House of Lords Bill

HL Deb 17 May 1999 vol 601 cc98-140

House again in Committee.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Commencement and transitional provision]:

[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]

Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 111A:

Page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) This Act shall come into force at the end of the session of Parliament in which it is passed providing that it is in full compliance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 expressed by the written consents of all the Commonwealth States provided as direct evidence of the Resolutions of All the said Parliaments and Assemblies to that effect, all of which have been communicated to the Speaker of the House of Commons.")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are in full compliance with the Statute of Westminster 1931 expressed by the written consents of all the Commonwealth states to this Bill. I refer the Committee to the words of the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. It states that: inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all members of the Commonwealth … that any alteration in the law touching … the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".

The response of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to my Amendment No. 14A demonstrated his basic misunderstanding of the issues concerning the application of the Statute of Westminster to the Bill. I assure him that I have not at any time grounded any claim by hereditary Peers to property rights in this House on the Statute of Westminster, although it was clearly stated that I had done so in the Minister's remarks recorded in cols. 251 and 252 of Hansard on 27th April.

My point was that the statute's preamble clearly mandates that the approval of all the Commonwealth states is required to any enactment of the Westminster Parliament which touches upon the Sovereign's titles. Inherent to the Sovereign's titles is the right to create hereditary Peers who are Members of this House. A peerage and membership of this House are in the same creation. The Bill would change that hereditary right because under it the Sovereign would no longer be able to create hereditary peerages with membership of this House. The fact that the Sovereign may not again create a hereditary peerage is not the issue. A simple analogy might be that I have the right to stand at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park and shout this message to all the world. The fact that I have not done so does not mean that I have no longer have the right. Such rights do not fall into abeyance because of non-use. A right is a right, whether it is a citizen's or the Sovereign's.

Where does that argument take us? It takes us into the realms of the Sovereign's hereditary rights and those rights being changed by this Bill. The logic of this Bill is unavoidable. Changing rights involves touching on them and vice versa. What intrigues so much is the Government's repeated dissembling about the realities of the sovereignty of Parliament. Do the Government mean that they will change the Sovereign's hereditary rights no matter what because the Government control the other place?

It would be foolish in both law and politics for any government to assume that the sovereignty of Parliament is unrestrained. That is an unrefined and outdated theoretical and even historical view. The sovereignty of the British Parliament is restricted by public opinion, by European conventions and by international laws. Parliament can ratify those, but can it thereafter without restraint violate them? As stated by this side of the House, to regard parliamentary sovereignty as absolute and unrestrainable is an outmoded doctrine. Reference to it demonstrates how like an ancien régime this Government regard themselves and their power.

From another viewpoint, the appointment of the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary and a Cabinet member, as well as a Peer and Member of this House, is an exercise of the Sovereign's hereditary rights in just one creation. Those appointments are all made by the Sovereign's hereditary powers and not by election, as is similarly the case for the right reverend Prelates as Members of this House. Those appointment are founded on the Sovereign's hereditary powers.

It is unhelpful, to say the least, to draw repeatedly on the sovereignty of Parliament as an empowerment of the Government to do anything they wish concerning the hereditary Peers. The natural extension of that would be that Parliament can abolish itself. That is pure theory in modern times, yet that theory is put forward by a Government who so often deride the meaning and values of our history.

My remarks and the issues I have mentioned in opposition to the Bill are not filibustering. They refer to matters of particular relevance to the Government's use of the weapon of parliamentary sovereignty. I say this because, by the Statute of Westminster, this Parliament's powers are preconditioned and restrained from changing the Sovereign's hereditary rights. For the Government to do so, this Parliament must obtain the consents of all the Commonwealth states, at least those of which our Sovereign is head of state. A 1931 Act may be irrelevant to this Government, but they make it very plain that the earlier 1911 Parliament Act is not. It is because of that inconsistency that my amendment is necessary.

Lord Goodhart

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he consulted any of the Commonwealth Governments or their High Commissions about this issue? If so, what were their responses?

Lord Norrie

Yes, I certainly have. I have written to the Governor General of New Zealand because my title is "of Wellington, New Zealand", so that was an obvious interest. I have also written to Canada and I have had some responses. However, I believe that I should leave that issue because other Members of the Committee would like to follow the same pattern as myself.

My amendment seeks to ensure that the prerequisite Commonwealth approvals are made inherent to this Bill also. If my amendment is seen as a lesson to the Government about their manners in their constitutional behaviour, they have only the Leader of the House to blame. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke on 29th April, she said in col. 538 that the Sovereign's right to create hereditary Peers, "remains precisely the same". That statement, both constitutionally and in logic, is incorrect. I regard the noble Baroness's statement as dissembling, and believe that she knew it, and that she intended it. While it is true—

Lord Williams of Mostyn

It is well known that in this House we have rules about asperity of language.

Those words recently used by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, are an abuse of our freedom and should be withdrawn at once.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Norrie

I heard such things said from the Front Bench about my last amendment—

Lord Williams of Mostyn

No one has said about the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that he was dissembling—that is, lying—nor that he lied deliberately. I repeat, and I look to the Opposition Front Bench for support—that it is quite wrong to use language of that kind.

Lord Norrie

If that is the case and that is the definition of the word that he has looked up in the dictionary, I do not view it quite like that—

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I need no dictionary to know the meaning of English words. To say that someone is "dissembling" means that they are telling untruths. To say that they are "dissembling deliberately" means that they are deliberately lying.

Lord Norrie

I am certainly not saying that the noble Baroness is deliberately lying. I would not say that at all. However, I was saying that it was not quite the case, as I shall now explain. While it is true that the right of the Sovereign to create hereditary Peers remains, the rights of the Sovereign would no longer be intact or unchanged and therefore could not be precisely the same as the noble Baroness said.

9 p.m.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

At that time, I was referring to the implications for that particular change on the style and title of the Sovereign, which I thought was the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment and, indeed, the purpose of his amendment this evening. If I am incorrect, perhaps the noble Lord will explain more clearly why that is so.

Lord Norrie

I do not wish to become involved in an argument this evening. I shall just refer to what has been said and perhaps the noble Baroness will read Hansard. She may then understand what I mean.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I am sorry to intervene again, but if the noble Lord does not wish to become involved in an argument or discussion about his amendment, perhaps he will withdraw it now and no one need respond to it.

Lord Norrie

This is very unfortunate. I shall just continue to move the amendment in the best possible way that I can. Does the noble Baroness see no change in what I have just described? Does she not see that the hereditary right would no longer be precisely the same as before? Perhaps she would wish to answer that question.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I have already done so. I said that the implication of my previous remarks was in relation to the effect on the style and title of the Sovereign which I thought was the purpose of the noble Lord's previous remarks and, I thought, the purpose of his amendment this evening.

Lord Norrie

Have we now become so careless or dissembling in our public lives and utterances that simple logic and reason no longer apply to our national affairs?

What would happen if Parliament tomorrow said that the Sovereign's hereditary right to open Parliament was no longer to be exercised by the heir when king? Would that not be a change to the Sovereign's hereditary right? However, through this Bill, the Government intend to deny to the heir, as Duke of Cornwall, access to this House. Does that leave the Sovereign's rights precisely as they were before? Those examples are not so abstruse that we are incapable of understanding them. I am not impressed by Members of the Committee on the Front Bench opposite presenting arcane points. Let us stay with the honest and simple logic of this issue.

It is evident that the Government are not willing to regard the removal of hereditary Peers as changing the right of the Sovereign or the Government to create Peers with membership of this House. I ask why that is so. The Government persist in denying that consequence because such an admission must invoke the Statute of Westminster and thus the need to obtain approval from the Commonwealth parliaments. That statutory requirement presents a threat to the Bill because of the consequent delay in the Government's timetable for the removal of hereditary Peers.

Perhaps the Minister will now explain to the Committee her statement that this Bill leaves the Sovereign's hereditary rights to create hereditary Peers with membership of this House unaltered and thus untouched; and that the Sovereign's rights are precisely the same as they were before. I beg to move.

Lord Northbrook

In deference to the quality of learned legal opinion opposite, I wish to speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie on the Statute of Westminster in rather more legal detail.

I should say in passing that this is not the first Statute of Westminster. That statute was passed in 1275 and, among other things, laid down that girls should not be married until they were seven years old. I believe that this is the Statute of Westminster (No. 2), although there were a couple in between.

As my noble friend Lord Norrie stated, the Statute of Westminster makes some very clear comments in its preamble on Clause 4 on the connection with laws passed by the UK Parliament which affect UK hereditary Peers living or resident in the dominions, as they then were, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

The preamble to the Statute of Westminster states: It is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion". By way of background, quoting from Halsburv's Statutes of England and Wales, two passages in the marvellously named Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference 1926 are of interest. The first passage says that they, that is Great Britain and the dominions, are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or internal affairs. They are united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". The second passage states: On the question raised with regard to the legislative competence of members of the British Commonwealth of Nations other than Great Britain, and in particular to the desirability of those members being enabled to legislate with extra-territorial effect, we think it should be similarly placed on record that the constitutional practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster applying to a dominion would only be passed with the consent of the dominions concerned". I turn now to Clause 4 of the Statute of Westminster. That clause says—and I paraphrase—that no Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed from 1931 onwards shall extend or be deemed to extend (and note the latter phrase) to a dominion unless it is expressly stated in that Act that the dominion has requested and consented to the enactment of it.

I am not sure whether the Government have made such an allowance in the Bill; whether the dominions have requested the Bill or whether they will consent to it. The Bill clearly affects the legal rights of residents of the dominions mentioned previously. It is particularly pertinent to Canada where, I understand, there may be 18 hereditary Peers either living or resident. From my researches I have found that there are also several hereditary Peers who live in other dominions and in other Commonwealth countries.

I shall go a little further on hereditary Peers. As I have just demonstrated, citizens of the dominions may be hereditary Peers. There is no distinction between a Peer who is a British citizen and one who is not. Peers with a connection with the dominions, who in any event are Peers of the United Kingdom, can participate fully in the United Kingdom Parliament as well as in the making of domestic legislation.

In the reference books I see that a lot of the hereditary Peers are quite elderly. Were they to die out, I do not see why in law the dominions concerned should be prevented from recommending that local citizens should be appointed hereditary Peers to take their place. Following the principle, but extending the argument to the Commonwealth, Lord Sinha was appointed a hereditary Peer in India in 1919 by the King Emperor's royal prerogative.

It seems to me—I am supported by counsel's opinion on this—that apart from hereditary cleansing, this Bill seeks to infringe the constitutional rights of citizens of the dominions and, by extension, the Commonwealth. I shall speak about the Commonwealth on a later amendment.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I am sorry to intervene, but perhaps the noble Lord was not present at an earlier sitting of the Committee when, collectively, we agreed that the phrase "hereditary cleansing" was unsuitable and one which drew great concern from Members on these Benches.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

On this subject, I am fairly neutral. However, I could not help but notice that the noble Baroness did not rise to her feet when her noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn used the word "cleansing" earlier.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I agree that the noble Baroness used that word, but I was careful to note that she did not refer to it in this context and she certainly did not use the phrase "hereditary cleansing". I am sure that the whole Committee realises that that phrase has a resonance well beyond the particular expression used.

