Lords Sitting of 25 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

European Communities Commission
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will use their influence in the European Union to install a new Commission of the European Communities before the autumn of 1999.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we would like to see a new Commission in place as soon as possible. The European Council acted quickly in nominating Mr. Prodi as President and we are pleased that the European Parliament has now approved the nomination.
The new Commission cannot take office until it has been approved as a whole by the European Parliament. We hope that this process will begin shortly after the European Parliament reconvenes in July. Taking into account the summer break, we hope that the process will be completed in September.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, it now looks as though the Danish Government will be unable to nominate their commissioner. That being so, is it not possible to have an appropriate quorum of commissioners to enable the Commission properly to set about its business as soon as possible? The probability of delay until October is completely unsatisfactory. Therefore do not the Government think it prudent to use their best endeavours to ensure that other member states take the view that at least part of the Commission should be established in post by September at the very latest?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the existing European Parliament has discussed the timetable for approving the college. The timetable could change if the new European Parliament wanted. However, perhaps I may indicate to my noble friend some of the signposts on the way.
On 20th July the new European Parliament meets and starts to elect its president and committees. In the first week of September the European Parliament committees hold hearings with nominees for the new Commission. In its 13th to 17th September plenary session the European Parliament approves the new Commission; and it is hoped that the new Commission will take office on 1st October. That timetable has been set out by the European Parliament. It is the timetable that we expect to be abided by.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is highly desirable that the European Parliament should have
770
hearings of commissioners. Many of us greatly applaud that decision, which enables the European Parliament more closely to scrutinise the work of the Commission.
Can the Minister assure us that the timetable will not slip? It is about the longest timetable that could be accepted in view of the large number of issues which now confront the Commission.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated in my initial Answer, Her Majesty's Government would like to see the new Commission in place as quickly as possible. In wishing that, we have to abide by such matters as the approval of Mr. Prodi—we have had that. There will then be the elections of the President of the Parliament and the committees, following the new Parliament taking office.
In informing your Lordships of the timetable which has been set, I hope that I have also made clear that the incoming European Parliament might also want to make some adjustments and changes. I cannot commit the new Parliament in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. It is important that the new Parliament has the opportunity to interview the commissioners in the way that the noble Baroness also believes is an important improvement.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, following the report of the committee of independent experts on the total failure of the Commission to govern its own area of responsibility, is it not both farcical and disgraceful that commissioners should continue to cling on to office until September at the earliest? Is it not a fact that we have no power whatever to influence the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that it is farcical and disgraceful, as the noble Lord indicates he believes. The Committee of the Wise made its views very clear. As noble Lords have discussed on a number of occasions, although there were some criticisms of individual commissioners, those criticisms did not involve allegations of fraud, corruption or anything of the kind.
The Commission has found itself in an unprecedented position. I believe that the European Parliament has taken responsible action in trying to map out the way forward for us. While we would have wished it to be accelerated, let us hope that this timetable does not slip.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the longer we go on without commissioners the more likely it is that there will be disputes about what is and what is not current business, which is still being handled by the present Commission? Is it not inherently unsatisfactory that the Commission should continue to decide what is and what is not current business? Should not that point be monitored closely by the member states?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear to your Lordships

771
that the timetable is not as fast as Her Majesty's Government would have liked, but we are acting with our partners in this respect. I believe that the emphasis is shifting from the timetable to the more important issue of getting the right quality people on to the Commission. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wishes to agree with Mr. Prodi high-quality UK nominations. We can all take satisfaction from the fact that all the nominees will be interviewed by the European Parliament, so we must not sacrifice quality for speed.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people already on the Commission, who failed so abysmally, were selected top people—so we are told? What credibility does she believe there will be for a new Commission if it contains any of the commissioners who were so greatly criticised?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have indicated, not all the commissioners were subject to such criticisms. The noble Baroness does her argument no service at all by over-exaggerating the position. That simply was not so. I have indicated the safeguards which have been put in place for the new Commission and I have said how important it will be that the people are of high quality. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that there are some safeguards in the fact that those nominated for the Commission will be interviewed by the European Parliament.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, irrespective of—
Noble Lords: This side!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as we are seven minutes into Question Time and the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson has risen we should listen to his question.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, as a spokesman for foreign affairs, I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for the courtesy which she has shown. Pursuant to the questions raised by noble Lords today, what specific message does the Minister believe is being sent to the people of Europe by the fact that the disgraced commissioner, Edith Cresson, is still in post and drawing a salary?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is of course a matter for the French government. We want to see a clear message going out from the Cologne Summit on 3rd and 4th June about the modernising of the Commission, improved financial controls and the guiding principles which will be in place for that new Commission of transparency, accountability and efficiency. I believe that we ought to concentrate on those positive messages, about which I hope we can all agree on 3rd and 4th June.

Fuel Poverty: Government Assistance
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for dealing with fuel poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have already cut VAT on fuel, which the previous government imposed; increased the winter fuel payment for pensioner households from £20 to £100; and allocated an additional £150 million to fuel poverty programmes in the comprehensive spending review. On 11th May, the Deputy Prime Minister detailed the Government's proposals to tackle poor home energy efficiency more effectively through the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which will move households substantially out of fuel poverty.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as someone who for many years has been involved in the charity NEA, which has campaigned for warmer homes particularly for the elderly on low incomes, I very much welcome the paper issued by the Government on fuel poverty and on the allocation of additional funds to deal with this important social issue.
I also welcome the fact that it has been recognised that a large part of the problem arises in the private rented and owner-occupied sectors. In view of the fact that the proposed additional assistance will be limited to those receiving qualifying social benefits, will the Government consider those who are marginally outside the benefit area, many of whom still suffer from a substantial degree of fuel poverty? That would be recognised as a substantial additional benefit in the Government's present proposals.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of and pay tribute to the noble Lord's contribution in this field. He will recognise that we are attempting to target the households in most difficulty as regards fuel poverty. For example, 3.7 million pensioners qualify under this proposition and they are the worst cases. Other pensioners who are not in receipt of benefit will have benefited from the winter fuel payments and we must recognise that some prioritisation is necessary. However, the document is subject to consultation and I have no doubt that the points to which the noble Lord referred can be made if they are submitted to the Government by 16th July.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that often people on the margin of income are being deprived of fuel because of the behaviour of the gas and electricity companies, which give large discounts to those who are well off, and charge a premium, particularly to those paying through a slot meter, to those who are not well off? Cannot something be done to redress the balance, because it would certainly help those on the margin of income and perhaps those who are fuel-poor, too?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is something in what my noble friend says. The regulation of utility pricing

773
systems exists under the present regimes. Proposals for changing such regimes are under consideration by my colleagues at the DTI. It may well be that the new regulation system will allow better recognition of fuel poverty in the way in which the utilities treat their customers, particularly those on lower incomes with a low level of usage.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, like my noble friend I welcome the extension of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. Can the Minister clarify an anomaly about which many noble Lords have expressed concern, both to him and to others? Under the old scheme, people who were eligible some years ago for fairly small grants for small amounts of insulation—perhaps just draught-proofing—were then not eligible for the larger grants which later came into being. We are now giving grants for cavity wall insulation and double glazing. How does the Minister see that situation developing?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall take advice on that matter. Under the new system the grants for substantial insulation or other measures to save fuel usage will be in a sense a "one-off", although there are leasing arrangements, as the noble Baroness will know. As regards those who received small payments at an earlier stage under the pre-existing scheme, perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to write to her on that matter.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the initiative being taken by an organisation called Equigas to meet precisely the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon? If so, are the Government in a position to make that opportunity better known to those on low incomes whose consumption of fuel is relatively small and who at present are disadvantaged by the pricing structure?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am, in general terms, aware of that initiative. It should, indeed, enjoy wider publicity. However, it will not deal with all the situations to which my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is an unfortunate fact that there is a coincidence between fuel poverty and inefficient energy use of buildings. Can the Minister give any indication of how long it will take under the existing regime, which I acknowledge is improved, before energy inefficient houses have all been improved?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the short answer is "no". Clearly, we shall need to assess the priorities and ensure that they are determined by households and household circumstances rather than buildings and building circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, some of the worst situations are within the private rented sector and, indeed, the owner-occupied sector. It is therefore slightly more difficult than with social housing or local authority housing to estimate how long such improvements will take. We have provided substantial additional funds on a different front for local
774
authority housing and for housing associations. I am afraid that I cannot at present give an overall figure, as the noble Lord requested. I shall see whether I can do so and write to him.

London Underground Penalty Fares: Appeals
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the review of the London Underground penalty fares appeals procedure will be completed, and when the details of the outcome of the review will be made public.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, London Transport has undertaken a review of the Underground penalty fare system in association with the London Regional Passengers' Committee and officials from the Government Office for London. We shall be considering the outcome of that review shortly. There will be an announcement about the review in due course.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I declare an interest in asking the Question, in that I have recently been charged by London Underground with a penalty fare; an interest, indeed, I have since discovered I share with a number of your Lordships. None of us, I hasten. to add, had any intent to defraud London Underground. Does not the Minister agree that the current draconian application of penalty fares traps many people who have no intent whatever to defraud? Does he not agree that the system is inflexible; for example, it does not allow people to change their minds about a journey when they wish to travel outside the zone for which they possess a ticket? Does he not also agree that there should be an independent appeals procedure rather than London Underground acting as it does at present as judge and jury?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am slightly surprised to find a high level of such incidents among your Lordships. I am sure there was absolutely no intent. However, we are speaking of a penalty fare, not a criminal fine, which is requested when a passenger is discovered not to have an appropriate ticket. In those circumstances, it is not like a criminal case. Therefore, there is no full appeals process. However, the review will be considering, among other matters, whether the appeals dimension can be improved.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the Minister used the word "requested". What happens if a request is refused?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, then, of course, the pre-existing criminal procedures can be pursued.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that discussions are taking place. Has he any idea of the timetable for receiving the final

775
outcome of the review? If not, shall we have to wait and insert a clause into the new GLA Bill to enable the forthcoming mayor to deal with the problem of an appeals procedure?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under the GLA Bill, the London Transport powers will transfer to TfL. Therefore, should the noble Baroness be so moved to insert such a clause, it would be in order. However, the review will report shortly. It may well be that we shall have further news before we reach that part of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord showed concern by his own Written Answer only the other day, in which he stated that fare evasion is rising steeply at present. After the introduction of penalty fares, it went down, but it now appears to be rising dramatically. This is a great loss to those of us—I am sure the majority of your Lordships, certainly myself—who pay the appropriate fare and who do not like to see people—perhaps the noble Earl—getting away without paying for a proper ticket. Is the Minister further aware that at my local station, which I must confess is in Zone 2, automatic ticket gates were installed about two months ago but have still not been brought into operation because, apparently, there is insufficient electricity at the station to run them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we are concerned about the problem and have been for some time. The installation of automatic gates is proceeding, it is to be hoped with electricity. The PFI scheme called Prestige is, among other things, introducing electronic gateways to every station on the network, whereas by and large they currently exist only in central London. That should make a major contribution towards ensuring that everybody pays the correct fare.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on his Question. He is quite right in saying that this problem causes a great deal of aggravation to London Underground users. It is particularly galling when the ticket machines are not working at the station of departure. Is the Minister aware of any plans by London Underground to modernise its ticketing system? It is not just the infrastructure which needs modernising. The whole ticketing system is decades behind European cities, which have multi-strip cards, add-on tickets, and so on. Does the Minister agree that the system is completely inflexible and not user friendly? Can he inform us of any progress in that direction?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may mention two or three points in relation to the questions raised by the noble Baroness. Where it is the fault of London Transport that a passenger does not possess a ticket—that is, the machine is not working—that is regarded as acceptable grounds for appeal. That is apparently the only circumstance. The infrastructure for ticketing is part of the same and parallel projects to introduce more modern ticketing machines. The question of the nature
776
of tickets and the structure of fares is an important one. We want ticketing arrangements within London to become more comprehensive and user friendly. That will become a matter for TfL and the mayor of London in due course.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we should bear in mind that many users of London Underground may be foreign tourists or people from other parts of the United Kingdom who will not be familiar with the Underground. Is there a significant level of complaint from such categories of people who may have inadvertently bought a ticket which, though valid, is the wrong ticket for the journey they wish to make?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the figures for the number of complaints do not identify the nationality of the complainants. As with other fare systems, one cannot use the excuse of being a foreign tourist for not paying the correct fare.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of a situation that takes place as people come out of stations—what I call "twinning"? That is where one has a valid ticket and there is a chance that a friend may follow close behind as one goes through the barrier.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, your Lordships never cease to amaze me. I assumed the noble Earl was correct when he said that there was no intent to defraud London Transport and now the noble Viscount opens up a whole new chapter! I am not aware of that practice and I trust that none of your Lordships participates in it.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I have seen it happen.

Health Authorities: Membership
3 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many NHS health authorities or trusts have invited former non-executive directors who were not re-appointed by the Department of Health to return on another basis and what costs were incurred as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, information on whether National Health Service trusts or health authorities have invited former board members to serve in a different capacity is not collected by the Department of Health. Those who have served the NHS on boards may well have skills and experience that remain valuable to the service, and it may be appropriate in specific circumstances for them to be invited to serve as a committee member or to provide short-term advice or services in a consultancy capacity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It does not surprise me that the department is not aware of this. To my certain knowledge there are people in the London region who

777
are being paid the same amount as non-executive directors and who have been invited back because there was no one with suitable capabilities to be on the audit committee or manage things that required more business skills.
While I admit that there is an improvement in the type of non-executive director being appointed—the department is coming to terms with the situation—does the Minister accept that there is still quite a mis-match? Many local councillors who have been appointed find their time under pressure. At present one member of an area health authority is required to sit on each primary care group. A number of areas have eight primary care groups yet there are only five non-executive directors. Those five, therefore, are badly stretched in terms of time. Will the Minister consider whether or not there is a need to look at some way of either enlarging the number of non-executives or allowing additional payment? Everyone on the primary care group board receives payment except the area health authority members.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a number of areas of concern. When I said that the information was not centrally collected, I did not mean that the department was not aware that in some cases the skills of individuals who have left board membership are utilised in specific areas. The reason is that they have skills that they can bring to the NHS organisation. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, considerable demands are made on non-executive members and the formation of primary care groups has been one of those demands.
We believe that the demands are not excessive and that we have taken the right direction in terms of broadening the range of people who serve on NHS boards. The noble Baroness referred to councillors. Eight per cent. of board members are made up from councillors, but there is a greater preponderance of membership from the local community. That is something we set out to do and are pleased to have achieved.

House of Lords Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Standing Orders of the House") and insert ("subsection t 2) of this section")
The noble Lord said: Two weeks ago to the day we had in effect a Second Reading debate on what is now new Clause 2; that is, the Weatherill amendment. Perhaps as a preface to our debates today and the parts which these Benches will play in them I should repeat again that we were never a party to the Weatherill agreement; we believe it to be wrong in principle and we believe it to be wrong in detail also.
At a much earlier stage I ventured to call the agreement a "dog's breakfast". I am quite prepared to withdraw that description in favour of a description given by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He said that it was a "shambles"; that it was a "pig in a poke". I see him in his place and I am quite happy to defer to his choice of language as an apt description of this amendment.
I turn to Clause 2. I believe it was a shabby affair, looked at in retrospect. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, are committed to it, as is the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. They are men of honour and I do not complain for one moment if they feel that they can do nothing but defend the indefensible unless they agree that there should be change, and none of them can depart from that agreement. But an agreement reached between three individual Members of your Lordships' House cannot bind this Chamber. It is the duty of the Committee, on all sides of the Chamber, to scrutinise now in detail what is contained in Clause 2 and decide, if that is the wish of the Committee, that amendment should be made. I recognise fully that the Government are honour-bound to oppose them, but your Lordships' Committee is honour-bound to consider them on merit in these quite exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves.
It was never in question in any part of your Lordships' Chamber but that individual hereditary Peers, chosen on personal merit, those having made and still making a distinctive contribution to the House, should remain in the transitional House as life Peers. But I remind the Committee that the proposal, the purpose, the achievement of Clause 2 is quite different. Its objective, which it achieves, is to retain a self-perpetuating group of representative hereditary Peers. The words to which I draw the Committee' s attention are "self-perpetuating". They will choose who will stay; they will choose those who replace those who may go. And they will be representative. That is the idea, indeed the language, behind the acceptance of this amendment, at least from the Conservative Benches. This is maintaining in your Lordships' Chamber the hereditary peerage. The hereditary peerage lives on in your Lordships' House if the Weatherill amendment remains.
It may be said—it was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that it would be only for a short period. He vouchsafed the thought that we might have another Bill before the end of this Parliament. He is better able to judge that matter than I or any other Member of your Lordships' Chamber. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, with his usual ingenuity, argued that this provision was an incentive to end stage

779
one quickly and move on to a new House which, with the support of the Conservative Party, might be wholly elected.
That is the argument and I must take cognisance of it. Of course, Members of the Committee will form their own judgment. But I put it to the Committee that that is not the way things work; that is not the way of the world in parliamentary terms. I said in the course of my remarks two weeks ago that I believed that if hereditary Peers remained in the House after the Bill passed through all its stages, they would be here for another 10 years. That is still my view. Though I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his place, in his contribution he said he would take a wager. I too am prepared to wager. I am prepared to wager that in 10 years' time hereditary Peers will still be sitting in your Lordships' Chamber. Though I am not prepared to take a wager on something so bold, because perhaps I shall not be here to collect it, I would not be at all surprised if, in another generation, there were still hereditary Peers sitting in your Lordships' Chamber.
I recognise that the latter may be the wish of many hereditary Peers. It is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable point of view. But, legitimate though it is, it need not be the view of your Lordships as a whole. That is why we need to look at Clause 2. We have not yet come to the stage where we can reach a final verdict on the matter. Therefore, we need to look at Clause 2 in some of its detail.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 10 would effectively exclude the 15 Deputy Speakers, and Amendment No. 27 deals with how vacancies would be filled should any of the latter drop out. In other words, under the amendment that I now move, we are discussing the provision for 15 Deputy Chairmen to remain in your Lordships' House in addition to the 75 who will be named elsewhere in the Standing Orders.
The argument is a curious one, in so far as we have heard, and quite unsustainable, as regards this 15. Indeed, I have to say that I have not heard one serious argument that is remotely convincing. It is a slightly hole-in-the-corner device—a rather seedy device—for making 75 into 90. There is no justification for making those two sums add up. In retrospect, I hope that the parties to what is now Clause 2 will much prefer the figure of 90, little though I like it, instead of this curious device which I think will be so difficult to sustain.
There is no evidence to show that we need 15 hereditary Peers for the task or that those who sit as Deputy Speakers or Deputy Chairmen—and I will come to that later—must have the unique qualities of hereditary Peers. Indeed, half of those who sit at present are not hereditary Peers. I see no reason at all, although I am willing to listen to any arguments, why that half should not become rather larger. Surely there are other life Peers in the House who could undertake the task. We have not been told that there has been a fruitless canvass of life Peers in the search for the 15. I should be most interested to know how many life Peers have been asked, "Would you like to become a Deputy Speaker or a Deputy Chairman?" and have responded,
780
"No, but my hereditary friend would do it so much better". There is no evidence of that, but perhaps we shall be told.
Similarly, I have not heard why the 15, if they must be hereditary Peers, cannot be chosen from the 75. Is it suggested that there are 15 with unique qualities who will have to be elected separately and that 75 would be totally incompetent were they to take on the task? We have not been told why hereditary Peers, having been given the privilege of electing the 75, are somehow prepared to share that privilege in the case of the 15. We are all going to be able to elect them. I do not know what is the rationale. Again, I hope that we shall be told.
I understand that the 15 will be selected first under the draft Standing Orders and then the 75 will be chosen. However, we have not been told why those who are chosen to be among the 15 should remain in your Lordships' House if they prove incapable of performing the task for which they were elected. I know of no other walk of life and of no other place in Parliament where there is such an arrangement whereby someone is elected to perform a task and then, if he can no longer perform it, he simply slips onto the Back Benches and spends the rest of his time there—
Lord Elton: Is the noble Lord taking this argument to its logical conclusion and suggesting that all life Peers should also retire when they have proved incapable of conducting the business of the House?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I would not take that view. It is very straightforward. No one is disputing the entitlement of life Peers to remain here, whatever duties they perform. But the argument in this clause as regards the 15 is the justification for what are called the "excepted Peers". This is an exceptional arrangement. That is why I take exception to it and raise such questions.
I do not wish to detain the Members of the Committee too long on matters with which they are familiar. Nevertheless, I shall detain the Chamber for as long as I choose. There is also the question of the runner-up who is to fill a vacancy. Is it seriously suggested—there may be a misunderstanding here, and I should be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong—that someone who has left your Lordships' House, retired to the country, put up his feet and been away for two or three years should be brought back to this Chamber to fill a vacancy because one of the 15 has dropped out?
Further, there is the question of subsection (5) of Standing Order 61, which states that at the beginning of every Session a number of noble Lords proposed by the Committee of Selection are appointed Deputy Chairmen of Committees. Is the Committee of Selection expected—indeed, is it required—to choose from the 15? If it is so required, what provision is there in the Standing Orders or in Clause 2 which would bind the House in that way? If there is no such provision, perhaps the Committee of Selection will choose none of the 15. So why have the 15 here at all? Again, I merely ask for an explanation of how far Clause 2 and the proposed draft Standing Orders supersede our present arrangements in the House.

