formulations in the White Paper, I am sure that the amendment can be redrafted to the satisfaction of all.
I leave it to others to discuss the methods of the appointments commission. Surely, all we have to do today is agree in principle to there being a statutory appointments commission and then work out the best formula to ensure its complete independence. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that:
"There shall be a Life Peerages Commission … which alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty ".
I followed the noble Lord's political career with some interest and I recall that he was the Chief Whip, or patronage secretary, between 1987 and 1989. I am sure that in that capacity he played some small part with the Prime Minister in deciding who should come to this place and who should not. When did he change his mind about that and why did he change his mind? Was it in spite of or because of his experiences as Chief Whip?
Lord Waddington: I do not believe that the question of why I changed my mind, if I did change my mind, has anything to do with the amendment. In the amendment, I am saying that if the Government are telling this House that it is their intention to have a House in which there is no party with an overall majority, let the Government put their money where their mouth is and put in the Bill which they are asking us to pass a clear statement of their own intentions.
That is what is important, not my own views on this. If the noble Lord wants my own views, he will note that I stated them in an earlier speech. The fact is that we are creating a much smaller House and one which it would be much easier to manipulate. We are creating a House over which it would be much easier for the Prime Minister of the day to gain control simply because he would not have to make many new appointments in order to achieve an absolute majority. That is how the position has changed, but what matters is the Government's own intentions.
Lord Bach: When the noble Lord was Chief Whip, the Prime Minister had complete control over the majority in this House. Is that not right?
Lord Waddington: I do not follow the purpose of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will tell us later in the debate why he expects us to have such faith in the Government's claim that they are bound to get through Parliament a second stage Bill and that it is quite unnecessary for us to write into this Bill what the Government say are their own intentions. Perhaps later the noble Lord will be able to tell us what would be the disadvantage to the Government if they wrote into this
1350
Bill their own intentions. What are the Government afraid of? Perhaps we shall hear that from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Crickhowell: My Amendment No.86 is grouped with this amendment. Although all the amendments in the group propose a statutory appointments commission, they cover a wide field and have different objectives. As my noble friend Lord Waddington has made clear, his amendment translates the Government's intentions into a statutory form. However, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont, who is not in his place, proposes to impose a cap on the number of creations. I have some sympathy with that proposal. These amendments, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas, propose the setting up of an appointments commission to deal with the appointment of all life Peers.
My Amendment No.86 has a more restricted and specific intention. The commission that I propose is concerned only with the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. It is intended to carry into effect in statutory form the Government's declared policy set out in Chapter 6,"The Appointments Commission ", of the White Paper, which we now understand from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in official racing colours. Paragraph 9 recognises,
"the tremendous contribution made … by the independent cross-bench peers ".
It adds:
"There is no reason why the Prime Minister of the day should control the nominations to the cross benches."
The Government therefore propose that there should be an "advisory non-departmental public body ", which
"will operate an open and transparent nominations system for cross-bench peers ".
So far, so good. But, incredibly, this independent appointments commission is to be established by the Government, by the Prime Minister, and not by statute. That is an extraordinary, and to me completely unacceptable, proposal. The nature of the commission, the way in which its chairman and members are appointed, the objectives it is given, and the rules under which it operates, should be, must be, a matter for Parliament, not the Prime Minister and the Government.
If there is any responsibility that should be removed from the hands of the Prime Minister and the Government, it is surely that which embraces the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. I go further than the White Paper's statement:
"There is no reason why the Prime Minister of the clay should control the nominations to the Cross-Benches ".
There are a multitude of compelling reasons why he should not do so, but there are equally compelling reasons why he should be distanced from—I go further; why there should be a wide and unbridgeable gulf between him and—the body tasked with the responsibility of nominating Cross-Bench Peers.
Having been the chairman of a non-departmental public body established by statute, I inquired under what provisions the commission would be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Library tells me that because it is

1351
advisory and not executive, and because its expenditure will be small, it can be set up by the Prime Minister, just as the Nolan Committee was set up. I accept that advice. But it is not a technical reason that moves me to propose the amendment. It is surely a matter of the utmost constitutional importance that Parliament should, in this Bill, provide the statutory authority for the commission.
No doubt I shall be told that the present Prime Minister is a person of absolute integrity and that all kinds of rules of propriety will be observed. But the fact is that the present Prime Minister and his successors are political animals. It is no criticism of their integrity to say that their judgments are inevitably influenced by their political views and aims.
I have been a Minister responsible for appointing the members of quangos. I have also been the chairman of a very large quango. Appointments to quangos involve the exercise of judgments about individuals. However honourable the intentions, appointments may involve bias; and even if they do not, the world outside may believe that they do. Public perception is as important as the reality.
Furthermore, I have learnt from experience that Ministers and their civil servants have a thousand subtle, and sometimes far from subtle, ways of seeking to influence the actions of quangos that they have set up, even though the quangos are supposed to be independent. Whitehall hates independence. The more independent-minded the quango, the more determined is Whitehall to quell that independence and regain control.
It may or may not be right for a Prime Minister to appoint the chairman of a Royal Commission to consider the future of the House of Lords, a European Commissioner of another party, or the leader of the devolved Assembly in Wales. It is certainly wrong that he should have any say in, or influence over, the appointment to a commission that will recommend who should be Cross-Bench Peers.
My new clause makes it clear that the commission should have regard to all the desirable objectives about breadth of membership that the Government set out in the White Paper and the Labour Party recommended in its evidence to the Royal Commission. I find it hard to believe that the Minister can object to the principles behind my amendment.
There is, however, one aspect on which I am particularly anxious to hear the views of the whole Committee. I refer to the question of membership. In subsection (2) I propose a membership designed to guarantee independence, but with the Cross-Bench Peers themselves given a major say in the appointment process. There is plenty of room for variety.
My noble friend Lord Waddington proposes for his commission a membership consisting solely of Privy Counsellors appointed by the Prime Minister. I toyed with the idea of Privy Counsellors, but not with the idea that they should be chosen by the Prime Minister. My noble friend Lord Lucas makes an alternative suggestion.
1352
I have not fixed irrevocably on my particular solution. This debate provides an opportunity to test the Committee's views on the subject. That is the principal reason why I do not intend to seek to press my amendment to a vote tonight. But before the Bill leaves the House of Lords, such an amendment must be incorporated into it. I have proposed something which I think fulfils the intentions that the Government have set out. It seems to me absolutely essential that on this crucial matter of the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers the commission must be controlled by Parliament, must be seen to be wholly independent and must be separated entirely from the actions of the government of the day. Therefore, I give proper warning now that, having considered the views of the Committee on the detail, particularly on the nature of the appointments to the commission, I shall certainly want to return at a later stage and press to a vote an amendment with similar objectives.
Lord Richard: With great respect to the two noble Lords who have just spoken, there was an air of almost total political unreality about their speeches. They were both members of the Cabinet of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. A vision came to my mind of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as Chief Whip, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as Secretary of State for Wales, and perhaps other noble Lords, saying to the then Prime Minister,"We are very worried about maintaining the independence of the Cross Benches in the upper Chamber. Therefore, Prime Minister, we think that you should now accept a statutory curb upon your right to appoint Cross-Benchers ". I would merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that he would not have been appointed Governor of Bermuda, but of St. Kilda—and I suspect that the tenure of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in the Principality would have been somewhat curtailed.
There has never been this sort of curb upon the power of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says that he is merely setting out what is in the Labour manifesto. I refer him to subsection (5) of the new clause that he proposes in Amendment No.86. The manifesto sensibly proposed that there should be an advisory committee. I hope that the Committee will accept that. But what is the noble Lord's proposal? It is that
"The Prime Minister shall not have the right to refuse a recommendation of the Commission ".
That is a strange advisory commission. For the first time that I can recall—I am pretty sure I am right about this—a Prime Minister would be voluntarily offering some public curbs—not statutory; and they should not be statutory—on his right to appoint people to the House of Lords.
For the first time, he has said that, in relation to the Cross-Benchers, in order to preserve independence and to secure a reasonable cross-section of people sitting on the Cross-Benches, that should go first to an independent appointments commission. With great respect to the noble Lord, you cannot expect a government to go further than that.

1353
Therefore, I come back to where I started. There is an air of political unreality about the way in which the two noble Lords are attempting to entrench in statutory form that which the Prime Minister has offered voluntarily. That is wrong and if there is a Division, I trust that Members of the Committee on this side at least will oppose the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Crickhomell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He made a great deal of the freedom of the Prime Minister to make the appointments and the need for that body to be advisory. I have based my amendment entirely on what the Government said in the White Paper. That states specifically that the Prime Minister will have no right to refuse a nomination that the commission had passed. It is for that reason that I included that phrase in my amendment. If the noble Lord feels as his words suggest, he should be arguing against his own Government's White Paper and not against my amendment.
Lord Richard: It is not for me at this stage to argue with the Government about their White Paper. It may be within the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that that is precisely what I have been doing ever since the White Paper was published.
Lord Waddington: Again, before the noble Lord sits down, surely he recognises that although St. Kilda might not have been quite so congenial as Bermuda, the situation has changed since those days because the Government have announced that they are prepared to put a voluntary restraint on the Prime Minister's power to make appointments to this place.
The Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to promise that he will not make appointments which will give him an absolute majority in the House. The only question is, as he said that in his own White Paper, what harm will be done by putting it in the Bill?
Lord Richard: The noble Lord has asked me a question which provokes me to respond to him. This is another example of what we have experienced throughout the whole Committee stage of the Bill from Members of the Committee opposite. They have said that all is perfectly safe and people could be relied on to behave well so long as there is a Conservative administration in No.10 and so long as there are 350 hereditary Peers on their side of the Chamber. If that is the situation then they say that there is no need for those checks and no statutory provision needs to be made. They say that they do not need a Prime Minister voluntarily to agree that there should be some non-statutory curbs upon his power. They say that all will be well in those circumstances.
I am sorry, but I do not accept that. I do not believe that anybody else on this side of the Committee accepts that. If one starts on that basis, then the unreality of what is being proposed en the other side of the Committee becomes totally clear.
Lord Elton: Is there not a little unreality in what the noble Lord has just said? He has demonstrated to his
1354
own satisfaction and that of many of his noble friends that what pertained under the Conservative administration and the current constitution is unacceptable. Why should the change of parties suddenly make acceptable that matter of principle? Surely all politicians are equally to be treated with great reserve. I do not defend the record of my own side. I merely tell the Committee that in the end the record of the other side is likely, over the years, to be very similar.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am concerned with the principle as to whether there should be a statutory commission for the appointment of independent Peers. I am not concerned about how the political appointments are made. Therefore, I am somewhat closer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the substance of his amendment although I am in no way concerned with the detail of any particular amendment. If, at the end of the day, the Government will tell us that they are happy to have a statutory body, then they should devise precisely how it is to be formed.
I am also not concerned with the party points made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for which I have a certain amount of sympathy. I should be making these points whichever party were bringing forward this Bill and whichever party was likely to be making the appointments.
The Government expressed the desire to maintain in the interim House—and I emphasise in the interim House—a substantial independent element. They have also expressed a willingness to have those who are appointed to fulfil that role recommended by persons other than the Prime Minister.
This Bill will reduce substantially the number of independent Members of the House and will reduce substantially the number of noble Lords opposite. Therefore, my submission is that it is a necessary element of this Bill to consider how that substantial independent element is to be maintained. With respect, I do not understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this matter does not arise under this Bill but is a matter only for stage two. This is a matter that concerns how the interim House is to be filled.
The common theme behind the amendments is that the commission which is to fulfil that role should be embodied in statute and should not be dependent on the particular wish of whoever may be the Prime Minister for the time being, because, if it is a voluntary body, a future Prime Minister can disband it and revert to absolute appointment.
Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the concept of that commission is extremely necessary for the interim Chamber. It seems highly likely also that some such body will have a necessary role in the stage two House. If, as appears to be the wish of virtually everybody, that second stage House is to have a strong independent element, pace the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that independent element must stem from some system of appointment and not from a wholly-elected Chamber.

1355
Therefore, if, in the stage two House, there is to be an ongoing need for the appointment of an independent element, surely it is desirable now to start with a strong statutory body making those recommendations. Then, by the time stage two is for consideration, there will be practical experience of the working of that body which can enlighten the deliberations of stage two.
If the Government believe in that independent advisory body, I do not see why they should be reluctant in any way to put it on the statute book. That has the great advantage that a less high-minded government hereafter would not be able to abolish the idea at the whim of the Prime Minister. I very much hope that the Government will indicate not that they accept any particular amendment but that they accept the idea of a statutory body and will bring forward proposals at a later stage.
The Earl of Erroll: As a Cross-Bencher, I sometimes despair of the political point scoring which takes place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the past performance of some Tory policies. But—and I totally disagree with him—I am glad that they have finally seen the light because it provides a way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, summed up the concerns of many Members of the Committee and put them in a nutshell. The real problem with the Bill is that it cannot be assumed that future governments will be such pillars of moral rectitude as the present government. That temporary and interim House may have to last a very long time. Therefore, we must remove from future governments and Prime Ministers the power to manipulate the interim or transitional Chamber. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it is all too easy for a Prime Minister to change things in the name of efficiency when he really means expediency. For that reason, this should be a statutory provision.
Viscount Cranborne: Not for the first time, I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a certain amount of sympathy. After all he, like me and, I suspect, a surprisingly large number of your Lordships, has been a business manager. As the noble Lord well knows, one of the main weapons at the disposal of any government—I suppose in your Lordships' House it might be the whisky bottle—is the power of patronage. Until fairly recently, if that power of patronage was exercised discreetly and was not abused beyond a certain amount—after all, the words "abuse " and "government " go together; otherwise the power of Parliament would not be as important as it is—then it has been thought perfectly acceptable, as the noble Lord implied, for the Government to exercise the power of patronage as a means of ensuring that their objectives are achieved. Of course, it is only when there are evident abuses of that power that problems arise. One does not want to get too far up to date for fear of being a little invidious, but the history of the last administration of Lloyd-George would perhaps do as an example. I have a certain amount of sympathy, as part of the former business managers' club, with the sentiments that the noble Lord expressed.
1356
The difficulty for a number of Members of the Committee on this side when considering this pragmatic and rather eighteenth century view of politics, some of which has persisted until the present day—there is every sign, particularly in view of what the noble Lord said. that it persists with the present Government—is that before it came to power the Labour Party took a rather different view. I would not mind betting that one of the reasons why people viewed the imminent arrival of a Labour Government with something like equanimity was that the Labour Party had persuaded a large part of the electorate that the Tory government of which I was a member were enmired in sleaze and that the whole system needed cleaning up. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, nodding. I assume that she not only agrees about the need to clean up but also that that was one of the reasons why the Labour Party won the election.
I well remember how the noble Lord, in some of his more eloquent speeches from the Dispatch Box, when I was quaking in my boots about how I was going to reply to his barbs, made very great play of this disgraceful exercise of power of patronage and of sleaze generally.
It is for that reason, I suspect, that we on this side of the Committee would like to see the Government put their money where their mouth was when they wrote the manifesto, when undertakings were given by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, and when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me perfectly consistent, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said, for us to ask as an opposition that the Government do that, not because we think we are guiltless, but because it seems to us perfectly sensible for any opposition to hold the government to their word.
I quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says. As the House knows by experience, he is a very frank individual. He has been very frank about his disagreements with his own party on the matter of reform of your Lordships' House. It is perfectly plain by implication that the Government are beginning to enjoy the exercise of power. That is what governments do, and part of the exercise of power is a power of patronage. It is very easy therefore for them to suggest that what has been done is enough. A concession has been made; a nod in the direction of their former rhetoric has been made; and that is enough, because the practicalities of government mean that the power of patronage must continue to be exercised at least in some measure.
I do not believe that that is consistent with what has gone before. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for us to ask, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked: under what authority will this commission be established? It sounds as though it will be established under royal prerogative. It also sounds as though the Government, like all governments, are growing to love the idea of preserving what is left of the royal prerogative for the reason I have given.
If that is what the commission is going to be established under, and if we fail to persuade the Committee of the justice of the arguments in general

1357
terms of my noble friends who have put amendments so far, then it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the terms and riding instructions of the commission provide for regular reports informing the public of the basis on which it operates and that those reports should be extraordinarily transparent in so far as that is consistent with the obvious restrictions as to how it goes about its business. For the reasons that my noble friends gave, I do think that there is a great deal to be said, in view of the previous rhetoric of the Labour Party, particularly before the last election, for my once again posing the question put by my noble friend Lord Waddington: why not put it on the face of the Bill? It would be entirely consistent with the rhetoric with which the Labour Party has bombarded us for years. I look forward to hearing from the Government Front Bench the reasons why that should not be so.
I hope also that the Government will deal with the question to which by implication both my noble friends addressed themselves in their different ways. Why is the commission only to concern itself with the Cross Benches? I am sure the answer will be that Peers taking the party whip should rightly be appointed at the suggestion of party leaders. We also know that some of the rhetoric of the Labour Party over past years has questioned whether the strength of scrutiny of names put forward by party leaders has been quite sufficient. Surely it is sensible for any names submitted by party leaders to be scrutinsed by an authoritative commission of this kind. I should be very interested to know from the noble Lord, if: ndeed it is he who will be replying, why he feels that at least some role should not be played by the commission in the appointment of all new Peers if consistency is to be maintained with the rhetoric we have heard.
I hope we shall be told when the Government expect to appoint the commission and how its members will be appointed because inevitably, as my noble friends explained, the question guts custodiet rnust arise in any consideration of the proposal. I hope too that the Government will talk not only about transparency but also about how the recommendations themselves will be made. Will the commission draw up lists? Will it be possible for people to submit names? I hope too that it might be considered helpful if the public were encouraged to make submissions in the same way as they have been encouraged by both parties to make submissions on the Honours List in another context.
It would be very helpful if the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, could answer not only those questions but above all the question: why not put it on the face of the Bill? The Government have been adamant in their refusal so far. Perhaps they can be induced to think again.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having sat here silently for the whole afternoon I think it is reasonable that we on these Benches should be allowed to express an opinion. It is quite understandable and in my view perfectly reasonable for people to put down amendments
1358
dealing with the appointments commission. The matter was identified during the Cook-Maclennan talks before the last general election when it was agreed between ourselves and the Labour Party that no party should attempt to get a majority in the House and that there should be a solid block of Cross Bench Peers who would hold the balance. That seemed to me entirely sensible. Many of the speeches today have covered that ground. I was mildly surprised at the language of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when he expressed his concern about the misuse of patronage. He referred to abuses of power and went back to Lloyd George. I think that there are one or two rather more recent examples, if he will forgive my saying so. I refer, in particular, to the time when he was a member of the previous administration.
I have a list of the life Peers who were created under the premiership of Mr. Major. To be fair, he did not go to the extremes of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. However, when he created life Peers under the Life Peerages Act, he added 83 to the Conservative numbers in this House; a House which already had an overwhelming Conservative majority. That was two more than the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats put together. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was a senior member of that government. I wonder whether he expressed his grave concern about what might be interpreted as an abuse of power by the behaviour of his right honourable friend the then Prime Minister.
When we go back to the record of the noble Baroness. Lady Thatcher, the examples under her premiership are even more interesting. During her period as Prime Minister, she appointed twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers, and 11 times more Conservative life Peers than Liberal Democrat life Peers. That gives some indication of what abuse of power is really about.
During the many days of discussion on the Bill, we have heard an absolute torrent of humbug from the Opposition Benches on this issue. Of course it is necessary to try to create arrangements to avoid future misuses of power by a government of any political persuasion. However, perhaps I may say, with great respect to the noble Viscount, that there has to be just a touch of humility when he addresses the House on this issue.
I turn, briefly, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which proposes that the Government should have broad parity with the major opposition party. However, as he would recognise, by the terms of the Government's White Paper and, indeed, the interesting amendment tabled by his noble friend Lord Lamont, who unhappily is not in his place, the Conservative Party is still substantially over-represented in this House. It will continue to be, given the ration of 42 new Conservative hereditary Peers who will he allowed to remain here. When the noble Lord makes such a proposition, one inevitably has to look at it rather critically.
Lord Waddington: Does not the noble Lord recognise that those words are taken straight from the White Paper? Surely I have made it plain enough that the point of the amendments is to ask the Government whether they are prepared to write into the Bill what they state are their own intentions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that I have pointed out that the document was produced by the Labour Party and ourselves even before the last general election. Therefore, it was available to be discussed at that time. It was agreed that the proportions of party political Peers should be not on the basis of equality between the Conservative and Labour Parties, but on the basis of the proportion of people supporting those political parties in a general election. That is the difficulty.
Lord Waddington: If that is the case, the noble Lord's argument is with the Government and not with me. He is now saying that the Government have changed their ground.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord will reread the White Paper, he will see that what I have said is incorporated in it. However, the point before us is a simple one; that is, whether the amendments should be agreed as part of the Bill. If the Conservative Party behaves as it has on previous occasions, in a few moments the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will withdraw the amendment. I do not know whether he proposes to divide the Committee. As I have indicated, I consider that the discussion on this matter is entirely reasonable. However, what are not reasonable are the constant assertions that there was purity in the past and there may be malevolence in the future as far as the present Government are concerned.
The Earl of Errol: As a Cross-Bencher, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he agree with the premise I put forward earlier that the Tory Party needs equally to be controlled in the future by an amendment such as this? I believe that is what he was saying.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss the particular circumstances in which an appointments commission should be created. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be listened to with great care for that precise reason. Of course, it is reasonable to discuss that matter and to seek reassurance that the behaviour of such an appointments commission will be fair.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he kindly substantiate two comments he made? Who, exactly, has been making assertions of purity in the past,
1360
because I have not heard them, and where in the White Paper is the proportionality recommended as he described it?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In answer to the first point, there has been a series of suggestions, both today and on previous occasions—
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has asked a question. If he is good enough to allow me to reply, I shall endeavour to do so. We had the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for instance, that under the Bill as presently drafted it will be easier to manipulate the House. As I have tried to point out, manipulation took place under Conservative Ministers. Noble Lords such as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he was patronage secretary, did absolutely nothing to deal with the situation.
As regards the second matter, I have stated my belief. I shall gladly look again at the White Paper after this discussion.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I hope that my noble friends will not be dismissive of the proposals put forward. I would be the last to suggest to them that they should simply adopt the amendments. That clearly is not on. However, I hope that they will think further about the matter and perhaps, at a later stage, tell us of their conclusions.
Perhaps I may explain why I say that. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on Second Reading. What he has done in these amendments was foreshadowed in that speech. Frankly, I thought that his speech then fell into two parts. In one part, with which I strongly disagreed, he was highly critical of all that we were up to and our motives. However, I thought that the second part was really rather good. He picked out those features of what we have volunteered and have put to the country which I believe, on merit, are extremely attractive.
In the past our criticism of the House of Lords, apart from its hereditary composition, which is well understood, has been its total imbalance of party strengths. We volunteered and, with tremendous courage, committed ourselves, first, to parity, not supremacy, and, secondly, not to fall for the temptation of giving one party a majority over the whole second Chamber or upper Chamber, whatever it will be called. These are enormously important features of our proposals. The proposal that we shall seek to ensure that a substantial number of independent Peers, the Cross-Benchers, will be retained, gives that promise of a real element of independence in the future Chamber. On merit, I find the latter arguments to be very powerful.
Perhaps I may put to my noble friends the following point. Whether bogusly or genuinely, many people are writing editorials criticising what we are doing and saying that the principal objection is that it will leave