Lord Northbrook

With great respect to the noble Baroness, I was present when she registered her previous objection to the phrase "hereditary cleansing". However, I was not sure that the whole House took the view that that was an objectionable phrase.

It seems to me that this Bill seeks to infringe the constitutional rights of citizens of the dominions and, by extension, the Commonwealth, to which I shall refer in relation to a later amendment. In doing so, it is legislating for Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other Commonwealth countries in breach of the principle of the inter-imperial equality agreed at the imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930 and solemnly enacted into several independence Acts; for instance, Section 2 of the Canada Act of 1982.

Even more interesting, and on a new theme, the Bill affects the Monarchy. As I understand it, on another issue, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thornton, failed to answer a question put to him by my noble friend Lady Miller about future powers. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster—my noble friend Lord Norrie has discussed this—states: Any alteration in a law touching the succession to the Throne or the Royal style and titles shall hereafter require the consent of the Parliaments of all the dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". I am not a lawyer but, as I understand it, the word "touching" has a wide meaning. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, with which I am not totally familiar, compares the word "touching" with "affecting". I argue, and counsel supports me in my view, that the royal style is seriously affected. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York and the Duke of Kent are prevented from sitting and voting in Parliament, although I understand that the Duke of Lancaster and the Duke of Cornwall can still sit in the House.

I shall say more on that when we come to later amendments. Therefore, I believe that under the Statute of Westminster the consent of all countries of which the Queen is Head of State should have been obtained before any legislation was enacted affecting the legal rights of their citizens—in this case including hereditary Peers—or the Monarchy due to the proposed alteration in the Royal style and titles.

Lord Chesham

The Statute of Westminster 1931 is established law. Although it may require interpretation in the current Commonwealth situation, I find it unbelievable that this Government have not had the courtesy to consult Commonwealth Governments on the rights of Commonwealth citizens. May I remind the Committee that a Commonwealth citizen is entitled to sit and vote in this House without necessarily being a British citizen.

In my correspondence—this is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if he would listen—with Commonwealth High Commissioners, it is absolutely clear that there has been no consultation whatsoever with the Commonwealth and that there is considerable disquiet as to the discourtesy of the Government.

The least this Government should do is to start a process of consultation immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, agreed in a debate on the succession of the Monarchy that the Government could not act unilaterally in respect of any Commonwealth country which has Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State. He has not explained why that should not be pertinent to this Bill.

Lord Selsdon

I did not mean to intervene in this debate—I did not know that I was going to be here—but I wonder why this amendment is necessary.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Selsdon

However, there is something in my sense of humour and my background that says that it is a good idea in any piece of legislation to look a little to the past and to bring an international aspect to bear on this. I did not know what the Statute of Westminster was until it was explained to me, but I do know what Westminster Abbey is about. If your Lordships walk round Westminster Abbey, you will see British, colonial, imperial and Commonwealth history. We have an international role in the world; I do not think that we have a future without some form of international role. I am one of those people who believe strongly and firmly in the Commonwealth.

I should disclose an interest in that in my banking days we were often appointed as economic advisers to Commonwealth countries. Over the past few years, I have taken the liberty of inviting all sorts of countries to join the Commonwealth, where appropriate, including our Portuguese allies. I have also discussed with them our political situation over here. Why do they have an Attorney General? Why do they have a Speaker? How much do they value their relationship with us? Is it of any value at all? I do not know. I raised this point at Second Reading: 25 per cent of the population of the world live in Commonwealth countries. It represents a fairly significant economic bloc. It is important that we should have good and close relationships with it.

We know full well that in post-imperial years all sorts of local tribal difficulties occurred, often resulting in strife, arrest and imprisonment, and the involvement of British troops. Then in due course democratic or semi-democratic elections took place. There are some who would say, like the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that some countries in Africa still have tribal systems, and do we want to be like that?

The countries of the Commonwealth are very different countries. Her Majesty, I know, values that relationship, and I value that relationship very deeply. Questions were raised earlier about asking Her Majesty's Government whether they had consulted officially with the Commonwealth. I do not know, but surely they must have spoken to people, because it has been in the press and the information is known.

Does the Statute of Westminster have any validity at all? Is there any reason why we should consult the Commonwealth other than out of courtesy? If it is a question of courtesy, I suppose we could be courteous even after the event. I suppose we would say that British imperialism was at its height 100 years ago. The Commonwealth has been around for 50 years. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the two noblesse obliges who have been assisting in this affair, and the Government Chief Whip or chief coachman, have a total of 30 years' service which is six fewer than myself.

Some aspects of the past still have a relevance today. I do not like the intemperate language and the arguments that have taken place with my noble friends. Although I may be on the same side of the House, I do not necessarily agree with them. But surely the Commonwealth issue is something which should be discussed and considered with good will. Are there any good reasons why we should consult the Commonwealth countries? If not, so be it. I am not a Commonwealth citizen.

Lord Northbrook

Like my noble friend Lord Selsdon, I would say that the Statute of Westminster creates a statutory obligation to consult. Such consultation is not just something that has to be done informally: it is still valid under the statute.

Lord Selsdon

My noble friend said that he was not a lawyer, and I am not sure what the difference is between a statutory obligation and a legal obligation. I prefer the moral obligation.

I come from an island. We in the McEacharn family are Australians and New Zealanders. We shipped more people to Australia than anybody else. My great-great-grandfather was the first Lord Mayor of Melbourne. We have an interesting thought in all of this. Our relationships are where we have been brought up; in the countries we know. I have worked in many and have an affection for them. As Members of the Committee may be aware, in a debate that was not well attended, like all international debates, I declared an interest in that I was actually conceived on the beach at Ocho Rios in Jamaica. The Jamaicans declared that I was therefore an honorary citizen. That may carry no weight.

My point is a simple one. This country is not an island in international terms. We have historic relationships; we value those relationships. It has been pointed out to me again and again that the strength of our relationships is represented by the votes of the Commonwealth in the United Nations; by the fact that they fought for and with us in the past. I would not like them to read Hansard today and find that heat was engendered with a word; that my command of the English language was not good enough to understand the difference between white lies, no lies and no truth.

I know that this Bill was not well thought out; there was not wide consultation beforehand. That is a pity and we are to some extent consulting after the event. My Commonwealth friends—I do not say I have many but I have a few and my period of consultation is not weeks but several years—have always had respect for the Speaker of the House of Commons and all that goes with that great office. One of them said to me, "Is it normal in your second Chamber that when you introduce a Bill, the Government announce at Second Reading that they will accept an amendment that has not been tabled and they do not know what it is, or is that the right of a former Speaker?".

Attention at the moment is on this Chamber, partly because of the Internet. I congratulate the Information Office and others on the CD-ROM. I find today, working abroad as I do mainly, that it is easier and quicker for me to tap in the name of a noble Lord and read what he said on a subject through the Internet; it comes through in a few seconds.

I conclude by saying that, if the Commonwealth has been consulted, perhaps the noble Baroness will say it has been consulted and how. If it has not formally been consulted, never mind. Is it interested? Or are we interested in it? On this side of the Chamber we are interested in the Commonwealth and I do not want the Government to feel that we were expressing lack of interest in that great institution.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Perhaps I can say a brief word. We seem to have come a long way down the years since the Treaty of Union in 1707—dare I say to my noble friend, a slightly more important statute than the Statute of Westminster? Nonetheless, my noble friends raise an interesting point; lawyers call it a "nice" point. I am not sure whether or not one of the lawyers is to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is looking at me rather steely-eyed. I can assure the noble Lord that I do not consider Wales to be in the Commonwealth, so his title is probably safe. Wales is part of this country. Perhaps I am trying to shorthand my remarks.

The problem is that a number of Members of this Chamber are not British citizens but are citizens of Commonwealth countries. I understand that there are Peers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, one visited us recently from New Zealand having just taken his title. There may be others. I do not know the figures and did not bother the Librarians of the House to check them. But there are some and therefore the issue is a simple one.

In legislating in this Bill, are we removing the inherited rights of citizens of certain Commonwealth countries without consulting the Commonwealth countries involved? The rights and privileges of sitting here must pass not only through our law, but also through the laws of other Commonwealth countries. The question is whether we are abrogating those rights when we legislate here without actually consulting those countries.

I have no doubt that I am about to be given a good opinion on the subject. With respect to my noble friends, it is not the most serious point in the Bill, but it is a point that should be properly covered. No doubt the Government would not like it if, after the Bill were passed, they found themselves in a difficult position in a court because they had not taken into account that they had deprived citizens of Commonwealth countries of their rights without actually consulting the Commonwealth countries. So my questions are simple: do the Government need to consult Commonwealth countries? If they do, can the Minister say whether those countries have been consulted?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will probably be disappointed because it is not a lawyer who is to reply to the debate but a lay person. However, I suspect that my noble and learned friends are content for me to lead on this amendment because it is so simple that they feel that their learned opinions can be reserved for more complex issues.

I should point out to the noble Lord. Lord Selsdon, that I entirely agree with him about the importance of the Commonwealth. Although the noble Lord is probably right to chide us indirectly for the scarcity of our length of experience in this House, I would challenge many noble Lords, though not him personally because I know that his experience is long and very varied, as regards having the personal and work connections with the Commonwealth that I have. Indeed I cherish them and should like to continue with them. I should like, very informally and in every possible way, to make it quite clear, certainly on this side of the House and certainly as far as I am concerned, that there is no institution that is any more important, valuable and valid in the world today than the institution of the Commonwealth.

However, that does not affect the relevance of the Statute of Westminster. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, that we are talking about the Statute of Westminster (No. 2) in relation to this Bill. There is no requirement to seek the consent of the dominions. Let us not forget that the Statute of Westminster (No. 2) refers exclusively to the dominions and not to the Commonwealth, and that the dominions only comprise New Zealand, Australia and Canada. We are not legislating for the dominions. Indeed, the Statute of Westminster is only relevant to Acts which extend to the dominions as part of the law of the dominions. Our Bill does not do this, even though, as noble Lords have rightly pointed out—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, explicitly asked this question—it extends to citizens of Commonwealth countries.

Perhaps I may explain to the Committee in my lay language that the Statute of Westminster is relevant to laws which purport to make law for the dominions. The statute is not relevant to UK laws concerning citizens of these countries which do not extend as part of the law of those countries. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Northbrook

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If the law affects the citizens of those countries, how come it is not pertinent to the law of that country?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

As I say, to a lay person that is quite obvious. Individual citizens of those countries may be affected by the law of this country but that does not affect the laws of those dominion countries which the Statute of Westminster governs.