781
Similarly, what happens if the House says no to one of the 15? The committee will have selected the 15 but, presumably, the House is free to say no in that respect. If 1 am wrong, I hope that I will be told that I am wrong to suggest that it will say no to one of the 15 whose name comes forward from the Committee of Selection. Having never done a day's work in the post for which he was selected, will that person be allowed to sit on the Back Benches as if nothing had happened?
There is just one other consideration and I shall pursue it no further. I see that the draft Standing Orders refer to "Deputy Speakers". I remember the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, referred to Deputy Speakers or Deputy Chairmen. There is some distinction between the two. However, I would be grateful if the Members of the Committee could be told how far the provisions for Deputy Speakers in the draft Standing Orders apply to Deputy Chairmen. Alternatively, are they wholly interchangeable?
I am sorry to say this, but I believe this to be a silly provision. I am sure that the arrangement was arrived at in good faith. I can see why the three parties who were responsible for it are committed to it. However, as a gesture of conciliation, perhaps they could think again, as we can all do from time to time and come back on Report with something else; otherwise it will be very sad indeed. Meanwhile, the Committee should exercise its judgment on whether or not these amendments should be part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I should point out to Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, quite rightly reminded your Lordships that no three Members of your Lordships' House can possibly commit your Lordships to come to a particular judgment. It is only right, especially in this Chamber—which, after all, spends most of its time scrutinising legislation—that noble Lords should insist, above all, that this particular legislation should be properly scrutinised. I have no quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in that respect. However, your Lordships will be astonished to hear that I have a mild disagreement with the noble Lord as regards a number of other comments he made.
In speaking to this group of amendments, perhaps I may reiterate my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the detailed mechanics of the arrangement we are now discussing should be embodied in the Standing Orders of the House. That would at least make clear and ensure that those mechanics remain the business of your Lordships' House rather than of the other place. If noble Lords think about it, I am sure they will realise that there is a good deal to be said for that view. After all, detailed mechanics tend to be just that, and this Chamber is a House of Parliament with a long tradition of ordering its own affairs. It seems to me that that is one long tradition which it would be wise to continue.
782
I am not surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and his associates suggesting once again that the 75 Peers elected in the first category should be elected by all Members of your Lordships' House. I am conscious of the fact that I am repeating myself. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. Obviously, he did not agree with the argument I deployed on the previous occasion. I fear therefore that I shall have to return to the charge and try to deploy it again.
It seems to me an odd principle that any assembly, any House of Parliament, should have the right to elect its own members. That is, after all, a privilege of a club. I am well aware that this Chamber is often described as the best club in London for good and sufficient reason. However, I think the Committee will also agree that that is not the primary purpose of the existence of this place. Its primary purpose is to act as a House of Parliament. Therefore, for its own membership to select who should sit here seems perverse.
It is perfectly true that the Government, and indeed a large number of the Committee, quarrel with the way in which a large proportion of the membership of this Chamber is selected at present. After all, that is the main reason for the existence of the Bill in the first place. It is perfectly legitimate to quarrel with that. I have made it clear to the Chamber many times that I am strongly in favour of a more thoroughgoing reform. That does not mean to say that the existing constituency does not have its existing legitimacy, and that legitimacy does not spring from the approval of the whole membership of this Chamber. Indeed, I imagine that some Members of this Chamber might not gain election if—dare I say it?—the right to deny membership was accorded to your Lordships. I do not consider that a sensible procedure. For that reason alone I find it difficult to defend the idea that your Lordships should transform this Chamber into White's.
I made clear the previous time we debated this matter the argument in favour of the whole Chamber selecting the pool of 15 who would be available to serve as deputy chairmen, deputy speakers or in various positions to ensure that the workings of this Chamber continue. I believe that a number of people, some of whom, interestingly enough, sit on the Back Benches behind the Government, have suggested that at least for the moment we need a number of people to help in those respects. I make no comment about that. lf, however, we need such a pool, it is at least arguable that the whole Chamber should be able to exercise its judgment. Whether that is an argument strong enough to counter the one that I have put in favour of the 75 elected Peers being elected by the hereditaries themselves on the grounds that we should not act like a club but as a House of Parliament is a nice point. Certainly, I would be happy to be guided by the Chamber as a whole on that matter. If I were to be wholly consistent—I have been told that consistency is the enemy of practical politics—I would see the force of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, makes in that respect, although, as I say, there are arguments on the other side.
In his Amendment No. 27, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, talks about not replacing the 15 when they eventually die. I suspect, especially on Amendment

783
No. 32, we shall have a considerable debate on the question of "dead men's shoes". Perhaps we can delay the full force of that debate until that amendment. Nevertheless I ask the Committee to remember the reason why I for one was so keen on the agreement I reached with the noble and learned Lord. He has stuck to that agreement as an honourable man. Once again I am happy to pay tribute to him for so doing. I regarded that as the best possible incentive for the Government not to remain at stage one, as I suspect they had every intention of doing. The Government would have to swallow so much weighty rhetoric on the iniquity of the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House were a number of them to have the right to remain here. As regards the 15 in Amendment No. 27, I suspect that that argument should apply too. So long as we maintain that number of hereditary Peers having the right—however selected—to remain in your Lordships' House, it will be a standing reproach to the Government so long as they fail to move on to stage two from stage one. For that reason too I find myself, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, strongly in disagreement with him on that point as it would undermine the incentive which I think is the key to what has come to be known as the Weatherill amendment.
I realise that the noble Lord is understandably upset that his party was not consulted on these matters. He is also perhaps upset that a large number of the able hereditary Peers, who, for some obscure reason, sit on the Liberal Benches, will not appear under the amendment as Members of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have tried to give, I find myself wholly opposed to the group of amendments proposed by the noble Lord and his noble friends. I am not opposed to them because I advocate—as he suggested—a wholly elected Chamber for stage two. I do not advocate that. I am opposed to them because it seems to me that we have an incentive for the Government to move to stage two. If, in some way, the agreement is undermined or negated by the Committee in the exercise of its judgment—which is what this Chamber exists to exercise—we shall find ourselves back where we started and in some difficulty, and, in my case, wholly believing that the Government will then have no incentive to progress to stage two at all.
Lord Peston: I speak as someone totally in support of the Bill as I first read it, in particular the essence of the Bill which I believe to be Clause 1, which states,
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I do not take that view on utilitarian grounds. I certainly do not take that view having done an analysis of the relative merits of hereditary Peers and life Peers. As far as I am concerned, your Lordships are all Peers and are equal. Indeed, as I have said previously, this is the most socialist establishment I have ever had the privilege to be part of. We are all equal here. I support Clause 1 solely as a matter of principle and I shall continue to do so.
784
Like several of my noble friends who have spoken, I do not regard Clause 2 as improving the Bill at all. But—and for me it is a "but" of overwhelming importance—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has told your Lordships that he, together with the noble Viscount the then Leader of the Opposition discussed what could be done to amend the Bill to move it forward. There seems to be a certain amount of disagreement as to the nature of that agreement. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has already told us that Clause 2 corresponds precisely to what he thinks he agreed to. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say the same, and possibly Lord Weatherill will also confirm that, whatever comments we may make, this is the agreement they reached. The Committee will also recall that two weeks or so ago we voted on this matter.
It therefore seems to me immensely difficult, whatever one's doubts about Clause 2, to do anything that would imply that that agreement was no longer in effect. I do not resile from the fact that I do not like Clause 2, which I do not believe improves the Bill. Even if one accepts the rather ingenious arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about the incentive system built into the clause, it is my hope that we shall move to reform of the new House without this incentive system.
But we are honourable men and women. honourable Peers. This agreement has been reached, and, a fortiori as I understand it, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has shaken hands on this matter—again, I ask my noble and learned friend to confirm that. Therefore, I do not remotely see how the Committee can move away from that. I say that with no great happiness.
I was a little unhappy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, because of his choice of words. As far as I know, none of us was consulted on what for shorthand purposes I would call "the deal". I first knew about it when everybody else knew about it, but it had not occurred to me to use the words "shabby affair" about it. I do not like that expression being used. I had not thought of it as hole-in-the-corner or seedy. I just thought that it was something that I did not agree with at the time. But very decent people agreed to it in good faith, with a view to moving the Bill forward, and it seems to me that at this stage that is what must happen. In particular, I do not see how the Committee could possibly vote—and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will decide whether he wishes to test the opinion of the Committee—to ask certain of our leading figures, not excluding the Prime Minister, essentially to rat on a deal. I simply do not think that is how we can behave.
Therefore, I do not stand back from the view that Clause 1 is what I really support, but at this stage we must regard what has happened as the end of the matter.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: I have very little to add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, have said, other than to confirm that a consensual agreement was reached. I now understand

785
that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was not party to it, although I had anticipated that he had bee n when we were negotiating. I can understand that the noble Lord and his colleagues are unhappy about keeping as many as 90 hereditary Peers in the transitional House, and that they do not accept the basis on which we arrived at that figure. But let me remind the Committee, perhaps for the last time, how the figure of 90 was reached.
As I explained in introducing the amendment that is now Clause 2, we believed that it would be appropriate to retain one-tenth of the total hereditary peerage—that is, 75—elected by the three main parties and the Cross-Benchers in proportion to the strength of the peerage in each grouping. On top of that, we felt that it was also appropriate to retain a further 15, being the number of hereditary Peers who currently serve as Deputy Speakers and Chairmen. I have nothing to add, other than to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about the importance of the Committee Chairmen in the House of Lords.
That brings the total number of excepted Peers to 90. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seeks to reduce that number to 75. He has suggested that if hereditary Peers are to serve as office holders they should be chosen from among the 75, not in addition to them. But, to put it at its very simplest, that was not the basis on which the consensual agreement was arrived at.
I wholly subscribe to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about this matter. It was an agreement to get us over a difficult problem of how the House would continue to work in the interim period, and I hope that the whole Committee will accept that.
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for having put down the amendment, because, as he said, it gives us an opportunity to discuss again the whole principle of what is behind the Bill. Certainly it never had such a discussion in another place. If a Bill of this complexity, with its far-reaching results, comes to the House of Lords, it is right that we should have an opportunity to consider it.
Yet again the absurdity of the position the Government are in is shown, when they bring in a Bill providing that all hereditary Peers must go and in doing so slag off the hereditary Peers, and then when it is halfway through the House of Lords they say "Now we want to keep a hundred hereditary Peers". That is a complete turnabout; having slagged off the hereditary Peers, the Government have not actually said "They are quite good fellows", but they have almost insinuated that.
The question then is how to choose those hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, does not like the idea of their being chosen by their number. He seems to think that it would be better for the House of Lords to choose those hereditary Peers who are to remain. I do not have his exact words, but his inference was that he knew of no other parliamentary Chamber in the world where somebody could be elected and then be there for life.
786
It is very funny that when the electorate had rejected the Social Democratic Party, and threw them all out, all the leaders of that party ended up in the House of Lords, in a legislative Chamber. Now, of course, they are the good boys, because they are appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, says that it is quite wrong for hereditary Peers to choose the 92 who are to remain, and that the life Peers should choose them. I do not see that there is any particular virtue in those people who have been appointed saying that they are the blue-eyed boys, the authentic creatures, the grade 1 people, and that they should appoint the hereditary Peers.
The fact is that the Bill is a mess. First, the Government said "No Peers", then they said "A hundred", and now they are in a tangle as to how we get a hundred hereditary Peers. The simple answer is that if 90 per cent of the hereditary Peers are to be removed, those hereditary Peers who will be, as it were, disenfranchised should presumably be the ones to say which hereditary Peers should represent a particular party or group. I see nothing wrong with that.
I understand why the Liberal Democrats are upset—they were not party to the discussion. That is always very peeving. Secondly, after the voting they will apparently have only three hereditary Peers, which is also a cause of grievance. But I do not see any argument for saying that the life Peers should appoint the hereditary Peers. Goodness knows how far down the scale of patronage we shall go if that happens.
Lord Lucas: I am sorry to say that I do not find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I understand that my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have bound themselves together in the agreement—back to back, one hopes. But the agreement does not and should not bind the rest of us.
We are here to consider whether we wish, as a Committee, to adopt the agreement. We must be free to discuss its individual aspects, to propose amendments and to try to convince both sides—because we cannot expect one side of the agreement to move without the other—that things can be changed and that this agreement, which was conceived among a relatively small number of people, with relatively little discussion, is surely capable of improvement. There must be something that we are allowed and expected to do here, and we must expect those who entered into the agreement to listen to us carefully and be prepared to move their position if we present an argument—and win the argument—that what we propose is better than what they have agreed and better achieves the best future for the House of Lords.
I do not agree with anything which this group of amendments proposes. However, I strongly defend the right of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to propose the amendments and the right of the Committee to consider them. I strongly urge on those who regard themselves as parties to the agreement that they should take seriously the deliberations of this Committee.
Lord Selsdon: I am one of those who feels unbound and I shall try to deliver a withering speech. I have never

787
had a vote. I would say that those who have had the privilege of voting have always had the government that they deserve. If I had had a vote, I suppose that I should have voted for the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when he was the Member of Parliament for Croydon, after which my name comes. But he offered me a vote the other day and I did not feel willing to support his amendment.
The reason behind that is one of conscience. One asks oneself to whom one is accountable. Is one accountable to oneself, to the House, to the party, to Her Majesty the Queen? I have some doubts on that but on this issue, I do not feel that I am accountable to the Conservative Party. To a certain extent, I am a free spirit and I am worried about the amendment because it is divisive. Already the signs are here that the hereditary Peers are setting themselves up against the appointed or the life Peers. There will be more and more divisions within us and this House divided against itself will not stand.
It would have been so reasonable and logical for the Government to say to us, "We wish to get rid of the hereditary principle". For years, many of us—almost the majority—in this House have accepted that that hereditary principle has no place. If that had been done in a friendly and gentlemanly way, then those side-deals, deals behind closed doors would not have been necessary.
They were done because someone was trying to save something. I do not speak against my noble friend Lord Cranborne nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I speak against the whole principle that the Government forced upon us something which is divisive. It will become more and more divisive as this day goes on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, this is a place of true socialism. We speak not the one against the other. I agree with his first remark about Clause 1, although I should have preferred the amendment which I tabled, which was Clause 1 in the form of the old Labour Party amendment of 1968. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is right that it will take time. But that is where the withering bit comes in: not whither do we go but how do we all wither on the vine?
Over the years, I have been studying the age profile of your Lordships' House and with a few friends, I have begun actuarially to predict the individual deaths of us all. We know full well—and age is not the argument—that, on average, we are all far too old to be here. But we are wise men. As I have said again and again, I have been privileged to have been drip-fed, in some form of university college hospital, by geriatric old men who the outside world think should be long gone but still have a major contribution to make. I am grateful to many of your Lordships who have given me more and more knowledge the older I get.
But it may take a moment of time or two, and we say now of our three score years and ten, how many more will not come again. We know that the average age in the House will be over three score years and ten within fourteen months. We know too that for whatever reason, appointed Peers are, by nature, older and, therefore,
788
I could argue, wiser. But if the average age of Members of the House is to be over 70, and with 25 per cent to be over 80, the outside world may say, "Lords, you are withering on the vine".
I do not approve of this amendment nor the principles behind it. I believe that we should have waited until the Royal Commission had reported. The other day we were cut off short, but we have a right to debate and discuss during the hours ahead what we feel our future should be, whether we individually play a role from inside or outside the House, I know not. But we should all like to play some form of future role in this country. I sit down, saying:
"Oh tell me Lord what power divine Will stop us withering on the vine".
3.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said he had not been consulted on the Weatherill compromise. I have heard that argument before. I have always been surprised by the theoretical insult which the noble Lord feels about that because the Liberal Democrats are represented on the constitutional sub-committee of the Cabinet and have been involved since the Cook-Maclennan talks on the redrawing of the constitution. Therefore, I have always assumed that information between the Government and the Liberal Democrats would have been shared freely from a very early position.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, called it a "shabby affair". I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about that. However, that is all I agreed with in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Clause 2 improves the Bill marginally, but it is an improvement and for that we should be grateful. The Liberals were involved also on the official group discussing the Weatherill proposals. They were not so offended that they boycotted those talks. I am glad that they took part in those talks because no doubt they have improved the draft Standing Orders. I am sure that at some point, their reward will come in the shape of life peerages to be offered to the Leader of their Party, whoever he or she may turn out to be. Certainly, it is always a fine moment when the Liberal Democrats descend to the practical business of politics.
The noble Lord was kind enough to remind us that he thought that the Weatherill amendment was a "dog's breakfast". The amendments that we are looking at are rather more like a "dog's dinner". The noble Lord invited us to examine them on their merits and I should now like to do so.
With Amendment No. 10, the Liberal Democrats are saying yes to the Weatherill deal but with only 77 hereditary Peers and not 92. That is not an objection of principle but of quantity. Therefore, I find little merit in it.
Secondly, Amendment No. 27 provides that 15 of the 77 must be voted for by the whole House rather than by the party colleagues of hereditary Peers. The separation of the 15 and the 75 is one of the features of

789
the Weatherill proposal to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, objected most strongly. In the past, he has called it the most surprising part of the amendment. If that was his original standpoint, I do not understand why he now wants to see a divide between 15 and 60. Of course, if we reduce the number from 75 to 60, the Liberal Democrat Party will suffer most because it will be reduced to one representative Peer. I wonder who the noble Lord had in mind should be taken out.
The third most important point is that the number of hereditary Peers should reduce steadily from 77 down, presumably, to nothing—the "wither on the vine" argument. As I understand it, that is because the Liberal Democrats are opposed either to having Peers elected in the place of those who die or topping them up in the process suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. In that regard, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has been consistent. He has been opposed to that idea and he said that,
"it means a self-perpetuating block of representative Peers with the right to constant replenishment".—[Official Report, 29/3/99: col. 24.]
That is exactly what the Weatherill amendment proposes. If the noble Lord is against that, then he should have voted against the amendment when it was proposed two weeks ago, rather than sitting on his hands.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne argued, as he has done consistently, on the merits of the Weatherill amendment for two specific reasons: first, it prevents a wholly nominated House; and secondly, if we want a genuine reform, what better way is there of ensuring that than by retaining in the House a wedge of those people whom the Government regard, cordially, as being detestable, unacceptable, undemocratic, unmodern and unrepresentative? I should have thought that the incentive argument would run very well for Members of the Government.
I know that certain aspects of the amendment are not popular with some Members of the Committee, including many of my noble friends sitting behind me, but, almost certainly, it is the only way forward; it is the only amendment on which we can get agreement. I agree with my noble friend Lord Selsdon, of course, that it would be better—not only for the Government but for us as a Parliament—to wait for the commission of my noble friend Lord Wakeham to report. We could then move forward by consensus, after public debate, to a proper reform of the House. This is a deeply divisive measure which creates a great deal of unhappiness.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that there may well be amendments moved today which will improve the Bill. I have tabled one; there may be others. If the Government wish to enhance and improve aspects of the Weatherill clause, I am sure that we will be able to reach agreement. I would prefer to retain more than 92 hereditary Peers—100 would be better—but I am conscious that the Government have set their face against that. Therefore, I shall not only not support these amendments but many others also.
790
For that reason and many others, I shall not support the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. If he puts them to a Division I shall vote against them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish to say only a few words. Perhaps I may begin by asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to help the Committee. Let us assume that one of the 15 Deputy Chairmen is elected; within a week of being elected he decides that he does not want to be a Deputy Chairman and prefers to sit on the Opposition Front Bench. What happens then? Does he remain a Member of the House? Would the Government be content for such a situation to arise? Or does he leave the House? So far as concerns that latter consideration, I assume that he does not leave the House.
We are being invited to agree to the election of 15 people who, after being elected as Deputy Chairmen, can then do precisely what they want. That seems to me an entirely unacceptable proposition. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I far preferred Clause 1 and I do not like Clause 2. Enabling Members to be elected as Deputy Chairmen with the right, as I understand it, to remain and to become active partisans on the Floor of the House is, in my view, an absurdity—and we should recognise it as such.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): Perhaps I may say at the outset that anyone who was not a party to the making of the agreement is entitled to say and to argue that he does not like it, why he does not like it, and that if he had negotiated it a far better agreement would have emerged. I dare say that those who like to think that might also be ready to acknowledge that they might have failed to achieve any agreement at all. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, would be the first to acknowledge, as I would, that no doubt the negotiating skills of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, are superior to the negotiating skills of each of us—or even both of us combined—but it is just possible that in these circumstances he might have failed to secure an agreement.
At the risk of stating the obvious, these amendments, which seek to reduce to 75 the overall number of excepted Peers, violate the terms of the agreement. It was made absolutely clear from the outset that a consensus had been reached on a fixed number of hereditaries who would be entitled to remain for the duration of the transitional House. The rationale of that has been explained on numerous occasions: one-tenth of the hereditary peerage—that is, 75 hereditary Peers—is to be excepted from Clause 1 of the Bill in proportion to the four groupings of the House; and an additional 15 would be excepted to stand ready to serve as office holders. It is well known that the number 15 was derived from the number of hereditary office holders at the time of the compromise. A one-off election for 15 hereditaries is contemplated. There are 32 such officers of the House, of whom 15 or 16 are hereditaries. The 15 who will offer themselves will obviously have real expertise to offer the House and clearly will be individuals of good conscience.

791
Amendment No. 27, which is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, provides that the pool of potential office holders should be included in and not additional to the 75. The principal argument advanced is that the rationale for adding them cannot be accepted unless there is a guarantee that they will in fact serve as Deputy Chairmen or Deputy Speakers. They are to be elected by the whole House because it is intended that they shall serve the whole House. They will be elected in exactly the same way that such elections are conducted at present. There is no intention to force hereditary Peers who have been elected on that basis to remain in office for life. They will be standing for election in good conscience on the basis that they are ready and willing to serve. For my part, I am willing to accept that they will serve and serve properly if they are successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, does not like it. So be it; reasonable people can disagree. The view of favouring the compromise may be different from the views of others, but we take the view that the compromise was a means of reforming this House by removing, virtually here and now, nine-tenths of the hereditary Peerage—but with the great prize of achieving that outcome by consensus. That is something which has eluded all previous administrations which have sought to address the hereditary principle. Having arrived at an agreement in good conscience, the Government will honour it.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I think I made a mistake in my opening remarks by introducing them with references to Clause 2 as a whole. Quite naturally, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, among others, allowed himself to get the wrong end of the stick and, to mix my metaphors, to be led down a blind alley. I was simply trying to make clear to the Committee—I appreciate it may be tiresome so to do—that we are not going back on a deal because we had no part in the deal in the first place. That is a reasonable thing to say.
I made plain to the Committee that I fully understand how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, cannot go back on an agreement they have reached except with the agreement of the other parties. I made that clear before; I repeat it now. The crux of the matter is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He rightly said that the parties to the deal cannot rat on it.
Accepting that, I return to the question I raised in my earlier remarks: is it still not the duty of the Committee to consider the issue on merit? Is it not the case that even if Amendment No. 2 were to remain, there is no scope in the Bill—and we should be allowed no scope—to consider whether it might be improved? We have to accept so often in these circumstances that those of us who do not like the principle can nevertheless believe that there is still room for improvement. The only question is: can the
792
Committee seek to improve the clause? Clearly, three Members of the Committee are heavily committed to it.
I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He is not in favour of my amendment but he believes that it is reasonable to seek to improve the Bill. That was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He reminded your Lordships that he, too, has amendments on the Marshalled List. I regret that I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because so often I am extremely sympathetic to what he says. But, on this, I think he is simply wrong. The parties are committed but your Lordships cannot be committed unless you choose to be so.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am not certain that I made my view clear. I am not suggesting for one moment, first, that many of the arguments put forward on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, are mistaken. The withering on the vine is something which, as a minimum, I should like to have seen happen. Secondly, I believe that your Lordships not merely have the right but the responsibility to comment on these matters. I have no doubt at all that it is valid for the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and other noble Lords to intervene. I am merely saying that, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor then gets up to say that he has listened, he has thought about it but the deal as he has thought it through is one to which he feels committed, I would be concerned about the meaning of our voting against it. I have to say—it may be I am using too strong a word having referred to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as using too strong a word—that I would regard that as verging on the dishonourable. I feel that I could not bring myself to advise my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, to rat on a deal. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not remotely denying our right or indeed our obligation to criticise this or anything else.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has explained a personal position, which I understand. I thought he was seeking to draw conclusions for the conduct of the House as a whole and seeking to suggest that those of your Lordships who might choose to support the amendment would in so doing somehow offend against the consensual element in the agreement which was reached between the three parties.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for much longer. I would say only this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was totally fair. He said that the deal which was negotiated—I am not putting words into his mouth: I think that this is what he implied—was the best deal the parties to it could in the circumstances get. It would not be for me to claim that I or anyone else might have got a better deal. It was a done deal and we are faced with a done deal. That is the way it is. But in those circumstances

793
I sought to make what I could only call a modest proposal; that—this is the form of the amendment on the Marshalled List—90 should be reduced to 75. Alternatively, if noble Lords so chose, instead of having this very odd proposal about the Deputy Speakers—I do not think I have had answers to my many questions on that point—they could go for the whole 90, little thought I would like it. That was the purport of the amendment. In the circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.3 p.m.
On Questions, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 288.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Ailsa, M.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Bath, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Meston, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Dholakia, L. [Teller.]

Newby, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

Geraint, L.

Razzall, L.

Goodhart, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Holms of Cheltenham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Thurso, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tope, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tordoff, L.

Ludford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berners, B.

Ackner, L.

Biffen, L.

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ahmed, L.

Blatch, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Blease, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Alli, L.

Boardman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Borne, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Amos, B.

Bragg, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brentford, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Annan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bridges, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brightman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Attlee, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Bach, L.

Brookman, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bell, L.

Buchan, E.

Belstead, L.

Burlison, L.

Berkeley, L.

Burnham, L.

794

Butterworth, L.

Haskel, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hawke, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carew, L.

Hayman, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Hayter, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Carnock, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Holderness, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chalfont, L.

Hothfield, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Howe, E.

Chorley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Christopher, L.

Hughes, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cobbold, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Coleridge, L.

Colwyn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Iveagh, E.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Cox, B.

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

Cranborne, V.

Crawley, B.

Jeger, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cross, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cuckney, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kimball, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Kingsland, L.

Denham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Diamond, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Kitchener, E.

Dixon, L.

Knollys, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Downshire, M.

Listowel, E.

Dubs, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Dudley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Dundonald, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dunleath, L.

Longford, E.

Elles, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elton, L.

Lucas, L.

Eme, E.

Luke, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Exmouth, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Ferrers, E.

Marlesford, L.

Fookes, B.

Marsh, L.

Forteviot, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L

Gainford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

Geddes, L.

Middleton, L.

Gisborough, L

Miller of Hendon, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mishcon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Molloy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Goudie, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Monson, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montrose, D.

Hacking, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Moyne, L.

795

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Napier of Magd΁la, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nicol, B.

Slim, V.

Norfolk, D.

Stallard, L.

Nome, L.

Stewartby, L.

Northbourne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Stafford, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Palmer, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Sudeley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Suffield, L.

Peston, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Swinton, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Quinton, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tenby, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Teynham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thornton, B.

Rees, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Tryon, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Varley, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Waddington, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Walpole, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warnock, B.

Sandford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sandwich, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Serota, B.

Whitty, L.

Sewel, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Shannon, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Shore of Stepney. L.

Woolton, E.