1361
unlimited patronage, as it were, to a future Prime Minister to determine, as he thinks, the composition of the interim Chamber. Not a bit of it! We have deliberately put ourselves in baulk; in other words, we have put chains Hound the absolute patronage of a Prime Minister for almost the first time in our history. It is remarkable.
I put it to my noble friends that, if we can find a way of incorporating these principles into the Bill itself, although not in detail, we will have a very persuasive additional ability to sell it to the country as a whole. We really are saying to the country, "Look, we stand for the genuinely independent second Chamber, one where the parties are equally balanced ". It is a guarantee of many of our liberties and, indeed, of the fairness with which our constitutional arrangements will be carried out in the future.
Obviously, there can be quite a considerable argument about the proposed commission and I would not wish to come to a conclusion in that respect. In some ways, I believe it to be of secondary importance to the three principles. If we are to have a substantial number of Cross-Bench representatives in the second House and if we are really to stick to the business of one party not having an overall majority and the two main parties being equal, the room for mischief in the use of patronage as regards the appointment of independent Peers is not all that great.
Therefore, in thinking about this, I hope that my noble friends will take a. serious look at the matter to see whether we can fit this into the framework without it leading to unnecessary difficulties. I understand that any such amendment will inevitably raise questions of further debate in the other place. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there will be any resistance in the other Chamber if we can find a way to incorporate these most desirable features which we, ourselves, have proposed and volunteered.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: It may appear that I have some amendments in this group, but that is not so. Indeed, I have taken them out and ungrouped them from each other. When we come to deal with them, I hope that it will be unnecessary for me to move them. I hope that we shall find that we are in dialogue with the Government in dealing with the underlying issues which cause us and, evidently, others on all sides of the House, so much disquiet. However, if we find that we are faced with an intransigent Government and that, like the rest of the House, we are having to discuss how we should tackle the matter, I trust that my amendments may give us a reasonable opportunity to consider the various aspects of the proposed appointments commission and other ways of dealing with this problem in some detail. In that case, we may perhaps be able to bring back an amendment on Report, which is likely to command wide-spread support in the House.
As the Bill is set at the moment, the Government are inviting us, as I said on Tuesday, to set to sea in a sieve on the basis that they will rush out to our rescue before the water is up round our necks. I accept everything
1362
that the Government have said about their intentions and about the determination and the will with which they approach the idea of stage two, but they are not in perfect control of events; indeed, they can never be so. It would be extremely remiss of us to leave the consitution of this country and of this House in such a poor state that it could be sunk in a few years' time if we were to have a Prime Minister who, looking back over the history of Prime Ministers, merely equalled the performance of some of our past Prime Ministers in the way in terms of treatment of this House.
In an earlier interjection, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested that we should not change this Bill in any way which would reduce the Government's incentive to move on to stage two. However, if we leave this Bill in a state where the Government, merely by appointing 30 or 40 extra Peers and exercising some judicious selection of the Cross-Bench Peers, were able to have effective control of this House, there will be no incentive for the Government to go through the pain—and it will be painful—of introducing stage two. Indeed, it will be a difficult and time-consuming thing to do, but if the Government are left in a position where they have effective control of the House, there will be no incentive whatever for them to make any changes.
The Government need look no further than our own record in office to see that we were perfectly content with a manifestly inequitable and indefensible system because we were in control of it. When we were in power, there was never any hope of persuading the Government in another place to make any changes. We cannot let that happen again. I very much hope that the Government are as determined as I am to ensure that: we leave this Bill in a state where that cannot happen again.
Beyond anything else, it is proposed that we should be bought with the arrangements arrived at under the heading of the "Weatherill amendment ". But if the Bill remains as it is and the Government can obtain control of the House over two or three years merely by appointing Peers in a way for which there is adequate precedent, the Weatherill amendment will be worth nothing to us. We will have achieved nothing by it. We will merely have let this House be acquired as pan of an arm of the executive without offering any resistance. I do not believe that that should be part of the deal we are being offered. I believe that the Government are being honest in offering us the Weatherill amendment. When we come to discuss ways of making that water-tight and the Bill acceptable so that we are being offered a real proposition in the Weatherill amendment, I hope that the Government will go along with us in trying to ensure that what we are being offered is a real compromise.
I do not have any particular attachment to the ways in which it has been suggested that we should tackle these problems. Indeed, I have no particular attachment to what I propose in my own amendments. There may well be other ways to approach the matter; for example, we might do it by something declaratory in the Bill, which would make it extremely difficult for a future Prime Minister to behave in a way which is not envisaged by this Government. I look forward to listening to the Minister when he responds to the debate.

1363
I very much hope that he will attempt to meet us half-way or that he will propose some other way of removing our concerns about the Bill. If he does not, I believe that this is something on which we will need to fight to the death.
Lord Northbourne: I have not wanted to intervene in the terrifying crossfire between the two major parties and the very distinguished speakers who contributed to it. However, I want to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Amendment No.134, which is included in this group of amendments. In scale, this amendment is more modest and does not refer to the proposed appointments commission. Indeed, it refers specifically to the independent Peers. Noble Lords may say,"Well, you would talk about independent Peers because you are speaking from the Cross Benches ", but it is the other way round. It is because I believe passionately in the importance of independence that I sit on these Benches. The debates—I was tempted to say "the interminable debates "—that we have already had on this Bill have been splattered with references to the importance of the independent Peers. Of course, the Government have acknowledged that they want a strong independent element, and have said that they want a significant Cross-Bench element.
Amendment No.134 is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to see whether the Government will explain a little more clearly what they mean by the word "significant ". I find it fairly easy to understand what they mean by "broad parity " between the two major parties, but what do they actually mean by "significant "? In the context of cot deaths, or road accidents, 1 per cent could be significant. In another context 50 per cent could be insignificant. Will the Government tell us something more about what they mean by "significant"? I do not have the undivided attention of the Front Bench but on Tuesday the noble Baroness said,
"the Prime Minister has already said…that the number of Peers who sit on the Cross-Benches, independent Peers, should be determined by an Appointments Commission and not by personal patronage ". —(Official Report.11/5/99; col.1191.]
I may have missed something but I was not aware that the number was going to be determined by the commission. I always understood that the appointments were to be determined by the commission, but it appears that the number will also be determined by it. What criteria will be used to decide the number of Cross-Bench Peers who will be appointed? If the noble Baroness can help me on this matter, I shall not need to bring it back on Report. I hope that she will be able to do so.
The Earl of Sandwich: I speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was the only person who spoke about the future and what the public will think about this Chamber. The other day I took some sixth-formers from Dorset into Parliament. I showed them the single Independent Bench of the Member of Parliament for Tatton. That may only be a temporary Independent Bench. Then I brought the sixth-formers to this Chamber. They were amazed at the
1364
proportion of Members in this Chamber—it has now risen above 25 per cent—who are independent. I believe this is the most valuable asset of this Chamber, of which the electorate are completely unaware. I go further. I believe that we should strengthen and increase the proportion of the independent Peers in this Chamber. I should like to see a progressive reduction of the party political element in favour of the independent element.
The White Paper at Chapter 6, page 33, refers to the appointments commission. I understand that the new commission will have a status somewhere above the present Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and it will do more than safeguard independent Peers. This is a significant move by the Government which will ensure that the country understands the role of our independent element in this Chamber and that it is not looking for another elected Chamber.
I supported Amendment No.31 on Tuesday in the cause of reform, not in the cause of democracy. I trust the Government will continue to resist the idea of a sham democracy through an elected Chamber here. It is becoming an old red herring waved about by both parties and sections of the media. It will not satisfy anyone who believes in the balance between our present Chamber and another place. To ensure that this happens the Government will have to make more of the idea of the valuable quota of independent Peers. As has been well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. that measure should be on the face of the Bill. It already enables us to argue that we are not a pale shadow of another place. I would like to see more public recognition of independent Peers as Peers who are seen to represent their professions in a voluntary or part-time capacity. However, that is a discussion for another day.
Much more detail will be needed when the proposal comes back from the Royal Commission. I have written to the Royal Commission in these terms. In the meantime I hope that the Government will stand up to the pro-election lobby and secure the principle of the element of Cross-Bench Peers. I believe that that is what the modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sets out to do.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I know the Committee is anxious to hear the Minister reply. However, I venture to take a minute or two to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, has urged upon the Government Front Bench. I know that they took careful notice of what the noble Lord said, as it is always sensible to do. I wish to add one facet to the point that he made, which was that the country will find it difficult to understand why the Government should resist the intention—these are not necessarily the exact words—behind the amendments put forward by my two noble friends.
I wish to add a little force to that, if I may without presumption, by going back a few days to the tremendous battle that we had on Clause 1. We had put forward a formulation which we believed would without any doubt secure the declared intention of the Government. The Committee will remember that the matter concerned the words, "by virtue of a hereditary

1365
peerage". I shall not repeat the arguments that were made. However, the Government said time and again that they were going to proceed in this way because that was stated in the manifesto. The manifesto commitment was recited time and time again. After a while I came to recognise the force at least of what was in the Government's mind. They were concerned not to allow any perception—we know the force of perception—that they were somehow going back on what they had put before the country in their manifesto.
The executive summary of the White Paper states,
"The Government set out its approach to reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto ".
There then follows a summary. The document continues,
"This White Paper sets out how we intend to deliver on those promises, through a step-by-step process of reform ".
All that my noble friends seek to do is to assist the Government in their declared intention to deliver on those promises by writing into the Bill the very words that the Government employed in the White Paper.
I rise only to prevent myself from having to interrupt the Minister in the course of the reply. If it were so essential to have on the face of the Bill that which appeared in the manifesto relating to Clause 1, why is it somehow wrong to put on the face of the Bill that which appears in the White Paper which is declared only to set out,
"how we intend to deliver on those promises "?
I cannot see why that decision should at the moment be so firmly held by the Government. I wish, therefore, to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to deal with the fear behind the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shore; namely, that they will be seen somehow or other to be casting an aura of unreality over what they stated in the White Paper.
Lord Marlesford: I ought to make one brief point. Quite apart from the desirability of underwriting in statute important undertakings given by government on important matters, We matter that worries me is that there has been much talk about the past and the virtue, or lack of it, of previous administrations. The whole point of this Bill is that it will totally change the House of Lords. It will give us a situation in which not just the temptations but the opportunities for changing the composition of the Chamber will be infinitely greater. Quite frankly, in the past, with the inbuilt Conservative majority among the hereditaries, what could be done was pretty marginal, even if it was occasionally offensive to certain noble Lords. The real point is that we are now in a new situation—or will be—and it seems reasonable that the safeguards which will be so much more necessary should in some way or other be underwritten in statute.
Lord Kingsland: So effectively have your Lordships conveyed the fundamental messages that underlie the various amendments that, I am glad to report, I have very little to say.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Kingsland: However, I shall say it. I listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
1366
Greenwich, with some bewilderment. I think the best I can do—perhaps I can say this on behalf of the Government Front Bench—is to refer him to paragraph 19 of their own White Paper which states, inter alia, that,
"For the transitional House, the Government will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in the Lords. The Government presently plans to seek only broad parity with the Conservatives ".
No clearer statement of what the Government intend to do could possibly have been made than that.
I think that the fundamental question the Government have to answer is the one put by my noble friend Lord Waddington. He quoted from the White Paper. I dare to quote from it once more.
At paragraph 3 of chapter 6 the White Paper states,
"For the transitional House…We will establish an independent Appointments Commission to make nominations to the cross benches and to oversee the propriety of all recommendations of political peers, so that all peers are vetted to the highest standard ".
The White Paper is absolutely clear, therefore, that the appointments commission is an integral part of the interim House. The arrangements for the appointments commission must be set in place before the new House comes into being. If that is not done in the Bill, how is it to be done? Perhaps the Government are proposing a second Bill about which we as yet know nothing.
In the press release on the Labour evidence to the Royal Commission, the Labour Party—which, dare I say it, has some loose connection with the Government—said:
"Tony Blair is the first prime minister to relinquish powers of patronage in the appointment of life peers, through the establishment of an Independent Appointment Commission for the transitional chamber "—
again underlining what the Government have said in their White Paper.
I do not understand the kind of argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If the Government are sincere about the undertakings in the White Paper, why cannot they put them in the statute? Those undertakings are ideally suited to statute. The Government have spent the past two years putting enormous constitutional changes, of the most wide-ranging implications, into statutes. For instance, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which handed over large areas of power from Parliament to the judges; and the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales which devolved powers from the centre to the periphery. All of those were dealt with by statute in the most minute detail.
If that is so, why are the Government so afraid of doing the same thing in relation to the appointment of Peers, who are, after all, independent of both or, I should say, of all three political parties? What is so special about that which requires the Government to handle it by prerogative, especially since the Government have said that the transitory House will be very transitory indeed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I cannot follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and be brief and precise. The Committee would rightly criticise the Government Front

1367
Bench if in our response to these very complicated issues we did not give some extended reply, particularly on the basis of our own plans to deal with many of the issues which have been raised in this interesting debate and which we may feel are not appropriately dealt with in the way suggested by the amendments before the Committee tonight. But I am grateful to the Committee for discussing this group of amendments together. As has been shown by this very good debate, there are a number of issues which overlap between the different amendments, even if they are not precisely contiguous.
Perhaps I may make some general points in response. I think that we are now considering Amendments Nos.75, 86 and 134. I hope that we can consider them in the spirit of the dialogue which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enjoined on us. I hope that he will find that satisfactory. I am grateful to him for what he said about the reason for not including his particular proposals in this group.
Let me begin by saying that the Government recognise that this is a complicated area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney for making that very clear. I can assure him that we have thought about this and have considered carefully the role of the appointments commission and the way that Members of the Cross Benches particularly—that is what we consider the appointments commission will deal with in the interim House—should be appointed.
We find that the individual amendments—they have been very forcefully moved—are flawed or, frankly, raise more questions than they answer. I support my noble friend Lord Richard in feeling that some of them suggest a world of political unreality.
The number of specific amendments on this subject which we have considered tonight, and those which are on the Marshalled List but have not been spoken to so far, illustrate that there is no agreement about precisely what the appointments commission should do; how it should be constituted; and, frankly, how complex the statutory provision would need to be which attempted to answer all the questions which have been raised by Members of the Committee and in the several amendments, either those which have been spoken to or those which remain on the Marshalled List.
I shall deal with the specific difficulties that the Government see in the various amendments that have been spoken to, but I should like to explain to the Committee—I am afraid this may be in some detail—the Government's plans and why we do not at the moment think that statutory provision as has been suggested is appropriate for this stage. Perhaps I may repeat what I said much earlier today in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I refer to Amendment No.71. I have no doubt at all that if we had introduced statutory provisions, the accusation would immediately have been made that we intended the transition arrangements for your Lordships' House to be permanent. That was a point made in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and which we discussed earlier in relation to Amendments Nos.71 and 72.
1368
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was at that time replying for the Official Opposition, that I could almost put in his mouth the arguments that he would have made had we proposed statutory provision. His reaction, which was not verbal but expressive, suggested to me that I was not far off the mark. The noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, but I do not think that he would quarrel with my remark. We did not want to send the signal that we were proposing provisions which would be seen as determining a long-term life for the transitional House. We want to do precisely what we intend, which is to move swiftly to an appropriate short-term transitional House and then to move further on to long-term reform.
When last February we debated the White Paper, which has been much referred to in the course of the debate, I explained the commitments which the Government were making and which we intend to follow through. Perhaps I may briefly review them. We have consistently made it clear that we do not intend the transitional House to be under the control of the Government; quite frankly, as we have said on several occasions, that would be completely absurd, given that the 500 life Peers who will be Members of that transitional House have been nominated by eight Prime Ministers over the past 40 years since the Life Peerages Act. The majority of them are Conservative life Peers. We do not at this stage need to go into the relative virtues or otherwise of individual Prime Ministers during that period.
We said that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords; we said that the system of appointment of life Peers would be reviewed; we committed ourselves, as has been pointed out by the further amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to maintaining the independent Cross-Bench presence of life Peers; and we said, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated, that, over time, party appointees should more accurately reflect the votes cast at the preceding general election.
There are three elements to those proposals: first, the principle which will inform the overall numbers in the transitional House; secondly, the introduction of the independent appointments commission to nominate Cross-Bench Peers; and thirdly, the undertaking to forward to the Queen, without interference, the recommendations of other party leaders and the commission.
I should like to emphasise two aspects of that. First, the very act of setting up the appointments commission is an indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the idea of independent Members in the House of Lords. It is also an indication of our commitment to the idea that they should be working Members of the House since the change in the nominations process will distance them effectively from the honours system. The second aspect is, of course, the reduction in patronage which will follow.
As I have said before—this is something which has been of concern to noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee proceedings this evening and is the burden of the two main amendments we are

1369
considering&—the commission does not need to be set up by legislation. In response to the noble and learned Lord Mayhew, the point of difference between Clause 1 of the Bill and our proposals with regard to the appointments commission is that we can remove the hereditary Peers only by statute; we do not need legislation to set up an appointments commission as an advisory non-departmental public body. As the White Paper makes clear, the commission will include members of the three major parties and have a majority of independent members. The appointment of the independent members will be in accordance with the relevant rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the so-called Nolan rules to which the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell referred. Those include a number of principles. I hope not to detain the Committee unnecessarily but I shall go through them because they suggest the degree of transparency and probity which this kind of body has. The initial proposal emerged under the previous administration, not in this context but in general. The arrangements include a number of principles: appointment on merit, no appointment taking place without being subject to independent scrutiny, and a selection system which demonstrates openness and transparency. Within those principles, the commissioner for public appointments rules lay down strict requirements for appointments to bodies of this type. Perhaps I may list them again. They are that application forms roust be completed by all candidates; selection will be on merit, as judged against an agreed job or person criterion; an independent assessor must be used in the selection process; appointments should be publicised; and appointments should be monitored for statistical purposes.
The whole process should be overseen by a panel, not by an individual, and this must include at least one independent assessor. All candidates&—and that includes those put forward by Ministers&—must be scrutinised by the panel. If a Minister wishes to act independently in making an appointment and not follow the code or guidance, the commissioner for public appointments has to be informed. He may require that a public statement to that effect be made. Ministers are, of course, accountable to Parliament.
How the parties choose their members for the appointments commission is a matter for them, although they too are encouraged to follow this open process. The appointments commission itself, once established, will be encouraged to seek nominations from a wide field. As has been said, the commission will take over the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting all peerage nominations for propriety. This is a substantial commitment, one which goes far beyond the slightly broad headlines in which it was described by Members of the Committee in speaking to their amendments. It is worth considering the provisions which exist under the Nolan rules.
The third element of our proposals is that the Prime Minister will relinquish control over individual names from anyone except his own party. As noted by several contributors, the Prime Minister has for the first time publicly committed himself not to interfere in the details of other parties' nominations. This goes much further
1370
than any Prime Minister and any administration has gone before. I realise that Members of the Committee are concerned that although this may demonstrate good intent on behalf of this Government and this Prime Minister, they cannot be confident about the future. Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that we are already taking forward the preparatory work on setting up the commission as a non-departmental public body without the legislation which, as I said, is unnecessary but within the rules originally agreed by the previous administration which have been developed by bringing them under the public appointments commission administration.
The Committee may be interested to know that I have opened discussions with my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that there is at least a process for recruiting members of the commission to start work in the near future. Thus the commission would be ready to start functioning at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, as we have always suggested it should. I am sure Members of the Committee who have had experience of dealing with the Treasury in their government experience realise that I would not tangle with my right honourable friend on the matter if I considered that it was either a theoretical proposition or one that had little weight behind it.
I hope that the Committee will accept that these are earnests of our good intentions and that we can move rapidly ahead with the non-departmental public body appointments commission. Many of the regulations which are in place to govern such a body are tougher than those contained in some of the amendments.
I turn to Amendment No.75 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Elton. It is the first of the amendments which raise in detail those facts about the appointments commission which could have a life of their own. As both noble Lords explained, the amendment takes care to address a number of principles and&—as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said in introducing the amendment&—in proximate language, those points which the Government have laid down as criteria for recommendations as life Peers in the future. They include the idea that no one political party should command a majority in the House of Lords, that there should be rough parity of numbers between the two main political parties and that there should continue to be a significant presence of independent Cross Bench Peers.
The Committee will not be surprised to know that on the Government Benches we are delighted by the noble Lord's confirmation that these are the right principles to pursue. However, we feel that the amendment has some serious flaws. I imagine that some of the concerns will be shared by Members of the Committee on the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has already identified some of them from his perspective.
First, under Amendment No.75, the appointments commission would recommend all life peerages, not just those to the Cross Benches. This would be the