In addition, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that there is no such thing as representative Peers from the Commonwealth. It is not the same as the historic situation with Peers of Scotland. Peers are not representative Peers of the Commonwealth merely because they happen to be hereditary Peers who are citizens of New Zealand or Australia.

I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, appeared to argue that the consent of the Commonwealth—or the dominions, as it is more precisely put—was required because the Bill affects the composition of this House. But neither the Life Peerages Act 1958 nor the Peerage Act 1963 was subject to these strictures; indeed, neither the Commonwealth nor the dominions were consulted on those occasions. That was not out of a lack of courtesy or because of a lack of respect for the Commonwealth or dominion countries but simply because it was irrelevant. If the principle that a law which has the effect of altering the composition of the House of Lords needed the consent of the dominions was accepted, frankly, this should apply with equal vigour to Bills which affect the composition of the other place. I think noble Lords will understand that that would not be something which, even in commonsense terms, would be acceptable.

The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and I exchanged some uncharacteristically sharp words, given our normal friendly relations, about the point he made that the consent was required because the Bill was altering the style and title of the Queen as the Duke of Lancaster. Perhaps I may simply re-emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in the most friendly possible way something that I thought I had said on a previous occasion; namely, that the Bill does not have that effect. Although after the passing of the Bill it is the case that the sovereign will no longer have the power to grant a hereditary peerage which carries with it a place in this House, that does not in any way alter the style or title of the sovereign. That was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier interventions while the noble Lord was speaking. Nor does it give rise to any obligation under the Statute of Westminster to seek the consent of the dominions to this Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, based his argument on the preamble to the statute which recites that, any alteration in law funding the Succession to the Throne or Royal Style and Titles shall require the assent as well as the Parliaments of the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". I speak as a lay person simply quoting lawyers, but as I understand it the convention has changed. Halsbury's Laws (Vol. 6, paragraph 826) refers to the fact that the convention now is understood to be that each of the dominions is free to alter the Royal style and title provided the common element of Her Majesty as "Head of the Commonwealth" is retained and there is a reference to "Her other realms and territories". I am sure the Committee would agree that that is not particularly relevant to this Bill. I hope that on that basis of a lay person seeking to explain a legal position—but one that is sufficiently clear and straightforward for lay people to understand—the noble Lords will not press their amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Selsdon

Before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to say how much I appreciate her support for the Commonwealth. I know that she is genuine in that. However, I still feel that there may be a few bridges to mend. Perhaps they will be mended by the comments in Hansard. Many people in these countries are oversensitive. However, we should also recognise that the Commonwealth is getting better and better at cricket!

My favourite letter was addressed to: "The Right Honourable Lord Malcolm Selsdon Esquire, House of Lords, MCC London". I am not suggesting that the MCC has more problems than your Lordships' House, but I thank the noble Baroness for her comments by using the old-fashioned Scottish expression, "Thank you, Hen".

Baroness Jay of Paddington

I only hope that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, with regard to sensitivity do not extend to an expectation that England should be beaten by Sri Lanka.

Lord Northbrook

I thank the noble Baroness for her detailed replies on the legal aspects of the Statute of Westminster. They have given me good cause for thought. I shall consider the comments that she has made.

Lord Norrie

I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the statute in great detail. I shall read Hansard with great interest and care tomorrow morning to see whether it is necessary to come back to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 111B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("Act') to end of line 14 and insert ("shall not come into force until each House of Parliament has come to a resolution that it should do so. (1A) No resolution under subsection (1) may be made until the Royal Commission set up to consider the reform of the House of Lords has reported.")

Lord Carter

It appears as if the noble Lord intends to move Amendment No. 112. I believe that it is grouped with Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Although procedurally the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are not out of order, it is extremely unusual to return to an issue at Committee stage in the way that the noble Lord intends. The amendment was clearly debated on 27th April. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness spoke several times. At no stage did they indicate that they would reopen the debate later in Committee. The Chamber decided against the amendment with which this amendment and Amendment No. 113 were grouped. It would be wholly in order to return to this matter at Report stage, although not at Third Reading. However, it would be extremely unusual to speak to it tonight. If I did not know the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, better I might assume that they are trying to extend today's debate for reasons which are best known to themselves and the Opposition Chief Whip.

Lord Henley

Before my noble friend responds to those comments I take the opportunity to ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip about a small matter. As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 have already been debated. The list of groupings states: House of Lords Bill: Committee (6th day)". Then the groups of amendments are listed. In the past we used to see a little mantra which suggested that the amendments which had been grouped could always be ungrouped if noble Lords wished. I noticed today and last Thursday that we no longer have that mantra. By what authority did the Government Chief Whip or others remove it? It was not discussed with me and I am surprised that we can no longer see it today. We can no longer see the explanation—which all Back-Benchers, whether our own or Government Back-Benchers find useful—that the groupings are informal and can be ungrouped at any stage. Can the Government Chief Whip assist on that matter?

Lord Carter

I was not aware that it was not on the list. It is news to me. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness know that I am not referring to the grouping but to returning to amendments which were grouped earlier. The House decided on that group and noble Lords with amendments in that group did not indicate that they would return to them later. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are not out of order; it is just extremely unusual and I wonder why they are doing it.

Lord Boardman

I intended to speak very briefly. We debated the amendment and an earlier amendment, which I did not move and which I sought to withdraw. With the amendments on the Marshalled List today I wish to raise two points on which the Government did not take the opportunity to reply earlier. I think it is right and fair that the Government should be given the opportunity to answer the relevant points in this debate.

In her earlier reply, the noble Baroness referred to the arguments coming from myself and my colleagues on this side of the House who were speaking in favour of the amendment as being essentially reasonable. But she did not explain why the amendment was rejected. I also referred to the duty, as I believed it, of the Government to take into account the report of the Royal Commission, which they had been persuaded to establish, before making drastic changes to the constitution.

It seemed to me that that gave the opportunity for the kind of consultation between the parties to which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred. In 1968 I was present at debates in the other place which were quite memorable. If I may remind the Committee, in that case this Chamber consented and agreed to consultation, notwithstanding that there was a large Conservative majority at that time. Matters were agreed—rightly, I believe—by parties getting together and taking what they then thought was the right course, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan said.

It is unfortunate that, given the opportunity for consultation, the Government in response to these amendments have said that the Royal Commission is for another day. It is very important that the effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act should be deferred until there has been an opportunity for the House to consider the report of the Royal Commission. It may he that what I have included in the amendment about the votes of both Houses can be fairly criticised; it may be that the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch is more appropriate; but I feel that the Government should have an opportunity to reply to those two points. For that reason, having spoken to the matter in the debate on the second day in Committee, I feel it right to speak to it again and to give the Government the opportunity to respond.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Perhaps I may speak briefly to both amendments. They cause a problem for the referendum amendment, which has been redrafted for Report stage to meet the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Elton, and which would bring the referendum into effect without delay without waiting for the report of the Royal Commission. This amendment would pre-empt that situation of the revised referendum amendment on Report.

It also raises the difficulty about the question to be put on the referendum as it is to be formulated, "Do you wish to retain the House of Lords as formulated with the hereditary peerage until a successor House has been established?" On this, there has been no opinion poll since October which shows that the people are in favour of a transitional House. It is a serious matter. Although I accept that 70 per cent of the people wish to do away with the hereditary peerage, they do not wish to have a transitional House set up, which is quite another issue. I am in difficulties over both of these amendments.

Baroness Blatch

I rise to speak to my amendment. I understand that no Standing Order prevents me from doing so in this context. I sympathise with the points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because the vexed issue here is the vacuum that will be created by the setting up of an interregnum Chamber without any knowledge of what is to follow.

On 27th April, when last we discussed these amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, accused both my noble friend and I of delaying the fulfilment of the pledge in the manifesto. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that the manifesto pledge has already been broken by agreement across all parties by the inclusion of the Weatherill amendment.

Lord Goodhart

Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that it was not an agreement across all parties. It was an agreement between two of the parties.

Baroness Blatch

I remember there being an overwhelming vote in favour of the Weatherill amendment. The point I am making still has force. There was an agreement which means that the words in the manifesto have already been broken.

Some of us are particularly concerned about the long-term future of this place. It is such a serious point that the world beyond these two Chambers is also interested in the shape, the effectiveness, the role and the functions of a second Chamber. Therefore, I make no apology for speaking to my amendment. However, I must say to the noble Baroness that I did not put down the amendment deliberately to delay the commencement of the Bill. I believe that we should not go forward with an interregnum Chamber until we are confident that what is to follow at least has a shape and form which will bring about confidence.

The noble Lord the Chief Whip has accused both myself and my noble friend of bringing this debate back to the Floor of the Chamber in order deliberately to delay the proceedings. That is an insult both to myself and to my noble friend. We regard these as extremely serious matters. What is to follow in the interim stage is so important that we think it is worth continuing to fight for an effective second Chamber. It is surely right that Parliament should implement such constitutional change as is being promoted only when there is at least some understanding by both Houses of the nature of the ultimate changes.

In the previous debate on these amendments on 27th April the noble Baroness said (at col. 224 of the Official Report) that there has never been any question that once the Royal Commission had reported the committee of both Houses would be set up. Does that mean that we will see a committee of both Houses set up by Christmas? My understanding is that the Royal Commission has to report by Christmas. Does that mean that a joint committee will be set up to discuss the report and to report back? If that is the case, then either my amendment or my noble friend's amendment, or a composite of the two, would be highly appropriate. That would be an impetus to get on with stage two rather than delay it.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

This group includes Amendment No. 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

A certain amount of this ground has been covered in the contributions helpfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and following speakers and in the response that I offered on behalf of the Government on the grouping that began with Amendment No. 11OF. The amendments present different aspects of mechanisms that might be used to bring about the accomplishment of stage two.

Amendment No. 112 seeks to delay the coming into force of the Act until after each House has come to a resolution that it should do so. The secondary trigger provides that, No resolution … may he made until the Royal Commission … has reported". That means that there would be no prospect of the Act coming into force at least until the year 2000, since the Royal Commission's deadline is 31st December 1999. It is most unusual to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament by resolution of the House. There is then the possibility, the Bill having been passed, of the House refusing to let it come into force.

I think it is fair to say, without discourtesy, that we have rehearsed, re-rehearsed, reviewed and re-examined these arguments on a number of occasions. The fullest debate took place earlier, when a number of noble Lords contributed, not least the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is in his place.

We have come to the conclusion, and I hope it is not discourteous to repeat it, that stage one is to be regarded as a desirable objective with which we intend to continue. I know that simply because I say that it is a desirable objective I cannot expect the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, immediately to say that he has been enlightened and to agree. As I have said on a number of occasions, I recognise that others have, differing views, but that is our stance. We want to bring in stage one. We have agreed to the accommodation that was arrived at between the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the Government. I have referred extensively to that this evening and I shall not trespass on your Lordships' patience any more.

Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, goes one stage further than Amendment No. 112. The noble Baroness adds the refinement that a resolution should not even be put to the House until the Joint Committee of both Houses has reported on the work of the Royal Commission.

The noble Baroness asked a particular question. The deadline is the end of this year. Our intention is that the Royal Commission should report; its recommendations should then be deliberated on by a Joint Committee of both Houses; and thereafter, of course, both Houses of Parliament, as is right in our constitutional system, should come to a conclusion.

I am not able to accept either of these amendments for the reasons I have briefly outlined, I hope without discourtesy, because I developed our arguments at considerably greater length in reply to quite a wide-ranging debate earlier. We are not able to accept these amendments.

Lord Boardman

Obviously I am sorry that the noble Lord is unable to accept the amendment. It is not entirely surprising. It is a great pity that the Government have not directed their minds to the value that will come from a Royal Commission providing a breadth of advice on the formation of this House for the long term.

Having made those comments, I shall note carefully what the Government have said and consider the points that have been made. I may have the opportunity of coming forward on Report with a proposal aimed at this objective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall not come into force until each House of Parliament has come to a resolution that it should do so. ( ) No resolution referred to in subsection (1) may be made until the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords have been reported on by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.")

The noble Baroness said: In replying, the Minister used exactly the same words as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has used previously; namely, that it is most unusual to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I pray in aid the fact that this is a very unusual Bill. It is a short Bill. It contains no detail whatsoever. It is constantly referred to by the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Benches opposite as the first step in a two-step process. We know nothing whatever about step two. It is very important that we know more about step two. I suggest that the whole of Parliament should know something of the shape and form of what is to follow. My noble friend has withdrawn his amendment and it is my intention to do the same. We shall then read carefully what has been said. We shall join together and try to bring forward an amendment that addresses all the concerns that have been raised in the course of this and the previous debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 1, line 13, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4) below)") and insert ("subsection (3))")

The noble Earl said: We now move to something new. In moving Amendment No. 114 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 123, 124 158 and 159, although, with the leave of the Committee, I would prefer to leave Amendments Nos. 127 and 160 in their place on the Marshalled List since they seek to probe an entirely different and separate matter.

Amendment No. 114 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 123. Amendment No. 124 probes the same intent from an alternative approach. I hope that the Government will accept that these amendments raise important matters.

On previous occasions the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has waxed lyrical—I do not believe that I put that too strongly—about his delight that the construction of the Bill achieves equality for the hereditary Peerage with the rest of the population. He said, In this Bill will be seen the taking away of the long historic injustice that hereditary Peers are not able to vote in parliamentary elections. We are putting that right by giving those who have been deprived politically and legally their full entitlement to participate".—[Official Report, 27/4/99, col. 252.]

As I understand it, that is the purpose of Clause 4(3) and (4).

So be it. However, there is the possibility that a set of circumstances could arise whereby, albeit for a limited period, the current drafting could result in the hereditary peerage being effectively disenfranchised. My interpretation is that, if an election were to be called in the year of enactment of this Bill between the dates of 10th October and 16th February, the right of the hereditary peerage to vote would, to all intents and purposes, vest in the Secretary of State. Here in passing I simply point out that this issue motivates our choice of 1st September in Amendment No. 117.

What has surprised my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and myself and hence provoked our amendments is why this particular mechanism of delivery of this desirable gift was chosen by the Government when, if I can put it in this way, a cleaner method was available. Ill-crafted as they may be, our two alternative amendments seek to ensure quite simply that those Peers disqualified by Clause 1 will nonetheless have an absolute right to vote in any parliamentary election held after the Bill is enacted using the electoral register compiled before they were so disqualified.

I should add that, of course, I trust implicitly the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. Of course, he would not gainsay the right of the hereditary peerage to vote in general elections. That said, I express surprise at the existing drafting of subsections (3) and (4) on two counts: first, the power conferred upon the Secretary of State as contained in the words "may" and "as he considers appropriate" is only advisory and lacks the compulsion of the more forceful "shall". Secondly, subsection (4) has certain Henry VIII qualities which, to my untrained eye, appear disproportionate to the purpose for which it is required. I would ask the Minister to give some commentary on those two issues in due course.

Bluntly, we can see no reason why the Government—after all, "fairness not favours" is one of their watchwords—feel it appropriate to leave this matter to the whim of the Secretary of State, whatever his probity on the matter, when all that is required is that those affected by the Bill should be deemed to be qualified to vote on the due date. As I say, our amendments offer two alternative routes. I admit they may fail the Government's test of "exquisite simplicity" whereby this might be achieved.

There are one or two peripheral issues that should be teased out here. The first point—I hope that I do not trespass too much upon the intention of my noble friend Lord Norrie with his Amendment No. 120A—is that the right to vote in elections is by any measure pretty fundamental. It is enshrined in Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and our own Human Rights Act—whenever that may be implemented. As gently as I may I therefore ask: how consistent with those hugely consistent documents is it that, however temporarily, the individual right of hereditary Peers to a free expression of opinion should be subject to ministerial fiat?

I do not doubt—how can I?—the Government's good intent, but some small part of me cannot help but ask why it is that they have exposed themselves to the potential "heffalump" trap of falling foul of the ECHR when they do not have to. At the very least the point is moot.

That leads me to the declaration of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal on the face of the Bill. My less than expert judgment on this issue is that we may be on the cusp of scrutiny which exposes that the declaration may have been made in error. I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Minister will advise me that I am wrong. Nevertheless, while I am sure that I should know the answer to this question, what procedure, if any, exists to rectify or nullify a declaration in such circumstances?

One comes to the question of the acceptance by the House of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I note that so far no amendment has been tabled to make it expressly clear that none of your Lordships among the 92 who may be elected will be permitted to take part in parliamentary elections. One is bound to ask: why not, or are those Peers to be entitled to vote in both the House and in elections? The existing drafting is less than clear on the point, except that a cynical mind could be tempted to suppose that the construction of subsections (3) and (4) may have been specifically drawn in anticipation of the new clause appearing on the face of the Bill. A cynical mind could say that the construction of Clause 4(3) was aimed at affording the Secretary of State enough flexibility to allow different Peers to be treated differently. In postulating this question I wonder whether I lance the boil, as it were, of my previous questions about the drafting of the subsections.

I say a brief word about Amendments Nos. 158 and 159. The right of hereditary Peers to vote in parliamentary elections is a consequence of their removal, hence Amendment No. 158. The hereditary peerage is not disqualified in toto from voting in general elections. Hence the purpose of the Bill is to qualify those to whom it applies to be able so to do. That is the underlying purpose of Amendment No. 159.

In conclusion, I cannot help feeling that voting in parliamentary elections is too important a constitutional and human right for it to lie, however temporarily, in the hands of the Secretary of State. If it is right—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has with some passion admitted it to be so—that the hereditary peerage should be granted that right, it must of necessity follow that it should be conferred upon them freely and absolutely by primary legislation. I pray in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn: My point is that it is a good idea to treat everyone who lives in this country equally".—[Official Report, 27/4/99: col. 252.]

That being so, I invite the Government to respond favourably to whichever of the two alternatives we offer them. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

I have two amendments in this group which probe in perhaps a slightly narrower field than the amendment of my noble friend. They are based on paragraph 18 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill which point out that the disqualifications of hereditary Peers from voting will, be removed at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. However, the qualifying date (10th October) for entitlement to vote in Parliamentary elections might have been passed before that time, depending on when the Session ends. Those entitled to vote on the qualifying date are included in the electoral register which operates from the following February. If the Session ends after 10th October 1999, existing hereditary Peers will not be entitled to vote on that date and will therefore not be able to vote in elections until February 2001. I have taken the wording of Amendment No. 129 as closely as I could from that advice. Unfortunately, either by my error, that of the typist or I know not who, the last line of the amendment refers to 1st February 2000. The gap when hereditary Peers might riot be able to vote ends in 2001. My purpose in substituting "shall" for "may" is to get from the Government an explanation of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might not make an order. I presume that is when the Session finishes before 10th October, but I would like that on the record. Also, the words of Amendment No. 129 spell out in place of the words as he considers appropriate the exact purpose of the order that he is required to make. It is purely for clarification.

10 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

There are a number of amendments in the group. One of them, Amendment No. 125, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and myself. All the amendments address the same issue—the consequences of the passage of the Bill on the right of Members of your Lordships' House who are hereditary Peers to vote at British general elections. I say "British" general elections because hereditary Peers are now allowed to vote at Scottish and Welsh general elections—which I presume some of my noble friends and other noble Lords did earlier this month.

The matter was reasonably clear cut before Weatherill, although there were some issues of timing. It is not quite so clear cut now that the Committee has agreed to the noble Lord's amendment. There will be two categories of hereditary Peers—those who are able to sit and vote here and those who cannot, either because they have not stood for election or have not been elected. The Government will have to turn their mind to how to deal with that problem.

I have no argument with the proposition that the 92 hereditary Peers who remain here after the end of this Session, if that is when the Government get their Bill, should be in the same boat as the rest of us and not be allowed to vote at general elections. However, it seems unfair on the others that they will be deprived of the right to vote in any general election in future before we move to stage two or in any by-election. I have not had the opportunity to check, but there may be one or two hereditary Peers living in the constituency currently occupied by Mr. Dennis Canavan, who has indicated that having been elected to the Scottish Parliament by a huge majority, after being deemed unfit to stand as a Labour Party candidate, it is his intention to resign his seat at Westminster. He thinks that it is not right to be a Member of both Houses.

If other Members of the other place who have been elected to the Scottish Parliament were to take the same view, there would be a number of by-elections the length and breadth of Scotland, and a number of hereditary Peers would certainly be living in those constituencies. Let us suppose that those by-elections happened after their removal from your Lordships' House. It would seem unfair that those Peers should not have a vote in any such by-elections. All the amendments address the same problem. My noble friend Lord Elton, for example, tries to put beyond doubt the right of disqualified Peers to vote, as indeed does Amendment No. 125 which stands in my name, among others. It makes it clear what is to happen.

I am not an expert on these matters, but I gather that the human rights legislation so beloved of the Government states bluntly that people should not be deprived of their right to vote. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to respond, I have no doubt that he will address this problem. What will happen if we have a period during which certain Members of your Lordships' House are no longer allowed to sit here but are no longer allowed to vote in by-elections or a general election? We have to do something about it. It is not good enough to say that the Secretary of State may by order do something. He may be slow. He may decide not to do so. It would be better to put the provision on the face of the Bill.