Simon, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("which have been laid in full before the House not later than one week before Third Reading in the House of Lords of the Bill for this Act.")
The noble Lord said: We have already heard about Standing Orders. I shall therefore be brief in speaking to the first amendment in my name. As a former member of the Armed Forces, I merely remind the Committee and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that members of the Armed Forces who are in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, and possibly fairly soon to be on the ground in Kosovo, operate under standing orders. The same should be the case here.
We in this place find ourselves in a somewhat anomalous position as a result of the Weatherill amendment, if my noble friend Lord Weatherill will forgive me for so calling it. As many Members of the Committee have pointed out, the amendment alters the central principle of the Bill, the summary ejection of hereditary Peers from Parliament.
Never mind that the Bill is probably hybrid as a result of the Weatherill amendment, although we shall not know that for certain until we see the non-existent Standing Orders referred to in the Weatherill amendment. Only the draft amendments have been made available. Never mind even that the Bill probably misses its own mark, since Peers do not become Members of this House by heredity but by writ, which, having been answered, is spent and lasts irrevocably for a full Parliament. Never mind that the Bill ignores the Commonwealth members' rights; and never mind that if we throw out the Bill in its present form, we shall find it unenforceable by use of the Parliament Act. We have an overwhelming but insistent Government, but until the mess has been sorted out, which may be quite some time, Parliament will be unable to do its job.
I turn to Standing Orders. It is a quintessential that these be laid before the House prior to the Bill being finalised. It is wrong in principle to ask this House to buy a pig in a poke—the phrase used on several occasions by Members on all sides of the House—and we would be neglecting our duty if we allowed it to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. I can understand the motives behind the proposal. It is reasonable to expect that Standing Orders on the operation of Clause 2, which is so important to the effective operation of the interim House, are seen, considered and accepted by the House and that this should be done relatively soon. That has also been the intention of the Government. It is the expectation of these Benches and I look forward to confirmation from the noble and learned Lord when he replies.
I do not have strong views as to the timing, but what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, proposes is the minimum that is reasonable. Again, perhaps the Government can explain in some detail the timetable for developing, debating and agreeing the Standing Orders. I should also be grateful if the Government would explain their thinking on a timetable for the voting rights of Peers and their rights to stand for election to the Commons. Amendments are needed in consequence of Weatherill, especially to Clause 3, and they will require full discussion. When will the Government be in a position to lay amendments and how will they facilitate debate on them? I hope that all those issues can be resolved well before we reach Report stage. I hope that the Government will be able to give a positive response to the amendment.
I do not know whether the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 34 in the names of my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Northesk, grouped with this amendment. I should perhaps talk to that amendment if it is moved in its place, for presumably it is no longer grouped with Amendment No. 2. I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
The Earl of Northesk: At the invitation of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I shall speak to

797
Amendment No. 34 which is in this group. The whole point is that if Clause 2 and the arrangements that flow from it are to be tenable, it is essential that its terms, as defined in Standing Orders, are endorsed adequately and properly by those who are to be disqualified as a result of Clause 1. Without that, its credibility will be severely undermined. It is both right and important that the hereditary peerage should have the opportunity to consider and give their consent to the methods to be applied in electing those of their number who will serve in the transitional House. Any other outcome would work against the interests of fairness. The purpose of the amendment is to guarantee that the electoral arrangements of Clause 2 are accepted by a clear majority of those who will be disqualified by Clause 1.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the noble Earl sits down, could he enlighten us? As I understand his amendment, if fewer than one-half of those entitled to vote do vote for Standing Orders, there are no Standing Orders. If there are no Standing Orders, there can be no procedures to elect the 92. So unless fewer than half the totality of those hereditary Peers vote for the Standing Orders—which seems moderately unlikely since some do not come here often—does the noble Earl intend that the whole amendment will fail because there will be no Standing Orders to put it into effect?
The Earl of Northesk: I do not profess to be an expert in drafting. Our purpose or intent is to ensure that of the overall numbers voting for the Standing Orders representing the hereditary peerage, at least half of those voting accept the principle underpinning the Standing Orders.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There are few amendments to which I wish to speak because I defer to the opinion of the House on the Weatherill amendment. However, without derogating from that in any way, the Committee may think it of fundamental consequence that the implementing machinery should be before the House, debated and approved before the Bill leaves this place. That is only fair to those who oppose the amendment and just to all those who support it.
Lord Marsh: Most matters covered by today's amendments will be referred to the Procedure Committee and will then reappear, presumably with a thought-through document and arguments. At that stage we shall have a substantive debate, not necessarily disagreeing with all the amendments.
It is a strange way to proceed, knowing full well that the issue will go to a Committee of this House. That has already been decided. The House will decide on the report. The sensible time, it seems to me, to have the debate in detail is when we have achieved as much consensus—if any—as there is likely to be rather than picking off bits and pieces.
On a personal point, I apologise that I was not in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke. I gather he referred to a wager which I had suggested. I am pleased to announce that he has now accepted a bet of £100 that this arrangement will still be in place
798
in 10 years' time. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has agreed to witness it and I shall be available in the course of the afternoon if anyone wishes to join the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In reply to that interesting speech, particularly as to the wager, I do not mind how the matter is handled. However, I am at pains, like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, to seek some assurance that it should be dealt with before the Bill leaves this House. How it is done is a matter of no moment, but it is crucial that it should be done.
The Lord Chancellor: Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is the first of a number of amendments which seek to ensure that the Standing Orders needed to give effect to Clause 2 are put into place. Everyone wants effective Standing Orders to be in place. We cannot accept that this should be a precondition of Third Reading after the eighth day in Committee. I do not believe that that is reasonable. However, we on these Benches intend to seek agreement through the usual channels, among the parties, on the correct terms for Standing Orders and then take them to the Procedure Committee in the shortest timetable reasonably achievable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may intervene. That sounds agreeable and sensible, but will it happen before the Bill leaves the House?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly. It is precisely consistent with what I said: that we should use our best endeavours to achieve that outcome before the Bill leaves the House. I cannot see how it is in the interests of any party or individual Peer, in the present circumstances, not to seek to achieve that. We will use our best endeavours. I believe that further discussions are better off the Floor of the Chamber on such points of detail.
As to Amendment No. 34 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl. Lord Northesk, I believe that for reasons touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the amendment is unworkable and may even have an effect contrary to the considered wishes of those noble Lords. My understanding of the effect of the amendment is that it would require the Standing Orders setting out the electoral system needed to give effect to Clause 2(1) to be approved by 50 per cent of the whole hereditary peerage, not 50 per cent of those who are qualified to vote because they have applied for a Writ, taken the Oath and are not on leave of absence.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee of any occasion when there have been 350 hereditary Peers present in your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: The answer is no, and that sharply makes the point that I endeavour to make. The amendment would mean that the votes of those who cared so little for the membership of this House that

799
they had not bothered to become active Members would count as much as the votes of regular attenders. I respectfully submit to the Committee and to those noble Lords who have tabled this amendment that it has not been thought through and it should not be pressed.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to Amendment No. 2 and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who, rightly, sought an assurance, as I do. I was fascinated by the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He spoke not only about best endeavours but said that he had never seen 350 hereditary Peers in the House. I thought that the whole point of this Bill is to get rid of the so-called overwhelming number of hereditary Peers who constantly interfere with government legislation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Standing Orders of the House shall provide that in any election held to determine who is a person to be excepted from section 1, the electorate shall consist of all peers who, in the session of Parliament ending with that in which this Act is passed, attended a sitting of the House or of a committee of the House on not less than 6 of the days on which the House sat.")
The noble Lord said: My amendment is intended to give the Committee an opportunity to debate who should constitute the electoral college that elects the group of hereditary Peers who will remain Members of your Lordships' House during the interim period between the so-called stage one and stage two. This amendment is not intended to interfere with the principles set out in the Weatherill amendment that there should be one system by which all parties and Cross-Benches elect the hereditary Peers. Having attended some parts of the Committee stage and filled in gaps by reading Hansard, I am aware that there has been considerable interest in the detail of how even part of a legislative Chamber should be elected.
In introducing his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made no mention of the method of election other than to say that the details would be set out in Standing Orders, which is fair enough. But, as far as I am aware, there has never been anything more than a presumption or understanding that, whatever the number, the hereditary Peers—the "affront to democracy" as we are called—who are to remain during the interim period will be elected only by their fellow hereditaries.
It is true that the draft Standing Orders go along with this presumption, but they remain at the moment only proposals in draft, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out and as the Clerk of the Parliaments makes clear on the opening page of that paper. They are therefore open to discussion and amendment. I am encouraged that a number of noble Lords appear to support the idea that an electoral college to elect the
800
residual hereditary element for the respective parties and the Cross Benches should consist not only of hereditary Peers but all Members of your Lordships' House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said earlier, this is a House of Peers—a House of equals—and to bar one part from electing Members of the House is neither equitable nor sensible. It is not equitable because we are a House of equals and all Peers should have the right to vote; and it is not equitable because provisions have already been made in the draft Standing Orders for 15 hereditary Peers, the Deputy Chairmen, to be elected by the whole House. That was the import of the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said in the debate on the Weatherill amendment:
"Why are life Peers to be allowed to vote in that case"—
for the Deputy Chairmen—
"but be denied a vote in choosing their political colleagues?".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1100.]
Precisely. I do not believe it is sensible to have only hereditary Peers to form the electoral college, for two reasons, although no doubt there are others that may come to light later. First, many life Peers are regular attenders and participants in the debates and activities of this House. They know very well who does and does not work and contribute; they know the score. They should have a say in who joins them. After all, we are disposing of seats in Parliament. Secondly, too many of my fellow hereditary Peers either cannot or do not want to turn up. These infrequent or non-attenders will nonetheless, if they so wish, be able to put down their names on the electoral register to elect their fellow hereditary Peers and cast their vote. But how will they decide? They may or may not be assiduous readers of Hansard. If not, how will they decide where to put their cross? I shall not provide an answer to that question. Noble Lords are quite capable of filling in the dots on the drawing for themselves.
We come next to the question of numbers. Some noble Lords may say that a number of life Peers do not turn up either. For that reason my amendment provides that to qualify to vote Peers should have attended six times. I do not regard that as satisfactory; it is really a number that is plucked out of the air. I should like to hear other opinions as to what, if any, qualifications there should be in terms of attendance or speaking in debates. It is very difficult to decide that. After all, attendance in itself is no qualification. People can attend by being in the Bar or reading the Evening Standard. I believe that a qualification based on speaking would simply encourage "wind-baggery".
I do not know whether it is necessary to have a qualification at all, but I believe that it would be more legitimate—we have heard that word very often in our debates—if the 90 exceptions to this Bill were elected by the whole House rather than simply part of it. I do not propose to go round the "legitimacy" maypole again; we have already done so. However, I believe that it

801
would be better for all Members of the House to elect the hereditary Peers who are to remain rather than only the condemned part of it. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 4, which is in my name. Very broadly, the amendment provides that the electorate is to consist of hereditary Peers
"who, in any of the three successive sessions of Parliament…attended a sitting of the House or of a committee of the House on not less than one-third of the days on which the House sat".
This amendment is to be distinguished from that tabled by my noble friend. I have followed the terms of Weatherill and accept that the electorate is to be hereditary Peers, but I have no quarrel with the proposal put forward by my noble friend. I shall be interested to hear what others have to say.
My noble friend's amendment provides that the qualification should be attendance on Sittings on not less than six days. He has invited noble Lords' comments on that. My amendment provides effectively for one-third of Sittings per Session. I believe that what I propose is excessive. 1 would agree with a lesser period. On the other hand, I do not believe that my noble friend's suggestion is sufficient.
It might be better if the qualification did not arise in this Session. It would be easy for a number of Members of your Lordships' House to attend in order to acquire voting qualifications. My amendment is subject to the same qualification. It should provide a cut-off point at the beginning of the Session, or the end of the last Session. I think that the appropriate figure would be 10 per cent of the Peers in question attending Sittings of the House or Committees during one of the three years immediately before the start of the present Session.
I adopt the arguments put forward by my noble friend on the need for debating qualification. It does not make sense for a number of Peers, whether hereditary or life Peers or a mixture of both, to vote for people of whom they may be assumed to know nothing. We are not a club and, to adapt the words of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, we are a House of Parliament. It would be appropriate in a club for everyone to vote, but I do not think the same applies in this Parliament.
Viscount Bledisloe: I strongly support the thesis advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I equally strongly support the point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the right time to debate this issue is when the Procedure Committee has reported, having considered the arguments and when there is a scheme before us. I hope that the Committee will feel that the matter should he left to that stage.
Lord Coleraine: Does the noble Viscount accept that the time to debate these matters is now? By the time the Procedure Committee has reported, the position will be more or less cast in concrete and all we shall be able to do is to say yes or no.
Viscount Bledisloe: I do not accept that. The last report of the Procedure Committee was debated; the
802
House was given a free choice; the House debated the matter, and decided. I hope that that will be the position again when the Procedure Committee reports on this issue.
The right time to advance the arguments is on a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee. However, perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. When you vote for members of White's, you vote for, or perhaps against, those who were at school with you, or with your cousins, sisters or aunts. The aim should be to have the people best qualified to assist the House, and to form part of it. The people who know best who they are are the life Peers who have attended and not the old school friends who have been on their estates, or in the south of France, taking no part in the proceedings of this House.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I find it remarkable that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, are so seduced by what I describe, perhaps rather modishly, as an elitist argument. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating the arguments I put before noble Lords during discussion of a previous amendment, to which the noble Viscount kindly referred, except to repeat that I feel strongly that we are not a club and that only clubs elect themselves.
However much we may disapprove or approve of the hereditary peerage, the essence of Clause 2 as it now stands on the face of the Bill is that the 75, arid to a lesser extent the 15, are here during the course of the transitional stage—the stage one before stage two—to represent the hereditary peerage. I have felt strongly that they should be here for the reasons I gave: they provide an incentive. Another reason relates to good government: if noble Lords finally accept the agreement, it prevents an enormous row and a good deal of ill will. Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has made that the principal reason for proposing his amendment; and I believe that he is right on that. Noble Lords' traditional role is to synthesise if possible, rather than to divide.
If, during the transitional phase, the objective of the 90—in particular, the 75 of the 90—is to represent the hereditary peerage, I should not be disposed to support what I described as the rather elitist approach of my noble friend and the noble Viscount. After all, the Members of another place are there to represent the electorate. The 75 and the 15 will be there to represent the hereditary peerage. Members of Parliament in another place are not chosen by people who exclusively read the New Statesman or the Economist. They are chosen by people who read The Times and the Sun. They are chosen by the literate and the illiterate; by those who are employed and unemployed. It is thought to be a virtue that you no longer have to have either a property or an intellectual qualification to vote for those who represent you.
With the greatest respect to the hereditary peerage, I venture to suggest that your Lordships- ranks increasingly contain all sorts of conditions of men and

803
women. As traditional landed Peers become rarer due to the efluxion of time and no doubt the effects of taxation—notably perhaps the green baize in certain instances—more and more hereditary Peers find themselves earning a living like everyone else. Some do so in high, cultured callings; some in callings which require enormously difficult qualifications; and others in rather humbler and less elevated positions.
Nevertheless, it seems perfectly sensible that if that increasingly broad church is to be represented, it is only right that those who vote for their representatives should be the broadest of the electorate so long as that order is to be represented in this Chamber—just as there is no longer any property qualification for membership of another place.
Viscount Bledisloe: I fully accept that if one starts with the noble Viscount's premise, one reaches his conclusion. If they are meant to be representative Peers, they have to be elected by those whom they represent. But I wholly refute the concept that these are representative Peers. They are meant to be those who in the informed opinion of this House are best suited to assist in carrying on its work. If they were thought to be representative Peers, I should be very much less in favour of the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely distressed to hear that the noble Viscount is less in favour of the amendment. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was not under this impression, but I was under the impression that the word "representative" played quite a large part in our negotiations. The noble Viscount was not part of those negotiations, but I believed that the representative role was an essential feature of what I thought I was negotiating at the time.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: At the risk of being included in the "windbaggery" debate, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, perhaps I may point out that I played no part in the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I wish to make two points. I become very worried when I hear Conservative Peers arguing that attendance should be a criterion for eligibility to vote. Since I came to your Lordships' House, I have seen many life Peers and even hereditary Peers about whom I have had to ask, "Who is that person?". Indeed, once at Heathrow airport a hereditary Peer recognised me as I came off the aeroplane and asked whether I could take him to the House of Lords in order to vote against the Government—albeit a Labour Government since 1997. Therefore, I believe that it is dangerous to introduce the element of attendance into the criteria for voting.
I recognise that there is agreement across the Chamber on the Weatherill amendment and it is not my intention to disrupt it. However, I wish to ask one simple question. Since the amendment was tabled, I have been worried about the electoral college. Perhaps I may dwell for one minute on my own party and then I shall sit down. The Labour Benches have 18 hereditary Peers.
804
Let us assume that all 18 decided to be candidates to retain membership of your Lordships' House and that all 18 voted for themselves. There will be 18 candidates with one vote each. All I want to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is: who breaks that deadlock?
The Earl of Onslow: We have an arrangement brokered by my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and however much we variously wish to tinker with some of the details, we should be unwise to upset it. I would much rather have had it that all hereditary Peers can vote and there should not be a party electoral college. I can certainly see a Liberal Democrat or three, even a Socialist (if they still exist) or three for whom I shall be quite happy to cast my vote in preference to some people on my own side. I am equally sure that there are people who would say exactly the same about me, so I am no being in any way difficult—at least no more than usual.
We have established the principle of the electoral college of hereditary Peers. That is well versed in history. It goes back to the Acts of 1707 for Scotland, which was for a parliament only, and of 1801 for the Irish Peers for whom there were two different qualifications. Please, let us leave well alone an agreement which I can see would be slightly different if I had anything to do with it. but which on the whole I believe is excellent. It has changed the Bill beyond peradventure.
The other night I watched the Labour Whips forcing their own side through the Lobbies. They drove not a coach and horses through the Bill but, with respect, the whole of the Royal Mews accepted the hereditary peerage. We have gained enormously from that and the Government must be given great credit for listening to other people. For heaven's sake, let us give people credit when it is due and not be crabby about the detail. However imperfect some of the details are, we should leave well alone.
Lord Marsh: The past few minutes of debate demonstrate how dangerous it would be to get these amendments on the face of the Bill. The other place is very different from the House of Lords. Many of its Members know little about it and quite a few of them think that it is in St. John's Wood! They certainly would not begin to understand this debate. It is a big issue and there are strong differences of view on both sides.
Lord Coleraine: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not understand that the reason we tabled these amendments is not necessarily because we intend them to be on the face of the Bill when it is enacted, but because we wish to see whether further agreement can be reached about what should be in the Standing Orders?
Lord Marsh: But they will go to the other place to be debated. Its Members have to decide whether to agree with us in these amendments. The point I am making is that one of the good arguments in favour of the

805
Procedure Committee process is precisely that we in this House retain control over the arrangements which are being built for this House.
I do not believe that anyone who suggested that these matters should not be debated would receive support. They will be debated. However, to put them on the face of the Bill will involve a string of debates at the other end of the corridor which will be in no one's interest and will certainly throw little light on a complex subject. I beg noble Lords to recognise the dangers of such issues being dealt with by amendment to the Bill as opposed to Standing Orders.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, there really is no danger. He is one of the great architects—he is one of the three wise men—so naturally he is wedded to the intricacies of those Standing Orders. I agree that these are not matters for another place and that it is not a matter for them to amend the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. In that, the noble Lord is totally right. However, there is another important aspect to the debate. This is a recommitment for the purpose of reconsidering the implementing machinery and some detail in the Standing Orders. If it is not, why are we here? We are not here just to talk. Surely there is some purpose to it. If there is no purpose, why are we doing it?
Lord Marsh: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He raised a major point. We are here because noble Lords have tabled the amendments. We do not have a lot of choice. With respect to the Clerks, we do not have the right to chuck out the amendments. If Members of the Committee wish to press these issues and debate them in this way—later we shall debate a long stream of different numbers which will keep us happy for quite some time—they are perfectly entitled to do so. I am simply saying that if at the end of the debate they win the vote, the matter goes out of your Lordships' hands and goes elsewhere.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, with respect, it does not. It does not go to another place in any effective way at all. It cannot touch the Standing Orders of this House and would not dream of doing so. It could not do so and the noble Lord knows that perfectly well.
The purpose of the recommitment is to re-examine certain aspects of principle. As always, I have listened with attention and respect to my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Just for once, I was wholly unconvinced. I say that with great respect, but the point he took was that hereditary Peers are qualified, competent and capable of electing themselves. Of course they are. That is not the point. The point is, in principle, whether they should do so.
I shall be brief on this point; I have spoken to it before. I wholly support my noble friend in his Amendment No. 3, in principle. I wholly support the assertion that the electorate of the House should be the whole House for this purpose and not just the hereditary Peers. I am not so sure about the question of an attendance qualification. In practice, however it is put,
806
it raises a mountain of difficulties. I cannot support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine because it incorporates the principle to which I object.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne talked of "the essence of the arrangement". If "essence" means anything, the essence of that arrangement cannot be that it had to be the electoral system which he supports. It must have been as a matter of machinery, which has been left open for discussion. If, for example, this Committee were to accept the amendment in due course—I hope it will not be moved in the form in which it is drafted but that we can return to It at some future time in another form—who on earth could say that we had struck at the essence of this wretched Weatherill amendment? I do not suppose anybody would. But, there it is. If this is a recommittal and the amendments were withdrawn on an undertaking that there should be a recommittal, it is wholly proper and wholly within our province not only to debate these matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh stated, but if so advised, to divide upon them.
Lord Monson: The diversity of the views expressed so far today shows how right and important it is that we should start discussing this important matter today. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Marsh that discuss is all we should do. We should be wary of trying to push through amendments on this matter today.
I have no hesitation in agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I do not refer to his amendment, which, as he admitted, puts too harsh a screen in place, but to the compromise he suggested in his speech. Attendance on 10 per cent of possible occasions in a year is about right. Anything harsher than that would exclude, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to whom I intend to refer later today. He was not able to attend on more than 27 occasions in the last Session, which is less than one-eighth of the total. Would it not be totally wrong to exclude him from deliberations on this matter? There should be some minimum attendance figure. The figure suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, is a little on the low side. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, got it about right in the suggestion he made in his comments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support my noble friend in his amendment. Perhaps I may ask a question of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. His position on this matter confuses me as much as his position on the original deal and, indeed, the whole of the Bill.
I understand my noble friend to have said this afternoon, at least twice, that we are not a club, and that only clubs elect themselves. That mystified me. No doubt he can put me straight very quickly. I understood that he supported the so-called Weatherill amendment, indeed that he was one of the architects of it, arid this, of course, contains an electoral process.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I hoped I had made clear that an existing membership should not elect its own members. It is clear that the hereditary Peers will be expelled and will no longer have a right to sit in your Lordships'

807
House, with the exception of those whom they themselves elect under Clause 2. That seems to me to be perfectly logical. I am sorry if it mystifies my noble friend. It worries me that it mystifies him but not me.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am only slightly mystified because, being also a member of Whites, it is of course the members of that club who elect the members. As regards the amendments, it is important that we should legitimise, as much as possible, the 75 and the 15; that is, the 90 hereditary Peers who are to be elected. I agree with my noble friends who moved the amendments, that we do that if they are elected by as many people as possible who will be knowledgeable electors.
There is also the point that it will be more acceptable to people outside this House if both hereditary Peers and appointed Peers, with a reasonable attendance record and therefore a reasonable knowledge of those whom they are electing, carry out the elections. I fear that the present suggestion that only the hereditary Peers should elect those who are to stay is open to something of an accusation of being a closed shop. On the understanding, as my noble friends have made clear, that these are probing amendments with the intention of informing Standing Orders, I certainly support them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The proposal to legitimise some people might present us with great difficulties, with which I think we would be unable to cope this afternoon. I did not come here with the intention of being anything other than a spectator today. However, my noble friend Lord Campbell raised a question which I think needs a very quick and very short answer. He asked, "What on earth are we doing here today?" The only answer which we can possibly accept is that we are doing awfully little at extraordinary great length with absolutely minimal results.
Lord Kingsland: I shall be mercifully telegraphic. I strongly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about Standing Orders and the importance of not voting on any of the amendments. That would give another place an opportunity to meddle in matters which are exclusively for your Lordships' House.
The amendments raise essentially two issues. First, as to whether some hurdles should be put in the way of those hereditary Peers who vote, or who stand as candidates, in the forthcoming elections; and secondly, as to whether the electorate should be exclusively that of hereditary Peers or should be all the Members of your Lordships' House.
As regards the first issue, raised in all three amendments, it is my impression that science has not yet found any fixed ratio between the level of attendance of your Lordships in your Lordships' House on the one hand and either the quality of contribution to debate or the soundness of judgment in voting on the other. Therefore, I have to say that I am extremely sceptical about frequency of attendance being a basis for any kind of selection process in any circumstances.
808
Moreover, were we to adopt it, it would deny us the talents, for example, of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, who is infrequently here but when he is makes the most marvellous contribution. Indeed, if we were to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in his Amendment No. 4, we would be denied the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. As to the second point raised by the amendments, I find myself, at least personally, in something of a dilemma because the arguments between—
Lord Coleraine: I believe the noble Lord has misunderstood my amendment. I assume that the figures are correct. We would not be denied the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but he would not be able to vote.
Lord Kingsland: That is also my understanding of the amendment. If what I said suggested that I had not understood that, I apologise.
As to the second matter raised by these amendments—the question of whether or not the electorate for the 75 should be the whole of your Lordships' House or just hereditary Peers—I am much taken by the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, but I incline even more towards those of my noble friend Lord Cranborne.
It seems to me that it is in principle wrong to vote in an election in which one cannot be a candidate. I am also—being a good Tory—struck by the great success of the representative systems of voting that previous classes of hereditary Peers have had in your Lordships' House. But I underline, in making those comments, that no doubt these matters will be raised again on Report.
Above all, the one thing I hope the Committee will not do is put any of these matters on the face of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I deal first with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Its effect is to require the Standing Orders to provide that the electorate for any election to identify excepted Peers shall be all Peers who, in the Session of Parliament in which the Act is passed, have attended either the House or a Committee for not less than six days.
The amendment does not appear to distinguish between the election for the 15 Deputy Speakers and that for the 75 party Peers. Nor does it distinguish between life and hereditary Peers.
The amendment is inconsistent with the agreement to which Clause 2 gives effect for two reasons. First, it makes no distinction between life and hereditary Peers. The election of the 15, as has been said many times, is rightly a matter for all Peers whether life or hereditary because those 15 will be serving the whole House. But that is not the way in which the election of the 75 was envisaged. It has been consistently made clear that the elections within the party and other groups, the election for the 75, will be of hereditaries, by hereditaries, for hereditaries. Each group of hereditaries was therefore to be temporarily entitled, during the transitional House, to 10 per cent. It is a matter of taste whether or not the word "representative" is used.