1371
reduction in patronage which the noble Viscount rightly addressed in his remarks. All those who were to represent the political parties would be included. Under the amendment, the political parties would be represented on the commission, but although represented there is no formal language to suggest that they would be consulted on individual appointments.
There is a second point on which the proposals diverge from those we feel are appropriate. It also causes the Official Opposition some concern, I imagine, that the amendment gives the Prime Minister apparently unfettered power to choose the individual members of the commission. I understand from the amendment that the only undertaking is that members of the commission should be Privy Counsellors. There are no other criteria. The criteria under our proposals, as I have explained at some length, would be governed by the provisions of the Nolan rules on openness and transparency. The Government have pledged themselves to an open appointments process. Although the provisions of Amendment No.75 would be statutory, they do not go so far as we would go in distancing the Prime Minister from the appointments process.
I also query a point which is not very great, the limit on the number of new peerages in any one year under the amendment. Although the figure of 50 looks quite generous, if one considers the year 1997, when we were taking account of both dissolution and resignation honours, there were 31 appointments under the provision. In an average year 50 might not be as generous as initially appears.
I submit to the Committee that the net effect of the amendment produces a rather inflexible statutory process and it does not deliver the independence that Members of the Committee seek because it provides no extra safeguards. In some instances it provides slightly fewer than those which will arise under our non-departmental public body appointments commission.
Amendment No.86 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, provides yet another variation. It limits itself to the Cross Bench Peers explicitly and to that extent it is consistent with the Government's clear proposals. But we are concerned about the details of the numbers in subsection (2) and how they are supposed to work. The subsection suggests that the commission could apparently be limited to only five members, yet it provides that eight shall be appointed. I am not sure whether this is a way of ensuring that the commission could continue to function when it had vacancies or that it could be limited to five members, four elected by the Cross Benches plus one; for example, one of the two nominated by the Prime Minister. What happens when there is vacancy among those elected by the Cross Benches?
The fundamental question arises: are those to be chosen by the Cross-Benchers also to be Cross-Benchers? What provision is made for holding elections to the Cross Benches, whether or not the candidates are limited to existing Cross-Benchers? We
1372
would have difficulty with providing that so large a proportion of the commission be existing Peers. I am sure that the final membership of the appointments commission under our proposals will reflect the fact that people should have expertise and understanding of the House. We fear that there must be a danger, despite the provisions of subsection (7) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that such a commission might simply co-opt members in its own image.
We also have difficulties&—this is the general point in relation to all these amendments but I raise it particularly in relation to Amendment No.86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell&—regarding what exactly would be the constitutional position of the commission. Subsection (3) of the amendment states that its role will be to make recommendations to Her Majesty. On the other hand, subsection (5) states that,
"The Prime Minister shall not have the right to refuse a recommendation ".
That seems to imply that he would continue to have a role.
So are the recommendations under this proposal being made to the Prime Minister, as we propose, or will they simply be passed on to the Queen? What, for example, would be the grounds for the Prime Minister refusing a recommendation? We have made it clear that under our proposals the Prime Minister would not have the right to reject any recommendations from the appointments commission, unless of course issues of national security were involved. So once again we feel that, despite the statutory basis, under this proposal the appointments commission would be less free of Prime Ministerial interference than under the non-statutory basis that we propose.
On the question of the Cross-Benchers, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks statutory guarantees that there will continue to be a certain minimum non-party representation in the transitional House. As I have said on several occasions, we have no difficulty with the idea of guaranteeing a continued non-party presence. We have repeatedly made it clear that we are committed to maintaining the independent presence of a substantial number of life Peers. We have been pressed as to the actual numbers. They will depend on the overall make-up of the House. It would be very difficult, other than on a strictly proportionate basis, to make provision for absolute numbers at this stage. The noble Lord will have to accept that the words "substantial " and "significant " mean what they say in commonsense language. We have to see what are the final numbers, the numbers of hereditary Peers who remain on the Cross-Benches and the numbers that are proposed by the appointments commission, before we can be absolute in regard to those numbers. I hope the noble Lord will accept that. But we are uneasy, for reasons that go beyond that, about trying to set out the proportion in statute.
One of the questions that arise is the definition of "owe allegiance to " in the terms of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. For

1373
example, there are only three political parties that are presently organised in this House, but there are many more outside. Some already have former Members of another place sitting on the independent Benches in this House. For example, would the Bishops need to be included on either side or both sides of the calculation? Do the numbers include those who are on leave of absence? Also, what happens, as has happened several times over the past few months, if Peers change sides after entering this House? They either become Cross-Benchers or decide to adopt a party allegiance once they have achieved membership. For those reasons, and for the general reason—I know that the Committee may feel that it is inappropriate but I must repeat it because it is the Government's position—that we feel that this Bill is not about establishing rules far life peerages in the future, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that, overall, our plans for the transitional House are at least as precise and, I hope, as exact in their provisions in terms of appointments, as those that are proposed in the amendments that are before the Committee.
Lord Waddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courteous way in which she has replied to the amendment. I am grateful also for her comments and criticisms of our scheme for a statutory commission, which I am sure will come in handy when it comes to drafting an appropriate amendment on Report.
The noble Baroness did not get very far in addressing the principles behind these amendments. She did not begin to explain why there should not be a statutory commission responsible for all appointments, carrying out the very policy that has been propounded by the Government.
At the beginning of her remarks, the noble Baroness said that the Government recognise that this is a very complicated area. I respectfully agree. It is complicated enough for the noble Baroness to go away and think again. It is complicated enough in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for her to think again about the whole matter. I am confident that she will, and that she will pay regard to the views of her noble friend Lord Shore. I shall certainly return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 9.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Report received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
(". —(1) The purpose of section 1 is to enable provision to be made for or in connection with—

(a) implementing Council Directive 96/6I/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

(b) regulating, otherwise than in pursuance of that Directive, activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution;

(c) otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing any such pollution.

(2) In this Act— "activities " means activities of any nature, whether—

(a) industrial or commercial or other activities, or

(b) carried on on particular premises or otherwise, and includes (with or without other activities) the depositing, keeping or disposal of any substance; "environmental pollution " means pollution of the air, water or land which may give rise to any harm; and for the purposes of this definition (but without prejudice to its generality)—

(a) "pollution " includes pollution caused by noise, heat or vibrations or any other kind of release of energy, and

(b) "air " includes air within buildings and air within other natural or man-made structures above or below ground.

(3) In the definition of "environmental pollution " in subsection (2),"harm " means—

(a) harm to the health of human beings or other living organisms;

(b) harm to the quality of the environment, including—

(i) harm to the quality of the environment taken as a whole,

(ii) harm to the quality of the air, water or land, and

(iii) other impairment of, or interference with, the ecological systems of which any living organisms form part;

(c) offence to the senses of human beings;

(d) damage to property; or

(e) impairment of, or interference with, amenities or other legitimate uses of the environment (expressions used in this paragraph having the same meaning as in Council Directive 96/61/EC).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.3 and I I, which are closely related.
Noble Lords who have followed the progress of this Bill will know that it has changed somewhat during the course of its consideration in this House. During earlier stages of its passage, serious constitutional doubts were raised about its nature and drafting, not least by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee made a number of

1375
suggestions for limiting the scope of the Bill and safeguarding parliamentary security and control. I therefore tabled a series of amendments which were agreed in Committee to meet those recommendations and which have, by general consent, clearly improved the Bill. They more than meet the specific concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Nevertheless, we had a fairly lengthy debate in Committee about whether further changes were necessary to improve the clarity and purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled an amendment for which a number of noble Lords expressed support. He also proposed an amendment to the Long Title, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, favoured that approach. I am happy to inform the House that I propose to move on both fronts in accordance with the wishes of noble Lords in that debate.
In the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, conceded that his own amendment for a purpose clause might not be sufficiently well drafted. He asked if there were perhaps some other way of shuffling the drafting of the Bill. That is, in practice, what I have done. Amendment No.1 effectively accepts the Bill's purpose and will make that purpose clear from the start rather than moving direct to regulatory powers—with which the noble Lord said that he a psychological problem. Amendment No.1 fully meets the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that occasion and that of other noble Lords.
I am pleased to say also that, having taken legal advice, as I was not sure at that stage whether we could move in this direction, I am also able to amend the Long Title. That is dealt with in Amendment No.11. So we have both changed the Title and introduced a new purpose clause.
I hope the House will agree that these amendments, along with those that we made in Committee, leave the Bill in a much clearer, more properly defined state, and have set in the Bill a proper degree of parliamentary control over the issues that it addresses. I hope that noble Lords will also agree that the constitutional doubts raised at earlier stages have now been met.
There was never any disagreement, certainly among the major parties, on the substance of the Bill. We all wanted to see a co-ordinated system of pollution control in this country reflecting both European standards and British practice. I contend that that is what we now have. The purpose clause in Amendment No.1 and the related amendments are important in achieving the aims of noble Lords at previous stages. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may put a couple of questions to the noble Lord the Minister so we can get the answers confirmed at this stage of the proceedings. I ask him to confirm that this Bill is before us only because of EC Directive 96/61. In other words, if that directive had not been issued, would this Bill be with us? I come to my second question, which is perhaps supplementary to the first. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there was anything wrong with the
1376
Environmental Protection Act 1990? Were we dissatisfied with that in any way? Was it not working? Has it been improved by importing this directive as proposed into British law?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I begin by explaining why my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is not able to be with us. He had a cataract operation today and it was not possible for him to alter that appointment. He is very sorry not to be here. I hope that the House will understand if we return to my noble friend's amendment at Third Reading. I should also explain why my noble friend Lord Renton is not able to attend. When we agreed to hold this particular stage of the Bill at this hour of the night, he was due to attend a legal dinner that he was unable to unload because of his very senior position within the legal profession. Consequently, he too is unable to be with us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his capacity as a Minister for persuading his colleagues to bring forward these amendments. We have been pressing for them very hard for a long time. I hope that the noble Lord will not find it too depressing if I say that nothing will make this into a good Bill, but that what he proposes tonight certainly makes it a better Bill and is therefore to be wholly commended. The provisions answer a good many of the points raised by ourselves and Members on other sides of the House.
As to Amendment No.11, delighted as I am to see it, I hope that the Minister has not fallen foul of his advice to us during recommitment. He said then that his advice was that once a Bill has been produced, its Long Title could not be changed unless other amendments so required. My only concern is that in agreeing that the Long Title should be amended, he does not imply that we have completely lost our capacity to amend the Bill further at Third Reading, should it be determined that that is necessary. However, it is perfectly possible that if we do that, it will not create the need further to amend the Long Title. I hope that what I say is not a hostage to fortune.
I welcome these amendments. They are what we have pressed for consistently during the passage of the Bill both in Committee and now on Report. A good deal of the credit for that must go to the Minister for persuading the Government of the merits of the case. I am delighted to see these amendments before the House tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Government for these amendments. I look forward to agreeing Amendment No.1 and, in due course, Amendment No.11—I pick up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—which reflects our agreement to Amendment No.1. Congratulations are due to the Minister. It is perhaps a pity that the provisions must be framed in this way. I hope that I detect increasing willingness on the part of the Government to accept when matters can be made better and to reflect general agreement particularly on relatively technical measures such as this, which are intended not to undermine policy but simply to improve legislation. We have seen that recently in the way in

1377
which the Government have approached the Rating (Valuation) Bill. I very much welcome what I detect as a commonsense attitude.
Having said that, I have one minor quibble which arises in subsection (3)(e) of the new clause. That imports definitions by reference to the Council directive. I make this point with regard not only to Council directives but also to other legislation. I believe that it is desirable to provide definitions in legislation so that that legislation is self-contained to the greatest possible extent. As this is a fairly technical piece of legislation, I recognise that generally readers will not be leafing through it in an interested way and that the Council directive will be readily available to those who need to know. Nevertheless, it is not a practice that I want encouraged. Apart from that little quibble, I support the amendments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like previous speakers, I welcome these amendments, if only because now on the face of the Bill—it is a pity that it was not there at the beginning—we know exactly what this piece of legislation is about. Unfortunately, all too often matters European are slipped through without Members of either this House or the other place being perfectly aware of what is happening. As this House is starved of resources, it is extremely difficult for individual Members to be able to understand exactly what is going on, particularly as the flood of legislation, both primary and secondary, continues.
I congratulate my noble friend on tabling this amendment. Does this set a precedent for all other Bills that may very well have a European content, whether they enact regulations or directives? It is important to know the answer to that question.
As it is quite clear that what we are about here is implementing a directive, does it matter whether or not we discuss it? If we make any significant amendments to the directive, will they be lawful under British law? I believe that the directive has been agreed by qualified majority voting and therefore it becomes European law. I must have the confusion in my mind cleared up as to whether, if this House and the other place are not prepared to implement all or part of the directive, that will be lawful under European law.
8.30 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in my inexperienced way, I have been trying to follow this Bill and, like the previous speaker, I am very aware of the lack of resources that one comes across in trying to keep up with everything.
So much of what vie want to know about the Bill will be contained in Statutory Instruments. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions tried to give us some indication in the third consultation paper that came out last December. Another consultation paper was promised this spring, but I have been unable to lay my hands on it. It was also suggested that the final regulations would be out by July 1999. I think the timing has slipped.
1378
One matter leaves me slightly in the dark. Under Schedule 1(1) of the draft statutory regulations, the activities that should be controlled are listed. However, Schedule 1(2) simply states,"Etc ". I do not know how many sections there are after that or how many other areas there are. I would have hoped that by this time some indication would have been given as to what other areas the Government wish to bring under the focus of the Bill.
This amendment talks about harm to human senses. I notice that the text has been imported from the Environmental Protection Act. In the Environmental Protection Act the Government tried to define "harm ". Further on in the 1990 Act, I came across another definition. Under "statutory nuisances ", it refers to activities prejudicial to health and refers to activities which are,
"injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health ".
It struck me that perhaps that was a useful definition to attach to the question of harm to human health or to human senses, which needs more definition than the Bill presently contains.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome the support and expressions of gratitude that I have heard from some noble Lords. However, I remind the House that from the word "go " we decided, in relation to this particular directive, that we need primary legislation because we want to bring together the effects of the European directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred and British practice. It is true that we would not have this legislation in this form were it not for the directive, but the opportunity of the directive has allowed us to rationalise the British as well as the European aspects of pollution control. The 1990 Act was working reasonably well, but it was not a comprehensive system of pollution control covering both the national and the local authority sides. Also certain sectors were excluded. This is an opportunity to make some major improvements.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether this is a precedent. It may be a precedent in terms of clarity of primary legislation, but it is not a precedent for the way in which we shall deal with directives in the future, most of which can easily be transposed—I know he does not like it—under the European Communities Act. However, we want to bring together the European and British regimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a query about the definition. Perhaps I should write to her in more detail. The directive uses expressions, but does not define them, so we can simply repeat the definitions in this Bill. It will not be seen as a precedent in other respects.
On the consultation papers mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, we shall be sticking to the timetable. The final consultation paper will be issued in June and will include the final draft regulations. The other regulations referred to relate specifically to the oil and gas offshore side. Those regulations are also available for consultation about now and have been dealt

1379
with under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has consulted widely with the offshore industry.
I am not sure that I can reply immediately to the other points raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, but I shall do so in writing. Some points require double-checking against the wording of the 1990 Act. Many of them are repeated in the draft regulations to which he has already referred.
The main point of the changes is to respond to the constitutional questions which were raised at earlier stages. I believe that they do so, and do so fully. I expect that we shall hear again some of the additional points raised in relation to the European dimension before the debate is finished. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether other interested noble Lords can receive copies of the reply to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that.
[Amendment No.2, as an amendment to Amendment No.1, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No.1 agreed to.
Clause 1 [Regulation of polluting activities]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
("() In accordance with subsection (1) of section (General purpose and definitions), the provision which may be made by regulations under this section is provision for or in connection with any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall require individuals or bodies responsible for carrying out such activities as are referred to in the regulations to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (in this clause referred to as "BATNEEC ") to be used for minimising the pollution which may be caused to the environment as a whole by those activities:
Provided that—

(a) regulations under this section may specify circumstances where a more or less restrictive regime than BATNEEC may he required either to comply with European or other international obligations, or on account of other circumstances;

(b) where regulations are made pursuant to paragraph (a) above, they shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why such a more or less restrictive regime should be applied; and

(c) the regime to be employed is more restrictive than BATNEEC, the regulations embodying that regime shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for entering the fray on this disturbing Bill so late in the day. Perhaps I owe the House an explanation.
I have to confess that I was not aware of this Bill until the closing stages of the Bill in Committee on Monday 19th April. On that day, I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate on European economic and monetary union which was to follow. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and my noble friend Lord Renton were clearly doing valiant battle to amend the Bill, but it all seemed rather dense stuff and I did not pay much attention until I heard my noble friend Lord Renton say at col.974 of Hansard that he had been in Parliament for 53 years and that this Bill was the only example he had seen of an Act of Parliament of national and international importance being replaced by regulations. That Act of Parliament was, of course, the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
My noble friend then divided the House and lost his amendment which was intended to prevent the Bill from removing the first 28 sections of that Act from the statute book and replacing them with this Bill and its regulation-making powers. Therefore, unfortunately, we cannot bring this amendment back on Report. Indeed, it is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Renton is unable to be present this evening.
I was sufficiently worried by what I had chanced to hear that I went and looked up the history of the Bill. I was deeply shocked by what I discovered. I submit that most Members of your Lordships' House are still not even vaguely aware of what the Government are attempting to do. Although we are at Report stage, I fear that we have to consider a brief history of the Bill so that we can decide whether these amendments, now tabled by the Government, are worth accepting or whether, together with the rest of the Bill, they should quite simply be thrown out at Third Reading.
The Bill received a low-key Second Reading on 7th December last, with no Conservative or Labour Peer taking part. This is scarcely surprising, as the true purpose of the Bill, which is to import EC Directive 96/61 into British law, was hidden in line 42 of Schedule 1 on page 6 of that Bill. The Bill's Explanatory Notes do not mention that fact until point 5 on page 2. At Second Reading, only the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Byford, appeared to have woken up to the Bill's inherently unconstitutional nature. The Bill then went before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which on 16th December issued a most damning report on the Bill saying that as drafted it was a "skeleton " Bill and therefore inappropriate for secondary powers.
Nevertheless, the Government pressed on with the Committee Stage on 15th February, and got into such trouble from all sides of the House that they were forced to lift the Bill and re-commit it on 19th April, tabling a number of amendments. In the meantime, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had made a number of further recommendations on 10th March, saying that even if the House accepted the amendments which the Government were then proposing the committee,
"would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. It remains important that the purposes and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation, and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers "
The committee concluded somewhat reluctantly that the amendments that the Government proposed to move on 19th April made the Bill just about acceptable. It even accepted the Government's assurances as to how they would deal with one of the Bill's most serious flaws, which is to replace the Environmental Protection Act's criteria for pollution control, being "best available techniques not entailing excessive costs " (BATNEEC), with Directive 96–61's criteria, which are simply "best available techniques " (BAT), which could clearly be vastly more expensive and even ruinous to small and medium sized business.
However, my noble friend Lord Jenkin was clearly not quite so satisfied with the Government's assurances as was the Select Committee, because he tabled an amendment at re-commitment on 19th April to bring BATNEEC back into the Bill.
I am not sure whether my noble friend is satisfied with the Minister's explanation at COL 967 of the Official Report of 19th April as to why there really is not much difference between BAT and BATNEEC, but I am afraid I am not, which is why I have had the impertinence to retable my noble friend's amendment tonight. I, too, very much regret that he is not here owing to his operation.
At col.967 of the Official Report of 19th April the Minister stated;
"Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive makes it absolutely clear that cost is a key consideration. It states "—
and I now quote from the directive from which the Minister quoted—
"available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementat on in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages "'.
The Minister then said:
"We are therefore not losing the reference to costs which may be behind some of the concerns expressed ".
We may not be losing a mere reference to costs, but that is far weaker than to say that pollution must be controlled by methods which do not entail excessive cost, with that requirement placed on the face of the Bill, as it is in Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which this Bill consigns to oblivion together with the remainder of Sections 1 to 28.
Furthermore, the Minister did not quote the whole of paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive, which I am afraid I should now do. It states:
"'Best available techniques' shall mean the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and. where that is not practicable … to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole: 'techniques' shall include both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned—.
We then come to the part quoted by the Minister, that,
"'available' techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages ".
However, the directive continues:
"whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator, 'best' shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole. In determining the best available techniques, special consideration should be given to items listed in Annexe IV".
I shall not trouble your Lordships other than to say that Annex IV is very extensive.
I hope that that gives a slightly broader picture of what the directive actually says than the perhaps slightly selective quotation used by the Minister. As I have said, even in the quotation used by the Minister, the directive and the Bill are far weaker than the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
As I have said, I am not really sure what the present position of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is on this matter. I may be wrong—in which case I apologise, especially in his absence—but in any case I mean no offence when I say that I understand my noble friend has been speaking on this Bill so far on behalf of the Confederation of British Industry. It may be that the CBI, for reasons that are not clear to me, has withdrawn its opposition to this clause. Be that as it may, the CBI generally speaking represents big business which might well feel that it can cope with the Bill as amended so far. But what about small business? They are clearly more likely to be affected by the abandonment of BATNEEC than are big businesses.
To discover how they felt, I had a word with the Federation of Small Businesses, whose executive director has sent me the following fax today. It is not long but I fear that I should quote it in full. It states:
"The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) which represents over 135,000 members, responded to the Government on the implementation of the IPPC Directive on 26th February 1999.
"The FSB's response expressed grave concerns that the proposals would add tighter regulation to all businesses without any concessions for small businesses.
"The FSB contended in the strongest possible terms that small businesses could not afford the implementation of such a directive.
"Following the FSB's response to that consultation, it does seems to us that we were taken out of the loop as far as further discussions on this item were concerned and the FSB has no evidence of even an acknowledgement to its original response.
"The original Government consultation stated that the Bill was in accordance with Better Regulation policy. The changes following the CBI's alleged change of heart clearly mean that the Bill is now not in accordance with Better Regulation policy.
"The CBI represents large businesses. We do not believe that it was speaking for small firms on this issue.
"Large companies, when push comes to shove, do not really mind excessive regulation. They have the resources and the personnel to comply, knowing that at the same time, their small competitors will face difficulties and costs because of those same regulations.
"The FSB supports the concept of 'Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost' (BATNEEC). The FSB is horrified that such a concept is now not being considered. We would urge Ministers to think on this and to add the concept as a schedule to the main legislation.