There are two problems. When all hereditary Peers are removed, presumably at the end of this Session, how would they immediately collect their right to vote, especially, as has been indicated by one of my noble friends, if the removal was after 10th October? I believe that there is an answer to that because nowadays one can register during the course of the year that one's eligibility arises and one is added to the register. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will help me on that. However, it becomes more difficult when we have two classes of hereditary Peers: those who will remain here and therefore, I think, should not have a right to vote in general elections; and those who will not be able to attend here who, I believe, should have the right to vote. All the amendments address the same point.

My noble friend Lord Northesk said that he would not move the amendment, but the point is simple, so I shall raise it. I refer to the right to vote in European elections. The first time I read this simple Bill—it did not take me long—I wondered about the phrase "or the European Parliament". I understand that all noble Lords are able to vote in the European parliamentary elections which are about to take place. Therefore I could not understand those words. They may well fall into the category of unnecessary words described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord is not here, but perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, how keen his learned colleague is to remove unnecessary words from the statute. Are those words unnecessary? If they are not unnecessary perhaps we can be told which of our number is not allowed to vote in the European elections next month.

The Earl of Northesk

Perhaps I may clarify a point raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The reason I chose to decouple Amendment No. 127 was precisely as he explained. It is such a simple matter that I wanted the Government to have the opportunity to grant it willy-nilly.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I thought that it was such a simple matter that even the Government Front Bench could deal with it.

Viscount Mountgarret

I had not intended to intervene on this amendment. I have tabled Amendment No. 119. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has highlighted the substance of what I was going to say on Amendment No. 119. It is summed up in the word "enfranchisement": the right to vote and to be represented in Parliament.

If I am right—perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I misheard him—he said that he felt that the 90 privileged hereditary Peers who may remain in your Lordships' House during the transitional period should have the same rights and privileges (perhaps it should be the other way round) as those who will not remain in your Lordships' House. Did I mishear the noble Lord? If I have not, I cannot go along with that. The whole purpose of removing the right of noble Lords to vote is because they are represented already in your Lordships' House, in Parliament. Therefore, if 650-odd hereditary Peers are to trot off into the sunset they must have the right to vote. Unfortunately, if this part of the Bill does not come into force until a couple of years after the passing of the Act, we shall have an uncomfortable situation in which 650-odd Peers will not only have their right to vote removed but will be unrepresented.

That is a serious matter because noble Lords probably know well the old expression, which is enshrined in the written American constitution, "no taxation without representation". As we do not have a written constitution, in this country it is enshrined by convention. In fact, Lord Campden, who was Lord Chancellor from 1766 to 1770, said in this House on 10th February 1766: Taxation and representation are inseparable. Whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own. No man hath the right to take it from him without his consent either expressed by himself or representative. Whoever attempts to do it attempts an injury. Whoever does it commits a robbery. He throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery". Those are strong words and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be somewhat hesitant in flying in the face of what was said most clearly by his illustrious and noble predecessor. In my view, those words hold as good now as they did then.

As regards representation and voting, it is essential that the machinery of reform of your Lordships' House must coincide with a general election. It might be said that the Bill can be passed now and that it will be all right at the next general election, but when will the next general election be? I seem to remember that there was not a general election during the war and that we had a coalition government. With the state that the world is in at the moment, it is not too far fetched to think that we might have a lot of unrest coming our way. Therefore, it is not just a case of 650 hereditary Peers waiting for a couple of years before becoming disenfranchised, but it may be—I sincerely hope not—much longer. I hope that the Government will bear that point seriously in mind and address it in due course.

Lord Renton

I have not so far intervened in any of your Lordships' debates on the Bill. However, I feel prompted to do so in view of what 1 consider to be a very important constitutional point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret.

I happen to be a life Peer, but I have taken a great interest in constitutional matters for a long time. At one stage, I even served on a Royal Commission on the constitution. An interesting issue arose when earlier this century the House of Lords was deprived of voting on finance Bills. However, it was not deprived of its opportunity to express its views about those matters. The views that were expressed were often heeded. It did not have the right to send the Finance Bill back to another place. But if there was a sufficient volume of opinion in your Lordships' House on a financial matter, whether expressed by hereditary Peers or other Peers, in due course due notice was taken of those views.

If the hereditary Peers are to be deprived of the opportunity to express their views, even for a year or so, and yet to have no opportunity to elect Members to another place, then there will be a void in our constitution. That is something which we should avoid.

10.15 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

I find this a fascinating subject and a very important one. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who as usual is a master of the understatement, said that that was unfair and that Peers should have the right to vote. He is absolutely right. If hereditary Peers are to be catapulted out of this Chamber, or got rid of—to use the cheerful phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—and cannot vote here any more, they must have the right to vote for Members of another place.

My noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right to provide in Amendment No. 126 that we should leave out the word ''may" and provide that the Secretary of State "shall" by order make such a transitional provision. I should be interested to know what the Government intended to do, because my mind is taken back to some years ago when the late Lord Airedale, who was punctilious with regard to detail, asked a question about dog licences. That may seem rather bizarre but it is pertinent. Lord Airedale asked when a dog licence comes to an end. He was told that at midnight on such and such a date. Lord Airedale then pointed out that as the Post Office is open only until six o'clock in the evening, one must either buy a new licence at six o'clock at the day before. in which case one has two dog licences, or one waits until the Post Office opens the next day at eight o'clock, which means that one does not have a dog licence for eight hours.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will wish to ensure that we are not without the equivalent of a dog licence. The noble and learned Lord said that hereditary Peers are to be "got rid of'. He stumbled over those words but he could not find a better expression, and that was what was in his heart. If the hereditary Peers are to be "got rid of'', they must obviously have the right to vote for Members of another place.

Lord Crickhowell

I wish to raise one other curious anomaly, for if I read the Bill aright. not only is it possible that noble Lords about whom my noble friend was speaking will not have their dog licences, but they will be in a position to stand for election to the House of Commons and be elected to the House of Commons but not have a vote. That seems to be an extraordinary anomaly. I do not believe that there is any pause when one obtains permission to stand. After the Bill is passed, you can stand and be elected but you cannot exercise that privilege, which I dare say one or two Members in this House have exercised, of voting for themselves in an election.

Therefore, when the Minister replies I hope that he will confirm the point made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who said that it is possible to add to the electoral register after the October date. If it is possible to get out the names of candidates to fight an election campaign, it surely cannot be impossible to add the names of Peers to the electoral register so that they can stand and vote.

Lord Trefgarne

I am not sure that even if every hereditary Peer, the moment that he is ejected from this House, is granted the right to vote, that that w 11 be good enough. Is it not the case that under the European Convention on Human Rights everybody is entitled to live under a government whom he has elected for the purpose? If hereditary Peers are to leave this Chamber at, say, the end of this Session in October or November, most of us will not have an opportunity to vote for the Member of Parliament in our constituency until the next general election. One or two of us may have a chance to vote in a by-election in the meantime, but for two of three years most of us will be unrepresented. In other words, the Member of Parliament will be someone for whom we have never voted and will not have a chance of voting for until the next general election.

It has been suggested that that is not in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and that, therefore, for that period noble Lords who have been so ejected will not receive that to which they are entitled under that convention. The Government hastened to incorporate that convention into United Kingdom law soon after they came into office. I make no complaint about that, but it now seems that they are proposing legislation that goes in the reverse direction. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to set our minds at rest.

Viscount Mountgarret

Forgive me for not being quite myself this evening. I omitted to refer to the question of taxation and representation, the matter that brought about the loss of the American colonies, as they did not wish to be taxed without being represented at Westminster. The position is that 650 noble Lords will be dismissed from this place without enfranchisement until the next general election. Am I right in thinking that they would be perfectly entitled to refrain from paying their taxes until they are so enfranchised?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

As the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said, that is a new point and an area that we have not looked at before. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, the important point is how the mechanism will work to allow hereditary Peers to take part in general elections in this country.

Perhaps I may reply in two stages and, first, set out the Government's intention in relation to the order-making power contained in Clauses 4(3) and 4(4) and then deal with each of the amendments in this group. The power in Clause 4(3) permits the Secretary of State to make transitional provision on the entitlement of hereditary Peers to vote in elections to the House of Commons or the European Parliament.

Clause 2 of the Bill removes the disqualification on holders of a hereditary peerage from voting in parliamentary elections. The disqualification will be removed at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. However, as stated in the debate, the qualifying date for entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections (10th October in Great Britain and 15th September in Northern Ireland) might have been passed before that time, depending on when the Session ends.

Those entitled to vote on the qualifying date are included in the electoral register, which operates from the following February. If the session ends after 10th October 1999, existing hereditary Peers would not be entitled to vote on that date and would not be included in the electoral register operating from February 2000. Therefore, they would not be entitled to vote in an election to the House of Commons until February 2001. That is much too long. If necessary, it is intended to make an order to enable hereditary Peers to vote in elections from February 2000.

How that will be achieved will, in part, be affected by the date of the coming into force of the Bill. At that stage, it is perhaps not possible to predict precisely the circumstances or the date of the coming into force of the Bill. It is possible that no provision will be required under the order-making provision because the session may end before 10th October. That deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I shall return to his amendment later.

It is also intended to exercise the order-making power to ensure that hereditary Peers resident overseas can qualify during the transitional period for parliamentary elections when they would otherwise be unable to satisfy the conditions in Section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 because they were disqualified at the relevant time for being Peers—for example, because they were not included in an electoral register, as is required by Section 1(3) of that Act.

The power in Clause 4(3) of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make transitional provision in respect of the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages and European parliamentary elections. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, rightly said, Peers are currently able to vote in European parliamentary elections and neither the Bill nor any order made under it will alter that position. It is intended to use the power relating to European elections so as to allow the holder of a hereditary peerage who is resident overseas and who benefits from the transitional provision to be made in relation to parliamentary elections, to be able to vote in European parliamentary elections on the basis of his or her entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections without the need to show entitlement under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which makes provision in relation to Peers resident overseas and European parliamentary elections. The power in relation to European elections has been taken merely to relieve hereditary Peers of the burden of going through two administrative processes; so it is entirely to help hereditary Peers.

Clause 4(4) provides for the order to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. This is intended to reflect the transitional and limited nature of the power. It allows for maximum flexibility to give effect to the rights of hereditary Peers to vote in parliamentary elections from an early date. Not being able to make an order during the period between the end of the Session and the beginning of the following Session may prevent the most appropriate provision from being made. In particular, it may be necessary to act quickly so that the hereditary Peers can be included in the register as it is being prepared in November rather than having to have a system of formal claims or registration officers making alterations to the register or publishing claims notices.

To those who think that the power is too broad I would only reiterate that the power is a transitional power and that it is tightly defined. It is also a power that affects only a small number of people. The main reason for including a power rather than making provision in the Bill is to ensure that the most appropriate arrangements can be made both from the point of view of efficient administration and from the point of view of the convenience of hereditary Peers themselves. If we put it on the face of the Bill it might take longer for hereditary Peers to get the right to vote rather than with this power, which gives maximum flexibility.