809
Secondly, the amendment disenfranchises certain Peers. It disenfranchises them on the basis of something—attendance—which they had no reason to think was relevant in this context. We have again made clear that this is a matter in which everyone who is qualified is entitled to have an interest. Those who are qualified are, for the 75, all hereditary Peers within the relevant category.
A Peer may be currently unable to attend the Chamber. That does not mean that he was not, in the past, a highly valued and active Member of the House. He may have a wide knowledge of other Peers and be a person whose judgment is highly respected. His vote would be as valuable as that of an assiduous attender who contributed nothing when attending. Those who are elected will be as much his representative as they will be of any other Peer in the relevant category. So he should be allowed to vote.
In sum, Amendment No. 3 proposes that some life Peers should be able to vote in elections for which the Clause 2 scheme did not enfranchise them, and other Peers should not be able to vote in elections because of the attendance requirement for which the Clause 2 scheme did enfranchise them. For those reasons we cannot accept Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to limit the total electorate to those who can demonstrate that they have been assiduous Members of the House by, in three successive Sessions, attending a sitting of the House or Committee on not fewer than one-third of the days on which the House has sat.
Surely, limiting the electorate in that way is not acceptable. Some Peers may have good reasons for not attending one-third of the days in a specific Session—illness or absence abroad with leave of the House, for example. There are others—examples were cited by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—who certainly attend on fewer than one-third of the days, but they always make a significant contribution when they attend, because when they attend they have a real contribution to make. Others attend assiduously but rarely speak or, if I may say so, make any material contribution. The first two categories would therefore fail to pass the test of this amendment, whereas the latter would pass. I cannot think that that is what the Committee wishes.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Does he not admit that Peers, hereditary or otherwise, who have not attended very often or hardly at all—my noble friend is leaving the precise attendance criteria open—must be less capable of judging the competence and worthiness of the people they are electing than those Peers who have attended quite frequently? That is what is at issue.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord intervenes to posh an amendment which is not yet before the Committee. This is a subject about which we can talk till the crack of doom. I do not feel that the crack of doom has yet arrived, but I am not sure that that proposition commands complete assent on the Benches
810
behind me. The more we talk, the more it is apparent that the only safe and sensible course is to enfranchise all hereditaries in the parties and in the Cross-Bench group. The Government do not accept the amendment
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am grateful to all those who have spoken and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his remarks. He concentrated mainly on the numbers. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and my noble friend Lord Campbell who said that the numbers game is a difficult one to play. My amendment was not tabled on the principle of numbers but rather on the principle of whether life Peers should join the electorate. I am still persuaded of that and I am glad to have had a certain amount of support from all sides of the Chamber.
Having said that, I am aware that we have debated the amendment for three-quarters of an hour. My noble friend Lord Peyton was good enough to intervene and, in view of what he said, I rather wish he had remained a spectator. I listened to the arguments and now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Standing Orders of the House shall provide that the excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories—

(a)

(i) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

(ii) 5 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers; and

(iii) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers;

(b) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require; and

(c) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas and Amendment No. 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. It is right that I draw the Committee's attention straightaway to the fact that I understand that the advice of the Clerks is that if this amendment were accepted it would make the Bill hybrid because it provides for a specific allocation of different parties within the House and affects the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the interests of others. I make it quite clear therefore that even if I had originally intended to press the amendment to a Division, I would not do so in the light of that advice. The advice from the Clerks that the Bill might become hybrid draws attention to the fundamental hybridity of the legislation in taking the Standing Orders together with the Bill itself.
We have heard that until now one of the reasons why the arrangements have to be left to Standing Orders is that we do not wish the affairs of this House to be looked into too closely by another place. It is quite clear also that the reason why the Standing Orders are needed is to stop the essential hybridity of the legislation front showing through.
My amendment would take away the two hereditary Labour Peers excepted by the Weatherill amendment from the effect of Clause 1 and would transfer them to the Liberal Democrats in recognition of the fact that the Liberal Democrats are undoubtedly badly treated by Weatherill. It is difficult to see why the Labour hereditary Peers are in the Weatherill amendment in the first place. Labour Peers by definition, I should have thought, would not care to have the entitlement to membership of this House "by virtue of a hereditary peerage"—I quote directly from Clause 1 of the Bill. I think of them as rock solid levellers, solid Clause 1 men. Yet they apparently wish to preserve two of their number to sit here by virtue of hereditary peerages.
Amendments other than Weatherill have sought to preserve a hereditary presence for the transitional Chamber and they have been clearly drafted in terms that those who stay would remain because the Act specifically so provided, and not by virtue of their hereditary peerages. The Weatherill amendment is something quite different. Is it not a rum thing that the Weatherill amendment, for which so many Labour Peers voted, was drafted in such high Tory terms? The symbolism of the Government's drafting will surely take some explaining in another place later this year. It would be easy to take a simple view of the Labour hereditary Peers and point a scornful finger at them for supporting this Bill, yet voting for the Weatherill amendment when the Bill will leave them advantaged against other hereditary Peers, well placed to be offered life peerages if they do not succeed in the Labour Party's Weatherill election.
It may well be said that the Labour hereditary Peers will not be offered life peerages. I am sure that is possible. All I can say is that it would be a singular instance of a government cutting off their nose to spite their face if the offer were not made in due course. The Labour hereditary Peers for the most part are making, and have made, a distinctive and worthwhile contribution to the House. They may feel that modesty prevents them from making this claim but I am very happy to put it forward on their behalf. If most of the rest of us are discarded that is no reason why the Labour hereditary Peers should not be preserved as life Peers, even if it shows how the Bill, as amended by Weatherill, with its intended ramifications and consequences, acts unfairly between hereditary Members of the House.
If I contend that the Labour Party should lose its two Weatherill hereditary Peers, that will not harm the Government Benches because, by the principle of broad parity, Labour will gain the right to two more life Peers to take the place of two short-term hereditary Peers.
There is a further point. I can see that the Labour Weatherill election may he seen as something of a poisoned pill for Labour hereditary Peers, something to be avoided. Will there be candidates? The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is not now in his place, has already put his position in this way. He said, in col. 1124 on 11th May:
"I have no intention of standing for election. With the prospect of standing for one of two seats, the chances are not very great".
812
In fact, I should have judged his chances very great indeed, for who would want to stand against him to win a hereditary peerage for two or three years under the Weatherill amendment when there was the possibility of the offer of a life peerage instead?
Having disposed of the two Labour Weatherill peerages, I have already pointed out that giving them to the Liberal Democrats would do a measure of justice to the Liberal Democrats who apparently come very badly out of Weatherill. My generosity knows no bounds today. It is a fundamental defect of the Weatherill deal that the political balance of the House is to be thrown into complete disarray just because, in order to tame the opposition to their Bill, the Government insist on going along a fanciful, almost feudal, idea that Weatherill peerages should be distributed, not in a manner proportionate to the number of life Peers belonging to each party, but in a manner proportionate to the numbers of hereditary Peers in each party.
I have found some difficulty in assessing the full effect of transferring the right of two Weatherill Peers from Labour to Liberal Democrat and I would hope for some assistance from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply. It is easy enough to see that under the principle of broad parity vis-à-vis the principal Opposition party, Labour will be entitled to two more life Peers than would otherwise have been the case.
But what of the Liberal Democrats? What would be the effect of my gift on them? Is it a great gift? What I am not clear about, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may clarify this point, is how the principle of proportionate creation of Liberal Democrats is to work. The principle is referred to in Chapter 6.7 of the White Paper in the following terms:
"We set out in our manifesto the broad principle which we believe should govern the appointment of life peers but our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrats and other parties would be maintained through the transitional period".
The previous paragraph of the White Paper gives the political breakdown of life peerages as Labour 157, Conservative 172 and Liberal Democrat 45. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether the proportionate creation principle will be applied against the Labour figure, against the Conservative figure or against the combined figure which is 329? Will the principle be applied taking account also of the Weatherill Peers? Whatever the answer, the Liberal Democrats have probably done quite nicely out of Weatherill. It must entitle them to nominate quite a few life Peers. They may prefer not to be heard to repeat their cry, "The Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill" too loudly when we come to consider the question that this clause stand part. We shall see.
Speaking politically, my party as the main opposition party, which is to have a large number of elected Weatherill Peers produced by an electoral system based on universal suffrage, is likely to be at a distinct political disadvantage against Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who are not shackled to the same extent. It is easy to see that our Weatherill election may well throw up Peers who will not be attending on a full-time basis or others

813
who might be described as anomalous, and for each such Peer Labour will be appointing a carefully chosen life Peer. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I have an amendment in the group. Perhaps I might speak to Amendment No. 6. It is clear from the draft Standing Orders that the method of election is one which is still under consideration. The draft Standing Orders show a preference for a first-past-the-post system. I have a preference for something which is more proportional. The first-past-the-post system would produce something, particularly as regards the 15 who are to be elected by the House as a whole, which would tend to be representative of only one set of views or one tendency in the House rather than the broad spread of it. Within the larger groups who are to be elected to represent the hereditary Peers, the Cross-Benches and the Conservative Peers, a first-past-the-post system would tend to produce the same sort of result. I should find it more representative if the electoral system were one which tended to produce a broad spread of representation rather than a sectional one-sided representation.
The Earl of Northesk: I shall say a few words to Amendment No. 20 which is in this grouping. As we all know, there are all sorts of ways in which the word "representative" can be interpreted. Accordingly, part of the purpose of our amendment is to probe the Government's view as to what sort of meaning they attach to "representation" so far as the transitional House and whatever may replace it are concerned.
I have been consistent in expressing my anxiety that what the Government have in mind is to deliver a House that reflects purely political representation rather than anything wider than that. This goes to the heart of my misgivings about the "stage one" process in which we are engaged. For the immediate future, and very probably well beyond that, this House will continue to have as one of its primary functions the scrutiny of legislation. With due deference to our colleagues in another place, experience shows that a political Chamber is not well equipped to perform that function. Therefore, any increase in emphasis upon the political character of this House—an inevitable consequence of the Bill when and if it is enacted—will undermine the capacity of your Lordships to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. Of itself, I consider that to be undesirable. Hence the design of our amendment, which seeks to try to redress the balance a little.
Perhaps I may also say a few words in the context of Amendment No. 5, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. This gives me the opportunity to tease out a particular concern that I have long had about the whole Weatherill amendment. Given the nature of the bargain struck between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Cranborne, we are all aware that it necessarily relies upon an arithmetical formula as a mechanism to give it effect. That raises a number of questions.
First—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, touched on this earlier—it is unclear from the draft Standing Orders whether those hereditary Peers seeking
814
election as one of the 15 Officers of the House will be expected to resign their party affiliations in order to stand. If they are, what then prevents—or, indeed, should prevent—them, once they are elected, from rejoining the party of their choice?
Secondly—I should perhaps have raised this matter in the context of the last group of amendments—the implication of the draft Standing Orders is that, given the rigidity of their arithmetical formula, no hereditary Peer, once elected in his particular peer group, will be able to resign his party affiliation. To do so would be to upset the delicate mathematics upon which the arrangement is based. Therefore, regardless of where his conscience might lead, he is tied for the duration of the scheme to belonging to the party label under which he sought election. To my mind, this is unconscionable.
I have no doubt that it is an unintended consequence—never mind the hybridity explicit in my noble friend's amendment—but this sails close to representing or is an actual breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. For convenience, I shall cite the relevant texts. Article 9 states:
"Everyone has a right to freedom of thought [and] conscience".
Article 10 states:
"Everyone has a right to freedom of expression … to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
Article 11 states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others".
Article 14 states:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as … political or other opinion".
To compound matters, it could be argued that those promoting the scheme, not least the Government, may fall foul of Article 17 ("Prohibition of abuse of rights") and of Article 18 ("Limitation on use of restrictions on rights").
No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will advise me that my concerns here are groundless. None the less, I should like some form of assurance that the Government have thought the matter through properly and that the arithmetical integrity of the arrangement is, and can be seen to be, wholly consistent with the ECHR.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, seeks to put on the face of the Bill the split between the various parts which make up the 90 "excepted Peers". However, there is one crucial difference from the proposal that we originally made which, alone, makes the proposal unacceptable to me personally; that is, that the Labour Party has been arbitrarily deprived of its share of the 75 Peers to be elected by the parties. The numbers which make up the 75 are logical: they reflect the balance of forces among the hereditary Peers who had received a Writ of Summons and were not on leave of absence when we published our proposals. There is no logical reason to decide that one element of that can be transferred from one party to another.

815
I believe that this sort of split is better dealt with in Standing Orders; nor am I sure that I can understand how we can ever require a Standing Order to do something. The Standing Orders of this House are a matter for this House. So I suspect that this amendment may also be technically defective. In any case, perhaps I may repeat the point which was so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh; namely, that to have an amendment of this kind on the face of the Bill would allow the other place to dictate how we should manage our own affairs. I believe that that would be unacceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and indeed to most, if not all, of your Lordships in this House.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may add a few words to the debate about Amendment No. 20, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk. One of the great strengths of the hereditary peerage, which has been so widely acknowledged in our discussions on the Bill, is the different range of expertise that noble Lords who are hereditary Peers bring to this Chamber. The essential purpose of our amendment is to try to ensure that that range of expertise continues to be reflected in the hereditary peerage when there is just a comparatively small number of them in your Lordships' House following the enactment of the Bill, amended as now proposed, in due course.
I hope that the Government will agree with that concept. However, if they cannot propose a formal form of wording for the face of the Bill, I hope that they will at least bless a Standing Order which would have the same effect.
Lord Goodhart: I appreciate the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in offering to transfer to us the two places among the hereditary Peers—what I might called the "Weatherill Peers"—who are allocated at present to the Labour Party. It is a tempting bait, but I have no hesitation in rejecting it. Nothing whatever would induce us to deprive, let us say, the noble Lords, Lord Acton, and Lord Ponsonby, of the chance of opposing each other in an election for the two places that the Weatherill Peers will have on the Labour Benches.
Having said that, I must admit that I rather welcome the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It produces a rather more satisfactory formula than the one in the proposed Standing Orders. Under the latter, the Weatherill Peers would be representative of the balance of party affiliations among the hereditary Peers, whereas, under the noble Lord's amendment, the Weatherill Peers would be representative of the balance of party affiliations among your Lordships' House as a whole. That is clearly something which we find preferable.
We also welcome very warmly the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to the single transferable vote as a means of selecting the Weatherill Peers. As he said, the first-past-the-post system will clearly not produce a spread of opinion within the party affiliations. It is clearly desirable that that should be done. As usual, we
816
think that STV is the answer. Therefore, we find the noble Lord's amendment to be much more satisfactory than the others which have been proposed.
For one moment, I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was worried about the possibility of rival slates of Europhobe and Europhile candidates being put forward for election within the Conservative hereditary Peers. However, be that as it may, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, choosing to press his amendment, we may well wish to support him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said about his amendment. He said that it was logical for the hereditary Peers to be appointed in their parties in the proportions in which they already sit in their parties. But, of course, in so doing he walked straight into one of the fundamental flaws of his amendment, which is that afterwards the balance of the Chamber remains unsatisfactory because there will then be 212 Conservative Peers overall, only 159 Labour Peers, and only 47 Liberal Democrats. Worst of all, there will be only 150 Cross-Bench Peers, felt by many of us to be the most valuable element in your Lordships' House, giving it, as they do, much of its highly prized independence. I appreciate that on top of that there will be another 15 hereditary Peers who will be elected to sit on the Woolsack. I dare say there is a sporting chance that quite a few of them will be Conservatives, given the nature of the electorate.
One of the flaws of the noble Lord's amendment is precisely that it prolongs the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House which many of us feel is the only thing wrong with it at the moment. It does not give enough to the Labour Party, although I appreciate that the Government can appoint as many more Peers as they wish, although they find that a little more difficult than they sometimes thought in the past. It is extremely unfair to the Liberal Democrats who are cut from 68 to 47. As I said, it leaves the Cross Benches much less well represented. That is just one of the flaws—to which I shall return later in the clause stand part debate—of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend advances in Amendment No. 5 the important principle that more should be on the face of the Bill with less left to Standing Orders. I believe that that aspiration is right. However, I have some difficulty with one aspect of my noble friend's proposals; namely, the idea that the Labour Party should have no Weatherill Peers and that its two places should go to the Liberal Democrats. Certainly, the Prime Minister has the power of patronage and therefore all the hereditary Peers currently languishing on the Labour Benches could be made up as life Peers. It is also true that the Liberal Democrats feel aggrieved that they have not had enough places for their many excellent hereditary Peers. This amendment would find them two more. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is opposed to hereditary Peers being in the House of Lords, and as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has not accepted that particular offer, I must say that I do not have a great

817
deal of sympathy for it. If the Liberal Democrat Party is really concerned about its hereditary Peers, no doubt it can use its battering ram at the closed gates of No. 10 and get some more. No doubt at some point negotiations will commence.
I accept the thought that underlies Amendment No. 6; namely, that elections should create as wide a representation of Peers as possible, and that that should he done by free election. I am entirely in favour of that. I deprecate any suggestion that there should be a closed list or anything similar that would impose a Stalinist uniformity on those elected. The variety of opinion and the independence of mind among hereditary Peers has always been one of the strengths of this Chamber. To preserve that independence of mind in what might otherwise in time become a Chamber of patronage is one of the great arguments for this clause and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. My party would not wish to interfere with that freedom. I am sure that any other party leaders who may speak, or the Minister, would want to give a similar assurance to the Committee that no list system would operate in the elections that are proposed.
As to the method of the electoral system—first-past-the-post or single transferable vote—I am interested in real votes, a first-past-the-post system, although I would support a system of preferences to deal with ties between various candidates. I suspect that that is the best way to ensure variety of opinion. Of course there is another option open to the Liberal Democrats and that is to stand on a coalition ticket with the members of the Labour Party—it would not be the first time they had done that—to unite their forces. It might be interesting to see who was elected.
As regards Amendment No. 20, my noble friends are right to point to the presence of many female and disabled Peers among the ranks of hereditary Peers. It is right to confront the absurd stereotype of hereditary Peers too often advanced by members of the Government. It is from among those Peers that many of the greatest contributions to this Chamber come. The Government are wrong to condemn the hereditary peerage as unrepresentative. Equally ii: is important that the experience of the Chamber on matters such as agriculture and defence should not be weakened.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope my noble friend will not mind if I interrupt. Is he aware that there are, I believe, no fewer than 18 female hereditary Peers? That is many more hereditary Peers than there are in the Labour Party.
Lord Strathclyde: That is an important statistic and a helpful one of which I was not aware.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the noble Lord aware that there is not a single one of these female hereditary Peers present on the Benches?
5.43 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is in her place, as she typically is, as is the noble Baroness
818
who is gracing the Front Bench of the Cross Benches. However, I accept that at present there is no female hereditary Peer on the Conservative Benches.
My noble friend Lord Northesk was concerned about party affiliation. I think I can put his mind entirely at rest. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to answer this point more fully. It is my understanding that although Peers will stand in accordance with their party affiliation, as soon as they are elected they can sit in whatever part of the Chamber they wish. That has always been the case, as it will be also with the deputy chairmen. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, alluded to that point. I believe that that is how it should be. It would be absurd if we were to oblige people to stay in their political parties for the rest of their lives. I shall reflect carefully on what my noble friends have said, as I hope will the Government. However, I also hope that they will not press their amendments today.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not take up much of the Committee's time in responding; to it. The noble Lord has been advised that were it to be accepted it would make the Bill hybrid. I take it that on that ground alone he will not divide the Committee on the amendment.
It is important to remember that we are dealing here with a transitional measure. It is obviously necessary that the basic principle that there should be a certain number of hereditary Peers excepted from the effect of the Bill is on the face of the legislation. But beyond that, elaborate statutory provision is not appropriate. The fear that may lie behind the noble Lord's amendment is that some government in the future may seek to change those numbers to the detriment of one party or to the detriment of the Cross-Benchers. Therefore he would like to see them enshrined in statute. That is not a point which holds any weight with the Government because the Standing Orders of this Chamber can be changed only with the agreement of the Chamber. So far as this Chamber is concerned therefore whether the relevant provisions are in the Standing Orders or on the face of the Bill makes no difference. However, there is the signal advantage of having these provisions in the Standing Orders; namely, that it excludes the possibility of the other place not only having views on these subjects—which it certainly does—but also having the opportunity to assert different views.
I am sure the Committee will forgive me if I do not follow the noble Lord down what I regard as the blind alley of the proposition that I should assent to his proposed gift of the two hereditary Labour peerages to be made over to the Liberal Democrats. Our difficulty with this compromise—and one of the features of my party's difficulty—is that it gives us but two. It would not assist the promotion of this compromise in another place if these two were to be gifted away.
As to Amendment No. 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the main difficulty is that ii is simply unworkable. If one pauses to thing about it for any time at all one sees that it introduces concepts that are