1383
"By their action, Government is now abandoning the interests of small businesses; an action which will also price many out of business".
That is dated today.
There we have it. The big boys think they can live with this Bill if it becomes law, but our vital small businesses take an altogether different view.
I wonder whether I could end with a word of advice to the Minister. He is someone for whom all of us in this House have great respect. We admire his incisive mind, and his endless courtesy from the Dispatch Box. I know that I am stretching his patience today. But I must put it to him that he has made a mistake with this Bill. I am fairly sure that I can see what happened. His civil servants came to him and said,"Minister, we have got to put this wretched directive into British law or we shall irritate our lords and masters in Brussels, and it really is too complicated to attach it to the Environmental Protection Act, so let's do it this way. Let's take all the powers from the Act and all the powers in the directive, and let's just do it by regulation when necessary and when it suits us ". So we have this Bill, which I submit is still entirely unsatisfactory even with the amendments which have so far been forced upon it.
I should have thought it very unlikely that all, or indeed any, of the other EU countries are importing this directive with anything like the enthusiasm of the Minister and his department. But I shall be pressing the Minister upon that under Amendments Nos.7 and 8.
I should have thought that the Minister would be perfectly safe to abandon the whole thing. That is what I suggest that he should do. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his persistence and watchfulness over this Bill. He should be thanked for bringing forward the amendment tonight. I shall not keep the House long, but I find disturbing the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses, which represents 135,000 businesses, was not properly consulted about the Bill and its provisions. As we have seen in previous legislation—for example, that relating to small abattoirs—the failure to consult and to take into account the real problems of small businesses has resulted in many being closed down. I am sure that the FSB is most concerned that that may happen to many of its members as a result of the Bill. I sincerely hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that that will not be so.
I should like the Minister to recount exactly why no response was made to the FSB's representations and to say whether the Government will examine the methods by which they consult on all matters, particularly those related to the European Union, with small businesses and not merely large transnational companies. It is an important point. Small businesses are worried. After all, this country is run on small businesses which are entitled to be treated far better than has been the case over the past 20 years. Their interests are important.
I concur with the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the way in which my noble friend treats this House, the respect he gives it and the proper
1384
consideration and answers he gives to questions. I hope that he will be able to reassure us and small businesses that the Government have their interests at heart and that the Government will ensure that small businesses are properly consulted about regulations and measures which adversely affect them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, associate myself with the personal comments made about the Minister. I, too, admire the way in which he carries out a busy portfolio, the expert way in which he does so, and the courtesy he shows to this House. I stood in his shoes when the 1990 Environmental Protection Act went through this House. I look back on the Act as a seminal piece of legislation in terms of the way in which it brought about a substantial improvement in the environment. There was further evidence of that only this week in the reference in the Environmental Protection Agency report to continuing improvement over the past decade. That is largely due, I believe, to the 1990 Act. What is it that was not in the Act that needs to be put into legislation in order to conform with the European directive?
The BATNEEC principle, which I have always supported, is necessary as a protection for small and vulnerable businesses. The whole point was to ensure that firms would not go out of business as a result of improvements deemed necessary by the regulators when the choice was a matter of survival—complying with their obligations under the Act or going out of business and jobs being lost. A perfectly reasonable principle (BATNEEC) was included in the Bill in order to give people time to negotiate a way in which they could improve their industrial and working processes which did not entail such a financial burden that jobs and/or the company were lost to the economy. Why are the Government so reluctant to see that principle in its entirety reintroduced in this Bill?
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. European directives, often well intentioned, are often considered in isolation one from the other by Parliament. Almost without exception. they are considered without early discussion in their formulation. They are born of commissions in the vaults of the European Community and when we become aware of them it is usually too late to do anything. They have been agreed by endless groups of officials of countries and tacitly agreed to by Ministers and the Commissioners, who will have given birth to them in the first place. By the time European directives come before this House, which does a good job in scrutinising European legislation, it is usually too late for Parliament to act.
Dealing with them in isolation, we as a Parliament fail lamentably to consider the impact of all the burdens placed on business and commerce as a result of different directives and the tendency for us to gold-plate almost everything we do. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend who wishes to import BATNEEC into the Bill. Can the Minister say why we have probably the most unsatisfactorily drafted Bill before the House? It is a poor and dangerous substitute for that part of the

1385
1990 Act which is to be removed. Why do we need the Bill? What was it about the 1990 Act which did not allow us to conform with European directives?
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that sometimes the wording of a European directive is not clear or is broad brush. That gives us an opportunity to interpret it in a way that is satisfactory to the country as a whole but, in terms of this amendment, is satisfactory to the wellbeing and health of our small businesses. I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I certainly wish to support my noble friend. If at any stage of the Bill he wishes to press the matter to a vote, I shall support him in the Lobby.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the debate on the amendment has gone wider than the amendment itself. Perhaps I may deal with two points immediately. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why we do not stick to the 1990 Act. This Bill incorporates many of the principles of that Act, but we want a coherent system which runs across European national level legislation and local level legislation and regulation. Industry as a whole welcomes that coherent approach. That is why the Front Benches of all parties have welcomed the principle of it. Indeed, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's remarks. I know that she had left her position in the department towards the end of the previous government, but the Secretary of State, Mr. Gummer, promoted the directive within the European Commission. Indeed, he seconded one of his own officials to help draft it; he was a major drafter of the directive. The previous administration completely supported this approach, and most of industry supports the coherence which the directive, and the regulations and directives under the Bill, will bring to industry.
As for small firms, all our consultations involve them. The Federation of Small Businesses was fully consulted. We do not reply by and large to any of the individual consultations, but in three consultations the FSB was fully informed.
The Bill is not about killing off 135,000 small businesses; it will be applied to around 7,000 mainly large businesses. The House is on the wrong track if it attacks the Bill for attacking small businesses. It does quite the opposite. As to the Government's handling of the Bill, we have accepted some of the criticisms—
9 p.m.
Baroness match: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there is an exemption for small businesses; that the Bill will impact only on large businesses?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I am saying that it applies to large installations. Some such installations may be owned by small businesses, but most will be owned by large businesses. The extension to agriculture, for example, applies only to very large pig and poultry installations. It does not apply to the broad range of agricultural enterprises.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not know whether this is the moment to disagree with the noble
1386
Lord the Minister, but, from the amendment that he has tabled this evening, that cannot be so, because it says that the purpose of Section 1 is not only to implement the directive, but to regulate "otherwise than in pursuance " of the directive—and of course in pursuance of the directive—any,
"activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution ",
and,
"otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing … such pollution ".
It goes on to say that these activities mean,
"industrial or commercial or other activities … carried on on particular premises or otherwise ".
So we go on. In the definition of environmental pollution, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has indicated, "harm" can mean causing,
"offence to the senses of human beings".
Technically, that might cover smoking. It certainly covers the bonfire at the bottom of the garden and anything that a small business might produce ifwhen—they get going, that is how these famous regulators want to behave.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the incorporation of the IPPC regime will not extend these controls to areas which were not already covered by the 1990 Act. 'That is the point that I am making. Clearly, those small businesses already covered by the 1990 Act will still be covered by this regime. It is the change brought about by the Bill to which I am referring. Schedule 1 clearly restricts that to plants and installations most of which will be owned by large businesses.
I also have to deal briefly with the suggestion that we tried to conceal the intention of the Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Pearson, may well say that it was a low-key Second Reading. I am a low-key sort of chap, I suppose; but I did introduce the intention in my second sentence, when I said that it,
"arises from the fact that we must implement the European Council directive ". [0fficial Report, 7/12/98: col.778.]
I do not think we were concealing anything from the House, and certainly not from the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may concentrate on the points of the amendment. In Committee, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, two reasons why this was not appropriate. First, BATNEEC is not identical to the concept of BAT, which the IPPC directive requires us to transpose. I accept that we are required to transpose it. Secondly, the directive safeguards the concept of BAT at the heart of the IPPC regime. The requirement to specify in regulations all the circumstances in which conditions more or less strict than BATNEEC, or BAT, might he applied would rob our pollution control system of the flexibility that is its essence and that we want it to see in the directive and in the Bill. Those who want a fuller explanation had better refer back to my comments in Committee.
However, I have an additional reason, which completely addresses the concern about small firms. The amendment would require the use of BATNEEC in all cases to which the regulations apply for minimising

1387
emissions to the environment as a whole. In other words, it would require integrated permitting of air, water and land emissions from all the installations to which the new regime applies.
Our proposals, which are in line with current practice, are that integrated permitting, which is quite burdensome, should apply to the larger installations, including all those subject to the IPPC directive, but that over 11,000 smaller installations should remain regulated by local authorities in respect only of their air emissions. I suspect that that was not the intention of the noble Lord's amendment, but it appears to me that that would be the result. Therefore, if the noble Lord is really concerned about small businesses, he will not press the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he assure me of one thing? The Federation of Small Businesses obviously feels that it has not been properly consulted. May I ask my noble friend to look into that complaint to see whether some improvements can be made which will satisfy the FSB that its views are really being taken into account?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to undertake to look into relations with the FSB. What I am not prepared to undertake is that the Government will reply to every single submission that we have in our consultations. That has never been the practice, and certainly the FSB was treated no differently from anybody else in that respect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am also very grateful, as usual, to the noble Lord the Minister.
As to what the noble Lord had to say, I must say I am very surprised if an organisation that represents 135,000 small businesses in this country does not merit a reply from the noble Lord's department when it writes in the terms in which it obviously wrote about a matter of this significance. I will have to leave that there for the moment.
When the noble Lord the Minister says that the Environmental Protection Act did apply to small businesses, of course he is quite right; but they got BATNEEC under that Act. Now they have lost it. They knew where they stood then, and now they do not. They feel that that is very serious. Depending on how the regulators behave and how the Bill eventually is carried out, they clearly have very good reason to be worried.
I certainly did not mean to insult the Minister when I said that the Second Reading was a low-key affair. Obviously, his presence raises it above that description. But, nevertheless, it is true that not many people took part and that there was not a single speaker from either Conservative or Labour Back Benches—or, indeed, from the Front Bench of the Conservative Party—which means that people really were not awake to it.
1388
As to the Minister's final point, I agree that the amendment is not perfectly worded.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord by pointing out that I was the Whip on duty that night and no one was prevented from speaking.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I was not suggesting that anyone was prevented from speaking. I was merely saying that it is obvious that the House did not accord the Second Reading of this Bill much significance because there were very few speakers—two notable contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Byford, but no other speakers at all. My point was that we have all been asleep at the switch on this one and I think it is time we woke up before Third Reading.
I agree that the amendment is not perfectly worded. I have no intention of pressing the amendment this evening, but I think we may well need to come back to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 26, after ("industry ") insert (", agriculture ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.5 is small but important. Clause 1(6) states:
"Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult … such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, industry and small businesses respectively as he may consider appropriate ".
I have always considered agriculture to be a business, but there are those outside who need reassurance on this point. The Minister could deal quickly with the matter either by giving a very clear reassurance that it was always intended that agriculture was recognised as an "industry " or a "small business ", or both, perhaps; or by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may save the time of the House by saying that I accept completely what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said and I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.6:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("section ") to end of line 6 on page 3 and insert ("shall be laid in draft before, and subject to approval by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall attempt to deal with this one very quickly. It simply removes from the clause the provisions which decide what sort of resolution is to be reached by each House of Parliament under this Bill and makes them all affirmative resolutions. I would be very interested to hear the Minister's reply to this because, given the complications that we are facing and the assurances that we have been given about the way the Bill is going to work, it certainly would be very much safer and give comfort

1389
to small businesses if they thought that Parliament was actually going to look at all these regulations in some detail and have the duty to agree them, rather than just leaving them on the Table and forgetting about them, which is when they are slipped in at moments when, perhaps, no one is looking. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that without exception all officials in every department intensely dislike affirmative resolutions. They will use every argument at their disposal to counter their use. In many instances, they are right. Their arguments are sound and good and relate to wasting time.
However, in some cases, those officials are not right—and that is the case here. I support my noble friend. This Bill has received the most damning indictment from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is a skeletal Bill. The regulations which will flow from it will be extremely important indeed. If we are to give some comfort to those outside who will be subject to the rigours of the Bill when it becomes an Act, it seems to me important that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. For that reason, the affirmative resolution is extremely important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support this amendment. I do so simply because I want to be consistent. My noble friend perhaps was not here when I very often rose to criticise the same sort of legislation as that before us and the suggestion that regulations should be made by the negative resolution procedure. I called the Opposition, when they were in government, all sorts of names in relation to legislation like this. Therefore, I feel that I must he consistent.
Parliament should not he ignored. When orders which involve business and the conduct of business—perhaps the bankruptcies of business—are brought forward I believe that both Houses should have a proper chance to scrutinise that legislation properly and, of course, in the case of this House, to be able to put down some sort of amendment or reject the orders out of hand.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: M y Lords, I remind the House that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made a number of very specific recommendations as to whether the affirmative resolution was more appropriate than what we had originally in the Bill. In every single instance, we have agreed and amended the Bill in accordance with the recommendations.
The noble Lords' amendment goes way beyond what the committee proposed and would apply the affirmative resolution procedure even to the most minor change in regulations. I do not consider that an appropriate use of parliamentary procedure and clearly neither did the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As I say, we have met all its requirements in this respect. I can perhaps give the noble Lord a limited degree of comfort and perhaps through him the small businesses with whom he is concerned. The Bill as it stands provides the Secretary of State with a choice of procedure. I can give an undertaking that any
1390
amendments to the regulations which affect matters which were previously included on the face of the Employment Protection Act 1990 will be put to Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure.
I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will recognise that we have already moved a long way down the road and have met the requirements of the Select Committee. I hope therefore that he will see fit not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that crumb of comfort. We shall have to examine and make up our minds as to whether at Third Reading we want to widen the affirmative resolution procedure beyond that recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT
(". This Act shall not come into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out the legal basis on which Council Directive 96/61/EC was agreed to, and that report has been approved by resolution of each House.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose the amendment because it occurs to me that the famous Directive 96/61 is probably ultra vires under the treaty establishing the European Community or under European Community law. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister because, if so, the Government can forget about this troublesome Bill and carry on with the Environmental Protection Act which is working so well anyway.
I suggest that the directive may not be legal under EC law because at least two articles in the treaty do not appear to have been met by the Community or, more precisely, by the European Commission. The first is Article 174 which, until the Amsterdam Treaty, was Article 130r. It is fairly well known. The article states clearly in paragraph 3,
"In preparing its policy on the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data; environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action: the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions".
I rather suspect that the Commission did not comply with any of those requirements when drawing up Directive 96/61 which, as the Minister confirmed, is the only cause of this Bill. I say that because in my fairly recent experience of your Lordships' Select Committee the Commission never does with an environmental directive. It simply issues often crazy environmental edicts, such as the bathing water directive and many others, without bothering to meet the terms of the article.
Be that as it may, the particular condition upon which I wish to focus is the third requirement of the article, namely that the Community should have taken into account the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action. In other words, for the directive to be valid the Commission should have produced a cost benefit analysis of its effects if implemented. The Minister may tell me that the Commission has indeed produced such an analysis, in which case I will be pleasantly surprised and will be grateful to have a look at it. Can the noble Minister confirm the point?
The second article under the treaty establishing the European Community is, of course, Article 5 as it now is, Article 3b as it was, the famous subsidiarity clause. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall not quote it in its entirety, but I would point out that the Community can only take action if it wishes to issue a directive by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action. In order for that to be valid, we have to be aware of the scale and effect of this directive, and I do not mind betting that we are not. For instance, has the Minister asked the Commission what the other countries of the European Union have done on this directive? What is the scale and effect? If we do not know that, or the answer to Clause 174 is unsatisfactory, the Government are in a position to say that they will not carry out the directive and will take the risk—I believe a very slim risk—of being taken to the court in Luxembourg for the matter to be adjudicated.
I appreciate that that may run contrary to the Government's well-known "charm offensive " in Brussels. Nevertheless, it is a simple way out if the Government wish to take it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assure the House that our legal advice confirms that the Commission followed exactly the right procedures. The cost benefit appraisal was completed by the Commission. By definition, that takes account of costs and benefits. Therefore, the provision complied with the directive's implementation. The legal basis of Article 130 and the directive was adopted subject to the co-operation procedure under Article 189 introduced by the Maastricht Treaty.
The points made by the noble Lord are far wide of the way in which the Commission and the council operate—I know he objects to it but he is well aware of it—and which has not been subject to any legal challenge in that respect. We are transposing the directive in this particular way. Other countries are doing likewise. To agree to the amendment would delay the adoption of the Bill. That would bring the whole procedure into legal danger. We should be subject to infraction proceedings. I know that does not cut a lot of ice with the noble Lord. Nevertheless, if we were to adopt the amendment, there would be a serious delay in our being able to transpose the directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, some of us think that that would not matter at all. In fact, it would be thoroughly agreeable.
1392
I should be grateful if the Minister could extract from the Commission in Brussels a copy of the cost benefit analysis for this directive. Perhaps he could place it in the Library so that we may all look at it and see if it really does meet the normal meaning of the expression,"cost benefit analysis ". I have certainly never known the Commission to do that. It would be gratifying if they were beginning to pay some attention to this aspect of the treaty which they have always so steadfastly ignored in the past.
Nevertheless, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said and I shall consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.8 not moved.]
Schedule 1: [Particular purposes for which provision may be made under section 1]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.9.
Page 7, line 23, leave out paragraphs 17 and 18
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very briefly, Amendments Nos.9 and 10 are almost probing amendments at this stage of the Bill. They strike out the creation of offences and regulations which provide for summary indictment, and so on, and set up a prison term not exceeding six months, and fines of £20,000. This aspect of the Bill was referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton on 19th April in Committee. He opined that it was completely unacceptable for regulations which we cannot amend to have this effect. It is on that account that I brought it back so as to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision by regulation of new offences in this sense reflects earlier precedent in the Environment Act 1995 and the Water Industry Act 1991. We have adopted an affirmative procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee saw it as an appropriate safeguard. I believe the House should similarly view these provisions. I hope the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I certainly will not be pressing my amendment to a Division. We will consider whether what the Minister said is correct or whether in fact this is really taking regulations, even under the affirmative resolution procedure, too far. I imagine that we may well wish to return to the matter on Third Reading. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.10 not moved.]
In the Title:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.11:
Line 1, leave out from ("for") to ("and") in line 2 and insert ("implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC and for otherwise preventing and controlling pollution; ")
On Question, amendment agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
9.25 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendments Nos.76 and 77 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare moved Amendment No.78:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
LIFE PEERS
(". —(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, other than—

(a) 338 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who are elected in accordance with subsection (2) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (7), and

(b) 16 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who have declared to tie Clerk of the Parliaments that they are ready to serve as Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords or in such other office as the House may require and who are elected in accordance with subsection (3) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (7).

(2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of peerages conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held.
(4) A person elected under this section shall continue to be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House throughout his life; but if he does not fulfil the attendance criterion in subsection (5) his entitlement ceases and any writ of summons issued to him for that Parliament shall not have effect after that Session.
(5) The criterion is that in each Session the number of days on which he attended that House or a committee of that House is greater than 50 per cent of the total number of days on which the House sat.
(6) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall certify—

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

(b) the total number of days on which the House sat, referred to in subsection (5).

(7) On the death of a peer elected in accordance with this section or his failure to fulfil the attendance criterion in subsection (5) the Clerk of the Parliamenis shall—

(a) publish that fact, together with an announcement of the date of a by-election to fill the vacancy, in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords and in a notice in the London Gazette,

(b) send to each holder of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, or to each member of the House of Lords (as may be appropriate in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) above) a Form of Return listing the names of those peers who have previously signified their wish to be considered for election.

(8) A person to whom a Form of Return is sent is to return the Form, indicating on it the name of the person or persons he wishes to elect, to the Clerk of the Parliaments within 21 days of the date on which it is sent, and. the Clerk of the Parliaments shall publish the name or names of the persons elected in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords and in a notice in the London Gazette.
(9) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may make further provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections and by-elections under this section.
(10) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(11) A certificate or decision of the Clerk of the Parliaments under this section shall he conclusive.")
The noble Lord said: I bring this amendment before the Committee because, after seven years of sitting in this Chamber, I have, to put it mildly, been disappointed by the attendance of some Members who describe themselves as working Peers.
However, before I begin, perhaps I may express my slight puzzlement as to why Amendment No.78 and Amendment No.93D have been grouped together. Although I do not have a great deal of experience in parliamentary drafting, the amendments do not seem to have any connection with each other. When a Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to explain to me why these two amendments have been placed together.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe it is well known that groupings are offered; in other words, they are not mandatory. Indeed, any noble Lord who wishes to de-couple a grouping is at liberty to do so.
Lord Coleraine: I take my noble friend's point. Amendment No.93D has been tabled in my name. We do not seem to have a full Committee at present, but it may be for my noble friend's convenience and indeed that of Members of the Committee if I say that I will let his argument go well forward before I think of starting the argument on my amendment.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I am grateful to my noble friend.
My amendment shadows the Weatherill amendment in its terms. It has been tabled because, as the Minister well knows, I have never been against the removing of hereditary Peers from this House; in fact, I have been an advocate of it for many years. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at every stage and made it clear that I did. However, at the same time, I have never been in favour of removing from the House hereditary Peers who do work while leaving in the Chamber working Peers who do not work. That, in good old House of Lords terms, strikes me as just unfair and simply wrong.
The Minister is a QC. In the law of this land. I have always thought that judges and QCs believed that, in the end, fairness was the basis of any argument placed in legislation, as well as obviously what is common sense. I cannot see an argument for removing people who have given 20 or 30 years' service, who appear regularly, who serve on committees and indeed who serve this country, and just throwing them out overnight while others who take a peerage, and never turn up at all, hold the title of Lord and serve this House in no way.
I should like to make it known that I see a clear distinction between a working Peer and the great and the good. In the Queen's Birthday Honours and in Her Majesty's New Year's Honours are placed men and women who have served this country with great distinction. I hope I may mention the example of Field Marshal Bramall, who is so obviously one of the great and the good. When we have a debate on defence he speaks on that subject and I am sure that all of us listen with rapt attention. Another example might be the noble Lord, Lord Porter, a Nobel prize winner. When there is a debate in this House on science or on education we all listen to the noble Lord speak with rapt attention.