I should say that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepted the Government's reasons for taking the power in Clause 4(3). The report of the Committee said that it was appropriate that any transitional arrangements such as this should be left for subordinate legislation. I think that we all have the same aim in view, which is to try to ensure that hereditary Peers get that right as quickly as reasonably possible and that the use of subordinate powers seems to be the most effective way to deal with it. I hope that sets out sufficiently clearly the circumstances in which we intend to use the powers.

I now come to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 123, which is the first of the substantive amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, provides that the qualifying date for inclusion in the electoral register for elections to the House of Commons should be 1st January rather than 10th October for the purpose of preparing and publishing any electoral register that will apply to any elections taking place from the date of the coming into force of the Act and 16th February 2001. The idea, as he said, is to extend the qualifying date by three months, during which time the Bill will have been passed and the legal incapacity from voting in parliamentary elections removed. We are doubtful that it will achieve that: rather, it simply seems to put the date back.

I have to say that although this is not the substance of the noble Earl's amendment, the amendment is defective in a number of other respects. To identify one or two only, in the first place it refers to the wrong Representation of the People Act. It does not deal with Peers resident overseas, nor with European parliamentary elections.

More significantly, in certain circumstances it could fail to achieve the result intended. The provision is not adequate to deal with the scenario of the Bill coming into force after 1st January 2000 and therefore hereditary Peers would not be able to vote until February 2001. There could therefore be a delay of over one year in those circumstances, which I am sure is not what the noble Earl intended.

Amendment No. 124 also removes the order-making power. The new subsection (3) proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, deems Clause 1 of the Bill to come into force on 14th September for the purposes of Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1985. Ignoring the fact that reference is made to the wrong Representation of the People Act, the amendment is ineffective since a Peer's incapacity would still subsist even though his membership of the House of Lords was deemed to have ended. Disqualification on voting in parliamentary elections arises from the status of being a hereditary Peer; not on membership of this House. The amendment should rather have referred to both sections.

I would also note that the subsection would have the effect of preventing any by-election (or general election) from taking place until a hereditary Peer who had applied to have his name included in the electoral register had been included and the register amended. That of course would be unacceptable.

Amendment No. 125 replaces the order-making power in the Bill to make transitional provision in relation to entitlement to vote in parliamentary and European parliamentary elections and seeks to make provision on the face of the Bill. The amendment provides for a hereditary Peer to he entered on to an electoral register from the date of the coming into force of the Bill. Secondly, it provides for such Peers to be entitled to vote and stand.

The amendment is defective, first, in that it allows a hereditary Peer to vote who may be disqualified for other reasons (for example, because he is too young or because he is in prison). Secondly, it deals with the right to stand for election to the House of Commons and ties it to being included in the electoral register. Inclusion in the electoral register is, on the one hand, a new condition and places an additional burden on a hereditary Peer, while on the other hand it seems to give an entitlement to stand, notwithstanding any other disqualifications that might apply. In any event, there is no need for any transitional provision to be made in respect of standing for elections to the House of Commons. That also deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. There are certain circumstances in which one can stand to be a Member of the House of Commons without being allowed to vote because one does not appear on the electoral register.

The amendment failed, first, to deal with hereditary Peers resident overseas and, secondly, with European parliamentary elections. It does not specify how many registers the provision is aimed at. Nor does it seem to acknowledge that Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes detailed provision about the meaning of residence.

Amendment No. 126, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seeks to require the Secretary of State to make an order. The Leader of the House in the other place has already given an assurance that the Government will ensure that hereditary Peers will be able to vote from an early date. However, depending on whether the Bill is passed, it may or may not be necessary to exercise the power to achieve that objective. We do not want to be required to make provision for something that may be covered by existing provision, which is the provision if the Bill becomes law before 10th October. However, I should make it clear that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, can be assured of our good intentions to see that the necessary provision is made to enable hereditary Peers to vote.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Elton

I am perfectly content with what the noble and learned Lord said on the first of my pair of amendments in relation to "may" or "shall". However, perhaps I can return to something that I may have misheard earlier.

I am left with the impression that the intention is that the voting rights of hereditary Peers removed from this House shall commence on 1st February 2000. In the not impossible, certainly unlikely and perhaps politically cataclysmic circumstances of an election suddenly being called (for instance, because of a disaster in foreign policy) between the end of this Session and 1st February next year, the Secretary of State will have had to have made the order before that decision is taken. He is not going to know when the necessity will arise.

It seems to me, therefore—good intentions nonetheless—that it may be necessary to make an order giving the power for the right to vote to excluded hereditary Peers, as is said in my amendment, between the end of the Session and February 2000 and not simply from February 2000.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I fully understand the noble Lord's point. He is right to identify that what we envisage is that hereditary Peers would get onto the electoral register on the first possible date that such a new register is published, which is in February 2000. I also recognise the possibility—although I have to say it looks moderately remote—that there could be a general election before that date. Obviously we would look at the position if that were to occur, but, as at present advised, it would be our intention to put hereditary Peers on the electoral register from February 2000, which we think will meet all likely eventualities.

Lord Elton

I should remind the noble and learned Lord that most orders of this sort are required to be laid for 40 days before they become effective. Therefore, the machinery may need more than a cursory glance. Nevertheless, I am content for the moment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that point. Obviously we would need to look into the matter to ensure that there was no unsuitable delay in relation to people coming onto that register. I give way to the noble Earl.

Earl Ferrers

The noble and learned Lord may be satisfied on that point, but can he satisfy me on the following one? Although it may be an extension of the imagination to think that a general election may be called, it is not an extension of the imagination to think that a by-election may be called. In that case, would not hereditary Peers be excluded from voting?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I recognise the possibility—and I do not mean this in an offensive way—that there may be the occasional hereditary Peer who may have a by-election in the place where he lives. It seems to me to be extremely unlikely. We are talking about one or two people. It would put those people in the same position as those who, for example, become 18 in the time that the register is being drawn up. They have the same sort of difficulty that hereditary Peers might have. One has to look at this with the appropriate sense of proportion. I give way to the noble Viscount.

Viscount Mountgarret

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. However, if I heard him right, surely it is a most cavalier attitude to take to say that one or two hereditary Peers may be disenfranchised and unable to vote and to say so as if it did not matter. It does matter; it matters very much indeed. On reflection, I hope that noble Lords will realise that this matter must be taken a good deal more seriously.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I hope that my reply did not appear in any way to be cavalier. Indeed, it was not intended to be so. However, there are administrative processes which must be gone through for every one of us when we obtain the right to vote—even, for example. when we reach the age of 18. If the general election takes place the day after we are 18, we are, unfortunately, disenfranchised. The state is prepared to bear that because of the administrative need of some process. I appreciate that there might be one or two hereditary Peers who may go through the same depressing disenfranchisement as those 18 year-olds. We must see that as not being a disproportionate process in order to ensure the proper order of things.

Earl Ferrers

Quite a few of us would love to be 18 again; indeed, we would be happy to suffer such privations in order to be so. However, it is rather different when you are older and the Government are deliberately excluding people. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to think about this again, even though I see the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is shaking her head. There is a real point here.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I have set out the Government's position. It is a very important point, but it seems to me that we have taken an appropriate stance in relation to it. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Trefgarne

I am much obliged. The difference on this occasion is that we have before us legislation in which we could do something about the difficulty identified. It is the change to the legislation that the noble and learned Lord is resisting, not the difficulty, which he accepts.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I am saying that what we propose in order to ensure an orderly means of getting hereditary Peers onto the electoral register is that they should be treated in a sensible way which will ensure that they get there with the proper procedures having been gone through. I fully appreciate that there may be a by-election where a hereditary Peer may be deprived of the right to vote because it occurs before February 2000. We have to balance that against the sensible proposals that we have been making. The Government do not take the view that that remote possibility undermines the whole process that we have put in place.

Lord Kenyon

Does the Minister accept that it is not a matter of hereditary Peers getting their names onto the electoral register? They are already on it for the purpose of local authority elections, and for those of us who live in Wales or Scotland for the purposes of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. They are also there for the purposes of the European elections at which noble Lords are allowed to vote.

As regards the age of 18, if the Minister were to consult electoral registration officers, he would be told that for the purposes of preparing the list they ask for the names of people of the age of 17. On the electoral register the date of birth of anyone between the ages of 17 and 18 is recorded so that when the date of a general election is notified anyone who is 18 on that day has the right to vote. If it were stated on the face of this Bill that at the moment the Bill becomes an Act hereditary Peers were entitled to vote, there would be no delay in implementation, whereas if we have to wait for secondary legislation the period of 40 days' delay comes into effect.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

The returning officer ultimately needs to have a list of people who can vote. You need to put people on the list for the purposes of voting in a general election for the House of Commons. You cannot, by an Act of Parliament, simply deem that a huge number of people should be put onto that list when they are not there. Some process needs to be gone through.

Lord Kenyon

They are there. All that is on the list against my name is a little "p" which informs the returning officer that I am not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections but I am allowed to vote in any other election. My name is on the list already.

Viscount Trenchard

In the past two general elections I have been given a card to vote with. I have gone with my wife to the polling station and pointed out to the returning officer that unfortunately I am not entitled to use that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I think that is probably a mistake. The noble Viscount was on the list but not for the purposes of voting in parliamentary elections. One needs to he on the list for the purposes of voting in parliamentary elections; that is the way our system works in relation to parliamentary elections, and hereditary Peers are treated in exactly the same way as everyone else. If they are not on the list for the purposes of parliamentary elections, they cannot vote in parliamentary elections. We need a process whereby they can get onto the list appropriately.

Baroness Trumpington

Why can one not just eliminate the "p"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I am sorry, that is beyond me.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My noble friend has made a valid point. All Peers are on the electoral register because we can vote at local government elections or, in the case of Wales and Scotland, at Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord may not wish to give an answer to this point this evening but perhaps he will consider it. Would it not be possible to add a simple amendment to the Bill, perhaps in the form of a new clause, to indicate that those people—I thought I had "1" in front of my name, but perhaps the situation in Wales is different and the letter "p" is used—who have "1" or "p" or whatever in front of their names (they must be just Members of your Lordships' House) should be allowed to vote?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Many of your Lordships presumably are on the electoral register and have an "1" or a "p" or an "LP" depending on whether you are a long player—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I am quite sure that does not apply to all noble Lords. I am amazed that the Committee can say that this measure applies to everyone here. It appears that each noble Lord knows what situation applies to all the others and that all noble Lords are on the electoral register. In order to go onto the electoral register one has to fill in a form. I am glad that all noble Lords are confident that every single one of your Lordships has filled in that form. As with ordinary people, I imagine that some will have done so and some—

Lord Lyell

I succeeded to my title when I was four years old. I took my seat in your Lordships' House when I was 21. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can reply to this point at a later stage as even the House authorities have not been able to answer it. I refer to a Peer who is below the age of receiving a Writ in your Lordships' House. Until recently that applied to someone under the age of 21, but now it applies to someone under the age of 18. I presume that a Peer who has not taken his seat or is not entitled to a Writ in your Lordships' House would not have that "p" against his name arid therefore would be able to vote in a parliamentary election.