819
incapable of being sufficiently precise or justiciable to be on the face of any legislation. What is required is that within the parties the range of political opinion should be represented among the excepted Peers. It is far too vague a formulation to be interpreted, and in practical terms it would be utterly impossible to implement. The only way to achieve such an objective would be to find some way—but that would be down to the parties—of controlling those who put themselves forward for election, and then to have discrete elections between candidates of certain political persuasions. In the real world how could we possibly ever reach agreement, even internally, on the precise definition of the range of individual party opinions within particular party political affiliations?
Such a process would be bound to give rise to division within parties, and it would be impossible to administer. It is also inconsistent with the electoral system set up in the draft Standing Order, which envisages that candidates should be able to nominate themselves and that Peers would then be free to vote on the basis of their individual judgment about the quality of the candidates. I am sure that that is the only sensible way, so surely we should leave it to the discretion and judgment of the four relevant electorates to decide who are the most suitable candidates to stay on in the House.
This may not be a matter to be decided on the basis of political opinion alone. There are many other considerations which are relevant—some may think much more relevant—such as effectiveness in debate and substantive contribution to the business of the House. There are no doubt a great many other criteria that noble Lords would wish to take into account when exercising their votes in the elections. I am utterly resistant to the amendment as a workable way forward.
As for Amendment No. 20, again I would submit that it is just not workable. What exactly does it mean? The phrase "due proportion" has no definition. Does it mean an exact proportion, or does it mean someone, somewhere, making sure that the various interests in question are addressed? Of all the categories listed in the amendment, only one—the number of female hereditary Peers—is quantifiable with any certainty. Whether somebody wishes to be registered as disabled, or wishes to be regarded as disabled, is entirely a matter for the individual. The whole exercise contemplated here is not in the real world.
The "interests and expertise" of the hereditary Peers are even less clearly defined. We could all suggest some candidates. I suppose that country sports would be likely to be included, but I am sure that there are many others besides. Take the one tangible example that is given. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that there were 18 female hereditary Members of the House. I thought that there were 16. But it matters not for the sake of the argument. Sometimes there are more than 16—
Lord Trefgarne: I am advised by my noble friend on my left that it will be 17 on Thursday.
The Lord Chancellor: We are seeking precision, when precision is not needed for the point. If it is 17, good luck to the 17th.
820
Suppose, for example, there were 17. At the moment, therefore, on strict proportionality that would entitle the women to 1.7; we are generous to women, so let us round it up to 2. Those two will be spread across five different constituencies. Who is to determine that a particular constituency should be responsible for ensuring that the requirement is met? Is the whole election to be invalidated if no female hereditary Peers at all, heaven forfend, are successful? What happens if none of them wishes to stand for election? What happens if, as I am sure is much more likely, more than two are successful in their respective constituencies, so that they are over-represented? Does that mean that there is a "due proportion" or not?
The Committee has been detained a little on these subjects, but a little analysis rather suggests that they do not merit our serious attention.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply.
Before I withdraw the amendment I should like to make the point that we seem to be being told that the Weatherill amendment, reached between, in Privy Council terms, the noble and learned Lord and others some six months ago, is a seamless garment which we should not seek to touch. What I am saying is that the purpose of our amendments is not to see them on the face of the Bill—I entirely take that point—but to disseminate ideas within the Committee, with the hope that the noble and learned Lord and others involved might see something of merit and take them away to the Procedure Committee. There is certainly no pressure on my part in having wished to put the amendment to a Division. We should not be told too many times that amendments that we propose will do this or that if put on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Standing Orders of the House shall provide for people to be excepted from section 1 as a result of elections designed to ensure that such people are representative of the balance of party affiliations within the House, and of the spread of opinion within such party affiliations.")
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment to give us an opportunity to continue a debate which seems to have been curtailed.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have realised from what was said from my Front Bench and from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, my amendment was designed purely to tease out whether the election was to be a first-past-the-post election or something with more proportionality in it. That was the substance of my address to the Committee; that point the noble and learned Lord did not answer at all.
The matter is clearly left in the air in the draft Standing Orders. It is clearly not a settled part of the Weatherill agreement. I should very much like to have

821
the noble and learned Lord's opinion as to in which direction it might be reasonable for the Procedure Committee to proceed. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I have never envisaged anything other than first-past-the-post, and I do not think the Opposition Front Bench does either. No doubt it will wish to indicate its position.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Is this part of the sacred agreement or not? Is the noble and learned Lord going to tell us that as part of the Weatherill agreement it was decided that the election should be on the basis of a first-past-the-post system, or is he saying that the Conservative Party has the choice in this matter?
The Lord Chancellor: The Conservative Party does not have the choice. I will refer to my own notes: my recollection is that all the discussions were on the basis of first-past-the-post.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As we are in Committee, and we are examining the question of the sanctity or otherwise of the Weatherill amendment, could I put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this afternoon he has on at least two occasions referred to the rationale of the 10 per cent of the 700-odd Peers who are to remain—in other words, the rationale which gives us this 75? Could the noble and learned Lord give the Committee that rationale? Why 10 per cent? Why not 12 per cent? What was wrong with 7.5 per cent? Where is the rationale there?
The second point which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made is that he has referred to this sacred deal, if that is what it is, this deal cooked up very much behind the scenes, as an agreement between the parties. Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at least agree for the record that this deal was not agreed by the Conservative Party and still less by the Conservative Back Benches in either House?
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I was going to ask whether I could come to the rescue but that is not appropriate because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not need any rescuing. I am delighted to hear him say that it was always intended to have the first-past-the-post system which people can understand. I am afraid that I find all the variants of PR totally incomprehensible. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord said it was his idea, or the Government's idea, that it should be first-past-the-post. I hope that that rationale—I use my noble friend's expression—will apply on all the other occasions when the Government consider what kind of electoral system we should have.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the draft Standing Order. Unless I misunderstand it, I suggest that that is something
822
slightly different from first-past-the-post. Paragraph 5(k) referring to electoral arrangements states that,
"voters will be asked to number the candidates of their choice up to the total number of vacancies for that grouping".
I repeat that they will be asked to,
"number the candidates of their choice".
That is not how I understand first-past-the-post. First-past-the-post merely requires you to put a cross beside the name of your chosen candidate. It goes on to state:
"In the initial count, every vote will have equal weight".
I understand that. It then says:
"In the event of a tie, the number of first preferences received by a candidate will be taken into account, so that the candidate with the highest number of first preferences would be elected".
That certainly is not the language of first-past-the-post.
I do not press the point because this is a draft. Standing Order. I hope the outcome of further reflection and discussion will be that the different groups can make their own choice about the Peers whom they want to elect and they are elected. That would be reasonable and my guess is that that is what the Standing Orders are trying to provide.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will press the point and not feel ashamed of doing so. My understanding of first-past-the-post is that however the votes are cast, the candidate who wins most votes wins. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said he thought that some votes received more weight if they were first choices. That is a very important point to consider.
I consider that the winner, using the first-past-the-post system, is the person who gains most votes. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not agree to each party choosing its own method of selection. That would be total chaos.
The Lord Chancellor: The rationale of 10 per cent was that it was agreed. I have said many, many times in your Lordships' House that the agreement binds the parties to it and no one else. I need not repeat that further.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the noble and learned Lord give way? I would be very grateful if he would. I will not press him on the fact that a flat agreement without reasons is not a rationale. Clearly that is how it was. It was not a rationale. Somebody picked 10 per cent out and said, "Let's do it with 10 per cent" and so it became a deal.
But I must press him when he speaks of the parties to the deal. Is he attempting to include the Conservative Party in that deal? The Liberal Party has already made clear this afternoon that it was not party to the deal, but that is perhaps for very different reasons. When he says "the parties" to this deal, does he attempt to include the Conservative Party, and especially the Conservative Back Benches in your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: First, if arguments are advanced on either side as to the appropriate number of

823
excepted Peers and an agreement is arrived at as to what that number should be, although different reasons for agreeing may appeal to different sides, the rationale for the agreement is emphatically the fact that agreement has been arrived at on that figure.
I know that in conducting those negotiations, I represented the Labour Party which is bound by them. It is not for me to say who other persons party to those discussions were representing. The unfortunate series of events which followed in relation to the Conservative Party means that it would be inappropriate for me to reopen what must be very old sores.
All I can say about paragraph 6(k) of the Standing Orders is that those matters are for discussion within the Procedure Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is not in his place at present but we did not discuss the detail of electoral arrangements at all beyond proceeding on the assumption that it would be first-past-the-post and fastest losers. We certainly did contemplate and agree that there would be a single, uniform method of selection within the three parties and the Cross-Bench group.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to persist with the point but the noble and learned Lord will recall that a group of representatives of the various parties met under the chairmanship of an official from the Cabinet Office. As I understand it, those draft Standing Orders reflected the agreement that was then entered into. Am I right in that assumption? I assume I am.
The Lord Chancellor: Not entirely. There was certainly a group which met under the chairmanship of Sir Quentin Thomas from the Cabinet Office. All interests were represented. Its specific remit was to give practical effect, through Standing Orders, to what had been agreed and not to seek to vary what had been agreed.
Lord Lucas: I am most grateful for that enlightenment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) No person shall be excepted from section 1 in accordance with this section if he has had conferred on him a peerage under the Life Peerage Act 1958 or has agreed to accept such a peerage.")
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. Their purpose is straightforward. They seek to clarify whether it is the intention of the new Clause 2 that hereditary Peers elected to office within its terms could or should be, as it were, upgraded to life peerage status.
The Government have indicated their preparedness to make the concession on a temporary basis, and, on pain of good behaviour, to retain a hereditary element via the mechanism of the new clause. It would run against the tenor of that bargain to seek to reduce the guaranteed number on its face by any subsequent elevations to the
824
life peerage. Such individuals should be in receipt of a Writ of Summons in their own right and not as a result of the electoral process embodied in the clause.
Indeed, it is worth noting that the paper from the Clerk of the Parliaments endorses that view at paragraph 2(e) which states:
"Vacancies … are to be filled by hereditary Peers".
That necessarily begs the question with respect to clause 7(i) of the draft standing orders and paragraph (q) of the electoral arrangements section of that paper. The latter states unequivocally that vacancies will occur only through death but while it may be unlikely, and acknowledging that it is the Government's intention that the arrangements should not persist for too long, it is not impossible, as implied by our amendment. Vacancies could occur as a result of an elected hereditary Peer being granted a life peerage. Surely that occurrence should be allowed for in the Standing Orders.
In that context, I am tempted to suppose that in keeping with the underlying purpose of Amendment No. 6, which we debated in Committee, there remains uncertainty as to whether members of the hereditary peerage will be entitled, upon grant of a life peerage, to receive a Writ of Summons after enactment of the Bill.
I recognise that it would be more appropriate to return to the substance of this matter on Report and we have every intention of doing so. That said, I cannot resist citing the observation of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. She said:
"There is nothing in this Bill which removes the right of hereditary Peers to be Members of the House of Lords".—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1113.]
That is a surprising statement; the more so because it is in such stark contrast to the insistence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in our debate on Amendment No. 10A that the Bill's purpose is,
"to remove the totality of the rights and duties which members of the hereditary peerage have in their capacity as Members of the House of Lords".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 166.]
Bearing in mind the relevance of this issue to the amendment before us today, I simply ask: which interpretation of the position is correct?
Be that as it may, we believe that the principle of the amendment is sound. While I accept that it need not necessarily appear on the face of the Bill, I none the less hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can at least offer some comfort on the point. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: These are sensible clarifications of what we took anyway to be the situation. However, one point flows from the amendment. It would be extremely helpful if, before elections under the Weatherill system took place, your Lordships' House could know which hereditary Peers had been offered life peerages so that they could be excluded ab initio from the process.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply he does not fall into the trap that my noble friend fell into of saying that if hereditary

825
Peers are made life Peers, they would be "upgraded", as if they were in an airline cabin and moving up from business class to first class.
Lord Kingsland: I am appalled if I gave my noble friend that impression. Of course, I withdraw the part of the statement which misrepresented what I really believe to be true.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise. I was not referring to my noble friend who has just spoken; I was referring to my noble friend Lord Northesk.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may make a small point. The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk. My noble friend briefly mentioned that there is some doubt arising from the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958 about the legality of offering life Peerages—or at least Writs of Summons—to hereditary Peers who will be dispossessed from membership of the House by the Bill and who might subsequently be offered life peerages. It is an important matter. As my noble friend said, it is a matter to which we intend to return on Report. It is a matter to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to give his attention.
Lord Acton: I am rather puzzled by the wording of the amendment:
"No person shall be excepted from section 1 in accordance with this section if he has had conferred on him a peerage under the Life Peerage Act 1958".
The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres first became a Member of this House as a life Peer with the title Lord Balniel, and Viscount Younger of Leckie first became a Member of this House as a life Peer with the title Lord Younger of Prestwick. Surely it is quite simple: the Bill does not apply to them; they are life Peers. I cannot make sense of this exception to an exception to an exception. This Bill does not apply to life Peers.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may clarify the position. My noble friend and I had in mind the situation where a hereditary Peer had been accepted and duly elected under the Weatherill amendment and was subsequently offered a life peerage.
Lord Acton: That is not what the amendment says.
The Lord Chancellor: I was not aware that there was any division in the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Jay and myself on any of these subjects. As I recall it, the noble Baroness said—it accords with my understanding—that an excluded hereditary Peer could in the future, if it was thought right, be offered and accept a life Peerage. If there is arty problem in the statute about that, I shall certainly undertake to look at it. 1 certainly never thought that there was a problem. It appears to me to be obviously right that if a hereditary Peer is excluded from participation in the life of the House, he would be as much entitled to return as a life Peer as anyone else.
826
As to the amendment, the Government believe that it is unnecessary. As the Committee will know, offers of life peerages have already been made to hereditary Peers of first creation and some of them have already agreed to accept the offer. But, with the exception of hereditary Peers of first creation, we have no intention of offering to recommend to Her Majesty for appointment to the life peerage any other hereditary Peer in advance of the coming into force of the Bill. Under the Clause 2 arrangements, many of those who might have been offered a life peerage under the original Bill on the basis of their individual merit, may now, because of the deal, have a strong expectation of becoming one of the number of excepted Peers. Their strengths will be recognised by their colleagues in the elections.
Apart from Peers of first creation, there will be no life peerages for hereditary Peers in advance of the coming into force of the Bill. Therefore, the problem that the amendment addresses will not arise.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I should, first, apologise to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I should have used the word "downgraded".
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor although I am not entirely certain that our particular concern about the issue has been fully addressed. None the less, in the meantime, I am quite happy and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 to 19.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("no more than 90 people shall be excepted from section 1;") and insert ("45 people shall be excepted from section 1 with full voting rights and 135 people shall be so excepted with sitting but not voting rights;")
The noble Lord said: Grouped with the amendment are Amendments Nos. 13 and 24 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee, which he will speak to later; Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank; Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon; Amendment No. 16 in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne; Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson; and Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Dundee and Lord Trefgarne, and the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, all seek to increase the numbers of hereditary Peers to be covered by the Weatherill amendment. Although I am in complete agreement with the intention that I assume lies behind them, I see serious difficulty with the consequences.

827
That applies also to Amendment No. 12, which my noble friend Lord Vivian will move and speak to separately.
Nothing is said in the amendment about the intended split between the parties of additional hereditary Peers. It is plain to me that, to the extent that the amendments are intended to lead to an increase—or may result in an increase—in the number of Conservative hereditary Peers, the result will be to achieve an equal increase in the number of Labour life Peers, to be appointed under the broadly comparable principle set out in the White Paper, as well as to some increase in the number of Liberal Democrat life Peers who will come here under the proportionate creation principle. For that reason, I am not able to give my unqualified support to those amendments.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, would reduce the number of Weatherill Peers from 90 to 50. It would be foolish of me to second-guess what the noble Lord may say about the split of those Peers but I like the sound, at least, of any amendment that reduces the numbers of Weatherill Peers. My own amendment would reduce the number of Weatherill Peers elected according to party and Cross-Bench grouping from 75 to 45 voting Peers while introducing 135 speaking hereditary Peers whom one would expect to come from hereditary Peers of existing elements and from others who have a contribution to make based on experience and expertise. The speaking Peers would be Peers who would not expect to attend on a day-to-day basis but who should nevertheless be here and be heard.
I am not proposing to divide the Committee on this amendment or to speak to it at length if only because I have no suggestion to offer at this stage as to how the speaking Peers should be divided between the political parties and the Cross Benches except that the division should be a fair one. I put forward the amendment merely for consideration and discussion. I stress again to the noble and learned Lord that I have not tabled the amendment with the intention of calling a Division on it—I realise the difficulties—but only so that the point can be made and considered and, possibly, taken on board by the Procedure Committee in due course and by the noble and learned Lord and those who were involved with him in coming to the Weatherill agreement.
I ask the noble and learned Lord for an assurance on one point. Among the deadly sins which he outlined at Second Reading is a particularly heinous one. He said that support for any amendment increasing the magic number, 75, or abstention on any such amendment where abstention assisted its passage, would by itself be a breach of the Weatherill compromise from which the most dire consequences might follow. My amendment reduces the number 75 to 45. I think it has to be seen as closer than Weatherill to the strict orthodoxy of the Labour Party manifesto. I hope that I may be reassured and be told that my proposal for the introduction of
828
some speaking Peers is not seen as a colourable, a disingenuous and a flawed attempt to escape the Lord Chancellor's trap. With that hope, I beg to move.
Lord Vivian: I hope your Lordships will agree to my amendment, Amendment No. 12, being taken within this grouping in order to save the time of the Committee.
The scope of the amendment attempts to ensure that during the transitional period of your Lordships' House sufficient wisdom, experience and knowledge would be retained and that the House would remain an independent and representative body, providing for part-time membership and drawing on expertise whenever necessary. To achieve all of this, the amendment proposes an increase to the already agreed figure of 92 hereditary Peers, which was incorporated by the so-called Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. The transitional stage of your Lordships' House will retain the same powers, functions and role as exist at present and there will continue to be a requirement for a minimum daily attendance figure of some 400 Peers if the current workload is to be undertaken efficiently.
Although the figure of 400 includes the current committee work in the House, it does not cover overseas parliamentary visits, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other parliamentary groups, those who might be sick and those who might have to be absent on exceptional duty. At present, the daily attendance figure of 400 is found from some 1,200 Peers. It is illogical to think that it will be easy to find the same 400 from a pool of only about 750.
I draw the Committee's attention to the Labour Party's submission to the Royal Commission. There is not a great deal with which I disagree apart from the remarks made about the hereditary peerage. However, much in the submission applying to the future reformed House is applicable to the transitional House. On page 40 of the submission the presence of part-time members of your Lordships' House is stressed:
"Consideration needs to be given to the size of the reformed House of Lords. The Labour Party believes that there should he a target membership which fully accommodates the presence of part-time members".
On page 24, it states, on a representative chamber, that,
"it should fairly represent political opinion in the country, it should he representative of the different interests in the country (such as business, labour, education, science and the arts), and it should be representative of the people as a whole"—
to which I would add the peerage, and it,
"should address questions such as the age, gender and ethnic composition of its membership, and how fairer representation can best be secured".
On page 30, it states on the size of the Chamber:
"We should avoid the dangers of reducing the size of the House by too much: the House of Lords is already about to lose 750 members with the removal of the hereditaries, though 92 will be restored by the Weatherill amendment. The Labour Party does not believe that the House of Lords should be a small full-time body. This would threaten the role of independents and experts who might find it difficult to comply with such an obligation".
I believe it behoves us on all Benches to ensure that there will be sufficient Peers with knowledge, expertise and wisdom remaining in your Lordships' House for the

829
transitional stage. With that in mind, I believe the transitional House should have a complement of about 750 Peers, of whom some 578 should be life Peers and around 172 should be drawn from and elected by each constituent party of the hereditary peerage as is proposed for the 92. I expect your Lordships may ask me why the Weatherill figure of 92 should be more than doubled. The reason is that, although the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has stated in the past that there are some 500 life Peers, only 228 of them attended on any one day in the previous Session of Parliament. It was very seldom that they attended and only when there was a most important issue.
If one takes this maximum attendance figure of 228 life Peers and adds to it the 92 hereditary Peers, one can only reach a figure of 320—a shortfall of 80 in the required figure of 400 Peers. As it is highly unlikely that any more life Peers than 228 will attend, an extra 80 Peers could be drawn from the hereditary peerage which, added to the agreed figure of 92, would then give a total of 172 hereditary Peers. Without them there are not enough Peers to run this House. Parity between the two major parties would not be difficult to establish and could be achieved easily within a House of 750 Peers by the Government introducing more life Peers within this ceiling to make the balance.
If the Government are so convinced that stage two will take place by the end of this Parliament, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain why this proposal to increase the number of hereditary Peers during the transitional stage would not be feasible, especially as Labour's manifesto pledge has changed to allow a number of hereditary Peers to remain during the transitional stage? If 92 hereditary Peers are now allowed, why not 192 or 172, as I have proposed, until stage two is implemented?
If the Government are unable to concede to this additional number of hereditary Peers, which should not be difficult for them to justify as they have already removed their manifesto pledge for stage one of the Bill—your Lordships touched on this in discussing the previous amendment—a certain amount of consensus might he established if the Government were to agree to accept an application from the leader of the Conservative Party for life peerages for the Conservative Front Bench and those distinguished public servants who have become Privy Counsellors, as mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal in a recent debate. There has been no significant debate on the composition of your Lordships' House during stage one, but this amendment draws your Lordships' attention to what the size of this Chamber should be. I submit that as the roles, functions and powers have not changed, a ceiling of about 750 Peers would ensure that the House functioned efficiently and there would be no loss of wisdom and expertise.
Without solutions of that kind, I submit that the House will not be run properly during the transitional stage. It will not be able to scrutinise legislation in the same careful way as is achieved at present; the standard of debate will be lowered and there may not be enough Peers to carry out Committee work competently unless the House is based on a realistic daily attendance figure
830
of 400 drawn from 750 Peers. Furthermore, this House will no longer provide an effective check on the executive, and consequently will not be able to safeguard the interests of the nation.
I ask the Government to think carefully about these remarks to ensure that the House functions effectively and efficiently, and with sufficient wisdom and expertise, during the transitional period. I shall return to this matter at a later stage.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 14, which is part of this group. Most of the amendments in the group propose an increase—in some cases substantial—in the number of Weatherill Peers. We object to all of those amendments. There is no possible justification for retaining a larger number of hereditary Peers. The only justification for keeping any is the ground suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne; namely, that retaining some hereditary Peers creates an incentive to go ahead with stage two. A figure of 90 or 92 would he more than enough for that.
Turning to Amendment No. 11, we should welcome a reduction to 45 in the number of such Peers with voting rights. But the amendment still retains a total of 180 hereditary Peers—double the Weatherill number—of whom 135 would have speaking rights only. We do not approve of the retention of Members with speaking rights alone. They would clearly be "second-class citizens". Frankly, it is difficult to imagine why anyone should want to continue in this House on that basis.
Our Amendment No. 14 proposes a reduction in the number of Weatherill Peers to 56. Why 56? The answer is easy enough. We have already discussed the position of the 15 Deputy Chairmen and I shall not return to that. The argument for the remaining 75, as has repeatedly been made clear, is that they would represent an agreed figure of 10 per cent of the strength in this House of each party, together with the Cross-Benchers. Thus, Labour has 18 hereditary Peers; 10 per cent of that figure is 1.8. No doubt if the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, were present, he might suggest that each of those two had 0.9 of a vote! The proposal is that the number should be rounded up to two. Similarly, on these Benches, we have 24 hereditary Peers, so the figure is rounded up to three. The remaining 70 are divided between Conservatives and Cross-Benchers. It is proposed that the Conservatives should have 42 and the Cross-Benchers 28.
So one would presume that the Conservatives would have between 411 and 420 hereditary Peers. The answer, however, is that they have nothing near that figure. The latest figures, as at 1st May, indicate that 299 hereditary Peers by succession took the Conservative Whip. At 1st November 1998, the approximate date of the Cranborne-Irvine agreement, the figure was 298. There are also three hereditary Peers of first creation who will be offered life peerages; so they do not count.
On those figures, the Conservatives are entitled not to 42, but to 30 Weatherill Peers. Similarly, the 208 Cross-Bench hereditary Peers by succession should mean not 28 Weatherill Peers, but 21. Those figures