1395
Those noble Lords have been made Peers of the realm for the service they have given their country. I find that most noble Lords who fall into that category attend the House to speak on the subject on which they are expert. I on the other hand received a letter from the former Prime Minister John Major inviting me to become a working Peer. I took this letter seriously and asked for an appointment with the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, now the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I asked Sir Robin for a definition of a working Peer. He told me that he felt one should serve the Prime Minister who had put one in the Lords for the period of time that he was Prime Minister. I asked what service meant. Sir Robin thought that it meant attendance for 75 per cent of the time and voting for 75 per cent of the time while we were in government. He thought that that was appropriate. I have a record of 75 per cent attendance, or well above that. My record of voting when the Conservative Party was in power was also well above 75 per cent. Since we have been in opposition there has been a different situation because, as all noble Lords know, we have not voted anywhere near as much as we used to.
I also feel that the working Peers do a real job. It is not some casual agreement one makes with the Prime Minister of the day. It is a job much like being a director of a great company. How many great companies who invite someone to be a director and find that that person turns up, say, twice a year would find it appropriate for that person to continue to be a director of that company? How many people out there doing a job, on hearing the expression "working Peer ", would be surprised to find that some working Peers on both sides of the Chamber do not attend regularly? This is not a political point. I have never named anyone in this respect but the guilt, as I regard it, is pretty even. The point concerns how the Chamber works as a working body. If the Prime Minister of the day invites people to join the Chamber as working Peers and they accept and then make no attempt to be working Peers, I do not feel that they have honoured their agreement.
I note that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has entered the Chamber. I must inform him that I mentioned his name earlier in my speech and cited him as an example of the great and the good and not as a day-by-day working Peer like myself. I say this to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, because I am very aware that I am neither great and certainly not good!
I ask the Minister to take this point seriously. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, considers the duties of the Royal Commission he will consider that if we are to have the expression "working Peer " it should mean something and that it will allow the Prime Minister of the day, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to make it clear to anyone who is offered a working peerage what that means.
Perhaps the days have passed when one can casually call in at the Prime Minister's office to be told that one is being offered a working peerage and reply, "Yes, of course, you can rely on me. I shall do my bit". Perhaps, sadly, the day has come when we need to spell out what
1396
that means and to define it now that the hereditary Peers, with the exception of 90 plus two, will no longer be with us. So although I accept that it is not practical to hope to divide the Committee and to win the amendment, this does give the House and me the opportunity to realise that, if we are to have a new interim body for two years and then a new body after that, which will presumably be in existence for a long time before reform is considered, we will not spend years kidding each other that "working Peer " means that one need not bother to turn up. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The whole of the noble Lord's contribution has related to the question of attendance rather than participation. It seems to me that someone who perhaps attends less but whose participation is of great value is better than someone who attends for 100 per cent of the time but does nothing.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I heard the slight sharpness at the end of the noble Baroness's sentence. It was not necessary; I agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may ask for some guidance from the Leader of the House. Earlier during the course of the Committee stage I sought to move some amendments which referred to the Law Lords. The noble Baroness advised me—reflecting, I believe, the advice of the House officials—that my amendments were outside the scope of the Bill because it deals only with hereditary Peers and not with any other kind of Peer. That was, I believe, the view of the House officials which the noble Baroness reflected in the advice she gave me. As a result of that advice, I agreed that I would not move my amendments. I am in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Archer; but it does not deal with hereditary Peers; it deals with life Peers. How is it that his amendment passed the scrutiny of the Clerks and mine did not?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may briefly intervene and reply to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He will be aware, I am sure, that a number of amendments have been moved today which dealt with life peerages, all of which have been ruled in order by the Table and to all of which we have replied. The point about the amendments which the noble Lord was proposing to move at an earlier stage of the Committee is that the Clerks took the view, and we accepted the advice, that the Bill was about the political composition of the House; that is, about the hereditary Peers and the life Peers under the Life Peerages Act. On a political basis, I have had some concern about the relevance of some of the amendments which have been moved this afternoon in terms of the attempt to impose regulations on the transitional House. However, I have accepted the guidance of the Clerks, which was that the amendments refer to the forthcoming political composition of the House. The earlier amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—I believe they were Amendments Nos.7 and 8, which were tabled on the first Committee day—related to the retired Law Lords. It has been

1397
explained to me by the Clerks that that is something different from the concerns about life peerages in the future and hereditary peerages in the present—although in commonsense and political terms. I have made the point on several occasions today that I do not think that the Bill is about the future of life peerages either.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I confess I am as baffled as ever. I shall no doubt want to return to the matter at a later stage.
Viscount Tornington: My noble friend Lord Archer, in a sense, does himself a disservice with the amendment. It seems to imply that no working Peer can reasonably transit into being—how can I call it?— "an amateur contributor ". That is the great sadness of removing the hereditary Peers from the House. As many have said today, it will have to become a much more professional House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, having ceased to be a working Peer, is still a valuable contributor to the House. I do not see how the mechanism in the House for calling on the expertise of occasional contributors can be preserved by any of the proposals in the Bill, nor, I am afraid, by my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: When the Minister replies to the debate, and if the amendment is accepted, will he indicate whether one approach could be that certain kinds of role played in the public sector would necessarily inhibit someone from being considered an active. Member of the House of Lords? At present I chair a government quango, the Further Education Funding Council. If the amendment is accepted, would the Government say, "We cannot see how we can allow you to be on a government or public payroll and also expect you to play a full part in the House, even if you attend every day and vote frequently ", as I do.
Would the Government adopt the same attitude towards an important post like the Mayor of London, who would be paid a substantial salary, well above the figure I quoted? II looks as if it would be a full-time job. Would it automatically be proscribed with the implementation of the amendment?
Lord Goodhart: The Bill is about hereditary Peers, not life Peers. I can understand an argument for saying that at any rate the working Peers whom I described earlier as the "galley slaves ", like the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and myself, should be required to turn up for a certain proportion of sittings. However, that is ultimately a matter for the Royal Commission and stage two, not this stage.
There are many life Peers who are not galley slaves. They are here because of distinguished service in the other place or altogether outside Parliament. Their attendance is probably well below 50 per cent, but nevertheless they are valuable contributors. I refer to one whom the noble Baroness the Leader of the House might be reluctant to mention: the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I am sure he does not attend 50 per cent. of the sittings of your Lordships' House but when
1398
he comes here and speaks he does so with immense wisdom. His contribution to the House is extremely valuable.
Lord Desai: I am sorry that I was not here when the noble Lord, Lord Archer, introduced his amendment, and I beg his pardon. One of the problems is that it would make it difficult for people who are not based in London or the Home Counties to become working Peers. We are unpaid and unless the noble Lord also proposes that the category of working Peers should be full-time paid Members of Parliament—and I do not see why we should not do that—it would be difficult for someone living a great distance from London, railways being what they are, to guarantee that he or she would come here in time to attend sittings.
I can understand the spirit of the amendment. Before I came into the House, the Chief Whip subjected me to an investigation as to whether I would attend regularly. As it happens, I am lucky, in that my job allows me flexible working and I can come here. but not many other people can do so. The amendment would restrict membership not only to people in the Home Counties but to people with certain kinds of job who have flexi-time. There are not many occupations like that and the provision would be restrictive. So it should be broadened and toned down, but I welcome the spirit of the amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: This is the first time I have had the opportunity to intervene in the proceedings on the Bill, but my interest is none the less for that. My father was a wise man who made few interventions in the House, but when he did, to my perception, they were wise. He brought me up on the precept that this House should function and did so at its best as a revolving committee. Those who had an interest in matters and a contribution to make from experience came and made it; those who did not made no contribution, whether or not they attended.
As a Member of this House who has revolved more than most others here, on any test of attendance I would fail. But there comes a time in people's lives when they have accumulated some experience and they have a little more time to contribute. That point might be considered alongside the remarks of my noble fiend Lord Archer. It is not merely a question of the number of times people attend; it is what they are able to contribute that will be relevant to the consideration of this amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: I support the amendment. At the same time I disagree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Torrington. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Archer for being late and not hearing all of his initial speech on the amendment. I did not quite understand his figure of 338 holders.
I wish to make a point relating to the election process under subsection (3) of the amendment. I wonder why my noble friend Lord Archer did not consider using the process of the Weatherill amendment, by which each party would elect a proportion of the 338 life Peers. The

1399
process in the Weatherill amendment was different for the equivalent of 338 holders and 16 Deputy Speakers. The same process might have been adopted in this amendment: the whole House might elect the 16 and the 338 could be elected by the individual parties concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: Any distinguished person who accepts a peerage ought to be able to play as much of a part as he or she reasonably can in the affairs of this House. If that person is a so-called working Peer, he or she will be expected to do a great deal more than the so-called good and great who come here towards the end of a long and distinguished career. Having accepted a peerage on one basis or another, they should do their best.
What has particularly bothered me recently is that a small number of noble Lords have run for and sought election to either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, was appointed as a working Peer, but I do not suppose that we shall see much more of him now that he will be running the Scottish Parliament. No doubt the Scottish Parliament will be the better for it, but we shall not have the benefit of his appearance quite so often. One noble Lord was elected to the Welsh Assembly. No doubt we shall not see a great deal of him either.
I am not in favour of noble Lords offering themselves for election to other parliaments. One or two noble Lords on this side of the House have offered themselves for election to the European Parliament. I am not in favour of that either. If one accepts membership of this House, or, as my noble friend Lord Henley says, the House of Commons, one ought to concentrate on that. I should have thought that being a Member of one House of Parliament or another was enough. I hope that that consideration will also guide the discussion on this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. This must be only the second time in 30 years that that has happened. I believe it is an excellent idea that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is a Member of this House, and that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is a Member, because they bring extra experience of the Assemblies in which they sit.
I hope that this House never becomes too professional. The point is that we turn up when we wish; we contribute when we wish. We either make a good contribution or we do not, but we normally notice whether or not people are listening. The whole point is that this House has been an assembly of the powerful and the influential; it has been an assembly of people from all over the place. It has got out of kilter now, which is why it has to be reformed. To say that one attends rather like rota duty in a tea-shop in Scunthorpe strikes me as really rather odd. One of the strengths of this House is that it is not like that. Its strength is that it is varied; there are interests from all over the place. People appear when they have something valid to say,
1400
as my noble friend Lord Limerick has just said. There are others who appear and make equally valid points. One should not exclude people just because they do not come every day. That goes totally against the spirit and history of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may make a small contribution and in so doing clarify one point. I am slightly confused. Many of us have in our hands copies of the Labour Party's submission to the Royal Commission. I ask the Government Front Bench to what extent that submission illuminates government thinking. I quote paragraph 6.4 of the submission:
"The Labour Party does not believe that the House of Lords should be a small full-time body. This would threaten the role of independents and experts who might find it difficult to comply with such an obligation. A balance has to be struck between high levels of participation and the participation where relevant of those who speak with genuine authority ".
Obviously, that reflects Labour Party policy and I hope that it illuminates the Government's thinking on this issue.
Lord Marlesford: I apologise to my noble friend for not being here at the beginning of his speech. I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think that there is anything very practical about it. My noble friend himself probably does not regard it as very practical. I believe that there is a problem but it is very limited. A much better way to approach it is to recall how, some years ago, when various diplomatic missions in London failed to pay their parking fines, Written Answers appeared in another place with a league table showing the number of parking fines attributable to various embassies. The tabloids got hold of it and the league table became an annual event and gained a lot of publicity. If one looks at the league table today it is very different from what it was some years ago. Where in a few cases Peers either do not fulfil the obligations that they have accepted or in some other way abuse the system, a little gentle and discriminate publicity will soon deal with the problem.
Viscount Trenchard: I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage in the debate not having spoken at Second Reading, when, unfortunately, I was unable to be present. I rather like my noble friend's amendment. It reduces the discrepancy in treatment between hereditary Peers and life Peers. However, I believe that the hurdles which life Peers must surmount are rather easier than those for hereditary Peers. Does my noble friend believe that all 338 holders of life peerages will comply with the requirement of subsection (5) that they sit on more than 50 per cent of sitting days? Can my noble friend say why he did not adopt the Weatherill proposal and vote for life Peers in party blocks? However, basically I am very positive about the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: Perhaps the time is right for me to speak to Amendment No.93D in my name, which is grouped with my noble friend's amendment. The amendment was tabled after lunch on Tuesday when I had had a chance to look at the Labour Party's

1401
submission to the Royal Commission. For the benefit of the Government, the amendment seeks to take a little further the debate on the composition of the House of Lords that is to follow when I am gone. We on these Benches remain united—if I may be so bold—in our determination that the House will be a better House from the moment of our departure.1 am sure most of your Lordships will agree with the view, with which I sympathise but which I do not entirely share, that this objective has been partially achieved by the incorporation into the Bill of the Weatherill amendment. The ideas that I am seeking to develop are for the transitional House. They are sketched out in the amendment and,. in an uncanny way, track the Labour Party's proposals. They seem to point in a realistic direction.
The paradox that I offer to the Committee is that House of Lords reform should not be difficult to achieve, but may prove impossible. It may prove impossible if too much is attempted at the second stage, or if what is attempted is too complicated.
In one important respect, the Labour proposals are simple and realistic. It seems to me self-evident that the Labour Party, having been forced by this House to set out on a path leading to stage-two reform, has realised, perhaps only subconsciously. that there will have to be a stage three eventually to deal with Parliament itself. That is why I welcome the fact that the proposals are essentially conservative and start with the preservation, in its entirety, of the existing corpus of life Peers. That is exactly the starting point that I would have chosen for stage two and which my amendment would begin to implement in the transitional House.
I am in favour of an appointed Chamber, rather than being a follower of the noble Lord, Lord Richard or, indeed, of many colleagues in another place and others who are true democrats in, as I see it, the worst sense of the word. Yes, I am for an appointed Chamber, but as may be pointed out, the devil is in the detail. Earlier debates on the appointments commission today have made that clear. Therefore, I have in a constructive and positive way left some of the detail of my amendment to be worked out later.
After reading and re-reading the Labour proposals, I must confess that I had to ask myself: how can I be sure that the proposals are indeed meant to nudge the Royal Commission towards an appointed House? The proposals are vacuous; mostly directives telling the Royal Commission the aims of the Labour Party and asking for ways of achieving those aims.
In support of this contention, I quote paragraph 5.2 of the submission which reads:
"It is not the role of the Labour Party to prescribe for the Royal Commission a blueprint for the composition of the reformed House of Lords. This is the responsibility which the Royal Commission has been asked by the government to undertake. It is, however, appropriate for the Labour Party to outline the constitutional context within which any reforms will operate, and to propose a framework of principle which in our view should guide the process of reform ".
We do not appear to have moved very far forward from that earlier stage when the Government were asked whether they would make a submission to the Royal Commission. They said no, but that the Labour Party
1402
would. What we have now seen is really no more than an appendix to the White Paper, hardly a submission at all.
It is in paragraph 6.10 on page 32 that I believe that one finds the intention to have an appointed House. It 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".
Surely, as in the White Paper, you have there the nod that is as good as a wink in anyone's currency. I say "excellent" to that.
However, there is a problem. The problem is numbers, and the Labour Party seems to have some awareness of that. I shall try not to fall into the trap that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde set for himself and fell into on Tuesday. He half-forgot that his amendment, and the supporting statistics, unlike the Labour Party proposals, had not been prepared and published before the Weatherill amendment was passed, on the assumption that the Weatherill amendment was already in the Bill. I may or may not be better at the numbers game than my noble friend, but undoubtedly I shall fall well below the standard set by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whose facility is quite admirable and who is available tonight to help the Committee if I go astray.
I have a note of 170 Conservative life Peers, 157 Labour, plus 15 more to give present broad parity, plus 42 to give post-Weatherill parity; 44 Liberal Democrats, 122 Cross-Bench, 27 Law Lords (because they also may organise their affairs on the basis that they may be here, if not for ever, for a long time) and that makes 527. To those 527, I add the five "other party" life Peers, and eight first creation hereditaries on the recent House of Lords briefing, which makes 540. To that, I add the 42 which my Benches will need to maintain parity when the unthinkable happens at the start of stage two and the hereditaries leave. That, I think, makes 582. The exact figure does not matter. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—I see that he is not on the Front Bench—and I share the knowledge that simple arithmetic and property valuation are not exact sciences.
I thought that I had reached a realistic figure of about 600 life Peers when I realised what I had forgotten. Paragraph 8.3 of the proposals tells the Royal Commission that the House of Lords should endeavour to accommodate representation from or by the Scottish Parliament. Whatever that means, that must surely lead to further life Peers. There are, of course, the usual other groups mentioned in the proposals which one would expect to find needing accommodation in this Chamber.
One way or another, a body of more than 500 thoroughly legitimate but inevitably ageing life Peers, will have tenure for life, in addition to an expanding body of other created Peers. I would not be so indelicate as to call it a problem, if the Labour Party did not hint that it had detected something a little amiss here. The proposals tell us, in paragraph 6.10, that,
"Rather than a retirement age, the Royal Commission should consider whether there ought to be some means for those unfit or unwilling to continue to indicate a willingness to stand down".

1403
I can offer the Labour Party and the Royal Commission a solution. It not only gets over the question of how life Peers can indicate their willingness to stand down, which I am sure the Royal Commission can answer without my help, but allows life Peers to stand down. I hope that the Government will accept the disclaimer proposals contained in Amendment No.99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lamont.
This is where my amendment would be so helpful to the Government, if taken in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont. It provides for a dual-writ system to operate in the case of future life peerages. There will be no dashing of legitimate expectations of life tenure in the case of such peerages. I shall not now go into the other consequences which might follow from such a dual-writ system. That is another argument. I simply wish to point the way in which the Labour Party's aim to create an appointed life peerage to inherit this Chamber can be brought about in a practical way without the problems which paragraph 6.10 exposes. It can be set in motion for the first stage by the incorporation in the Bill of a fully fleshed-out version of my amendment. That would clear the decks and make it quite clear that although future Peers would be appointed for life, and might have organised their affairs accordingly, they would not thereby achieve life voting tenure.
Subsection (3) of my proposed new clause, imposing a retirement age but one which applies only at the end of the Session in which the Peer reaches the age of 75, is what oils the wheels of the whole operation. I await with interest the views of the Committee and the Minister.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I support my noble friend's amendment. As he said, it envisages an appointed second Chamber which is wholly appointed, with life Peers, and seeks to accommodate certain inconsistencies arising.
Two differing cases may be inferred, if not stated by my noble friend, each representing irregular attenders. The first case is that of elderly life Peers who are extremely effective when they attend but who may not always be able to do so. The second case is that of a great many other life Peers who are also good contributors but for reasons other than age or infirmity equally do not attend all the time. The question is whether such patterns of irregular attendance undermine the desired balance and function of a reformed second Chamber.
One aim of reform is to achieve approximate voting parity between the main parties. Clearly, at the same time reform of the second Chamber must preserve its present quality of deliberation. Yet the party political voting functions may require Members to be here practically all the time. The deliberative function does not. It includes questions and debates, the highly regarded Lords' European Select Committee reports and the work of Lords' delegations overseas, including the Council of Europe, on which I had the honour to serve
1404
for seven years. It is not necessary to be here every sitting day. And, conversely, part-time attendance is even deceptive as many of your Lordships are often researching and spending time on parliamentary work when they are not here.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine accommodates those considerations. It does so by enabling some life Peers to sit and vote and other life Peers to sit and speak only. Thus, first, it resolves the anomaly whereby otherwise life Peers attending irregularly are inconsistent with life Peers who come here much more. Secondly, there is the allegation, perhaps against my noble friend's suggestion, that the contributions of non-voting life Peers would be ineffective simply because they could not vote. My noble friend's amendment, by implication, refutes that. That is because Members of this place have never made much impression anyway in the Lobbies with their feet. Our votes are easily overturned. What has always been much more difficult for the other place is to resist our reasoned arguments.
That connects with the third main consideration with which my noble friend's amendment is consistent. That is, if a reformed second Chamber is to be appointed with life Peers, it need not conform to party politics anyway, and certainly to no greater extent than it does now. Therefore, it is up to the appointments commission to ensure this and also to lay stress on the deliberative function. Meanwhile, if we have a new voting parity between parties and a new House of life Peers, all with voting rights, regarding part-time attendance then two things follow. First, part-time attendance becomes inconsistent with a new voting function expected of its Members. Secondly, part-time attendance would hardly be recognised as the backbone, which it is, of the deliberative function. Instead, it would be seen to breach the terms and trust of the appointment as a life Peer in the first place.
In my view, my noble friend's amendment provides a useful solution through the two categories of life Peer. Not least does it echo the cross-party agreement of the Labour government's 1968 Lords' reform proposal, whose architects included the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, my noble friend Lord Carrington and the late Lord Home of the Hirsel.
Viscount Torrington: I wonder whether the Committee will forgive me for intervening a second time. My noble friend Lord Coleraine raises an interesting point. Paragraph 6.10 of the Labour Party's submission to the Royal Commission 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 ".
Is it not reasonable to suggest that many hereditary Peers in this House thought that they were here for life and might have organised their affairs accordingly?
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may raise a small point in connection with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Archer. As your Lordships know, we have the benefit of the draft Standing Orders which will apply

1405
to the election of hereditary Peers now that the Weatherill amendment has been agreed. Those draft orders provide an important role for the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have no doubt whatever that the Clerk of the Parliaments will discharge his duty with care, skill and complete impartiality when he comes to do so, but I suspect that from time to time he will have some tricky decisions to make. I am not sure that we ought to put the Clerk of the Parliaments in that position. I hope that that aspect of the Standing Orders can in due course be reconsidered.
My noble friend Lord Archer also includes a role for the Clerk of the Parliaments in his amendment. Although I agree with much of what he said, I believe that that aspect of his amendment bears re-examination and I hope that he will give it that.
Earl Attlee: My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, introduced a very important amendment but it is not perfect, and it did not take long for the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, to insert an intellectual stiletto into it.
There was a reference to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. When I first met the noble and gallant Lord I addressed him as "Sir ", and I meant it. The noble and gallant Lord turns up on a regular basis, and recently he has been turning UD on a more frequent basis. He gives me very valuable counsel and the benefit of his wide military experience. The last time he did so was 45 minutes ago, at dinner. He is great. He is good. If he is not a working Peer. he is a part of the House of Lords that works.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred to Members of the House of Lords who are also members of another assembly. I cannot support him. He spoke of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament. I have regular contact with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He does not attend the House of Lords regularly, but I find my contact with the noble Lord extremely valuable. So there is much to be said for being a member of more than one assembly at the same time.
Lord Northbrook: I should like to make two remarks about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would make the system much more complicated than my noble friend Lord Archer has suggested. Secondly, subsection (3) provides that any writ issued to a voting member would not have effect after the end of the Session of Parliament in which he attains the age of 75. I do not understand why the age should be 75 and why from that point he should become a non-voting Member, as if suddenly he had lost possession of his marbles. It seems a rather strange cut off point.
Lord Coleraine: Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in my amendment says effectively that any new life Peer created after the day when the Bill
1406
becomes an Act will receive either a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords to speak or a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords to vote.
The Earl of Northesk: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine has somewhat fired my imagination. There is a degree of tension between that amendment and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Archer. The Committee will be aware that one of my greatest criticisms of the Bill is that I cannot help feeling it has a political intent. Occasionally it is important to remind ourselves that above all else the House of Lords is a legislative Chamber and, indeed, a Chamber of revision. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine reflects that rather intelligently.
As a sideline, there is an extraordinary comment that I picked out in flicking through the Labour Party's submissions to the Royal Commission. At page 30 we find the words,
"if the House of Lords is to be fully modernised so that it can more effectively serve the political needs of this country ".
I should have thought that what is important is that the House should serve the legislative needs of the country.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two amendments grouped here have one or two factors in common. Perhaps I may start by saying a few words about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. What it does in a way is offer a solution to the problem of differentiating between working Peers and Peers whose peerage has been given as an honour, perhaps in the New Year's Honours List or the Birthday Honours List, and who are not really expected to come to the House of Lords on anything like a frequent basis, but who, when they do attend, can make major contributions to debates.
I am not entirely sure on what basis the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, came here. He has not taken part much; he is a very busy man. However, he made a very interesting speech yesterday. I would have thought that he comes into the category of someone who may deserve the honour but perhaps will not be exactly defined as a working Peer.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine gives the Government, the honours committee and Her Majesty the opportunity to send to the House Peers of considerable eminence but Peers occupied to such an extent in their own field that, although able to make valuable contributions on an important subject, they would not be frequent attenders or participators in debates and business. If I paraphrase it correctly, my noble friend is trying to offer the Government a way to deal with that problem.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare is attempting a rather wider solution to some of the problems, but some of those problems arise from exactly the same position: that there are life Peers who were not sent here to work and who do not attend very often. My noble friend was trying to differentiate although I am rather puzzled. He said that his amendment would differentiate between those who came to this House by