As I understand it, perhaps we can look into it later, the only disqualification to all of us—it shows how often the noble and learned Lord went to vote before he achieved his eminent office; I vote at every election I can apart from parliamentary elections—is that there is a "p" against one's name. I presume that a Peer who is a minor, who succeeds to a title and then becomes 18 years old will now be able to vote in an election. The only disqualification for him or any hereditary Peer is, as I understand it, receiving a Writ to attend your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether that applies at the age of 18 or 21—perhaps we can go into that—but on every voters' roll, in my case in Kerriemuir or here in London, there is a "p" against my name. I understand that that means that I cannot receive a voting card at parliamentary elections. I assure the noble and learned Lord—he will know Scotland; he went to school there—that I have voted in referendums in 1979; I have voted in European and local elections; and 1 recently voted with I think it was violet and lilac slips in the Scottish elections. But there is a "p" against my name.

I would be interested if at some stage in the future the noble and learned Lord could make clear the position of whether a young Peer who succeeds to a title at the age of 18—I do not know whether he receives a Writ—can vote in a parliamentary election.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I cannot deal with the point about Peers who are minors at the moment. We have had a very interesting series of interventions. We have provided in the Bill a power to permit the enfranchising in relation to parliamentary elections of those hereditary Peers who are excluded from the House by the Bill. We intend, if we can, to get them onto the electoral register, like everybody else, by February 2000. It is possible, but unlikely, that there will be a general election before that time; it is possible—but it will affect very, very few people—that there may be a by-election in a constituency where an enfranchised Peer lives. We are suggesting an orderly way of giving hereditary Peers a special speed to get onto the electoral roll, but not so great that no procedure whatever is covered. That seems a sensible and orderly way of going about things.

Perhaps I may move from Amendment No. 127, which deals with elections for the European Parliament, to Amendment No. 128, which has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He has sought to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State. I cannot see how his provision would work, even with the words "as he considers appropriate". A construction of the power would lead to the conclusion that the Secretary of State has some discretion. However, deleting the words may lead to the opposite conclusion and I cannot agree to the amendment.

Amendment No. 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has in part a shared objective with Amendment No. 128 to circumscribe the power in Clause 4(3). I have dealt with that. The amendment is unacceptable because it sets the date too narrowly. We hope that the Bill will be passed this Session. If it is not, the powers of the amendment will be insufficient to make the necessary provision.

I have dealt with each of the amendments in turn. It may appear to be "No, no, no" to each of the amendments but, as I have responded to each of the amendments in some detail, I hope that I have demonstrated the technical reasons why each of the amendments is not possible. It is not easy to make provisions to allow hereditary Peers to vote from an early date, particularly when the precise circumstances are not known. I hope the fact that we do not support any of the amendments will not be taken as an indication of bad faith. We intend that hereditary Peers should be able to vote in parliamentary elections from an early date. I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Before the noble and learned Lord concludes, he has answered fairly and in great detail the points put to him almost as if the Bill had been unchanged by the Weatherill amendment. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has addressed the problem of post-Weatherill, when some hereditary Peers will still be able to sit and therefore, I assume, should be like those of us who are life Peers and not have a vote in any election to the other place, and the other hereditary Peers who have failed or did not wish to be elected from the 92 and who therefore cannot come to the House and, I presume, ought to have a vote. Would the noble and learned Lord like to give us his thoughts on that issue?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

The noble Lord is correct. I have not dealt with the effect of the Weatherill amendment. Clause 4(3) and Clause 4(4) were not drawn up in the light of the Weatherill amendment. The Weatherill amendment has now been included. I think that thought needs to be given in relation to that aspect of the matter. We hope to be able to say something at a later stage in the course of the proceedings. The noble Lord is absolutely correct in relation to that.

Perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The noble Lord suggested that because the present Parliament had been elected when he did not have the opportunity to vote and that he will now be deprived of the vote, that offended against the European Convention on Human Rights. The answer is no. It does not.

Earl Ferrers

I thank the noble and learned Lord for replying to my Amendment No. 128. That slightly surprised me because I had not referred to it as it was not in this group of amendments. So perhaps I may have the fun of coming back to it again.

The Earl of Northesk

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this intriguing debate. I am happy, too, to repeat the observations of my noble friend Lord Peyton when concluding the debate on Amendment No. 110A. It is a relief to have re-arrived at a point of good humour in terms of the response of the noble and learned Lord the Minister to the debate. That said, I think that the amendment has exposed a very large gap in the Government's thinking.

I could be mischievous. Bearing in mind the fulsome support for the underlying principle of the amendment in Committee and looking at the attendance that it has engendered in the Chamber, I am sorely tempted to give my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip a fright. but I will not. I would not wish the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench to be deceived by such an outbreak of good will. There are still areas of this matter that are deeply disturbing. I can guarantee that we will return to it on Report. I shall of course read the debate assiduously in Hansard tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henley

Before my noble friend Lord Elton moves his Amendment No. 115, I wonder whether I may ask the Government Chief Whip what are his plans for this evening. We have spent a considerable number of hours debating the amendments before us. We have debated some six groups of amendments over the evening and we have some 14 more to get through. This is an important Bill and we are dealing with important constitutional matters on this occasion. I made it clear to the Government Front Bench that we did not think it right that we should be debating a Bill of this kind into the late hours of the night. Sadly, I was unable to reach agreement on that point with the Government Chief Whip or with others.

I appreciate that the Government have serious business in terms of the Bills that are likely to come before the House over the coming months. There is the Greater London Authority Bill, which is to receive its Second Reading next week; there is the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill, which we are likely to receive tomorrow; the Report stage of the Tax Credits Bill is down for tomorrow; and I understand that the Committee stage of this Bill is expected to be completed before the Whitsun Recess. I do have to say—I address this point very much to the Government Chief Whip—that on this side of the Committee we have been very co-operative in terms of what we have been prepared to do. We have done our best to assist the passage of government business. That is why we have allowed a number of government Bills to go through the Moses Room and we will continue to assist the Government in that respect.

We on these Benches are not opposed to the Government's programme and we shall not attempt to mess up that programme in the way that the Government Chief Whip occasionally suggests that we are likely to do. However, it is asking a great deal of this House to debate important constitutional matters at this time of night. As I understand it, the Government Chief Whip suggests that we should continue debating these matters until breakfast tomorrow. I am perfectly prepared to debate a certain number of Bills—for example, the Greater London Bill—very late at night, and am prepared to give assistance on other government Bills on other occasions: for example, social security measures such as asylum Bills. But this Bill is somewhat different. It deals with a subject that this House would prefer to debate at a better hour of the day. That is why, on this occasion, I beg to move that the House do now resume and that we debate the further Committee stage of the Bill at a more appropriate time of day.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

The Question is that the House do now resume.

A noble Lord

Give it to 'em. Sock it to 'em!

Lord Carter

Noble Lords will know that it is not my style to "Give it to 'em".

I am advised that any attempt to adjourn the House, if the House is resumed, in the particular circumstances of this Bill is almost certainly unprecedented. I can only say that this debate has come rather late. I thought that noble Lords opposite were warned to be here at half-past 10 tonight for this surprising intervention. Indeed, given the number of noble Lords who have taken the trouble to attend so late that means that perhaps they are prepared to debate the Bill.

A noble Lord

Do not disappoint them.

Lord Carter

While I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has said about the remaining amendments in Committee, it is my view that the House should complete the groupings list tonight. There are 19 substantive groups on the groupings list for debate today. In my experience and that of other noble Lords on the Front Bench and the Back Benches, it is quite common to take 20 or 30, sometimes 40 or even 50 groups of amendments on a single day. So far today, in over six hours of debate, we have dealt with seven groups. When 1 announced the refreshment arrangements following Questions today, I was completely clear about what we hoped to do. The Opposition Chief Whip said nothing. He did not attempt to question the suggestions that I made.

Members of the Committee may well say that this is an important constitutional Bill. It certainly is. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the Bill establishing devolution for Northern Ireland was an important constitutional Bill. On each of the four days in Committee on that Bill the number of groups taken were 20, 22, 24 and 39 respectively. Each of those figures represents one day's business.

Perhaps I should also remind the Committee that almost 700 amendments were tabled, fewer than 200 of them government amendments, for l0 days in Committee on the Scotland Bill. On the 10th day in Committee, no fewer than 46 groups were considered. About 120 amendments, excluding those withdrawn, had been tabled for six days in Committee on this Bill.

I wholly understand that many noble Lords believe that the House of Lords Bill is the most significant measure to come before the House in their lifetime. I certainly agree that this is a significant Bill; it is a constitutional Bill. I should say, however, that my having indicated to a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Committee the groupings issued last Wednesday afternoon, which covered last Thursday and today, those were two reasonable days' business. Indeed, last Thursday the proceedings finished at midnight and we had handled 20 groups. Today, 19 have been tabled and so far, in six hours, we have handled six of them. I wonder why.

I hope the Committee will agree that the arrangement that we have come to is a reasonable balance between the views on all sides of the House. I should add that progress on Thursday went much further than had been anticipated by the Opposition Chief Whip, from which it could have been deduced that today's business should have been short. There is also the matter of the recommitment. We shall be glad to recommit the Bill on the Weatherill clause, adding an extra Committee day, giving seven days in all. I should also add that many of the individual amendments that have been ungrouped in fact cover the same topics as have been previously debated. As I say, 20 groups were dealt with last Thursday and there are 19 on the list for debate today. It is unprecedented for the Opposition to seek to use their overwhelming in-built majority to disrupt the Government's business. Members of the Committee must think long and hard about what they intend to do.

Every government seek to deliver their legislation through Parliament, and they can face delay from the Opposition. Every government set their priorities. It has been the well-established custom of this House that the government get their business. It was the experience of the previous administration that often it could only secure its business through the House after a number of extremely late nights. In Opposition I sat throughout the night and had breakfast here.

There have not been many late nights since the election. We have been able to manage the business of the House to avoid it. Some, including myself, had begun to forget just how often the House had to sit late under the previous administration. Discussions took place through the usual channels about the time being made available before Whitsun. The Opposition did not agree to take the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill last Friday despite saying officially that they were in favour of an expedited passage for the Bill. That would have freed another half day for this Bill. Neither did they wish to waive their request for a day and a half at Report stage for the Tax Credits Bill. Some of tomorrow will be spent debating a procedural Motion on an amendment from a Front Bench spokesman. I believe that that is unprecedented. With some flexibility, that could have perhaps freed another half day for this Bill.