831
exclude: 77 hereditary Peers belonging to no group, not even the Cross-Benchers; 70 Peers without Writ of Summons; and 58 on leave of absence. It is not clear on what basis those Peers can be taken into account. It seems that the Conservative figures assume that most of them are Conservatives and the rest are Cross-Benchers. That cannot be correct. Surely the appropriate step would be to allow those without Writs or on leave of absence to vote for 13 of themselves on the basis that the successful 13 would undertake not to attend your Lordships' House!
We have been fed throughout with inaccurate figures. The question is: how did that come about? We simply do not know. Was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in such a hurry to do a deal with the noble Viscount that he did not investigate the figures? The draft paper prepared for the Procedure Committee on the Weatherill amendment states that the figure of 75 represents 10 per cent of the total of the hereditary peerage. That figure is, of course, correct. But it is reached only by including those who do not belong to any group, those who do not have Writs, and those who are on leave of absence. There is no justification for allocating any of those either to the Conservatives or to the Cross-Benchers. They should be left out of the count altogether.
The correct figure for Weatherill Peers, therefore, leaving aside the question of the 15 Deputy Speakers, is 56: 30 Conservatives; 21 Cross-Benchers; three Liberal Democrats; and two Labour. It seems that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, must have talked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor into a deal that goes far beyond anything that he could reasonably have expected. If we are to have Weatherill Peers at all, surely we should rely on the 10 per cent formula, not on an inaccurate application of the formula to the facts.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 16 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk. I must confess that my noble friend and I did not embark on the detailed numerical analysis so eloquently articulated by my noble friend Lord Vivian and again from the Liberal Benches. Our intention was simply to probe the Government to ascertain how it was that the numbers now incorporated in the Weatherill amendment were arrived at.
The noble and learned Lord said at an earlier point in the proceedings that it was a deal. That is a fair thing for him to have said. I was not present. No doubt my noble friend Lord Cranborne began by suggesting a much higher number; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested a much lower number; they split the difference and ended up with the numbers that are now incorporated in the amendment. If that is what happened, I do not necessarily disagree with the process, although it could hardly be described as a rationale.
In response to an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord said that if the number allocated by the proposed Standing Order to the Labour Party dropped below two, he would have some difficulty in selling the Weatherill deal to his honourable and right honourable
832
friends in the other place. If it is the case that his honourable and right honourable friends want more hereditary Peers, I have a simple solution for the noble and learned Lord. He can abandon this Bill; then they can have 12.
The Earl of Dundee: I speak to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The test is whether it assists the aims of Lords reform. Those may be agreed to be: approximate voting parity between the main parties; restriction on the parliamentary rights of hereditary Peers; and the preservation of the present quality of the deliberative function in this House.
The allocation proposed by my noble friend between speaking and voting Peers achieves those aims. However, not without some justification, stage one and the Bill have an agenda of their own. It reflects the setback in 1969 in another place. That occurred in spite of the solid backing given by this House to the then Labour government's Lords reform proposals. This House had no part in the failure of that Bill. It was entirely due to the actions of another place.
The proposal for two stages as the mechanism for Lords reform now seeks to avoid a repeat of that failure. As a result, many of us hope, and expect, that there will be constructive all-party talks between stages one and two. Meanwhile, with the two stages as currently planned, it might be difficult for the Government to adopt my noble friend's amendment at stage one and within this Bill. Nevertheless, his amendment mirrors the Labour government's formula for Lords reform in 1968. I believe that it should be given serious consideration again through all-party talks between stages one and two.
Lord Howie of Troon: I agreed very much with the speech of my old friend Lord Marsh. I begin by reassuring him that I did not put down the amendment in order to cause trouble with another place. I wish to speak to both my amendments together, Amendments Nos. 15 and 19.
I wish to make two points. First, I am told that the amendments come under the disadvantage of hybridity so I shall not press them. In any case, they are intended to be purely probing amendments. The purpose is not to change Clause 2 but to give guidance to those who are working out the Standing Orders which I believe now exist in draft.
As I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill, especially stage one. I also welcome Clause 2 as a means of easing its passage into law. That is what Clause 2 is for, and it is a perfectly proper and reasonable device to use in parliamentary terms. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who spoke earlier, I have no objection to hereditary Peers. I am not a purist, as he is. I have friends among them, and many do extremely good work. My noble friend Lord Shepherd is not present but the Committee will agree that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on the other side, have rescued this House from procedural difficulties over and over again. If they were to go, it

833
would be a serious loss because no one else is capable of taking on the activity, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He might manage it.
There is a second aspect to the problem of hereditary Peers. I often speak on matters pertaining to the engineering profession and related topics. There is a respectable number of engineers in the House, but it so happens that the great majority are hereditary Peers. It is not usual for an engineer to be appointed to this place as a life Peer. Sometimes engineers arrive because they are industrialists, captains of industry or something similar, but they do not come here as engineers. Those who are here are mainly hereditary Peers. Three of them sit on our Benches: my noble friends Lord Ponsonby, Lord Berkeley and Lord Monkswell. I can recall two on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Kirkwood. They are hereditary Peers who represent a part of our society which is poorly represented in Parliament. It is better represented in this House than the other place. I do not wish to see those hereditary Peers vanish entirely from our deliberations.
I turn to what I call the "Cranborne accord". It was agreed among a small group of people and we are told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it was binding only on the people who put their thumbprints on it. Some of us are giving him advice on how to proceed from here on. As I understand the accord, it is seriously flawed. Apparently it gives the figure of 42 Conservative hereditary Peers, Labour two, Lib-Dems three and Cross-Benches 28. That totals 75. In addition, there are 15 deputy chairmen, producing the magic figure of 90. Casting an eye over the deputy chairmen, it seems to me likely that at least 10 would he Conservatives. So the Conservative figure would not be 42 but 52 or even more, and the other five would be scattered among the other parties.
At Second Reading, I drew attention to a table published by the Evening Standard dealing with the 9l most active Peers—a rather odd figure, compared with the 90. The table showed that of the 90 most active Peers, 49 were Conservative, 12 Labour, 12 Liberal Democrat and 18 Cross-Benchers. The figure of 49 Conservatives accords quite well with the proposals put forward in the deal. The Labour proportion is much higher than the deal would give, so is the Liberal Democrat proportion. The Cross-Benchers' proposed figure is, surprisingly, much lower than the deal would give them, only 18 against 28.
There are other figures for activity which other Members of the House would achieve, based on a larger sample. They show 14 Liberal Democrats and 14 Labour being particularly active and larger numbers of Conservatives and Cross-Benchers because the sample was bigger. I might add that in the last two complete Sessions before the general election, the attendance record of the Labour hereditary Peers was the highest of any group in proportion to the numbers.
The agreement or deal, whatever it is called, is wholly unfair to Labour hereditary Peers and also to the Liberal Democrats, despite the apparent logic of taking 10 per cent. That seems a crude way of going about things. It was done that way for ease, but it does not
834
seem to produce a good result. In my amendment I propose that both Labour hereditary Peers arid the Liberal Democrat Peers should be increased to 10. I know that the Liberal Democrats will not accept that kind offer. It was meant in no other way than to produce a reasonable symmetry in an unreasonable proposal.
I proposed leaving the Conservative number, despite the addition of most of the 15 deputy chairmen and I left alone the proportion for Cross-Benchers. That is purely because I did not want to rock the boat much. I do not mind giving the boat a little shoogle, but I do not want to rock it in a serious way. The amendment carries the disadvantage of hybridity and in any case I have no intention of pressing it. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Perhaps this is the moment to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 17, and in doing so to say how glad I am to be following the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. So often in the past I have found myself in considerable agreement with him.
Lest it be thought that my figure of 140 was plucked out of thin air, or has some kind of arcane ideological basis, or was gauged so as to split the difference between the proposals of the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Vivian, let me assure the Committee that that is not the case. The figure of 140 was carefully arrived at by means of essentially pragmatic calculations.
At this point, I unreservedly pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Weatherill, Lord Marsh and others for the enormous effort and ingenuity they put into achieving the Weatherill compromise. Having said that, it cannot be denied that removing all but 90 hereditary Peers means that the House will lose many good people. By "good" I do not mean good in the social or party political sense, but in the sense of having contributed to the good governance and well-being of the nation at large.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, apart from anything else the Labour Benches would lose a dozen excellent, hard-working people. There have been heavy hints of transforming a number of hereditaries into life Peers, but that is not something on which one can rely. Heavy hints are not binding on anyone. In any case, what is the point of going through all the rigmarole of creating life Peers if the Royal Commission recommends a wholly or mainly elected House and most of the existing "lifers" found themselves out on their ear in two or three years' time?
Having gone through the list with a reasonably fine tooth-comb, I concluded that there were at least 204 hereditaries whose services the House could, with profit, retain. They comprise both regular attenders and those whose professional commitments make regular attendance impossible but who possess specialised expertise—geographical, scientific, legal, artistic and so on—which the House can ill afford to lose. It was because, sadly, the Government could clearly never accept such a large number that, with difficulty and considerable heart-searching, I then pared down the number to 170. But even that would be too high from the point of view of political balance. Hence, I arrived at 140, as the maximum number that would allow a greater

835
proportion of those good people to be retained while not disadvantaging the Government in the Division Lobbies when compared with the Weatherill proposal.
The essence of my amendment, which would not be on the face of the Bill, envisages that the additional 50 hereditaries should not be elected on a pro rata basis like the original 75 but be chosen broadly on their merits. I do not mean their merits overall, but in the context of the House. Based on the records of the individual hereditaries who attend this House today—which may be different from the position five or 10 years ago, but that is not the point—the 50 would comprise the following additional hereditary Peers: 12 Labour; 12 Liberal Democrats; 16 Conservatives; and 10 independents.
Despite the first Division this afternoon, effectively we have a Lib-Lab coalition at the moment, which is likely to last at least until the implementation of stage two. In addition, I believe that not even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would claim that all, or nearly all, Cross-Benchers consistently support the Opposition. Of the additional 50, on balance at least 26–12 Labour, 12 Liberal Democrats and at least two independents—will tend to support the Government, while no more than 24–16 Conservatives and an absolute maximum of eight independents—will tend to support the Opposition. Therefore, so long as the Lib-Lab pact holds, the Government would be better off in the Division Lobbies than under the Weatherill proposals.
Assuming that the Deputy Speakers remain unchanged, which I believe to be a reasonable assumption, the Conservative hereditaries would drop from 57.8 per cent to 48.6 per cent of the total; the independents would drop by a lesser proportion, from 34.5 per cent to 29.3 per cent; the Labour hereditaries would rise more than two-and-a-half times, from 4.4 per cent to 11.4 per cent; and the Liberal Democrat hereditaries would rise more than three-fold from 3.3 per cent 10.7 per cent. In other words, every single Labour hereditary would be included, apart from one who rarely turns up nowadays, together with a substantial majority of the Liberal Democrats.
There would still have to be a considerable culling of Conservative and Cross-Bench hereditaries. However, the fact that the culling would be a little less drastic means that the selection could be extended to noble Lords whose other commitments made it impossible for them to attend regularly but whose expertise is highly valued by the House. I give three examples: my noble friend Lord Lytton, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. What a tragedy it would be if the House lost the benefit of their counsel. My.amendment involves no breach of principle from the point of view of the Government. If it is doctrinally pure to retain 12 per cent of the hereditaries—because 90 is 12 per cent of 750—it cannot be doctrinally sacrilegious to retain 18i per cent as this amendment proposes.
Inevitably, my statistics delivered verbally are hard to follow, but if the Committee is able to peruse my reasoning in Hansard tomorrow, I hope that it will see the force of the argument. Some noble Lords may agree to return to this matter at a later stage.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I must admire the visual ability of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who in moving his Amendment No. 11 said that he had an idea of what was in my speech. To be called "transparent" is quite flattering.
Lord Coleraine: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I believe I said that I had no idea what was in his speech but that if such and such was in it, certain consequences followed.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I accept what the noble Lord says. I believe he mentioned hereditary Peers. I hate to disappoint him and hope that by the end of what I have to say he will appreciate the point.
Bearing in mind the countless opinions expressed on the Weatherill amendment, the fact remains that, whatever the defects in the Bill, all of us as parliamentarians have a primary, overriding duty to debate, advise and assist in controlling the supine government majority in another place. We must, accordingly, so amend the Weatherill amendment that while this rather regrettable Bill is being cured—and perhaps endlessly litigated, the task of the Royal Commission being further complicated in consequence—this House can continue to operate in an effective manner. By this I mean that the House must extend and apply the best of its forces and practices until such time as a full and comprehensive reform of the House has, after due debate and democratic consideration, been implemented. That is the goal at which my amendment is aimed.
I now proceed to consider the amendment in detail. The Weatherill amendment seems to me to have altered fundamentally the balance of the Bill. It is necessary now to look at the interim Chamber as a whole. Therefore, I flag up the further amendments that I shall table at Report stage. Very briefly, those amendments seek to ensure that until full reform all current Peers should be entitled to speak and vote on constitutional issues and everything else. It is the duty of this House to draw on its full reserve of varied expertise until the Government carry out their promise of full reform.
The second amendment to which I speak tonight needs a little further explanation. I am concerned about the composition of the House at a time when the Bill is likely to run into insuperable legal difficulties. Those difficulties will inevitably confuse and delay the final reforms. That in turn makes the composition of the interim House even more important. Accordingly, the 230 Peers, both hereditary and life (so avoiding the possible "flooding" of the House), to whom reference has been made, are voting Peers on all except constitutional matters on which the whole House should continue to be able to vote. I suggest that the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches should each have 50 Peers and that the Bishops and equivalents—not all Anglicans—and present and former Law Lords should each have 15. If anyone says that this

837
looks like stage two, can he say when otherwise that will happen?
"I'm afraid I don't know', said the great Bell of Bow."
This House has had enough of being fobbed off with improbable promises. That is no reflection on the Royal Commission whose recommendations, if they are firm, as it is hoped they will be, will not necessarily commend themselves to the Government; and nor to our people if they are not.
If any noble Lords wish to air their views further on this matter there will be a short conference in the Moses Room from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on 9th June, in good time for Report stage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have listened to yet another complex speech. I shall listen to many more. I have a simple question to ask the noble and learned Lord. Does he not regret that he did not conduct negotiations on the simple matter of the number of life peerages necessary to balance the House?
7 p.m.
Lord Desai: A number of amendments seek to improve Clause 2. It is an impossible task. Clause 2 is so bad that it cannot be improved. I do not like Clause 2. I did not vote for it; and every device to increase or decrease the number provided for in Clause 2 is completely beside the point because, in principle, Clause 2 is bad.
The only choice we have is 90 or zero. As my noble and learned friend explained again and again—and he will have to explain several times again today—the significance of 90 is that it is the number agreed upon. There is no other rationale. Because 90 is the number agreed upon, that number sticks. After that point has been conceded, one can devise many different schemes. People talk about alphabet soup: this is a number soup. We go from 45 to 56, 105, 106, 140, 172, 180 and 230. Take any number and we shall give it to you.
The point is simple. The number 90 has been agreed upon. The components of the 90 also seem to have been agreed. These amendments are beside the point.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is not the point that the number 90 was agreed on only because all the amendments were withdrawn earlier in. Committee? Had we had a normal Committee stage, the number 90 would not have been agreed until we reached the end of a debate on the Weatherill amendment plus the amendments to it.
Lord Desai: I beg to differ with my noble friend. I do not like to do so; I usually agree with him.
The number of 90 was arrived at before any stage of the Bill. It was announced in December last. It had nothing to do with the Committee stage or when the Bill came to this House. The figure was agreed upon for various reasons to assist a smooth passage through this House. I respect that reason but it does not please me sufficiently to enable me to support Clause 2.
838
We should not debate making Clause 2 worse with amendments which will not be agreed upon. We shall only waste a lot of our time.
Viscount Tenby: We are surely in danger of being overwhelmed by a bombardment of numbers. You name it, we have it here somewhere. I am almost tempted to say that the only number we have not heard is 600; but in view of the experience of the Light Brigade that is probably a relief. I am reminded of James Thurber who, when telephoning and being told that he had the wrong number, said, "If it's the wrong number, why did you answer?"
I say with the greatest diffidence and respect to the movers of the amendments, toilers all in the statistical vineyard, these are the wrong numbers. Why then are we discussing them at such inordinate length? We can go on putting up numbers ad nauseam. But it is surely unrealistic to believe that any of the alternative numbers, however persuasively advocated as some have been, would command the support of the majority of Members of the Committee.
We all now know the formula from which the numbers have been calculated. It is rough and ready perhaps, as we have now learned, without any rationale. But I believe that the numbers are generous; they will ensure that the work of this House continues efficiently in the interim period; and they are now incorporated in the Bill on the wishes of the vast majority of noble Lords in this Chamber.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may follow the theme advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. We have to some extent moved on from the discussions that took place between my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who entered into a compromise, an agreement—call it what one will—perhaps for different purposes. We were told what we were allowed to be told about what those discussions covered and the outcome. In the light of that information, by a substantial majority the Committee agreed to incorporate the new Clause 2 into the Bill.
I fully accept that we did so after a number of noble Lords, and indeed my noble friends, had withdrawn amendments previously tabled concerning the precise figure. However, it was the view of the Front Bench of which I am part that the Committee believed the figure of about 90 to be a sensible compromise in all the circumstances. No doubt if, before the negotiations had taken place, each Member of your Lordships' House had been asked to put in an envelope the number he would like we would have had a wide range of numbers. But at the end of the day a compromise was reached. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said on more than one occasion, the test of a good compromise is that those who reach it are not entirely satisfied with the outcome. I believe that to be not entirely satisfied with the outcome is better than trying to work out what the arithmetic means.
Against that background I wish to make clear that we on this Front Bench would resist any amendment which seeks to reduce the number; and we would not support

839
any amendment which seeks to increase the number while we fully sympathise with those who eloquently advance the view that there is cause for having more than 90.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke to Amendment No. 14. Not for the first time the Liberal Democrats stand on their own as the only quarter of the Chamber which seeks to reduce the number. It is interesting to note that from all other sides of the Chamber amendments seek to increase the number. I found it difficult to follow the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I had the distinct impression that at the end of the day it would leave the Liberal Democrats in a somewhat better position than they might be if the figure of 90 remains, certainly vis-à-vis these Benches, and for that reason I am instinctively opposed to it.
The Committee has already heard the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in his probing amendments, not only from these Benches but also others. There is much merit in them. However, the time has come to face up to reality. The Government will not accept any change to the figure of 90. There is no hope of another place accepting such a change. Therefore, for different reasons, I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that the time has come to move on.
Lord Monson: Will the noble and learned Lord accept that if the figure of 90 is adhered to the House will lose the services of many expert people on both sides?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept the possibility that that may occur. However, moving into the world of reality, in which we must remain, we all know that life Peers will be created. I should like to think that those who are to advise the Prime Minister or others on the creation of life Peers will take account of anyone who falls into the category to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has rightly drawn attention.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Before the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor replies, perhaps I may hook onto this debate about numbers an issue which relates to our previous discussion. I do so not in anticipation that the noble and learned Lord will give me an immediate reply, but so that he may reflect upon it over the dinner hour.
I refer to our discussion about whether there should be a first-past-the-post method of electing Peers, whatever the number may be. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say when pressed that the modified first-past-the-post method was part of the agreement he reached with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I have looked at some papers, in particular at one that I have in front of me which was circulated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on or about 15th February. It was a paper prepared by the Constitution Secretariat to the Cabinet Office and it dealt with material for a resolution of Standing Orders. Item 4 states that the method of election may be
840
determined by each party group. That was the understanding of the noble and learned Lord on 15th February; in other words, it could not have been part of the original agreement.
I see also in a paper circulated by the Clerk of the Parliaments on 24th February on the conduct of elections that he states that there are two approaches. One is that each party should conduct its own elections according to its own rules and the other is that there should be common rules. I am not arguing about what method ought to be used, but I ask the noble and learned Lord to be kind enough to look back. I believe that all the evidence points to the fact that there was no agreement of the kind implied. It is for this House, or for the Procedure Committee and then this House, to decide which method of election should be chosen.
I make the point because I believe that we all accept the extent to which the noble and learned Lord's hands are tied by what he agreed, but his hands are not tied by what he did not agree. If the House is not tied by that either, there is room for further discussion and amendment later.
The Lord Chancellor: In this range of amendments, noble Lords are seeking to contrive an auction with many bids. So let me deal with the amendments as best I can in the order in which they were debated. I believe that what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is the notion that the transitional House will not be able to function at more than a basic level without the accumulated wisdom and experience of no fewer than 180 hereditary Peers. I disagree with that. With the greatest respect, it does not begin to recognise the worth of the 500 Members of this House who are life Peers and implies that they are not capable of sustaining the work of the House at more than merely a functional level.
Lord Coleraine: My view is that this House would function well without the hereditary Peers, but it would function better if it carried through into the new House a number of speaking Peers who had experience outside the House, were not full-time politicians and would bring to the House what they bring today.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Let us turn to that point. There is the issue of whether some hereditary Peers should retain their sitting rights, so losing their right to vote. The two-Writ issue, perhaps better called the two-tier issue, was debated at some length on a previous occasion. It was overwhelmingly rejected in the context of Amendment No. 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, added his name. Your Lordships' House was then persuaded by the force of the arguments of principle and practice against such a proposal.
The argument of principle is that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to sever the link between the hereditary peerage and membership of this House. To allow nearly 50 per cent of the hereditary peerage to retain their membership, although with only limited rights, would undermine the purpose of the Bill. The

841
argument of practice was put most cogently by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who said that realistically the House could not function properly if there were a two-tier membership with certain Members enjoying different rights and privileges from others. I entirely agree and do not believe that there is anything more to be said on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, then sought the leave of your Lordships to talk to his Amendment No. 12. Many of the amendments which we are addressing seek to ensure that more than 90 hereditary Peers are retained. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, explained that he believes that 172 is the number required to ensure that the House can carry out its functions properly. But we believe that the life Peers alone would have no difficulty in carrying out the work of the House to the same standard as today without the aid of any hereditary Peers at all. Therefore, I do not propose to go into that debate again.
I return to Amendment No. 14, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I must confess that I was puzzled about how he arrived at the number of 56 and I shall have to study Hansard closely tomorrow in order to ensure that I wholly understand. The way in which the distribution was arrived at as regards the compromise is that the appropriate shares were calculated by examining the party groups. Therefore, the proportions which each party group bore to the total of the party and Cross Bench membership was taken in relation to the figure of 75, which is 10 per cent of the total hereditary membership of this House. Of course, one can approach the issue from other standpoints and produce other outcomes.
It must he recognised that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches were not party to the agreement.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I am sorry that he has some difficulty in understanding the figures and am sure that he will read Hansard carefully. Perhaps I may assist further by giving him a copy of the official figures which I obtained from the Library of the House to show exactly the present composition of your Lordships' House.
The Lord Chancellor: I have no doubt that different figures can be arrived at by starting from different premises. I have described the way in which we arrived at them, the methodology of our compromise, and I entirely accept that others would prefer a different methodology if it would give rise to a better outcome for them.
The position is, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, admitted when we debated the new schedule to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that although, as he believed, the agreement was flawed there is a need on our side to honour and accept it; that it may be a perfectly reasonable position to adopt, however difficult that may be for many of us. That, I believe, was a fair way of putting it. We intend fully to honour the agreement. We would not be willing, by supporting the amendment, to seek to renegotiate the 90.
842
I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is interesting to note that his proposals would preserve, admittedly only in a transitional House, 15 more hereditary Peers than the Weatherill amendment allows, although he would give more to his own party and to the Liberal Democrat Party. However, in fairness to him, he acknowledged that he was perhaps out of step with his party and perhaps more agnostic about the hereditary principle than the rest of us.
The noble Lord then spoke to Amendment No. 19. Again, I have to tell him that this amendment is not acceptable to us. There is, of course, every opportunity for more Labour hereditary Peers to be successful in the election for Deputy Speakers.
Lord Howie of Troon: I thank the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. I quite take the point about the hereditary Peers making up the number in that way. However, I do not see the sense in giving somebody a title when he already has one.
The Lord Chancellor: I am afraid I do not follow that. I find that puzzling. The hereditary Peers who are Peers of first creation are to be offered life peerages because if a hereditary Peer is to be excluded, of course he retains his title as a hereditary Peer, but a life peerage gives him a seat in this House of Parliament. Therefore, there is a very considerable advantage in that.
I do not believe that I need to say anything further to explain why the figures of 140 canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and of 230, the top of the range, canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, are not acceptable. Basically, I say the same thing throughout that, so far as concerns the Government, a compromise agreed is not negotiable.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I think perhaps he misunderstood what I said. If he reads Hansard tomorrow morning, he will understand that I may not have asked for any more than 90 hereditary Peers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If the noble and learned Lord is not going to rise to that particular bait, perhaps I may ask him where we stand with Amendment No. 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. That amendment seemed to some of us to be quite persuasive and perhaps confirmed us in our view that the so-called Weatherill amendment was not at all properly thought out in the first place, and is a pretty good muddle. How will the noble and learned Lord let us know the result of his deliberations after he has read in Hansard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart? Will he drop him a line and perhaps put the answer in the Library or send us a copy so that we know where we are and whether this part of the amendment makes any sense at all, which I am sure it does not?
The Lord Chancellor: I doubt whether the noble Lord is seriously putting that question to me. I understood substantially the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall look at the detail. Knowing the noble

