§ (" . Peers who are disqualified from attending the House of Lords by virtue of section 1 shall nevertheless remain entitled to attend State Openings of Parliament.")
§ The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 135D. Earlier in proceedings on the Bill there was some discussion about the so-called club rights. This amendment is not about those rights, but about a much narrower point; namely, the possibility—the desirability as I see it—of hereditary Peers attending the State Opening of Parliament, as I propose in this amendment. Amendment No. 135D raises an even more important point; namely, sitting on the steps of the Throne.
§ At an earlier stage I asked whether, for example, Privy Counsellors who were hereditary Peers would be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. At present, Privy Counsellors from the other place., from this House, or from neither House, may come and sit on the steps of the Throne. Indeed, I have discovered that one or two other slightly unexpected people are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. For example, I understand that the Dean of Westminster possesses those rights, and noble Lords may say that that is quite right too.
§ I should like to hear what the Government have in mind with regard to these particular matters. I believe that it would be appropriate for hereditary Peers to continue to attend the State Opening of Parliament. Of course, the hereditary Peers will not remain in the same numbers as now. I imagine that no new hereditary Peers are likely to be created in the foreseeable future; thus the number of hereditary Peers will decline. Indeed, I do not imagine that every hereditary Peer would want to attend anyway. I should also like to hear about the question of sitting on the steps of the Throne. and also 215 possibly about the question of access to this House by those who presently have access by virtue of their relationship to a hereditary Peer. I beg to move.
§ Lord Williams of MostynAmendment No. 135C would provide the entitlement as of right to continue to attend the State openings of Parliament. We do not see that there is any purpose, because after the passage of the Bill hereditary Peers will no longer be Members of the House of Lords. As noble Lords know, it is a matter for Standing Orders.
Amendment No. 135D, which is grouped with Amendment No. 135C, has to do with sitting on the steps of the Throne. This would also be a matter for Standing Orders in the context of Privy Counsellors. I thought I might have misread the amendment, because what is suggested is that all hereditary Peers—and their sons, and their daughters, and their grandsons and their granddaughters—will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. Assuming that they are even modestly prolific, and giving them 10 a go, that means 7,000 people. There ought to be a law against it.
§ Lord TrefgarneThe plain fact is that a number of the people that I set out in my amendment are already entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. I am not saying that they all are, but a number are.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that it is a matter for Standing Orders. But will the Government support the necessary Standing Orders? Is the Minister right to say that it is only a matter for Standing Orders? And if Standing Orders are the right vehicle, why should it not, in certain circumstances anyway, be right to put this on the face of the Bill?
We discussed the question of Privy Counsellors earlier. When the noble Lord says it is a matter for Standing Orders, is it a matter for Standing Orders, too, that Members of the other place who are Privy Counsellors may sit on the steps of the Throne, or are they here as of right? I am not sure that the noble Lord is entirely correct.
Nevertheless, it is not a matter that I shall pursue at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 135D not moved.]
§
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux moved Amendment No. 135E:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—