Additional time before Whitsun could perhaps have been found had the Opposition been prepared to co-operate. That is not how it has proceeded. Instead, we have had amendments not moved and then re-tabled two or three times during the Committee stage with the inevitable result that the end of that stage has become overloaded. This evening we have witnessed Members of the Committee opposite moving amendments which were grouped with others which were debated and decided earlier in Committee. That is against the spirit in which amendments are grouped in a self-regulating House.

That is the background against which the Government and those on this side of the Chamber must judge the actions of the Opposition today. It is in the best traditions of the House that it tries to balance the interests of all sides in agreeing its business. Under these circumstances I hope that the Committee will agree that we should proceed with the Bill. We all know what is going on. That is confirmed by an incident earlier today when an elderly Conservative Peer, obviously an infrequent visitor to this House, asked one of the Government Whips "What time is the vote?". Members of the Committee opposite may believe that that is a responsible way in which to treat an important constitutional Bill. I do not.

11 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I would not wish to accuse the Conservative Party of a policy of deliberate obstruction on this Bill. However, that has occurred to a number of us when we have listened to the same point being repeated time and time again. We have sometimes heard exactly the same point made 15 to 20 times on a wide variety of amendments. I can see no merit in this Motion and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Lord Denham

I say to the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that I cannot remember a time when, as Chief Whip, I denied the Opposition of the day the number of days that they wanted on a particular Bill. This is the most important constitutional Bill that I can remember going through this House. To ask us now at 11 o'clock to go beyond this point and to rush this Bill through—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Denham

Members of the Committee may say that. As a Conservative Chief Whip, sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is sitting now, if I had tried to push through a Bill like this without achieving agreement first from the other side, I would have failed. I would not have tried. As Chief Whip I tried to reach agreement with the other side. Sometimes I said that if the other side wanted more days on one Bill they would have to have fewer on another. But I do not understand why we cannot adjourn and deal with this exceptionally important Bill properly on another day.

Lord Henley

I am sorry about the approach of the Government Chief Whip. It struck me as rather bullying. He spoke of our alleged majority. When in government my noble friend Lord Mackay and I served in the Department of Social Security and were defeated again and again on many occasions. The majority that we have is somewhat exaggerated.

Lord Richard

The noble Lord cannot get away with that. The figures for defeats under Conservative and Labour administrations are well known. The government of which my noble friend Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister were defeated approximately 70 times per year in this House. In the 17 years during which Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major were Prime Ministers the average number of defeats suffered by the government in this House was between 10 and 12. The figures are unmistakable. How the noble Lord can wrap that up in some way as if he were the victim of attacks by his own Back-Benchers is frankly beyond me.

Lord Henley

We had defeats when we were in government and the noble Lord was in government. When we were defeated, government responded. However, when the noble Lord was Leader of the House the present Government did not respond to defeats inflicted upon them. But that is neither here nor there. What is important is that we try to achieve some degree of compromise about the matter under debate at the moment. I am perfectly prepared, if the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is prepared to agree, that we should go on for another hour, but there are an awful lot of other matters to be discussed and we shall not finish them tonight.

What I have made clear to the Government Chief Whip is that we have been prepared to co-operate. That is why I stressed that we were prepared to co-operate on the four Bills that in one way or another they wanted to get through before Whitsun and that we would assist them with that if they would assist us by giving us a little extra time on this matter. We will give them their Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill before Whitsun. We will give them the Northern Ireland Bill in all its stages beyond Whitsun. We will give them the. Report Stage of the Tax Credits Bill before Whitsun.

A noble Lord

"Give"!

Lord Henley

Give is obviously not a word which is appropriate. All I can say is that we will, as the official Opposition, allow the Government to get their Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, the whole of the Northern Ireland Bill, the Report stage of the Tax Credits Bill and the Committee stage of the House of Lords Bill. We are offering quite a lot.

The Greater London Authority Bill is a very big Bill that will take many days in Committee. The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip implied that it would not take many days. That Bill is bigger than the Scotland and Wales Bills together. The Scotland Bill took 10 days and the Wales Bill five days in Committee. This Bill is bigger than both. This matter is important, and I do not believe that this House wishes to continue to debate this measure tonight. I commend my Motion to your Lordships.

Lord Carter

I feel that I must respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the former Conservative Chief Whip, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is the present Chief Whip. I have tried to get agreement. This is the only Bill since the general election on which there has not been agreement through the usual channels. I find it distasteful to have the normal discussions through the usual channels across the Floor of the Committee, when people have been brought in specially to hear it.

As to the business of the bullying approach, my Whip is 177 and the Conservative Whip is 474. I am not such a fool as to bully in that situation. If the Bill is so important, and it is, why did the business collapse last Tuesday, when noble Lords opposite refused to move their amendments? They removed them. We packed up much earlier than we expected. Why did the business collapse last Thursday, when noble Lords opposite failed to move amendment after amendment? Again, we did not get as far down the Bill as we should have done. Then we come to today and what happens? The troops are bussed in and this is tried on.

Noble Lords opposite bear a heavy responsibility if they try to adjourn the House or to force the Government to accept the timetable, in view of all that has been said during our discussions on the Bill about the normal conventions of this House and not disrupting the Government's programme.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Henley

Is the Government Chief Whip prepared to respond to the offer that I made to him over the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind that he made threats to us in terms of the Committee sitting late and all that—offers he made without actually repeating them to us?

Lord Carter

That is just not correct. I told the noble Lord last week that we hoped and intended to finish the Bill tonight. He put down the same number of amendments today as we had last Thursday. There was no suggestion about this then. The noble Lord, to be fair, did say that he would find it difficult, but we made the Government's intention clear. If the Opposition Chief Whip now says that he is prepared to allow us to have our business, that indeed is a significant remark. We have been as fair as we can. We have taken 20 minutes over this business. There is no reason, if we sat for two or three more hours, why we could not easily finish the Committee stage.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Carter

And we could have done it a lot earlier if the Committee had not collapsed last Tuesday and Thursday because the Opposition refused to move their amendments.

Lord Henley

I do not think that last Thursday collapsed early. I was there until well after midnight. I have made a reasonable offer to the Government Chief Whip. I have said that I am prepared to do all that I can to assist the Government in their business and will continue to do so. I have done that the whole way through this Session. We have given considerable assistance to the Government Chief Whip in Ms business. I make that one last offer. If the noble Lord makes no further response, I will put my Motion.

Earl Ferrers

Before my noble friend sits down, I realise that people get worked up and tempers get frayed on these occasions, but I hope chat the Government Chief Whip will think again: he said that he objects to people on our side of the Committee being "bussed in", as if we were a whole lot of football supporters. That really is indelicate language. If one looks at the number of people who have been "bussed in" on the other side of the Committee, that does not go down very well with us—and it is not particularly nice language. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is not the case. Noble Lords appear for whatever reasons they do appear.

Lord Carter

If the phrase "bussed in" is offensive, I certainly withdraw it. But my colleagues are here every night.

11.13 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Annaly, L.	Berners, B.
Astor, V.	Biddulph, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Birdwood, L.
Attlee, E.	Blatch, B.
Banbury of Southam, L.	Boardman, L.
Bathurst, E.	Bowness, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Brentford, V.
Bell, L.	Bridgeman, V

Brougham and Vaux, L.	Lang of Monkton, L.
Bumham, L. [Teller.]	Lauderdale, E.
Buscombe, B.	Leigh, L.
Byford, B.	Limerick, E.
Cadman, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Caithness, E.	Lyell, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Carnock, L.	Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Chadlington, L.	Mancroft, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Manton, L.
Chesham, L.	Marlesford, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Mersey, V.
Coleraine, L.	Middleton, L.
Coleridge, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Colwyn, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Monro of Langholm, L.
Courtown, E.	Mountgarret, V.
Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.	Munster, E.
Cranborne, V.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Cross, V.	Newall, L.
De L'Isle, V.	Norrie, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Northbrook, L.
Denham, L.	Northesk, E.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Norton, L.
Downshire, M.	Onslow of Woking, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Palmer, L.
Effingham, E.	Patten, L.
Elles, B.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Pender, L.
Ferrers, E.	Prior, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Quinton, L.
Freeman, L.	Rawlings, B.
Gage, V.	Renton, L.
Geddes, L.	Roberts of Conwy, L.
Gisborough, L.	Romney, E.
Glentoran, L.	Rowallan, L.
Gray, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Harlech, L.	Seccombe, B.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Selsdon, L.
Hayhoe. L.	Sempill, L.
Henley, L. [Teller.]	Sharples, B.
Hesketh, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Higgins, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L
Hogg, B.	Stewartby, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Stockton, E.
Home, E.	Strange, B.
Hooper, B.	Strathcarron, L.
Howe, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.	Sudeley. L.
Inglewood, L.	Swinfen, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Torrington, V.
Kelvedon, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Kenyon, L.	Trenchard, V.
Kingsland, L.	Trumpington, B.
Kinloss, Ly.	Vivian, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Waddington, L.
Kitchener, E.	Westbury, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.	Wilcox, B.
Knutsford, V.	Wise. L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Bassam of Brighton, L.
Addington, L.	Blackstone, B.
Ahmed, L.	Blease, L.
Alli, L.	Bledisloe, V.
Amos, B.	Borrie, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Bragg, L.
Bach, L.	Brightman, L.
Barnett, L.	Brooke of Alverthorpe, L

Brookman, L.	Lockwood, B.
Burlison, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Callghan of Cardiff, L.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Carlisle, E.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]
Carter, L, [Teller.]
Chandos, V.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Christopher, L.	McNair, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Maddock, B.
Clement-Jones, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Marsh, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Crawley, B.	Meston, L.
Currie of Marylebone, L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
David, B.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Monkswell, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Desai, L.	Morris of Manchester, L.
Dholakia, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dixon, L.	Newby, L.
Donoughue, L.	Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Orme, L.
Dubs, L.	Peston, L.
Erroll, E.	Pitkeathley, B.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Evans of Watford, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Puttnam, L.
Falkland, V.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Gilbert, L.	Razzall, L.
Goodhart, L.	Rea, L.
Goudie, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Ren wick of Clifton, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Richard, L.
Grantchester, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Grenfell, L.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Grey, E.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hacking, L.	Sewel, L.
Hamwee, B.	Shepherd, L.
Hanworth, V.	Simon, V.
Hardie, L.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Tenby, V.
Haskel, L.	Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Haskins, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hayman, B.	Thornton, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Tomlinson, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Tordoff, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hoyle, L.	Uddin, B.
Hughes, L.	Varley. L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor]	Warner, L.
	Weatherill, L.
Islwyn, L.	Wedderbum of Charlton, L.
Jacobs, L.	Whitty, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E
	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

Lord Carter

My Lords, as the House has now been resumed, we will have to consider how we proceed with the Bill. We will make clear tomorrow what the future arrangements will be, hopefully with agreement through the usual channels.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.