843
Lord, I am sure that there is a sustained and clearly explicable rationale which will appear to me when I read what he said. The compromise has a clearly explicable rationale too. No matter the extent to which my understanding of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is enhanced by the reading of Hansard, my mind will not be changed. The Government adhere to the compromise and will not negotiate on it. If there was any confusion in the mind of the noble Lord, I hope I have removed it.
Lord Coleraine: As I started this, I believe it falls to me to wind up as briefly as I can. I should like to make only two points. I invite the Committee to commend the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, on putting the details on the amendment, even though it had the potential to make the Bill hybrid. It at least made some sense of what he was proposing.
On a more serious note, I suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indulged in a certain amount of hyperbole when he implied that the question of speaking Peers was disposed of by an overwhelming majority against the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The truth of the matter is that my noble friend moved a fairly ambitious amendment. It was defeated, as far as I remember, by a majority of eight to 40 in the late evening when there was a thin House apart from the Labour Peers who have to be here, night after night. To read any more into those figures and circumstances would be wrong. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dietary Supplements
7.26 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps the Department of Health is taking to preserve the public's access to a full range of safe dietary supplements.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe this Question is timely. From the speakers' list it also seems to be popular. A number of issues are coming to a head, as we shall see in the course of our short debate this evening. There are many worries about the future of vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements, and I hope the Government will be able to give us some reassurances about their intentions.
In the time available I cannot hope to cover the whole field. I speak from the patient's perspective, as befits a patron of the Natural Medicines Society and an admirer
844
of the work of Consumers for Health Choice, two organisations which I believe represent the patient's interests on this subject more closely than does the Consumers Association. I do not have to tell the noble Baroness who is to reply what a depth of feeling there is in the country. She will know that a march to Trafalgar Square has been planned for 20th June. Her department will not have forgotten the tidal wave of protest that struck when herbs came under threat in 1994. The Vitamin B6 debate may have gone off the boil since last summer, but it is still simmering.
This last issue, with its involvement of expert committees under both the Department of Health and MAFF, illustrates the heart of the difficulty we face. We have come a long way since Hippocrates said:
"Let your food be your medicine".
When the medical press publishes trials on broccoli and garlic, it makes a mockery of the distinction between medicines and foods; yet this is the situation we have, where each substance is assigned to its legal category alongside thyme or thalidomide. All substances along this continuum have a physiological effect. I am not of course arguing that drugs such as AZT should not be assessed with the utmost rigour, and that something different is not needed for vitamin A. But it is the middle ground that causes trouble, and the spur for my Question today is the proposal of the Medicines Control Agency to amend regulations concerning the borderline area under the consultation document MLX 249, whose final format we expect in the very near future. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to give us a date for this. Together with the implications of MLX 249 we need to look at the longer-term future of supplements in the European context, and how the Government see the interests of patients being best preserved. And the picture is not complete without some consideration of the work of the new ad hoc expert advisory group on vitamins and minerals.
I am not one of those who sees the MCA's latest proposals as a prelude to the wholesale destruction of the vitamin and mineral market through their reclassification as medicines. I accept that that is no one's intention. Nevertheless, there are serious concerns about MLX 249, which the noble Baroness is aware of and which I hope other speakers may have a chance to develop. These centre on the powers proposed for the MCA in its enforcement role, which may add clarity and openness but which do place manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage in terms of burden of proof and challengeability on the merits in a court of law, while at the same time giving the agency the powers of policeman, judge, jury and Court of Appeal. On that last point I can see no good reason why the MCA should constitute the appeal panel since it is not merely technical expertise that is needed on appeal: the requirement is for independence and transparent justice (with of course technical advice available if needed). The worry is compounded by the agency's recent tendency to reclassify formulations as medicines whose individual elements have already been accepted as foods. There have been hints that the Government may

845
be rethinking the MCA's powers in the light of comments received, and it would be good to know if this is the case.
I have two further questions about MLX 249. In a helpful response by the MCA to the concerns already voiced, it is stated that,
"the proposals would not change the status of products which are correctly classified now as food supplements".
The importing of that word "correctly" rather begs the question, for the MCA has only to decide that a supplement is incorrectly classified for us all to be back at square one. The phrase sets alarm bells ringing, and it would be good if the noble Baroness could switch them off for us. My second and more fundamental question is that, while recognising that complaints and pressure from Europe lie behind these proposals, I wonder in fact why they are necessary, since I believe it can convincingly be argued that the MCA at present has all the powers it needs to enforce the law in this area. The Government may simply be making a rod for their own and everybody else's back.
Before turning to Europe let me refer to the work of the ad hoc expert group. This was set up last year, following the battle over the appropriate doses of B6, to consider safety levels for all vitamins and minerals. In contrast to many countries in the EU, this country has a tradition, supported by government, of being guided by safety considerations rather than perceived need based on a low-level recommended daily allowance, and for this we can be grateful. But within that there are some quite restrictive attitudes at work, as we saw with B6. I persist in my belief, which I have expressed in a number of Oral and Written Questions in your Lordships' House, that the composition of our expert advisory committees is largely to blame, and that until the balance of medical/pharmaceutical interests is redressed among their membership, we shall continue to have problems. It is less the financial links than the culture of unfamiliarity with the workings of natural, unpatentable products that is worrying, and I believe we need further and more urgent steps in the direction of finding places on bodies such as the Committee on Toxicity, the Food Advisory Committee and the new ad hoc group for people from a different scientific as well as lay background.
I mentioned that most European countries saw things differently. This is not the place to go into the broadly similar worries over herbal remedies caused by the demands and definitions of European law, but I do want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the initiative she has taken to bring interested parties together to thrash out an agreed UK position as a basis for persuading the EU to harmonise along liberal rather than restrictive lines. This is most heartening. But I also want to point out that unless we do the same exercise with dietary supplements we may be in similar trouble. Revised proposals for European legislation are expected at any time. We can keep up the pressure from the UK to have these classified according to upper safety levels, which is not proving an easy task. But we need more than this.
At the moment, unless a supplement is clearly a food it is in a vulnerable position. Neither under existing regulations nor under MLX 249 is there any certainty
846
how a product will be categorised, for although this may be a matter of "law, not policy" as the Government emphasise, it still comes down to the MCA's interpretation. If the agency says it is a medicine, the costs of licensing are usually more than an industry which deals in unpatentable products can bear. What is more—I believe the noble Baroness is sympathetic to this argument—to keep within food law you cannot use any medicinal language at all. You cannot, for example, say, "Do not drive or use heavy machinery when taking these"; you cannot even say of vitamin C, "Helps to prevent vitamin C deficiency"! Patients are thus in many cases denied information they need.
When we discussed this briefly earlier in the year the noble Baroness said she was keen to work with the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine (which I chair) to find a solution. We have been doing some thinking and consulting, particularly in the area of creating a possible "third way" for supplements and perhaps traditional remedies which can demonstrate safety without needing to go through the hoops of a full medicinal product licence. There are a number of ideas in the field. I speak for the responsible and representative end of complementary medicine when I say that we give no credence to the ideas she may have seen put forward by the Institute for Complementary Medicine, which, with its associated practitioners' council and register, has always been a body more concerned with self-promotion than genuine dialogue, and whose views on matters of policy command little respect. We must look elsewhere for solutions. Australia, Canada and the USA have developed licensing policies which are worth studying. I would urge the noble Baroness to take the lead, obviously in conjunction with her colleagues in MAFF, in bringing the players together in the way she has so admirably done with herbal medicines. There is much work to do, and if we are to persuade our European partners—we all know this will not be easy—we need to get moving soon.
This Government are well placed to steer us through these difficult questions. They have shown a welcome appreciation for public health and preventive healthcare. They have a public who are little short of passionate about so-called natural remedies. They owe it to them to encourage and not undermine self-reliance in health matters, and to show the way in Europe. They have made an excellent start with herbs. Will they now do the same with supplements?
7.36 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, in view of the severe time limitations this evening I had hoped I would not have to thank the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for introducing the debate this evening, but he covered the subject with great skill and posed some interesting questions. Before I start I declare an interest as president of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine and president of the Natural Medicines Society.
At present, vitamins, minerals and other food supplements are classed as foods and are currently regulated under food law by the Ministry of Agriculture,

847
Fisheries and Food. The debate about whether they should be regulated as medicines is not only taking place in the UK, but also in the rest of Europe.
Food supplements are a convenient way of safeguarding our intake of essential nutrients to maintain good health. They can contain vitamins, minerals and a range of other ingredients such as herbs, herbal extracts, essential oils, certain enzymes and amino acids.
People take supplements for different reasons, but the main one is to maintain good health as a form of health insurance. In an ideal world it should be possible to obtain optimum nutrition from the food we eat. A diet as near to that which existed before industrialization—avoiding refined and processed foods—would be ideal, but is not always possible to achieve. For many years it has been suggested that good health depended on being able to eat five servings per day of fruit and vegetables. This is possible for your Lordships in the excellent outlets of the Refreshment Department, but not possible for others whose diet may not include the correct amount of vitamins, minerals, enzymes and amino acids. Food supplements are a simple solution.
As supplements are considered to be foods in the UK, they must conform to all food law and contain safe levels of vitamins, minerals and other substances. The limits from nutrients are established by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which represents manufacturers. But that does not work within the European Union, where varying national laws create an enormous barrier to trade, conflicting with the role of the European Commission, which is to ensure free trade. That has been discussed in Europe since 1988 without any decision, a final paper being issued in 1997 which addressed the issues for a European-wide policy.
One of the primary aims of the Natural Medicines Society has been to work for appropriate evaluation criteria for natural medicines. Although vitamins and supplements do not fall into that category yet, it does appear that present moves from the Medicines Control Agency will remove them from food law and put them in the position of needing a medicines authorisation.
I hope that the Government will seek full consultation with the health industry and consumer representatives in order to develop what used to be called borderline product legislation but is now being termed a "Third Way" option. Consumers' rights to have access to all forms of natural health products must be protected. It is important to realise that medicine and healthcare are not one option but that there are many choices for the treatment and prevention of illness.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to change tack slightly in this debate and try to concentrate on the types of food supplement which generally come under the heading "sports medicine" and are used within that field. A great deal of time, money and indeed misinformation is being pumped into the general public that tells them that if they take something which always has something like "anabolic" in the title at the back or the front, but
848
never "steroids" with it—steroids might come into another product but are actually the same thing—they will get bigger, stronger and faster.
Most of the information which I have acquired from the various sports medicine bodies suggests that most of the claims are false. Sports medicine is an area which has become incredibly fashionable. Indeed, the male part of our society has suddenly been barraged with advertising with which the female part of society would be much more familiar. For instance, these products are advertised in magazines with words like "Fitness and Health" or "Health and Fitness" worked into the title, and a picture of somebody parading a six-pack stomach on the front and smiling. Most of the products do not work. They are telling us lies. The Government should be trying to get a handle on this type of promotion.
Most of what has been said, and undoubtedly will be said in this debate, will concentrate on such things as vitamin supplements. Everybody I have spoken to on this subject has said that vitamin supplements are a safeguard for the vast majority of the population who can eat properly. For people who have a deficiency either through ill-health, accident or bad diet they can be a life-saver. They can change the way you think. For most people they are a guarantee. For athletes who are pushing themselves to the limit they may well be a necessary support issue. If you are pushing your body to the limit it is close to breakdown: that is a fact. For most of the area which we are talking about here those types of supplements do not work. Indeed, as Professor Maughan of Aberdeen University put it to me, if it works and builds up muscle—and definitely it is muscle-building where most of these claims are made—it does not work. The new product keratin, which has been explained to me, is a distillation of meat, does work if you happen to be doing power events, but you cannot ban it unless you are going to ban meat eating, although one or two might be in favour of that. The farming lobby may have a word or two to say on that subject.
What we are talking about here is a situation where a large section of society is being fed a steady diet of misinformation. I do not have the time to go into this. Like everybody else here, I had a much longer speech, but I hope that we will have the opportunity to go into this question further later on.
7.42 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, we suffer from too many rules but some are more objectionable than others. In the context of this debate the objectionable ones are those which make it a criminal offence to sell something against which there is no strong evidence of danger. The unobjectionable ones are those which force informative labelling about dangers, as is already done with tobacco. Contra-indications could also be shown.
There is a reluctance to accept the idea that any increase in minerals or vitamins beyond the recommended dietary allowance may be beneficial; but unless they are allowed we shall never learn their effect. It is sometimes said that one should consult one's doctor before taking supplements. That would be true if there

849
were more doctors and a better established body of knowledge about our nutritional needs, and also of course if the doctors knew all the established knowledge.
An important question is, is there a body which might be called "the establishment" which is unwilling to be seen to be linked to anything unorthodox, particularly when it goes against what they or their colleagues have said in the past? When I first became interested in supplements I was unwilling to think this, but there does seem to be a reluctance to do research into the effect on health and behaviour of diet even when there is considerable anecdotal evidence in favour of a supplement. I therefore echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and urge Ministers to consult widely before making decisions in this area.
Vitamin B6 is a case in point. The danger from high doses only justified a warning and a repeat of the work of Dalton and Dalton which was about the only evidence against it. In the event much effort was needed to get the proposed ban dropped or at least delayed.
I see I have not exhausted my time, so I will add a rather different sort of supplement, which is fluoride and its supposed good effect on dental decay. That is a very well established and orthodox opinion, but I recently read an article from New Zealand which pretty well convinced me that it was not so. I have written to the Dental Association asking if they have any countervailing arguments, so I hope to learn something about it. That may turn out to be an example where entrenched opinions have been very slow to change.
7.46 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for tabling this Question. I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the Environmental Medicine Foundation and I have been prescribed dietary supplements by a registered medical practitioner for several years and believe that the restoration of my health after I suffered the effects of exposure to organophosphates can be attributed in the main to the supplements.
It is clear that there is an impelling need for the legal standing of dietary supplements to be clarified. There is a great deal of disquiet about the present activities of both the MCA and the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. I know the noble Baroness the Minister is aware of the United States' Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. If we can overcome the over-riding desire for more stringent legislation from the European Union and the dictatorial tendencies of the Medicines Control Agency, I can see no better model for legislation. It defines dietary supplements; it has a mechanism for dealing with the safety issues; it regulates health claims and labelling; it provides for good manufacturing practices, and has established new government entities to review regulations and encourage research on dietary supplements. When he signed the Act, President Clinton said:
'After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, legislators—acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at grass roots level—have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law."
850
The White House press release concluded:
"In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat and how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way government treats consumers and supplements in a way that encourages good health "
We have seen from the outrage expressed by consumers following the proposal to limit general sales of vitamin B6, and the alliance which has been formed between consumers and manufacturers of dietary supplements in this country, that consumers neither want nor see the need for what they regard as excessive control in this area. They perceive that it is the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry creating a situation which led to the issue of the now notorious statutory instrument by the Medicines Control Agency.
I have given the Minister a copy of the summary and analysis of the American Act by the US Council for Responsible Nutrition. As time is short I will ask her to consider it with her usual diligence and, most importantly, to insist that good sense prevail in her department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its dealings with the proposed EU, as well as domestic, legislation. It would also be helpful to align the UK with the Codex in this field.
7.49 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a director of Culpeper. We have shops selling herbal products and aromatherapy oils. I am also a patron of the Herb Society and president of the Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine, for which your Lordships will be grateful.
As can be imagined, with that background I am very concerned, as is the whole alternative arid complementary medical fraternity, at the proposed MCA statutory instrument labelling herbs as medicines by virtue of their very existence. Will the Minister first, confirm whether that is the real intent, and secondly, that under EC law it is the responsibility of the UK Government alone to make such decisions as are necessary to implement that law?
My main concern revolves around the composition of the MCA. That the members are all experts in their field is beyond doubt. The field in which they exercise the greatest expertise comprises the products of the pharmaceutical industry and the clinical trials that prove the products deriving from the extremely expensive research in which the industry invests. But—dare I say it?—they do not have any great expertise in the many fields that comprise the alternative and complementary healing and curing disciplines. For instance, the concoctions and decoctions supplied by the practitioners of herbal medicine, as approved by the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, do not respond to clinical trials as practised in the pharmaceutical industry. To that extent, therefore, we are not represented in the thinking and the decisions of the MCA as it is presently instituted; nor with the ad hoc expert advisory group. In what fields, may I ask, are the members of that group expert?
In the meantime, the Committee on Toxicology has shown itself to be unfamiliar with the subject of vitamin supplements, as other speakers have said. Therefore, it

851
seems to me that there should be a new and separate committee chaired by the same officer and containing only peer group representatives of these alternative and complementary disciplines, thus leaving the present organisation to continue with its interest in the pharmaceutical industry.
I recall the now famous remarks of the Select Committee on resistance to antibiotics. Its opening conclusion was:
"This has been an alarming experience, which leaves us convinced that resistance to antibiotics and other anti-infective agents constitute a major threat to public health, and ought to be recognised as such more widely than it is at present".
That can hardly be called an encomium on the work of the MCA. We have only to recall some of the post-war disasters to realise that none of them could be laid at the door of alternative and complementary disciplines and that they were the product of modern medicine. Surely, there is a case to separate the warring factions and look at alternative and complementary medicine from the standpoint of the practitioners.
There is a wealth of knowledge accumulated over centuries which is available in text and evidence and should be considered by a committee composed of the peers of the disciplines involved. Many of the products and materials defy scientific analysis and their effects are beyond the comprehension of the scientific-based mind.
In answer to a question from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, on 19th May, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, made this very point in suggesting that there was a difficult problem in finding experts of a scientific background to judge the processes of the alternative and complementary industry. Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that she has only to look at the committees of alternative complementary therapies to find these experts. These disciplines have been in use for hundreds of years in Europe and, in the case of herbalism and acupuncture, for thousands of years in China. As noble Lords will know, for I have said it before in this House, modern Chinese medicine involves three disciplines—modern, herbal and acupuncture. Every hospital case is reviewed in the light of the treatment or combination of the three treatments that would be suitable for each individual case.
We should take a leaf out of their book and broaden the approach to alternative and complementary processes and materials. I hope that I have made a case for a new approach to alternative and complementary medicine. I urge the Minister to press for a reform of the investigative procedures of the MCA.
7.53 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject which I feel is of crucial importance. It is of crucial importance from a human rights perspective. It is about freedom of choice and the right of people to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own health. It is also about big business breathing in the ear of big government.
852
The purpose of the moves to reclassify, which other speakers have mentioned, is quite simply big business seeking to get more big business. What I am going to describe to noble Lords next casts serious doubt on whether the pharmaceutical companies, which are behind these moves, can be trusted to behave in an ethical fashion. Only last week, two very large European drug companies were fined a record 725 million dollars in the United States and a Swiss executive was sent to prison for participating in a nine-year, world-wide conspiracy to control the market in vitamins. Roche of Switzerland agreed to pay 500 million dollars—the largest criminal fine in the United States—and BASF was fined 225 million dollars for their joint roles in the market-rigging cartel. A third conspirator, Rhône-Poulenc of France, escaped criminal punishment under an amnesty deal by supplying US prosecutors with the evidence that cracked the cartel.
A few years ago, I remember being lobbied by Rhone-Poulenc, which took the trouble to write a letter to me—indeed, I am sure the company wrote to many other noble Lords and Members of the other place—claiming that soggy white bread was just as wholesome as wholemeal bread. I have to say that I was not convinced.
When one considers that BASF was one of the members of the IG Farben cartel that funded Hitler, spied for him and manufactured chemicals with slave labour at Auschwitz; when one considers that the German Government, with the World Trade Organisation, sponsored the conference of major drug companies in 1995 that created the Codex Alimentarius that is behind the moves to which the noble Earl and others have referred, it really makes one ask whether the leopard—or the panzer—has changed its spots.
This issue is a test of the democratic credentials of the new Europe. If governments buckle and capitulate in the face of such pressure, there is little hope that the promises and hopes of a better life for Britons in Europe will be fulfilled.
I sincerely hope that my noble friends will take this issue on board. We are the only party that has seriously confronted the democratic deficit in Europe. We are absolutely right to do so. The issue which the noble Earl has raised this evening is exactly the sort of issue on which the European institutions seem powerless to protect Europe's citizens.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I urge the Minister to take courage and adopt self-belief. This is exactly the sort of situation where politicians count and where they make a difference. There is no firm line between food and medicine. Red wine is one of the great medicines of the world and some things sold as medicines do us remarkably little good, except to provide a little bit of energy. Political judgment and commonsense judgment are what counts. Behind its monopoly barriers and protection of patents, the great pharmaceutical industry operates a system in which it has to invest a great deal of money into a product; it then gets a great deal of

853
money in return. It naturally does not chime with unpatentable products, but that is what we are dealing with in this area.
We cannot even think of imposing the sort of controls on this area that we impose on the pharmaceutical industry. However, at the same time there are abuses. There are people who are taking advantage of the situation to sell the public products which do absolutely no good at all. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington: anything that makes him bigger, stronger and faster ought to be banned.
It is important that advisory committees contain an element of common sense. Collections of scientists are inevitably connected with the industry but, beyond that, they do not have enough experience of the outside world. I was in MAFF long enough to see committees made up of excellent people who knew their subject extremely well. But I can remember seeing some of those people running around in panic, like chickens faced with a fox, because they were being asked to take political decisions, which should not have been theirs to take. Such committees are advisory committees and they should be treated as such by Ministers.
However, beyond anything else, there should be justice. There should be a system whereby if a company is adjudged to have stepped on the wrong side of the line and a product is effectively banned—that is what happens if the product is made to go through all the hoops in terms of proving its safety, which it cannot do commercially—there should be a sensible and convenient method by which that decision can be appealed to someone independent. That is what has concerned us most about the MCA approvals. I hope that the Minister will have some words of comfort for us this evening.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, we see the Minister as a warrior campaigning and fighting on two separate fronts. The problem without is Brussels; the problems within are the limitations and the flaws that have been ventilated this evening in the context of MCA advice.
I should like to focus my few remarks on the proposed MLX 249 regulation. The litany of criticism of the MCA adds up to a serious threat to the liberties of small producers. They are liable to be forced out of business for no reason of public interest and, as has been pointed out tonight, this is basically due to the unremitting pressures, both in Brussels and at home from the pharmaceutical companies. I am sure that there are other ways of dealing with the legitimate interests of harmonisation without pursuing the present proposals. I ask the Minister to delay matters with regard to MLX 249 and to require the matter to be given further thought.
MLX 249 is seriously flawed. The reversal of the burden of proof with regard to the nature of a product is itself contrary to natural justice. The MCA itself admits that the required proof would be almost impossible to obtain. There is the question of procedures for appeal that have been mentioned. The idea of asking
854
small specialist firms—who are often the best producers—to pay licensing costs of between £5,000 to £87,000 is atrocious.
I was interested in the recent publication of Australia's proposals. I hope that the department will consider those carefully. In conclusion 1 ask the Minister to delay the matter of MLX 249 to arrange serious reconsideration to seek a quite different approach. We are all behind the Minister in her work, which vie greatly admire.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, so far we in this country have been fairly relaxed in our attitude towards supplements of the kind that we are discussing this evening. I say this against a background of fairly imminent legislation from Europe and the proposals of the Medicines Control Agency. As the noble Earl has already said in his introduction to this debate, foods of these kinds must be safe as foods, and of course it is not permitted to include any medicinal claims which make labelling difficult. However, these products are becoming increasingly popular and many people are making a great deal of money out of them. Far be it from me to say that they are doing no good at all. What concerns us on these Benches is whether some of them may be doing harm. The noble Countess, Lady Mar. has spoken of the benefits that she has derived from the products which she has tried.
I refer to a consultation paper by the European Commission on dietary supplements and proposals by the MCA to put the decision of what is or is not a pharmaceutical or herbal supplement on to a statutory basis. There is also the row about Vitamin B6—which is on hold at the moment—which concerns the safety of vitamins. The MCA is also reviewing herbal medicines exemptions which the noble Baroness may mention. We on these Benches take a fairly relaxed view on these matters. We pose the question as to what level of consumer protection is needed. In the light of the fears expressed by other noble Lords, are the proposed new regulations necessary or do they constitute unnecessary interference? I detect from this debate a feeling that we are in danger of facing unnecessary interference in this area.
The code of practice of the Food and Drink Federation on health claims of food contains an interesting and, I think, positive suggestion; namely, to make a distinction between foods which try directly to prevent illness and those which are termed "health foods" and offer a possible reduction of risk. That seems to us to be a sensible suggestion. I understand that the Government have sought a legal opinion based on human rights legislation as to the position in cases of appeal where producers are judged to be producing medicines rather than health food supplements. Can the Minister tell me what stage this legal consultation has reached?
8.5 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, one of the problems with this whole subject is that there is far too