1407
way of the New Year or Birthday Honours lists and those who came on lists of working Peers. I may be missing something, but I cannot see that differentiation in the text. No doubt my noble friend will help me later on that.
My noble friend envisages a House which is considerably smaller than that which we have now. There would be 499 Members, if I have calculated it correctly. We all know that there are many more than that in your Lordships' House. Even if we take the people who attend very occasionally and leave out the people who never attend or attend on only one or two occasions, the membership of the House is considerably larger than 500. But generally, on high days and holidays, there is likely to be an attendance of about 400 and for ordinary days, the attendance will be between 300 and 350. Therefore, I believe that a non-professional House, which I indicated earlier is my preference, always needs a little headroom because not all Members will be able to be here on anything like a regular basis, unlike, for example, the other place where the Whipping system ensures the fairly regular attendance of Members.
My noble friend's amendment replicates, very cleverly and with subtlety, the Weatherill amendment for hereditary Peers which we passed on Tuesday. It sets out to create a representative group of life Peers who would be elected by their fellows.
That should be attractive to the Government because those life Peers, elected by their fellows, would obviously have more legitimacy than we all have as the totality of life Peers. I quote no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When discussing the Weatherill amendment and the fact that 90-odd Peers would be elected from the totality of the hereditaries, the noble and learned Lord said:
"Also, the hereditary Peers who remain temporarily will be here not just because they are hereditaries but because they have been elected by their fellow hereditaries. Therefore, they will have greater authority ". —[Official Report, 11/5/99; col.1094.]
I listened to that and then, lo and behold, the noble and learned Lord repeated it. I suppose he thought that I had not heard it the first time. In his concluding remarks, he said:
"It gives the 90 excepted Peers, whose election will have given them greater authority and shows that they have the confidence of their colleagues, a say in the deliberations of this House about its long-term future ". —[Official Report, 11/5/99; col.1096.]
So, no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and who greater an authority can I quote?—indicates that if one has elections for 92 hereditary Peers from the whole group of hereditaries, that will give the 92 more legitimacy. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Archer will give the life Peers who are elected more legitimacy. I should love some more legitimacy so long as it does not come at the cost of too much electioneering. Just in case the Government are minded to accept the
1408
amendment, I had better be kind to all my life-Peer colleagues in all my other comments.
I notice that my noble friend makes provision also for by-elections, which is very important. But he addresses the problem also that life Peers are expected to work. My noble friends Lord Torrington and Lord Limerick have pointed out, I think rightly, that there are life Peers, as I mentioned earlier, as there are hereditary Peers, who do not come terribly often but when they do come, they participate in our deliberations on subjects which are of great interest to them and on which they are serious experts. I do not want to embarrass anybody by going round and naming them or to take up the time of the Committee.
I think that both noble Lords are right and if they were suggesting to my noble friend Lord Archer that his 50 per cent cut-off is a bit high, I would agree with them. I think it is far too high. Even if the Government do not accept my noble friend's amendment, we should perhaps look at a way of applying a one-off test to those life Peers who are here now so that only those who have shown any interest in your Lordships' House will be able to continue in the transitional House and perhaps—who knows?—into the stage-two House when it comes about.
On page 32 of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission—it has almost become the most quoted document, second only to the manifesto, and presumably I will shortly be told that it was a best seller, with queues lining up in the streets to buy it—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I do not think that the noble Lord will necessarily be told that, but I suspect we may continue to remind him that that evidence relates to the Royal Commission and its proposals for the second stage of reform. It does not relate to the present Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may not relate directly to the present Bill, but it gives us an indication of what the Government are thinking in the matter of the composition of your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry, I mean the Labour Party. There seem to be two distinct organisations in this country. One is the Government and the other is the Labour Party. I suppose it is a bit like the two distinct governments that we shall have in this country: the Labour Government in Scotland and the Labour Government in the United Kingdom. But I had better not trespass on the patience of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House by going into any more detail about the goings-on north of the Border, to which I hope shortly to return in order to get closer to them over the weekend for my enjoyment. On Monday I shall report my findings to your Lordships.

1409
To get back to the evidence, page 32 states:
"The Royal Commission should also consider whether membership of the reformed House of Lords—
Lord Shepherd: Can the noble Lord say which train he will catch?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps one a good deal earlier than that which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will manage to catch.
Lord Carter: I think the noble Lord may find the early flight tomorrow morning more convenient!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Ah well, we shall see, we shall see. I shall continue to give that quotation:
"The Royal Commission should also consider whether membership of the reformed House of Lords should carry with it a minimum obligation in terms of attendance and participation in the work of the chamber ".
I think the noble Baroness will agree that that is relevant to this particular debate. The quotation continues:
"A large number of members currently attend very infrequently and play little part in the work of the House of Lords. If there is to be a minimum attendance obligation, the Royal Commission should also consider how it could be enforced ".
I agree with the Labour Party that that is a fair thing to say to the Royal Commission. I also think, for reasons which we have put forward on a number of occasions, that we should also address it to the interim House because who knows how long the interim House may last. If we are improving the interim House by keeping back 92 of my hereditary colleagues, may I suggest that we might improve it even more if we try to concentrate our life Peer Members on those who do attend and play some particular part? My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare has raised some interesting points, as has my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has to say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the fact that there were two thriving institutions: one, the Labour Party and, two, the Labour Government. I do understand how discomfiting that may be for him as the Conservative Party has neither a government nor, as far as I can detect, much of a party at all. Certainly in Scotland and Wales, the Conservatives managed to succeed in having no directly elected Member of either the Parliament or the Assembly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would hate to allow the noble Lord the Minister to stray into error, especially with regard to Wales. We old manage one first-past-the-post seat in Wales. But I have to say that
1410
just south of the Scottish Border we had a magnificent victory in the home town of my noble friend Lord Henley in that we won control of Carlisle.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In principle, all Peers, whether they are here on merit or by virtue of an hereditary peerage, have a duty to take seriously their responsibility as Members.
Earl Ferrers: I thought I misheard the noble Lord. Did he say "an hereditary peerage"; and if he did, why did he not accept my amendment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did say "an hereditary peerage ". I fell into solecism and error in exactly the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did when he said "a hereditary peerage " on Tuesday.
Earl Ferrers: I did not fall into error at all. I was merely doing what I thought was correct in so far as the Bill refers to "a hereditary peerage "; and, as I said earlier, when you are in Rome you do what Rome does. I therefore referred to "a hereditary peerage ". It was only the noble Lord's automatic judgment which made him go to "an hereditary peerage ", which is what he should have accepted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Being Welsh, I do what Welsh people do in Rome and I stick to "an hereditary peerage ". But that is a matter of personal taste. Personal taste is not always coincident with present government policy.
In principle, all noble Lords have a duty to take their responsibility seriously. In practice, we know that not to be so. Frequency of attendance is not the appropriate criterion on which to base judgments. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, indicated that fairness is a useful lodestone—I agree—and so is rationality. I do not accept his constitutional doctrine that if one is asked to come here as a working Peer by a particular Prime Minister one's duties as a working Peer are limited to the incumbency of that Prime Minister. I have not heard that suggested before and I do not believe it to be correct. Indeed, both my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and I were invited here by letters originally from Mr. Major—of course it was Her Majesty who actually determines these matters—but there was nothing in my letter, or I think in the postcard of my noble friend Lady Jay, that required us to do anything.
In fact, had we been required to serve only during the incumbency of the person who had originally suggested us, neither of us would have to have turned up at all, because Mr. Kinnock was never Prime Minister. If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has a claim for back pay of £30 million and compound interest, my noble friend and I have a similar claim, because we have attended here selflessly for so long, to the entire satisfaction of your Lordships—and certainly to our own entire satisfaction—that I think that we ought to have been properly remunerated.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we have an undertaking that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative government,

1411
both the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will continue their presence selflessly and ad nauseam in your Lordships' House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Unless there is a retirement age of 95, certainly.
I understand the reasons behind the noble Lord's amendment but it confuses quantity and quality. The quality of a Peer's record is not really to be judged on attendance alone. Many of those who attend frequently make a considerable contribution. Many who attend frequently make no contribution that is readily detectable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, even making a contribution in the sense of joining in a debate does not necessarily or indeed at all advance the argument, as we have recently been able to note.
We cannot accept the amendment as a matter of principle. The Bill is about the removal of "the " hereditary Peers as a class from membership of the House. We have accepted the compromise—a generous one, as was said earlier—to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain. The position of the life Peers is not in question in stage one of the reform. I have to say yet again what was said a moment or two ago by my noble friend the Leader of the House. We are discussing this Bill at this stage. I beg the Committee's pardon. We ought to be discussing this Bill at this stage.
We have said that people can conscientiously differ and we do, in the same way as some believe the world is flat and others insist it is round. We believe that it is not right for anyone in this legislature to have an automatic right by virtue of heredity. There is no similar argument for removing life Peers. All life Peers, by virtue of the Act of 1963, are here for life. I do not believe that a system of elections would work. I may have misunderstood the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Archer. I did not understand how he arrived at the figure of 338.
The noble Lord says that his amendment is directed to so-called working Peers who do not work. However, it does not deal with the question of those who were put in here on a purely honorific basis. Indeed, a more fundamental criticism which he might accept is that the amendment would allow working Peers, on the noble Lord's definition, to be removed if they were not elected. Even in the terms of his own approach, I believe that would be a significant defect.
There is no mention of a proportionate breakdown of life Peers between the parties. After the initial election, on the basis of previous attendance figures, the Labour Party would do considerably better than the party opposite. If we take the figures for the latter Session, the proportion of Labour life Peers—I exclude those on official leave of absence or those who have not taken the oath—attending over 220 times out of a possible 228, that is on over 88 per cent of possible occasions, was almost twice that of Conservative life Peers.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: The Minister cannot have a great deal of spare time. He has pointed
1412
out how hard he is working. However, I wonder if he would be kind enough to look at the figures in the days when the Conservative Government were in power. The simple facts are that when in Opposition one does not have the problem of having to vote on every single issue and being present the whole time. My attendance and voting record was much better when we were putting Bills through than it is at present.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Whether that is right or wrong, the noble Lord has just destroyed his own argument. That means that if noble Lords are in opposition and not liable to turn up, they are liable to be dispossessed of the opportunity to come here at all simply because they are in opposition and do not bother to turn up. That is the necessary, inevitable and logical conclusion of the observation made by the noble Lord. Whether he intended it to be the conclusion on which I focused, I am not sure.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked about the relationship of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. It is precisely that; that is, evidence put forward by the Labour Party. It will be supplemented by oral evidence. I repeat again the comments so often made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. When we have the recommendations of the Royal Commission, a joint committee of both Houses will consider them and the Government will come to a view. There are practical difficulties deriving from the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for giving way. I sought to clarify one simple point. The Labour Party submission exists, it is a public document. The point of clarification I seek is that surely we are entitled to believe that in some way it informs current Government thinking.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can only repeat what I hoped I had said plainly earlier. It is the Labour Party submission. It will be supplemented by oral evidence. The Government will come to a concluded view in a rational way after seeing what the Royal Commission has said—that is why one sets up a Royal Commission—and listening carefully to the deliberations of the committee of both Houses. There is no provision in the amendment—
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may ask if the Prime Minister saw that evidence and approved it. If he did, it must therefore be Government policy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is an internal fallacy there. The fact that the Prime Minister has seen and approved something does not necessarily make it government policy in every conceivable circumstance. He may have views of his own about a wide range of matters. Of course the Prime Minister saw the evidence before it was submitted. We are going about this in the proper way and we shall not be deviated from the proper course.
If one sets up a Royal Commission, one ought to be prepared to attend to its conclusions. If one invites a committee of both Houses, which, by definition, will

1413
have an authoritative composition, one ought to have the courtesy and ordinary sense to listen to what it says; and, thereafter, come to one's concluded view.
In this amendment, contrary to the Weatherill amendment, there is no provision for elections to be held in advance of the rest of the Bill coming into force. That would mean that elections could not take place until the Bill was in force and, if the Bill was in force, all life Peers would already have been excluded by virtue of this clause.
There is a specific question from my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham to which I must now attend. He asked whether or not the mayor of London could be a Member of your Lordships' House. I am not sure who the Labour candidate will be, but when he or she is successful I do not see any impediment to the mayor of London being invited to come here by a grateful nation and a thankful Prime Minister.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but the question that I was really asking was whether that was likely to be compatible with the attendance criteria envisaged in the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That would depend on the degree of flexi-time in the London assembly. It is possible that the mayor of London would be able to pop into the House for Prayers in order to secure his or her attendance allowance, which I believe is what some noble Lords do, and then depart for happier climes immediately down the road.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may paraphrase Stanley and ask whether this is a case of "Lord Livingstone, I presume? "
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In fact, Stanley was not his real name at all. It was John Rowland from North Wales, born in the workhouse at St. Asaph! The noble Lord is relying on an impostor who had to change his name—of course, quite unlike some of your Lordships.
If one wants to look at this "in the round ", as people will keep saying, one would have to consider the position of the Bishops. They do not attend every day. But, despite the fact that they represent only one section of the Christian Church, I am sure that most noble Lords would recognise that their contributions are valuable. Indeed. I would make the same point about the Law Lords. Both the Law Lords and the Bishops have, if I may use the phrase, held on to the day job. Nevertheless, they do attend and provide contributions which are extremely important. They are listened to with great care and are generally effective.
Lord Richard: I trust that my noble friend will forgive me, but I should like to raise a point regarding something he just said about the Joint Committee of both Houses. I take it that the Government will not express their views on the shape of the second-stage Chamber until after the Joint Committee has reported. Alternatively, is the position—as I have understood it to be—that the Government will express their views on the
1414
shape of the second Chamber after the Royal Commission has spoken and that, thereafter, the matter will go to the Joint Committee for implementation? Can my noble friend help me in that respect?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. It is the second alternative. I said that the Government would come to their concluded view after we had taken account of the view of the Joint Committee. There is no point in setting up a Joint Committee of that prospective virtue, value and weight unless one is going to listen with great care to its advice.
I turn now to Amendment No.93D. tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. We do not see a place for this proposed new clause in the Bill. It would create two separate distinct classes of life Peer. It would include enforced semi-retirement for those over the age of 75 and would separate into classes those who could attend and vote and those who could not. I cannot see how that would work in practice. Once one got to the age of 75—just approaching the prime of life—one would then be disentitled to vote.
So, on the proposal of the noble Lord, a Peer could attend and speak but not vote. But would he be able to table an amendment to a Bill? I do not find provision for that in the noble Lord's amendment. I am simply raising a question. Would such a Peer be able to ask questions? The noble Lord nods his head. Would he be able to introduce legislation? The noble Lord remains silent. There are difficulties involved. I give way to the noble Lord. Lord Coleraine.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. A noble Lord who is not a voting Lord would be entitled to introduce legislation, but not to vote on it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that illustrates the bizarre nature of the proposal. One could have an impassioned Second Reading speech from a noble Lord of 75 years and one day. By the time he got to be 77 years and one day he might have got to Third Reading and he might be able to speak on all those occasions but not discharge the elementary duty of voting. I recognise that this is a genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to improve matters but I think that, once one teases out the detail, it does not.
In summary, therefore, I hope the Committee will recognise that I have once again in the best tradition of this Chamber approached all these amendments with an entirely open mind before advising the Committee to reject them.
Lord Northbrook: Before the Minister sits down, I hope I may clarify a point. I understood him to say that life Peers were appointed for life in this Chamber. However, I understand—if I am correct in this—that the

1415
Labour proposals to the Royal Commission suggest that, if there is an appointed Chamber, not all life Peers will be part of it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not immediately recognise that as an accurate quotation from any evidence that has been given. However, I repeat, at the risk of tedium—at least to myself, if not to everyone else present—that we are dealing with a Bill that attends to the first stage. The evidence is given to the Royal Commission, which is to make recommendations for a succeeding stage.
Lord Coleraine: I return to my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has kindly dealt with certain of the lacunae in my amendment. He will obviously be aware from the way I spoke that it was a probing amendment, or perhaps a sighting shot. I am grateful to him for pointing out where he feels I may have gone wrong on the technical drafting aspects. However, as regards the question of the dual writ and voting and speaking Peers, of course I recognise that the analogies with 1968 are not sure in all cases and cannot be taken too far. But one thing is certain; namely, that in 1968 it was well accepted in all parts of the Chamber that there was no particular difficulty about having life Peers or hereditary Peers; and that hereditary Peers were speaking Peers who could introduce amendments and ask questions but could not vote. No difficulty was envisaged with that at that time. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attention to my amendment and to the others who have spoken on it. I shall certainly not return to it in its rightful place in the Marshalled List.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I too am grateful to the Minister for his serious response. I am equally grateful to those Members on both sides of the Committee who joined in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that I think the mayor of London should certainly be in the House of Lords and it would perhaps be convenient for him to be there at the beginning rather than immediately after he is elected.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the overriding purpose of this amendment is to try to make people think about what the new Chamber should look like. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. It is hard to find a wording that includes reference to the number of times one attends, the number of times one speaks and the amount of work one does. I have wrestled with this matter and I know that it is not easy. I just wanted to place firmly on the record how much I disapprove of people who take the honour that this House offers, and the great distinction with which it is viewed by the rest of the nation, and then make no attempt to give back benefit to that nation by attending this Chamber or working for it. That was the purpose of this amendment. I thank the Minister for taking it in that vein. With that in mind, I shall withdraw my amendment but I may bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No.79:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION(NO.2)
(". —(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.
(2) The Appointments Commission alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958, and shall determine various matters in relation thereto.
(3) The Appointments Commission shall consist of eight members, one to be nominated by each of—

(a) the Prime Minister,

(b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons,

(c) the Leader of the second largest opposition party in the House of Commons,

(d) the Convenor of the Cross Bench peers in the House of Lords,

(e) the Leader of the House of Lords, and three members, known to be independent of any political party, to be nominated by the House of Lords and approved in each case by a majority of two thirds of those voting.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.79 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.80 to 83. I may be able to be quite brief. I was very impressed by what the Leader of the House said in answer to Amendment No.75. I thought she set out a thoroughly commendable approach to the way in which Peers would be selected in the future. However, I am sure she will recognise that that is subject to executive discretion and that it has no statutory underpinning. I am sure she will also recognise that I and many other Members of the House feel that that is not good enough. There has to be something in the Bill that gives us a greater sense of security that the arrangements she so ably outlined could survive a change of government or a change of opinion by a government, something that gives us a stage better reliance.
If the Leader of the House will agree to meet a group of noble Lords between Committee stage and Report stage to discuss how we might moderate our demands and how we might find some way of satisfying our justifiable fears in a way that is acceptable to the Government, I, and I hope other of my colleagues, will feel able to leave discussion of these amendments to another day, or perhaps not at all. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask either the noble Baroness or the Government Chief Whip about their intentions as to how late we should sit. There has been a general understanding that we should not sit too late on such a major constitutional Bill. I appreciate that we have a great deal to get through; I also appreciate that we have Monday and possibly other days for debate. I think at this stage it is important to know the Government's plans. Obviously that will influence us as to how we deal with certain of our amendments, particularly those amendments that we wish to deal with on Monday.
Lord Carter: We have been sitting for almost exactly seven hours. We are just starting on the seventh group of

1417
amendments. I do not think that we have made enough progress on an important constitutional Bill. I wish to make more progress tonight.
Lord Henley: Is the Government Chief Whip suggesting that we sit for another seven hours tonight? I am not sure that he would have agreement from his own Back Benchers—certainly he would not have it from ours—that we sit for another seven hours.
Lord Carter: 11 am finding it hard to restrain my enthusiasm. It certainly will not be for another seven hours.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may reply to the Amendment No.79, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord was gracious enough to say that he would not speak in detail to these amendments if I responded favourably to his suggestion. I am grateful to him for saying what he did about my response to the earlier amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, and Lord Crickhowell.
We agree that what the noble Lord has attempted to do in his series of amendments—I think there are five altogether—is impressive. But it is fairly lengthy. I would suggest that that illustrates the particular problems of trying to put into a statute the issues which we discussed at some length before the break for dinner. He has graciously suggested that, rather than going through the details this evening, we might discuss the matter privately. I am happy to pursue that course. I draw his attention and the attention of the Committee to the letter which I wrote at the beginning of the Session to say that: Ministers were always anxious to meet other Members of the House and to try to accommodate their concerns, particularly at this stage of proceedings. If that is the way the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to proceed, I am happy to do so.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If the Committee is agreeable, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos.80 to 83 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.84:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DISQUALIFICATION OF MSIPS
(". —(1) A member of the Scottish Parliament 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.

(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: In moving Amendment No.84, I shall speak also to Amendment No.85. I am a bit apprehensive about doing this because, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, last spoke about hereditary Peers, I think he said that they make no contribution; and if hey do make a contribution it is of
1418
no noticeable effect. That is rather like the bully at school who asks: "Why don't you say something? " and, if you do, says: "Shut up ".
With these amendments we enter slightly sensitive ground and I hope the Committee will not mind my doing so. I should let Members into a secret, I may have sat next to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at dinner, although I did not realise it, and I found my glasses had been smashed. I thought he might have done it, but I was not sitting next to him, so it must have been a poltergeist.
Amendment No.84 proposes the following:
"A member of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
Amendment No.85 states:
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
They are two fairly modest amendments with clear objectives. In the early stages of the Bill we heard much about the manifesto and what it said. I remind the Committee of what was said in the Government's White Paper on House of Lords reform. On the very first page it states:
"Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy. Britain needs a two-chamber legislature ".
Having said that, what do the Government do? They devolve powers to Scotland and make a single-chamber legislature. So there is a single-chamber legislature in Scotland and a two-chamber legislature in England. That does not bode well for the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Errol: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. This is not the English Parliament, it is the Parliament of the UK here. I wish to point that out, it is a misconception which I have noticed entering the debate from time to time.
Earl Ferrers: It is kind of the noble Earl to remind us that it is a United Kingdom Parliament and he has courteously drawn me on to the next part of my remarks. If a Bill is passed in the Scottish Parliament, concerning health, education or social security, it goes through the Scottish Parliament and that is that. If you pass a Bill on education, health or social security in the House of Commons, it has to go through your Lordships' House. So there is a two-chamber system here and a single-chamber system in Scotland. I suggest that that is wholly divisive. The Government have constantly refused to address their minds to the point and that is what we are left with. We have the position of a single chamber in Scotland.
Some noble Lords have thought it desirable to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and some have succeeded. All credit to them. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has been successful and achieved what I understood to be his ambition, becoming the Presiding Officer, the equivalent of being Speaker of the Scottish Parliament. That is fine.

1419
Using him as an example, why then should he come to your Lordships' House and decide on what your Lordships and England should do on matters respecting England? If he does, should he sit as Lord Steel of Aikwood or as Sir David Steel, as he intends to do in Scotland? Alternatively, does he sit as both Sir David in Scotland and Lord Steel in England? If he sits in your Lordships' House, will he sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, where we are used to seeing him, or on the Cross-Benches? Can one imagine Madam Speaker in another place leaving the House of Commons going to the Scottish Parliament and sitting as a Labour Member of Parliament, giving Labour views? Of course not. Lord Steel has sanitised himself by becoming a Speaker, therefore theoretically he ought to sit on the Cross-Benches.
Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It is curious how they all come from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Liberal Democrats try like mad to get positions of authority in the United Kingdom Government and always fail. Having failed there, they try Scotland, where they seem to be successful, or Wales, where they are also successful. Now the other part of my glasses has gone, so the noble Lord, Lord Williams, need not worry too much!
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has been successful in Northern Ireland. What does he do? Does he come and sit on the Cross-Benches, or the Liberal Democrat Benches? There is quite a difficulty here. Why should people who have stood for a regional parliament and been elected to that parliament, and have in some cases become administrators of the regional parliament discussing regional matters, in which this House has no part, then come to this place and discuss and take part in matters which are outside their region but reflect the rest of the United Kingdom—England for example? It is the old West Lothian question. It has gone completely unanswered and unaddressed by the Government. That is a great pity.
People have climbed up rather like a monkey going across the trees in the rain forest, swinging from branch to branch, and they have swung from another place into this House and from this House to the Scottish Parliament. They have succeeded in doing all that. Why do they still continue to come to this House and discuss English matters?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Will the noble Earl be kind enough to give way? Perhaps I may ask him a question. I understand his argument that it would be inappropriate, and I do not pass judgment on this, for Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly to participate in matters concerning mainly England. But as the noble Earl will recognise—and this is enshrined in legislation passed by this House—neither in Scotland nor in Wales, or in Northern Ireland, is there any jurisdiction over trends in international affairs. Will the noble Earl recognise the entitlement of those who sit in
1420
those parliaments at least to come to this House, and at least to participate in debates and decisions on those matters?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is entirely right. He asks whether I recognise "at least" that they should do that. Yes, of course I do. But the trouble is that it is not a question of "at least". In fact they come and discuss everything. They have a right to discuss everything and participate in everything. I am sorry to return to this, but that is the dichotomy that the Government have failed to address. How do you devolve various matters to different parliaments and keep some for Westminster, yet allow people to come to Westminster from regional parliaments and discuss the totality? That is what I believe to be wrong, and the Government have not come to any conclusion.
With my spectacles now in a state of total disarray, I now turn to Amendment No.85, which is marginally more controversial. It proposes that,
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
If people have the right to vote for their own parliament, which they have, and they secure the parliament of their compatriots' choice, why should those same people then be allowed to come down to the United Kingdom Parliament and discuss United Kingdom matters?
This provision would be quite severe. It would knock out the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who comes from Wales; it would knock out the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer; it would probably knock out the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; it would knock out my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—who is so terrified that he has vanished already—and a number of other people. I believe the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: From a sedentary position I was merely repeating the conversation that my noble friend the Chief Whip had with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the time of his train.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. My noble friend has had to catch a train. He has returned north on the sleeper. That is why I remarked earlier on the timing of this debate.
Earl Ferrers: That is of course the difficulty that these poor people who live in Scotland have.
All these people who have the right to vote for whom they want to represent them in the Scottish Parliament equally have the right to come and speak in your Lordships' House, and to vote upon matters—not the hereditary Peers, no, the life Peers—which reflect entirely the interests of England, and on other matters. This is a sensitive area; it is the West Lothian question unresolved. The only reason I have tabled the amendment is to discover the Government's thinking on this matter.

1421
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn (if he is the Minister courteous enough to reply), will address this very serious point. I am all for a few flippant jokes. I do not mind if he also makes some jokes. However, I hope that he will be able to say why people who have been elected to a devolved Parliament can come down to this Parliament and speak to matters in which they do not normally interfere, and equally why those who vote for their own Parliament have the right to vote in the second Chamber. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's amendment draws attention to the desirability of the Government perhaps not pursuing stage two as quickly as they have repeatedly assured us they will because the West Lothian question remains unresolved. I suspect that the relationship between the two Parliaments and the Assembly will not be fully understood until it has been working for a number of years. The Government may tonight propose a resolution of the West Lothian question. However, as matters now stand, Members of another place who are elected in Scotland will have the sole say over Scottish affairs in education, social security, health and so on—a range of matters—whereas Members of another place in this Parliament will have no say over those affairs in Scotland. Members elected in Scotland will have a say over those affairs in this kingdom, but will have no constituency interest whatever in them. My noble friend's amendment does something in gesture politics to redress the balance. In so doing, it illustrates the importance of seeing how the system works before we press ahead too fast.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not like to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but on this occasion I do so for the following reason. Your Lordships' House is not a House of territoriality, but of either individuals or power. Therefore, the West Lothian question, serious and horrid as it is, is not addressed by saying that because an individual comes from a certain part of the United Kingdom, he should be barred from its upper House. The West Lothian question is a brutal and very dangerous one as yet not addressed by the Government. If we were to debar from this House Members who live north of Hadrian's Wall, or Members of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly, it would be even more damaging to tie Union than the present, rather half-baked devolution experiment that is taking place. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I disagree most profoundly with his observations. I always thought that we operated on the principle of one man. one vote; but here we move into the realm of one man, or one lady, two votes. Frequently, my wife has received electoral papers to be completed in order to vote in both the north of England and London by virtue of two residences. That is illegal. If she had voted in both places there would have been great trouble.
1422
I think the same objections apply to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It is quite wrong. He will recall that some time ago we had quite a ping-pong match over the question of Summer Time in what was then the United Kingdom, but alas is no longer. The trouble was that, although the Bill passed through: your Lordships' House, the Scots were unhappy because, quite rightly. they said that things were different in that part of the world than in our part of the world. They have a point. They are absolutely right. Therefore, why should they be able to vote in Westminster on matters relating to England—it is no longer the United Kingdom—and not contain their views to Scotland and to the Parliament to which they have been elected? I support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has tabled a lot of rather entertaining amendments to this Bill which, from time to time, have brought some light relief to this debate. In his Amendment No.85 I believe that he is taking the joke a bit too far.
I have a confession to make to the Committee. I had a great-grandmother whose maiden name was Mackay. Therefore, it would be quite impossible for me to vote for any amendment which would have the appalling result of excluding from your Lordships' House those who, I suppose, I must describe as my noble kinsmen, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Amendment No.85 is plainly absurd and not one that is worth taking much trouble over.
Amendment No.84 raises, as I understand it, the West Lothian question. It seems neither appropriate nor indeed possible in this Bill to answer the West Lothian question, which is something that has been troubling us all for decades. In any event, the matters raised in Clause 84—not only the West Lothian question, but also the dual mandate—are matters that are not appropriate for this Bill. Once again, as with so many of these amendments, this is a matter for the Royal Commission and stage two.
The Earl of Erroll: I think that noble Lords forget that this is still the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It passes laws that affect Scotland and it is able to repatriate to itself powers which are currently devolved to a Parliament in Scotland, which is not a sovereign parliament. Therefore, English Peers and English MPs in this Parliament vote on issues that affect Scotland. That is a matter that works in both directions at the moment.
I recommended and supported the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, earlier because it is essential that there is Scottish representation in this Parliament and not the other way round. The suggestion in Amendment No.85 that Scottish voters should be disenfranchised totally from the sovereign Parliament in this country is quite ridiculous.

1423
On the point of multiple votes, one votes for everything from parish councillors, to district councillors, county councillors, if you are in Scotland a Scottish Parliament Member, an MP and an MEP. So we all have multiple votes.
Lord Northbrook: With due respect to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I did not quite understand his point about repatriating powers to the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Earl of Erroll: I stand to be corrected, but I think it is still within Westminster's power to take power back from the Scottish Parliament because the Westminster Parliament is a sovereign Parliament, which the Scottish Parliament is not. That may happen over tuition fees. In fact, I believe that has already been mooted in Scotland.
The Duke of Montrose: Returning to the question raised by Amendment No.85, if there is any seriousness in it, has the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, thought of phrasing it the other way? On the question of elections to the other place, neither Peers, nor minors, nor bankrupts are allowed to vote. If he wishes to introduce the fact that the same rules should apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament, that would allow Peers to come to this House without having voted for another Parliament.
Lord Henley: I do not intend to get on to the subject of tuition fees. I suspect that that is a problem that the Government will have to address in due course; no doubt the Scottish Parliament will address it.
I begin by again offering an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He has had to catch the last train north because he had commitments in Scotland. The fact that my noble friend has left underlines how unwise it is that this House should continue debating these matters at such a late hour. Perhaps some time after our discussion on this amendment has concluded, I may wish to have further discussions through the usual channels.
I also offer my comnuserations to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on his problems with his spectacles. We saw the further disintegration of them during the course of his speech. We noted that he was missing one lens. I noticed that the lens alleged to have been smashed was the left lens rather than the right lens. I do not know whether he was blaming the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for that destruction. If the noble Lord is addressing these matters, perhaps he will come to that in due course.
I also take time out briefly to correct, I think, my noble kinsman Lord Onslow on his remarks about those living north of Hadrian's Wall. I remind him that I am one who lives north of Hadrian's Wall. A great many of us who live north of Hadrian's Wall are English, remain English and always will be English. The Border, quite rightly, is considerably north of Hadrian's Wall. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could confirm that important legal matter should he wish to respond in this debate.
1424
My noble friend Lord Ferrers raised some interesting points. He returned to the West Lothian question. In Amendment No.85, which he describes as being somewhat more controversial, he raises even more points that it is important the Government should address. The points he has put forward have been, as my noble friend put it, somewhat controversial. They have not received unanimity on the Benches behind me. I shall be circumspect in my remarks and careful about what I say. I shall wish to think about them carefully before we offer support from this Front Bench.
However, it is important to remember that three Members of this House have been elected to the Scottish Parliament. All three parties—if I may ignore on this one occasion the Cross Benches—have gained one Member. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, as he is called in this House, whom we understand is to be called Sir David Steel, MSP, elsewhere; the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, from the Benches opposite; and my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, have all been returned to the Scottish Parliament. We wish them luck. We shall be grateful to hear from the Government about the relationship of what they do there to what they do here. We shall be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, how the Government consider that these matters should be addressed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not sit next to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at dinner. I did not sit on his spectacles. I sat next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and if he were still here, he would be my alibi witness.
This pair of amendments pre-figures a pair of amendments relating to Wales in, I think, virtually identical terms. Amendment No.85 has some curious consequences. It states:
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for "
—I think that the word should have been "from "
"sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
That means that the mere fact of being registered on a local government register in Scotland, which is the necessary precondition for voting in elections for the Scottish Parliament, would disentitle any Member with that incubus from sitting in this House. As soon as one analyses the provision in that way, its manifest nonsense is thereby disclosed. It is not even a requirement that one should have exercised the vote, but simply that one should have registered to vote.
Exactly the same point arises in the subsequent pair of amendments further down the list about Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it would disqualify me because I am Welsh. I am, but I am registered to vote in the Cotswolds. I should therefore escape and I am sure the noble Lord who tabled the two subsequent amendments had that position in mind. However, I must say that if I had been disqualified, I should have been the first to ask your Lordships whether it would be possible for me to retain my club rights.
We decided the question of Amendment No.84 a short time ago. It seems a very long time ago, not least for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the Lord

1425
Advocate, and myself, who sat here during the passage of the Scotland Bill. As your Lordships well know, Section 16(1)(a) of the Scotland Act makes express provision that Members of this House are eligible to be Members of the Scottish Parliament. That was what we determined a short time ago. Can it be said—I ask rhetorically, hoping for no reply—that no one had thought of the West Lothian question at that time?I think not.
On that occasion, we decided that there was no need to bar any of your Lordships from membership of the Scottish Parliament, or vice versa. We do not bar any of your Lordships from membership of the European Parliament, or vice versa, provided the electoral qualifications are met.
I know that the noble Earl raised the issue partly to tweak, but it is not a very successful tweak. With due deference to him, Amendment No.85 is not sustainable, which is the kindest description I can give it, and Amendment No.84 we decided in the context of the Scotland Act by virtue of Section 16(1)(a). I am sorry about the noble Earl's spectacles, but perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, he now realises that both his amendments were misconstrued.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: If you have no spectacles, how can you have hindsight? I can only say to the Minister that
I think I must have done him a credit by saying that he must have been sitting next to me at dinner. I knew perfectly well that he was not. The fact that my glasses were in a smashed state after dinner made me think that
I must have been sitting next to him. The person he sat next to. my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not have his glasses smashed; he merely vaporised out of the scene and I cannot think what the Minister said to him to make him disappear so quickly. However, sitting next to or near the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a terrifying experience for all of us.
I tabled the amendments as probing amendments. The Minister will be glad to hear that I had no intention of pressing them; I wanted to know what the Government thought about the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was kind enough to say that they were entertaining amendments. I do not believe that they are entertaining at all; I believe that they are very serious amendments. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will be coming here as speaker of the Scottish Parliament and taking part in the affairs of your Lordships' House. Where is he going to sit? Is he going to sit on the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrat Benches? I cannot see how he can sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches and all of a sudden become a political animal, white up in Scotland he is a sanitised animal because he must be neutral. Perhaps he will sit on the Cross Benches. But all this is very curious stuff.
I believe a great deal of thought ought to be given to how people can go from one parliament to another and still, fortunately, come back to the first. It seems a very curious arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that Amendment No.85 was not worth taking much trouble over. He said that it was not appropriate to the Bill but was a matter
1426
for the Royal Commission. I can understand that. I repeat that what I wanted to do was to find out how the Government considered this problem, because it is a problem.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, glasses or not, he did not satisfy me that the Government have really addressed the matter. It is not a party matter. It is not a question of being a hereditary Peer, a life Peer or anything else. It is question of what happens when power is devolved to different parliaments, and yet not all power is devolved: some is retained. When those who find themselves climbing up the ladder of the devolved parliaments then also find themselves part of the current Parliament, it is quite a serious problem.
However, for the moment I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment, as I know the noble Lord will be glad to hear. I will, of course, excuse him from any responsibility for the fact that my glasses have completely decapitated themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.85 and 86 not moved.]
Lord Cobbold Lord Cobbold had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.87:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-—
MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS
(". Nothing in this Act prevents the holder of an hereditary peerage from being a member of the House of Lords other than solely by virtue of that hereditary peerage.")
The noble Lord said: Acceptance of the "Weatherill amendment " has dealt with most of the issues I wished to raise with this amendment, and therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No.87 not moved.]
[Amendment No.88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No.89:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS
—(1) The Prime Minister shall draw up and publish a of relevant interests.
(2) The Prime Minister shall ensure that persons representing those interests are recommended to Her Majesty for conferment of life peerages under the provision of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(3)In making recommendations under subsection (2), the Prime Minister shall consult representatives of those interests.")
The noble Earl said: I raise this amendment because I want stage one, or whatever stage we are at now, to work. I want the House of Lords to have authority; I want the House to have authority to argue with the executive; I want the House to have authority to argue with the Commons.
When Sir Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, managed to control the Tory majority in the House of Lords, he did it by the use of ruthless patronage of the Bench of Bishops, who were all paid-up Whig Members. He managed by that method, and that method alone, to overcome an inbuilt Tory hereditary majority.
The House of Lords has always been a House of power and influence, and the reason it can be reformed is that we, the hereditary peerage, do not represent the power and the influence that we did even 50 or 60 years ago. We are but small cogs in an enormous machine. Therefore, in some ways I wish the Government well in their efforts at reform. They could have got it more easily, they could have got it quicker, and they could have got it with a great deal more consent. I also think that there is a gradual emergence of quite a lot of consensus about what will happen in the future.
I have put down the amendments because they have precedents in British history. They have the precedents of self-election, in the Scots and the Irish peerage, for those of the hereditary peerage who will stay under the Weatherill amendment, and those who are appointed have precedents in the Bishops and the Law Lords.
Those precedents should now be widened. Whenever I put forward this view, people ask me, "Who do you think it ought to be?" Basically, being rather idle by nature, I thought it would be easier to suggest that somebody else should do this, but that there should be a published list of people who will become Members of the House, who will represent powers and interests. Therefore, the Prime Minister can say "These are the sort of people I will accept, or would recommend, for the House." This would make the process of arriving at the House more transparent.
The more transparency appears in an appointments system the less easy it is to accuse anybody of packing the place, or behaving like Walpole with the Bench of Bishops. Therefore, this is a plea that, when things change—and they are obviously going to change—transparency in the appointments to even stage one of this reform should be as great as possible.
Lord Monkswell: There are only a couple of amendments in this whole Committee stage on which I feel moved to speak. This is one of them. While I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I must support the sentiments about which he spoke in moving the amendment.
The text of the amendment is flawed in terms of how it may work in relation to the Bill. But the sentiments about which the noble Earl speaks are perfectly valid. The idea that Members of your Lordships' House should represent power in the land is significant. He mentioned that the hereditary peerage does not represent power. I believe that he was wrong in that, because there are Members of the hereditary peerage with seats in this House who do represent power. There are others of us who do not. There are also members of the life peerage who represent powerful interests in the land and there are members of the life peerage who do not.
One can look carefully at what is meant by power; for example, someone who is wealthy or who has a very significant position in terms of business has power. One can see that those are powerful people. But there are other forms of power. The power of knowledge and intellect is commanding in this day and age.
1428
This is really just a marker for the Royal Commission and I am sure that is why the noble Earl has tabled the amendment. In future, we must think of the House of Lords representing different interests from the other place. The other place represents the power of the people but there are other powers in the land, whether they be money, commercial interests or the media. Those should be reflected in Parliament. So I agree with the sentiments behind the noble Earl's amendment although I cannot agree with the text of the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: I am one of those who has, in the past, been very tempted by the seductive arguments which have seduced my noble friend Lord Onslow when he advocates an ex officio House. The arguments are very much as he put them forward.
After all, your Lordships' House really originated as an ex officio House. Anybody who has read the late Mr. Enoch Powell's history of the mediaeval House of Lords will see how clear it is that it became convenient for the monarch to have the great powers of the land under his eye and to separate the great powers of the land from the burgesses in the House of Commons.
That was convenient for all sorts of reasons. Partly, as your Lordships will know better than I, it was convenient because it did not suit the monarch to give an opportunity for the great powers in the land to make common cause with the burgesses of the House of Commons. Equally, it was convenient, if possible, to make sure that the great powers of the land were able to exercise some influence in a peaceable manner rather than to go out and do battle in the street or rebel against the Crown.
It seems to my that my noble friend has perhaps been seduced by his well-known love and study of history into thinking that the same principle could apply today. Superficially, of course, it might. But you only have to look at what actually happened to the mediaeval House of Lords. I put forward my own analysis with some diffidence because there are many far better historians in this Committee than I. I seem to remember, however, that the basis of power as perceived at the time was that power really resided among those who owned land. Indeed, that was at least part of the reason why so many princes of the Church were Members of your Lordships' House—abbots and bishops—because, as we know, the Church owned an enormous amount of land. It is true that in those days they had great moral authority—perhaps rather more moral authority than right reverend Prelates have today, dare I say it. None the less, the basis of their power was not only a moral authority but also, as Lady Bracknell described it, "really solid assets" as well.
It is therefore attractive to think that the monarch's reasoning was right. But the difficulty is that, if you are going to make a judgment about who deserves to be in such an ex officio House for the reasons that my noble friend set out, you also have to make a judgment about who exercises power in the land. Is it not significant that, just as this principle was beginning to be established at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, that was the very time when it was becoming more than apparent that the ownership of land

1429
was no longer the exclusive repository of power that people took it to be? The middle classes were beginning to appear even then—rich merchants and so forth—and therefore this rather cosy and happy arrangement which has so seduced my noble friend was out of date even before it became current. Like all institutions, as your Lordships' House became established, your Lordships preferred to lose power rather than change the House's membership in order to satisfy the original purpose of your Lordships' House.
The only point 1 wish to make—and I apologise to the Committee for what I know is an inadequate and rather unattractive analysis to an expert House from a very amateur historian — is that the same inconvenience of the ex officio House applies in spades today. Not only is it very difficult to see who is going to decide who will be a member of the ex officio House but, because of the rapid nature of developments in the modern age and because, as we see more and more frequently, the gap in time between cause and effect is becoming increasingly narrow—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Desai, can con firm that this is particularly evident in the economic field, perhaps largely because of the march of technological development and communication—it therefore becomes apparent that, if it was not possible to have an adequately representative ex officio House representing the great powers in the land in mediaeval times, it is even less possible today and we would always be—as the military so charmingly put it—a long way behind the curve.
We can see this Ferhaps with the ebb of trade union power. The trade unions undoubtedly would have been very powerful in an ex officio House in the 1970s but less powerful in the 1980s. They are actually rather more powerful today as, with the help of the European Union and, to a lesser extent, the Labour Government, they begin to claw their way back into everyday management considerations in British industry and commerce.
What I would say with the greatest regret to my noble friend is that, while I am seduced momentarily by the charm with which he has introduced his amendment, in practical terms, charming though this may be as a historical analysis, I do not think that even in mediaeval times it worked in practice and I do not think it would today.
Lord Henley: My noble friend Lord Onslow has long argued logically that this House, which arose as a place where the great interests of the country—the Church and the land—were represented, should continue in its revised form to be a House of interests. There is some force in that argument, although I also agree with the line put forward by my noble friend Lord Cranborne that it is somewhat misplaced. But there is some force in that argument, not least because it would mean that the inevitable representation in the House of forces outside the political parties, something which most observers of the House have always seen as one of its great strengths, would continue.
My noble friend has been very skilful in putting forward a probing amendment at this stage of the Bill, although I have no doubt that he will want to return to
1430
this matter to tease more information out of the Government at later stages. The Government have made much of their intention to create what they call a more "representative " House or what my noble friend described as a more "transparent " House. Indeed,"representative " was one of the words that survived on the cover of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. The word "democratic ", which featured so highly in earlier policy documents, including the manifesto, has, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, been removed from that front cover. Indeed, I regret to say that it disappeared very swiftly in the wake of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he was replaced as Leader of the House by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal.
The word "modern" is still there on the front cover of the evidence of the Labour Party to the Royal Commission. How could it not be on a document from this Government? But when I saw the gleam in the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, earlier as he said he said he was going to clutch onto his title of "Lord "—I am not whether he did: perhaps the noble Lord said that he was quite keen to give that up—I thought that it would be very interesting to know how long "modern " will be with us.
The word "Independent" is still with us on the front cover. However, after the earlier debate (in which the Government were unable to offer more comfort than they offered about the early creation of an independent appointments commission), one wonders how strong is the commitment to independence. There is room for legitimate scepticism and inquiry about the meaning of the word "representative". The Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission gives the following suggestions for what "representative" might mean. It suggests possible representation from newly devolved bodies and the English regions. But in our consideration of an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the Government were riot attracted to a fixed degree of representation from Scotland. Perhaps I may therefore ask the Government directly this question—and I do of course expect a reply to it. If the noble Lord rules out what he described as a quota of Scottish Peers, how can there be representation in this House from devolved bodies? That can only be done by sending a specific number of representatives from Scotland and other devolved bodies.
I turn to other interests that might be represented, according to the evidence from the Labour Party. We find reference to age, gender and ethnic composition. That is obedience to political correctness and is only to be expected. But as yet we have seen no firm proposals except the proposition to expel the likes of myself arid other hereditary Peers, from whom most of our younger Members are drawn.
Finally, coming closest to the kind of interests that my noble friend Lord Onslow perhaps has in mind, we find reference in paragraph 5.5 of the Labour Party's evidence to a list of interests that might be represented. They are business, labour, education, science and the arts. Those are some fairly broad classes. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that means. By "business " does he mean the CBI or some other

1431
representative of the entire business community? By "labour" does he mean the TUC or other bodies? By "education" does he mean a committee of vice-chancellors and principals or is there a whole range of other representatives within the educational field, whether the National Union of Teachers or any other union? If so, it would seem to be far from modern in its representation of interests.
It would be helpful if, when the Minister replies, the Government follow the thinking of my noble friend and give the Committee more information about the kind of interests they would consider important in the House and how they feel they might be included.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am extremely happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the arguments he put forward in his generally eloquent way. He did not specifically address Amendment No.90 but I assume he is concerned that we should reply to Amendments Nos.89 and 90. I do not intend to respond to the points made just now by the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. They are yet again comments on the second stage of reform; comments on a document designed to facilitate the second stage of reform; and comments about the long-term future of this House. Tonight we are considering the Bill before us and the amendment of the noble Earl to which I shall now try to respond.
We applaud the general points made by the noble Earl about the representative nature of this House. It is precisely that reason—I believe the noble Earl agrees with us on this point—which leads us to one of the basic positions that we take about the abolition of the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote.
We are not convinced that the approach proposed in either of the amendments is the correct one. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, spoke of being seduced by the arguments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl that the only other time I have been relatively seduced by the arguments put forward in both amendments in the context of what I think is colloquially known as "functional constituencies " has been at the fringe meetings of various conferences I have attended which have been sponsored by the Charter 88 group. That is not a group I would necessarily have associated with support from the noble Earl.
However, moving away from the provenance of these ideas on functional constituencies, perhaps I may examine briefly the details of Amendment No.89. The first issue is that of drawing up a sufficiently definitive list of the interests which should be represented. If the noble Earl has followed the discussion about functional constituencies with the attention I am sure he has, I expect he is aware that such lists tend to fall into economic categories. That obviously leaves out certain clear-cut bodies of opinion and bodies of interest who would not fall into specific economic pigeon holes.
I am interested in the proposal in Amendment No.89 given the length of our discussions on objective and transparent methods of appointment. The proposal leaves the choice entirely to the Prime Minister with no
1432
indication of what might happen if the list proposed by one individual aroused opposition. The proposal also compounds the difficulty of deciding on the interests by adding the requirement to identify formal representatives of the groups in question. Who is to say who those might be? Who would therefore say that the provisions of subsection (3) of Amendment No.89 had been fulfilled? Would a claim, for example, by a group that it was representative of a particular interest be justifiable in court? We have spoken often in the course of debates on the Bill about the potential for judicial review of individual proposals, but this is one instance where it might be more obvious than others.
However, there are other more general dangers in an attempt to make the House a collection of representatives of specific interests. It is self-evident that there is a difference between a representative body and a body of representatives. Everyone in your Lordships' House is expected to consider and debate on the basis of his or her own opinion and expertise. However, I am sure I can say without any fear of it being in dispute that noble Lords are not delegates. Even the right reverend Prelates do not regard themselves as delegates. I believe that such a scheme, if included in the Bill, could well risk setting up a system of delegates where the interests of the body or the industry, for example, being representative of the constituency of interests, might take precedence over the general personal interests of individual Peers.
I have to point out to the noble Earl that we might get into the situation where Peers could be mandated to speak or to vote in a way which was a representation of the group that they were supposed to be representing. To me, that would smack, surprisingly, of extreme Left-wing organisations and concerns that I would not normally associate with the noble Earl.
I turn briefly to Amendment No.90, which takes the concept of representation even further by developing it through ex officio membership. Here again, we have the particular problems of looking at organisations which may or may not have the capacity to release individuals for ex officio representation here. I believe that many of the offices which might appear superficially attractive for inclusion in this amendment are actually only held for relatively short periods of time; indeed, they may even rotate annually. So the amendment could lead to the rather odd anomaly that there would be large numbers of life Peers who were former Members of this House floating about because their term of office had come to an end. I give way to the noble Lord.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Baroness exempt from her strictures the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain who, I understand, have been proposed as ex officio Members of this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: They are ex officio Members, but precisely not life Peers nor representatives of any particular body. I thought that the noble Lord might be raising the question of the ex officio membership of the Bishops' Bench which, in itself, is another area where we might have this discussion.

1433
However, having dealt with that somewhat extensively on an earlier amendment, Amendment No.72—indeed, it seems very much earlier now—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I thought that I would not return to the issue. I am sure that the noble Lord will be grateful for that fact.
However, perhaps we can consider further the question of ex officio membership of people who had a leading role in their organisation and who might be released to take up a temporary position as a life Peer in this House. I think that one could look at it from the perspective of the institution itself as well from that of the individual. We could have a situation where we had such a statutory requirement to provide a Member for this House from a senior executive body, such as the chairman, or whoever it may be. But would an institution then, rightly, be annoyed that someone elected or chosen to work for the interests of the organisation per se was being distracted by his duties in your Lordships' House? For example, could bodies which control "relevant" offices actually decline to have them included in this list? Indeed, where would we get to at that point?
We would need to think through all these questions very carefully before we embarked upon such a proposal and before we took on the concept of functional constituencies, whether derived from ideas put forward by the noble Earl or, indeed, from groups like Charter 88. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rises to say that this is not a relevant consideration for this Bill, I would have to say that I broadly agree with him. This Bill does not seek to make any changes to the terms and conditions of service of life Peers. For that reason alone,
I do not feel particularly seduced by the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend rises to reply, perhaps I could ask him to deal with one problem which I see in these two amendments; namely, that the best do not always float to the top of whatever their interest or association happens to be. My own experience in this matter concerns, acutely, Lloyd's of London, but I can also think of the Stock Exchange and, generally, most of the trade bodies and associations that come to mind. Indeed, one might even mention the universities. Of course, I would have to exclude the Armed Forces from this question.
Very often, it seems that those who represent the interests which my noble friend promotes are not necessarily in touch with the up-to-date feelings of those whom they represent. I say that because the best often tend to stay doing their job—for example, making money, teaching, being a good doctor, or whatever. So one really would not want your Lordships' House to be flooded or even strongly influenced by those who knew how to climb the particular club tree, and so on, but who were not really representative of the best of the trade or interest that they purported to represent.
The Earl of Onslow: I am not capable of changing human nature or the way that human affairs work and how people climb "trees ". I hope I shall not be seduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as I might get a certain amount of stick for that!
1434
The point I think I was trying to make is that I want a peculiarly broad appointment of new Peers into the new Chamber. I accept the arguments produced by my noble friend Lord Cranborne up to a point because I would say that the peerage power started to go about 400 years after he suggested, but that is a historical argument in which we amateur historians can get involved later. However, we did certainly—and have historically—represent power. It seems to me that all the powers in the land are not necessarily economic. That seems to me a totally Marxist argument. There are intellectual powers and there are spiritual powers. As has been said, one has only to see how powers wane. Twenty or 30 years ago, Harold Macmillan could say that the two things you do not take on are the Brigade of Guards and the mineworkers' union. The Brigade of Guards still exists but the mineworkers' union does not. Fifty or 60 years ago, shipbuilding, heavy engineering and coal were the great powers and influences in the land. Therefore, I take the point strongly made by my noble friend Lord Cranborne; namely, that powers change now much more rapidly than they ever have.
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I think there was a third person that one should not take on—and that was the Pope and he too is still with us.
The Earl of Onslow: What is it that Macaulay says about the Pope in an essay about New Zealanders under a bridge? I cannot remember the quote which is absolutely majestic, but I accept my noble friend's addition to the list.
I shall, of course, withdraw this amendment. One of the reasons I shall withdraw it is because I simply could not define the list either of interests or of ex officio Members that it should contain. All I hope to do is to ensure that the Government make their appointments procedure as transparent as possible and explain why they have recommended to the sovereign someone for inclusion in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook moved Amendment No.92
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE WELSH ASSEMBLY
(". —(1) A member of the Welsh 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 he a member of the Welsh Assembly.
(3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Amendments Nos.92 and 93 were originally coupled with amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but knowing that I did not have the same humour and rhetoric, I detached them. I am glad to say that my spectacles are still intact!
In moving Amendment No.92, I should like also to speak to Amendment No.93 in my name. My amendments are not deliberate acts of bias against the

1435
Welsh, or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. They essentially follow Amendments Nos.84 and 85 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which, as already stated, seek to disqualify Members of the Scottish Parliament from sitting and voting in the House of Lords, as well as persons entitled to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections. The principle of my amendments is the same except that they apply to Wales.
Amendment No.92, as has already been stated, seeks to correct the anomaly by which a Peer may sit and vote in two separate parliamentary bodies within the same nation. That seems to me too great an extension of the democratic principle. I should be interested to know whether there are any other nations where it is possible to sit in two parliaments or assemblies at the same time. Of course, my Amendment No.92 does not preclude those hereditary Peers who are excluded (because they do not qualify as one of the 92 Peers in the Weatherill amendment) from sitting and voting in the Welsh Assembly.
It is not my scope here to contrast the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Welsh Assembly with those of the House of Lords; nor do I plan to go through the areas mentioned in the Act which are subject to the executive powers of the Assembly. However, I should like to make a new point. There could emerge a conflict of interest when a Peer sits and votes in both Wales and London. He might find himself promoting legislation or seeking financial aid for Wales which would impact unfavourably on, or with unfavourable financial consequences for, the rest of the United Kingdom.
As The Financial Times said in an editorial only yesterday, there is a need,
"for preserving a constitutional balance between the newly devolved government of Scotland and Wales and the House of Lords ".
It is immediately apparent that that balance may he disturbed when there is a potential conflict of interest. In order, I hope, to give a clear example of how such a conflict might arise, I set out the following scenario. A major government contract is to be awarded and tenders are received from companies both in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The tender, say, from a Welsh company proves to be more expensive than those from other parts of the country but the contract will give employment to workers in an unemployment black area. A Peer involved in the matter at the Welsh Assembly department who also happens to be in the same department in the House of Lords could therefore find himself with a conflict of interests. Should he, wearing his Welsh Assembly hat, recommend the Welsh tender, or should he back one of the other bids which gives better value for money for the taxpayer? It could be a very difficult decision. Amendment No.92 seeks to avoid that type of situation by not allowing Peers to sit in the Welsh Assembly and the House of Lords at the same time.
Amendment No.93 seeks to disqualify those Peers who are entitled to vote in Welsh Assembly elections from sitting and voting in the House of Lords. As
1436
English Peers are unable to vote for their own assembly, it seems unfair that Welsh and Scottish Peers should have the advantage of double voting rights. I am sure that by the time the Government have finished their constitutional reforms there will be an English assembly. If the Minister were to give me that assurance I would reconsider my position on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: As a Welshman and a Member of your Lordships' House I have some interest in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. He said that he could not think of an example of another country where such a situation arises. I give him Germany. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a member of a German Lander and sit in the second house of the German Parliament, the Bundesrat. As we know, the Bundesrat is designed to reconcile the clashes of interest that might occur between the Lander and the central government. Not only are members entitled to sit in both houses; it is highly appropriate that they should.
We do not yet have a federal system of government in this country—I do not know if we ever will—and I am a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. As a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament it seems to me that my function is to appear here and to debate such matters as come before the House whether they originate in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. As such, if I were to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly, I would not see any conflict whatever between my duties as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and my duties as a Member of the Welsh Assembly.
I should perhaps point out that, unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly has no responsibility for primary legislation. Its sole responsibility is secondary legislation. As such there is not even the argument that Members of the Welsh Assembly who came to this House would somehow or other be speaking on matters here on which they would be debarred from speaking in Cardiff.
The jurisdiction of this House in relation to Wales is precisely the same as it is in relation to England. I have not yet heard it argued that an English Peer who might become a member of the London assembly, if it is set up next year, should be disqualified. The Committee should be happy to reject this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: When it is a question of hereditary Peers going, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is all in favour of them going. When it is a question of his own position being affected, he says that of course he ought to be able to take his seat, it is absolutely right. There is a conflict of interest insofar as members of the Welsh Assembly can discuss matters relating to Wales with which English people cannot be involved. Members of your Lordships' House can discuss English matters and those involved with Wales can also discuss them, but it cannot work the other way round.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to follow the noble Earl again, but he attacked me in the mild manner he has when he feels particularly aggressive. He said that I was

1437
only concerned with protecting my own interests. I regret to tell the Committee that I am not a Member of the Welsh Assembly. I confess also that I do not have a house in Wales and do not have a vote for the Welsh Assembly, so it does not affect me at all.
Midnight
The Earl of Kin tore: We need not argue about where the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly is to sit because the noble Lord, Lord Ells-Thomas, very sensibly, has already taken the precaurion of sitting on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke to identical amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Although I did not hear the speech, I am sure I would have agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, had I done so.
I shall be daring enough to agree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The situation of Welsh representatives is different from that of Scottish representatives because of the nature of devolution to Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no power to deal with primary legislation.
There is a further distinction to make between those Members who have constituencies and those who are elected on the list. It was notable in the European Parliament that those who were both Members of the House of Commons and members of the European Parliament quickly discovered that it was an unworkable combination. That would also prove true in the long run, if not the short ruin, of representatives in the Welsh Assembly who have constituency responsibilities. However, it may not be true of representatives who are on the list. That must remain an open question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already demolished the point of the amendments. We decided the question recently in Section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales Act. The same flaw in the second amendment appears as in the second amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
The disentitlement arises on this amendment simply from being registered to vote. I cannot think that that can possibly be a sensible approach to legislation.
Lord Northbrook: I am grateful for the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his comments on the German situation and the ability to sit in two assemblies. I also noted with interest the comments of my noble friend Lord Kingsland on the European Parliament and the problems of sitting in both assemblies at the same
1438
time. I might wish to return to my amendment in a different form at Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.92.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may make an intervention.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord asked to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I wished to say something before he withdrew it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: He has requested to withdraw it. If the noble Earl wishes to object, he may do so. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Earl Ferrers: No. I merely wished to ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whether he would be good enough to expand on his reply. He gave a very short, technical answer which did not respond to the point that my noble friend made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was not a technical response; it was a response that focused on the drafting. The disqualification is simply the presence on the register. Whether one votes or not, one is disqualified. The same defect appeared, and I pointed it out, in the noble Earl's second amendment. There is nothing technical about that. It is just a hopelessly, fatally flawed amendment. I did not want to put it quite so plainly when I replied earlier, but I am happy to do so now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.93 to 93E not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.94 to 99 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: had given intention of his notice to moved Amendment No.100
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: I shall not move this amendment now. I shall return to the matter on Report.
[Amendment No.100 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos.101 and 102 not moved]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.103:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER: MINIMUM AGE
(". No-one who holds a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House unless he has attained the age of 50 years.")
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment with even more hesitancy. Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No.104. I wish to retain some friends in this House, although I realise that the lateness of the hour will prevent my retaining many. I fancy that if the two amendments were accepted, I should have even fewer.
Amendment No.103 proposes that,
"No-one who holds a life peerage… shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons … unless he has attained the age of 50 years ".
Amendment No.104 suggests that he ought to give up his position at the age of 70.
If this is to be an appointed Chamber, who will be appointed? Will the appointees all be meritocrats? If you are a meritocrat, presumably you are a person who has done a certain amount in your life and you therefore deserve the peerage you have been given, or you will have earned your passage to being a Member of the appointed Chamber. In that case you are bound to be a person of more mature years. That would effectively exclude anyone who is young.
On the other hand, as stated earlier, if this is an appointed Chamber, people should not be able to stay on until they are 80 or 90, or, like my noble friend Lord Renton, 91, or, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, 93. In fact, those Members contribute a great deal to this House and it would be a pity to remove them, to use the term employed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I therefore propose the amendment to find out what is the Government's intention. Are they saying that they will appoint anyone, even someone who is 25 or 26? Or will they even appoint someone who is 85? Is there to be any form of cut-off point or any age under which people are not appointed? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: The amendment moved by the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, reminds me of the story of the American senator who lost an election having been in office for some years because his opponent had accused him of being a practising sexagenarian. This amendment will limit membership of your Lordships' House to those life Peers who are quinquagenarians and sexagenarians. I find it remarkably difficult to take this idea seriously. Wisdom does not begin only at the age of 50 or cease at 70. I hope that we do not end up with anything as remotely rigid as this. Although at stage two there may be a case for considering a retirement age, that debate is for the future and is not part of this Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the combined effect of these two amendments is to limit the age at which life Peers can serve in this House to those between 50 and 70 years of age. Even in the annals of the noble Earl's tweaks, this one comes close to taking the biscuit. On 8th June I shall be happy to be the first to say to him,"Happy 70th birthday ". Were the noble Earl to be a life Peer or, as we all hope—I am electioneering on his behalf—one of the elected hereditaries who remain, it would be absurd that he should not stay and give us the pleasure of his company and the benefit of his wisdom and humour.
1440
If the real point is to flush out what we shall do at stage two, I revert to the recidivist in me; namely, stage two is not what we are discussing, but we shall be looking for a representative House in terms of age and ethnic and social background. Excluding the hereditary principle, we want all sections of society, including women, to be properly represented. The noble Earl has flushed me out, but it is wrong that he should go simply because of the accident of his birth being almost 70 years ago. I should not be willing to put my hand to such a device.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply touched and flattered by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as I am by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The latter said that he found it very difficult to take the amendment seriously. He is quite right. If we take both amendments seriously, it will be a farce, because then no one will be able to be a Member who is under 50 and over 70. The point of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, so graciously put it, was to flush out the Government's intention.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that wisdom did not begin at 50 or end at 70. However, I started here when I was 25. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on having done his homework very well. He has discovered that I shall be 70 on 8th June. Therefore, I would be a victim of my own amendment, which would be bad luck. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would join the Conservative Party. If he was made a hereditary Peer, he would be able to vote for me, which would be a great encouragement. However, that is not possible. I must bask in the fact that he would like me still to remain as a Member of your Lordships' House.
The point of the amendment was to find out what the Government intend. As I understand it, in the good old modernising tradition of the Government, everything is to go on just as before and the temporary House will contain Members young and old; it does not matter which. However, when they come to consider the second Chamber it is a different matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his few words of enlightenment and for the encouragement that he has given me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.104 and 105 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Erroll The Earl of Erroll moved Amendment No.106:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
DECLARATORY (NO.2)
(". Nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Lords, and in particular the power 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: At the request of my noble friend Lord Perth, who is in Scotland, I beg to move Amendment No.106. I have a significant question about the quinquennial legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may point out that the amendment has already been debated.
Lord Henley: However, it is still open to the noble Lord to speak to the amendment. As the noble Lord will remember, the groupings are informal.
The Earl of Erroll: I have one question on the quinquennial legislation and the powers to overthrow legislation. If the 1949 Act established the fact that one can modify the constitutional protections enshrined in the 1911 Act, presumably another Act can be passed to remove the other powers reserved to this Chamber in the 1911 Act.
The Government have been using Pepper v. Hart arguments to gloss over any drafting defects that may or may not lie elsewhere in the Bill. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, can I use the Pepper v. Hart argument, given the Minister's definitive statements about the Government's intentions not to allow the quinquennial provisions to be overthrown, to overturn any future Acts of Parliament that might be introduced
1442
by a future government, possibly from a different political background? Does the Pepper v. Hart argument apply?
Lord Carter: I believe that the noble Earl is referring to a remark that I made when dealing with this group earlier. The remark that I made about Pepper v. Hart was in the context of this Bill, not in the context of the Septennial Act. The Pepper v. Hart point refers only to a Bill that is in front of the House and not to previous legislation.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may seek clarification as regards the next stage. Is there any way in which we can reassert that the quinquennial provisions still apply unless they are reaffirmed in this Bill?
Lord Carter: That is a technical point with which we should deal by correspondence.
The Earl of Erroll: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.107 to 110A not moved.]
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.