855
much pontification by people who make extravagant claims from their rather poorly founded research work. There are also too many people who are obsessed with controlling too many aspects of our lives. Some of the homeopathic medicines have been found on good scientific research to be of real value. Liquorice, foxglove and all kinds of others spring to mind. However, the problem with many homeopathic medicines is that they are not subject to any controls and it is possible that some of them may be harmful. On the other hand, it can be argued that they do probably less damage than some of the powerful orthodox drugs.
So far as food supplements are concerned, we certainly want to resist the temptation to start controlling vitamins. There was a scare over Vitamin B6 which has been mentioned but that scare was based on research which has now been shown to be defective. The water soluble vitamins on the whole are safe, even in high doses, because they are quickly eliminated from the body and are not stored in a harmful way. But the fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E and K, on the other hand, if they are taken to excess, can undoubtedly cause problems.
The history of Vitamin E is an interesting and rather sorry tale of claim and counter-claim. In the 1940s the Shute brothers on the American continent published work showing that Vitamin E was good for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, this was debunked a few years later and the official view became that Vitamin E was good only for sterile rats! As it has turned out now, many years later, Vitamin E has been found to be of value in preventing and treating cardiovascular disease. There are a number of good studies which show that it will produce a 45 to 50 per cent reduction in heart disease. In those patients who have established heart disease, treatment with it for nine months will improve symptoms and produce a 70 per cent reduction in cardiovascular deaths.
As has already been mentioned, there is a plan from the Medicines Control Agency to classify such products as "medicinal in function". The task of the MCA is to determine whether a product is or is not a medicine and to ensure that products which are classified as medicines are safe. If the MCA decided to classify such products in this manner, stricter controls would have to apply to their usage. The food supplements and homeopathic medicines would have to overcome an efficacy hurdle and it would have to be proven that there were at least some beneficial effects of using them; and satisfying this criterion would, in some cases, be costly for the manufacturers. I am sure that everyone believes that safety of customers must be the paramount consideration. Any substance, no matter how it is classified, should be subject to removal from open sale if it is proved to be harmful. But any such judgment must be based on sound science, not on anecdotal evidence.
It is, of course, essential that consumers should be protected from any harmful effects of homeopathic medicines or food supplements, but their regulatory framework should not have the effect of removing from sale products that, first, are perfectly safe, secondly,
856
make no unjustifiable claims about effectiveness, and, thirdly, are widely used and popular. The present proposals, I am sure, are well intentioned, but they may be in danger of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The regulatory burden regarding such products must be proportionate to the risk, and should be implemented with as light a touch as possible.
We question whether the MCA should be effectively judge, prosecutor and jury in its own causes, and whether it is sensible to classify everything either as a food or as a medicine. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this.
We must make it clear that we support the view that when claims of therapeutic efficacy are made for food supplements they must be justified.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on obtaining the opportunity to debate these issues. I am very well aware of the depth of concern about the subject of dietary supplements, on which people throughout the country, as well as Members of your Lordships' House, have very strong views. Were it not for the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I think the whole debate would have been conducted between hereditary Peers. It is obviously, therefore, a matter of particular interest to them. I am sure that there is a Ph.D thesis to be written on the connection, but not by me.
I am truly grateful to the noble Earl, not only for introducing the topic, but for doing it in such a considered and very generous way, and for giving me the opportunity to restate clearly the Government's policy towards dietary supplements. I hope also, as he suggested, to give some reassurance on some specific areas and to correct some of the very widespread misconceptions that there have been, particularly around the consultations on the document on MLX 249.
I should say at the beginning, in response to points made by several noble Lords, but particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, that the Government are in no way opposed to the use of dietary supplements. On the contrary, for example, we actively encourage women who are planning to become pregnant to take folic acid supplements in order to reduce the risk of neural tube defects in the developing foetus, and we recommend that the elderly, and in particular those who are not exposed to adequate sunlight, take vitamin D supplements.
We also recognise that supplements can provide a useful function for those who do not eat a balanced diet—a point that has been made in tonight's debate, although, in practice, research shows that those most likely to take supplements are also those least likely to need them. That is an issue that we have to look at. Nor would we wish in any way to destroy the market for supplements. However, we have a duty to ensure that the law regulating their sale is properly enforced. More importantly, we need to be satisfied that the ever-increasing range of supplements now appearing on the market does not pose a risk to consumers. We must maintain the balance between the Government's

857
responsibility to ensure that public health and public safety are protected and their responsibility to ensure that there is adequate choice and freedom for those who wish to use such products.
Dietary supplements, are not, of course, defined in law. Food products which are not covered by medicines legislation are subject to food law and are regulated for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the trading standards departments of local authorities. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that the Government's policy is that consumers should continue to have access to the full range of safe dietary supplements. We have stated very clearly on numerous occasions, as I wish to do again tonight, that we have no plans to shift the borderline between foods and medicines. We believe that the level of vitamins and minerals in supplements sold under food law should be limited only in cases where this is necessary to protect public health, and that any limits should be based on safety considerations. We have made this view very clear to the European Commission and other member states within Europe.
I turn to the issue of herbal medicines and herbal remedies. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, referred to what I think is a growing consensus among those operating in the natural health sector about the need for a new approach on herbal products, one which balances consumer safety and consumer choice, is tailored to reflect the particular characteristics of herbal medicines and avoids the over-regulation to which some noble Lords referred. I am very aware of the question that has been raised about the potentially very large licensing cost were we to subject herbal remedies to exactly the same medicines regime as other pharmaceutical products.
I believe that it is possible to take this work forward, consulting widely with the interested organisations, and to reach a solution that balances the need for safety, which has been acknowledged throughout the House, without imposing on those involved in the production of herbal medicines an inappropriately rigorous licensing regime.
We need to avoid wrongly classifying any product, whether herbal or otherwise, as a medicine. But equally we have a duty to protect consumers and public health by ensuring that all medicines are appropriately classified as such so that the licensing and other legal controls can be applied. In contra-distinction to a dietary supplement, a medicinal product is defined in legislation and, as the law stands, products which are not clearly foods or cosmetics are medicinal products if claims are made for the treatment or prevention of disease, or if they may be administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions. Such a product is subject to UK and EC medicines legislation and normally requires a marketing authorization—that is, a licence—before it can be sold or supplied.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to sports medicines or supplements. Such products are borderline. If they merely make a health claim that they will make one fitter, they will be not a medicine, but a food. If the claims go further and are medicinal in nature, they
858
should be regulated as medicines. That illustrates some of the difficulties in making these distinctions. But I assure the noble Lord that the MCA would certainly consider any such products brought to its attention if there were particular concerns, although once again I am very aware of the concern that we are being over-zealous in terms of enforcement.
The MCA has a duty, on behalf of the licensing authority, to implement and enforce the provisions of medicines legislation. Part of that duty is to decide whether a product is or is not a medicine. The criteria by which the MCA makes those decisions are a matter of European Community law. The MCA's purpose is to protect public health, and specifically to make sure that medicines are safe, of high quality and effective. The proposals in the document on MLX 249 are intended to ensure that the agency gets those decisions right, and in a transparent, open and fair way. As the Minister with responsibilities in these areas, I am of course aware of the concerns generated by the proposals, but much of the criticism has, I believe, misrepresented the aims and effects of the proposals and has been an unwarranted cause of worry to many people.
Perhaps I may say clearly to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that there is no connection between the MCA proposals and the Codex Alimentarius Commission; nor is there any truth in the statement that those proposals were prompted by the pharmaceutical industry.
I should like to say also that the consultation has been genuine. The Government have listened and I am determined to meet the genuine concerns which have been expressed about some aspects of the package not only during the consultation process but this evening in your Lordships' House.
I was asked specifically by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about timing. I hope that we can have a clear set of decisions by the end of June; and develop guidance and constitute the review panel with a view to laying regulations in the autumn. The reason for that timing is to make sure that we do not run into the difficulty of laying regulations during the Recess which I do not believe would be regarded as satisfactory.
As I said, we have been listening. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about legal advice in that area. I can say to him that the legal advice is unequivocal: the proposals made are compatible with European law and with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, that does not mean that we should not look to see whether there are ways to meet some of the genuine concerns which have been expressed, if we can do so without compromising our objectives.
For example, I can confirm this evening that the MCA will give full reasons for its decisions at each stage of the process. I am looking also—I know that this is a matter of concern to many noble Lords—at how we can ensure that the members of the review panel who consider representations about provisional decisions should be independent of the Medicines Control Agency. I hope that that will be reassuring to noble Lords.

859
Equally. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that I want to look very carefully at the proposal that the MCA's decisions would be deemed to be correct in any subsequent court proceedings unless the manufacturer could show that the decision was unreasonable. That is another area in which I hope that we can find a way forward.
I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, that in classifying medicines, the MCA will ensure that all relevant disciplines are involved. As I suggested earlier, the panel will be independent and will include representatives from relevant expert and lay backgrounds.
Reference was made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and several noble Lords to the different regimes in other countries existing in relation to the regulation of dietary supplements. The legislation for dietary supplements in the USA, and initiatives being pursued currently in Australia and Canada, have been held up as possible models for the development of such a regime. Although we have no plans to review the way in which supplements are regulated in the UK, we are following developments on those initiatives with interest. There are indications that the USA example allows some potent products—for example, herbal ephedrine—on to the market with very little control. Details of the new regimes in Australia and Canada have yet to be finalised, but it appears that both will involve pre-market assessment and licensing of products. Indeed, in Australia all supplements will be classed as medicines. If that is the case, the controls could be more restrictive than those which apply currently to supplements sold as foods in the UK but less onerous than those which apply under medicines legislation.
Any such change would require action at the European level. The legal position on border-line products is governed ultimately by the definition of "medicinal product" in EC Directive 65/65. There are no proposals to change that definition either by member states or the Commission. Should such a debate begin, I can guarantee that the UK would consult widely and participate fully in that.
The EC Commission has given no indication that it intends to review the definition of a "medicinal product", but it is considering the need for harmonisation of controls on vitamin and mineral supplements sold under food law. It issued a discussion document on that issue in June 1997.
We made it clear in our response that we should be prepared to support the introduction of harmonised controls if they could be justified on safety grounds to protect the public. We made it very clear also that any maximum limits on the vitamin and mineral content of supplements should be based on safety considerations and not on arbitrary multiples of the recommended daily allowance (RDA). Noble Lords have referred to that matter. We have emphasised the point in subsequent discussions with the Commission and representatives of other member states and will continue to do so whenever suitable opportunities arise. The Commission
860
has not made any commitment to legislate in that area and it remains to be seen whether it will issue formal proposals.
The debate has covered a great deal of ground and I hope that I have been able to answer most of the points raised. If I have not, I shall certainly write to noble Lords.
I conclude by saying once again that the Government have no plans to change their policy towards dietary supplements. We are committed to protecting public health and protecting consumers with regulations which are proportionate and fair and which better enable the MCA to meet its regulatory and enforcement obligations. I assure the House that the Government have no intention of introducing regulations without first considering whether the proposals can not only meet their purpose but also address the legitimate concerns raised by those affected.
I give a further undertaking that our final proposals will go no further than is required by our obligation as the licensing authority to protect public health. Our aim to promote, both in the UK and in Europe, the regulatory environment in which safe supplements are widely available; the public is not put at risk or misled; and the law is effectively and promptly enforced. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured about the Government's policies in that area.

House of Lords Bill
8.25 p.m.
House again in Committee (on Recommitment) on Clause 2.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("90") and insert ("16 people domiciled in Scotland and no more than 90 other")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24 which is consequential upon it. After the description of what they entail is an explanation of what they achieve: first, consistency with the 1701 Act of Union provision; secondly, consistency with current proposals for Lords reform; and, thirdly, the value which they add to those proposals with which they are consistent.
The option offered by Amendment No. 13 is for consideration by the Royal Commission and for adjudication at stage two. What, then, is the justification for its discussion at all at stage one and within this Bill? The amendment as proposed does not seek incorporation within the present Bill; nor is it intended that its terms should form part of the transition House. Instead, what is envisaged is that its option should be freely evaluated by my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues and by the architects of stage two.
However, that can happen only if the option within the amendment has not been precluded by the present Bill in the first place. Therefore, the sole purpose in discussing the matter now is to obtain the guidance and reassurance of the noble and learned Lord that the

861
option within the amendment, as about to be explained, will not have been precluded by the present Bill by the time it becomes an Act.
The option within the amendment is based on one of my submissions to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues. It recommends that a small group of Scottish independent Peers be formed of no fewer than 16 people. That group would not be aligned to any political party and would be separate from the Cross Benches. It would be elected by a cross-party electoral college of Peers resident in Scotland. That electoral college would reflect the view of all sides of the second Chamber and would be constituted accordingly.
While the electoral college would include life Peers resident in Scotland, it might also include members of the Scottish hereditary peerage resident in Scotland. Equally, while candidates for election as Scottish independent Peers would include life Peers resident in Scotland, they might also include members of the Scottish hereditary peerage resident in Scotland.
The first advantage of that option is consistency with the 1707 Act of Union provision. The 1963 Act ended the system for selection of Scottish representative Peers. However, it did not alter the relevant provision within the Act of Union; nor would it have attempted to do so. This provision gave Scotland the right to send a number of Peers to the House of Lords. Whichever method of election may obtain need not infringe the Act of Union provision. Nor, of course, in 1963 did discontinuation of Scottish elections remove the obligation. Conversely, a new form of election would also not contravene the Act of Union. Therefore, a cross-party electoral college of Scottish Peers resident in Scotland would be consistent with the 1707 provision.
Then there is the consistency of this option with the current proposals for House of Lords reform. These aims may be agreed as follows: first, approximate voting parity between the main political parties; secondly, restriction of the automatic right to sit and vote in the second Chamber on succession to a hereditary peerage; and, thirdly, preservation of the present quality of the deliberative function of the second Chamber. The proposal for Scottish independent Peers is consistent with those three aims.
As to numbers, it does not undermine parity. There are two reasons for this: first, the present quota of numbers arising from the Weatherill amendment applies to the transition House but not to the post-transition House; and, secondly, since the proposed electoral college will be a cross-party one, parity obtains by definition and in any event.
As to the expedients to redress the imbalance of party politics, clearly it would not be helpful to reinstate elections of Scottish Peers by the Scottish hereditary peerage. That is because the majority of hereditary Peers may well take the Conservative Whip. Equally, in relation to Scottish representation, it is unconvincing to assert that as things already are there is enough redress of party politics through existing Scottish Peers. Certainly, in this House there is quite a large number of Scottish Peers resident in Scotland. That is always to be welcomed. Yet these are different groupings of party
862
politicians who happen to be good Scotsmen. That is not the same thing as an elected group of Scottish independent Peers who are also good Scotsmen.
A further benefit is the value which this option adds to the aims of House of Lords reform, with which it is consistent. In particular, it assists the third aim; that is, within a reformed second Chamber, the preservation of the present quality of the deliberative function and the further emphasis of the ascendancy of this function over party politics and voting.
As I indicated, these are matters for stage two. They need not detain us now. The important question today is that stage one and the current Bill should not preclude their evaluation. The purpose of the amendment is to obtain reassurance and guidance on this aspect from the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Gray: As someone who has to take off his shoes and socks before he can do complicated sums, I am glad that the maths in this amendment are not as complicated as in the group of amendments we discussed before dinner.
In introducing the amendment, my noble friend said that he was seeking only discussion of the principle and that the amendment was tabled at this stage to ensure Scottish representation for the future. I have made clear in earlier debates that I hold strongly to the views that we should never—particularly at this time of devolution—repudiate, or appear to repudiate, the fundamental provision of the Acts of Union. The guarantee of specific Scottish representation in this Parliament, in this House, was basic to the Union treaty.
The amendment is not a re-run of the amendments I proposed in earlier debates, although, were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, here, I would tell him that I did not intend to disappoint him by perhaps not returning to those amendments later. This amendment introduces the idea of an independent body of Scots representatives and takes account of the presence of Scottish life Peers, as did the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, debated earlier in Committee.
The amendment has two aspects which should recommend it to the House and to the Government. The suggestion that 16 should be the number for the independent group replicates the original Acts of Union position and is therefore a reasonable suggestion. However, it is also probably about right numerically to secure a Scottish representation of 40 or so, which has previously been suggested as a reasonable level. At present there are 110 Peers with a Scottish address. Subject to whoever secures exception from Clause 1, more than three-quarters of that number will disappear with the stage one reform. There are currently 40 life Peers with an address in Scotland, including Members appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. I do not know how many of the remaining life Peers have their main residence in Scotland as opposed to merely an address there. I do not know how many of those 30 plus life Peers are active here and will continue

863
to be active here. It is interesting that stage one will remove 22 Cross-Bench or otherwise unaffiliated hereditary Peers.
It would seem that the suggestion of 16 for an independent group is very reasonable. We should try to build a bridge between 1706 and the future by ensuring that the matter is considered by the Royal Commission and by ensuring that, whatever happens, Scotland's special position as a co-founder of the Union continues to be a feature of this House. Surely we can agree on that.
It is important that the Union position is kept alive and not allowed to go by default, as did the Irish representation here. I hope that the Government's response will reflect the importance which they have said they attach to the continuance of the United Kingdom. I am pleased to join with my noble friend in proposing the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments expressed to ensure the continuance of Scottish representation in the House, but, frankly, those of us who sit in the House are part of the United Kingdom Parliament and I cannot justify the special provisions for Scottish representation sought by the amendment.
I should say to my Scottish colleagues in the House that if we are not careful there will be a substantial English backlash against Scotland. In a Cabinet of 22 people, there are no fewer than six Scottish Ministers—I do not know whether the Prime Minister might be regarded as a semi-detached Scot; in which case he would be another one—and the representation of Scotland in the United Kingdom Parliament and the centres of power within Parliament is well outside the Scottish 10 per cent of the United Kingdom population.
Like my colleagues, I realise that a good many of the matters with which we have been involved in this Parliament have now been devolved. During the referendum debate I tried to speak in various parts of Scotland and to warn people that the creation of the new Scottish Parliament meant the abolition of the House of Lords so far as it concerned domestic legislation. Any Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament has no provision for a revision Chamber and passes directly to the Queen for acceptance.
I can understand the frustration of my noble friends at now having no voice in Scottish domestic affairs, but I am hopeful that those of us who will remain in the House as life Peers will be able to exercise our influence, albeit indirectly, when Scottish affairs and certainly British affairs are discussed in the House. When during the devolution debate I said to meetings throughout Scotland, "You know, of course, that you are abolishing the House of Lords as far as concerns Scottish legislation affecting housing, health, education, the law and so on", I found that my audiences were somewhat unmoved by the fact that that was taking place. The people of Scotland voted for that. It would be most unfortunate if, the people of Scotland having voted "yes, yes", which I did not support, and having
864
supported that degree of devolution, somehow or other we were to introduce in this Bill a special provision for Scottish Members in the new Chamber.
I realise that my noble friends are, in a sense, simply testing the temperature of the water, but I suggest that they do not proceed with this provision. I can tell them that the backlash is already evident. I see many references in the press to the inequalities of the Barnett formula and to the privileged position which Scotland enjoys in the British Parliament now that responsibilities have been devolved to Edinburgh. Therefore, I would not support the idea that a special position for the Scots in the transitional House should be sustained.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has introduced another attempt to secure the retention of statutorily guaranteed Scottish representation in the House. As it is largely based on hereditary Peers, it is obviously doomed. However, that does not mean that we should not fight for a continuation of the statutorily guaranteed representation which Scotland has enjoyed since the treaty of 1707 and which, for the sake of the Union and Scotland, should continue. I am concerned that that will be lost by accident.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the success of Scots in government is a tribute to the fact that the United Kingdom is an open state.
Viscount Bledisloe: I should like to ask the noble Scotsmen who have spoken why they have so little faith in those domiciled in Scotland that they are determined to ensure that only 16 out of the 106 Peers they are proposing can possibly come from Scotland and that 90 have to come from somewhere else. I should have thought that any confident Scotsman would expect that out of 106 many more than 16 would be elected. I cannot see why they are determined through this amendment to prevent more than 16 being elected, come what may.
Lord Newby: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on tabling this amendment. I think it is the third time they have succeeded in having an amendment on the Marshalled List which seeks to do if not exactly identical things then as near as makes no difference. As I have said several times during previous debates, the principle lying behind the amendment—namely, that there should continue to be, as there is now and will be in the transitional House, a good, fair and strong representation of Scots in your Lordships' House—is one which we can wholeheartedly support. We agree with that principle. We disagree with the means proposed to maintain it, partly, if not largely, because we think that during the term of the transitional House it is completely unnecessary. The figures were explained on previous occasions. They have not changed since.
I wish to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the English backlash. I do not want to overdramatise any sense of English backlash at the moment because I do not think it is yet a pressing

865
issue. However, I do believe that in the way that we look at the reform of this place, in politics more generally and in the conduct of business in Parliament, the role of England and the English regions needs to be given due weight to that of the Scots and Welsh. If one looks at this Chamber, one sees that there is undoubtedly a far stronger Scottish and indeed Welsh component than that of virtually any English region outside London and the Home Counties. I am sure that the Royal Commission will wish to correct that when it looks at the composition of your Lordships' House. But I do not believe that either in the short or the long term the strength of the United Kingdom will be promoted by having entrenched provisions for a limited number of Scottish Peers only.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My noble friend Lord Dundee has done the Committee a great service by raising the matter again. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the fact that it is being raised for the third time does not in any way diminish the importance of the matter. I say with the greatest respect to him that if his colleagues restrained themselves to making the same point once, a number of your Lordships' debates would be a great deal shorter than they are. It is an important matter and it is right that it should be debated.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that it would not be right to have special provision. However, that ignores the history of the matter. In the Treaty of Union there was special provision. Despite the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, at the Committee stage on 27th April, there remains a serious dispute as to whether it is open to this Parliament not to amend the Acts of Union but to amend the Treaty of Union. I could not be present that day but I read with interest what the noble and learned Lord said in rejecting the views of Lord President Cooper back in the early 1950s. I have to say, with respect, that that view is not universally shared. That is why I suspect that the matter of whether it is appropriate to proceed in this way will be returned to at the Report stage.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about an English backlash. He seemed to think that it is based on the fact that there are a number of Scots in the present Cabinet. He did not suggest who might voluntarily retire from the Cabinet to eliminate the risk of any such backlash. But I am fully confident that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will answer that question when he comes to reply.
It is agreed on all sides that in the transitional House it will be valuable to have Scots Peers on all Benches. It may well be—I do not know what the arithmetic suggests—that for our 10 per cent of the total population of the United Kingdom we are reasonably well represented in this House. Certainly, my own clan does its best to assist in achieving that objective. Some other members of my clan might be of value to the House—f the noble and learned Lord wishes to have a quiet word later on. It is important that Scots voices are heard on all Benches. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply he will go one stage further than his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton
866
did when the matter was previously debated. He narrated a list of those who currently serve in the House. I was honoured to see my own name included in that list as one who had incredibly effectively represented Scotland throughout the time I had been there. On the previous occasion when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, mentioned my name, he complimented me on making a speech of commanding brilliance but intense vacuity. Therefore, one must take what he says in his own eloquent and amusing manner with a slight pinch of salt.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not for a categoric assurance but for an undertaking, in making appointments to the transitional House, not merely when the Bill becomes law but in the years when the transitional House is operating before the fully reformed House comes into being, that some regard will be had to the importance of having Scottish Peers in all quarters of the House. That was what the Treaty of Union required: 16 Peers to represent Scotland in this House.
Although the number has increased as a result of the 1963 Act, the basic provision still remains part of the Treaty of Union. No doubt individual Peers may make representations to the Royal Commission as to what should happen in the reformed House when the stage two legislation comes about. But we are dealing with the interim position. My noble friend has done the Committee a service in raising the matter again. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it one stage further than his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer did in April.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Will the noble and learned Lord accept that the composition of the House will certainly include a number of life Peers who will he domiciled in Scotland, and that that will meet the obligations and concerns that he mentions?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that the noble Lord is correct. I shall speak as long as is necessary for his noble friends to work out who is to reply to this amendment, which seems to be the purpose of this further intervention. The important point is that there should be a number of active Peers on all sides of the transitional House. In that, I believe that I am at one with the noble Lord.
Viscount Cranborne: Does my noble and learned friend agree that there is a slight further inequity for those of us who are increasingly beginning to feel part of the "English backlash"; namely, that when it is now virtually impossible for an Englishman to stand for the Scottish Parliament, or indeed to migrate to Scotland for political purposes, there is a positive torrent of Scots men and women who are moving south and colonising England politically? This is not confined to another place; it is unquestionably true of this House. One begins to wonder whether my noble friends Lord Gray

867
and Lord Dundee are attempting to institutionalise a position from which they can pursue further colonisation on the red leather Benches as well as on the green.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I regret to inform my noble friend that it is not so much a question of an English backlash, but that the fight-back has begun. The new Scottish Parliament includes an English Liberal MSP. Out of little acorns, great English oaks grow. He is already making his presence felt in the Scottish Parliament. So far as I understand the law, there is nothing to prevent him standing for Parliament. In fact, not only did he stand, but he was elected to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we might now hear the Government's reply.
The Lord Chancellor: I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the assiduity with which he is pursuing, as one would expect, the question of special rights for Scottish Peers. It was good of him to observe how the genius of the Scottish nation means that it finds itself with many places in the present Cabinet in London. But the Scots did not exactly do badly either under the previous administration. These advantages for the Scots are not confined to one political party. It is against that background that we must consider whether this claim is perhaps one too many for the Scots in terms of guaranteed peerages.
The position is that, since the passage of the Peerage Act 1963, there has been no special treatment for the Peers of Scotland in this House. The provision of the Act of Union which originally gave rise to that special treatment has been repealed. There has never, of course, been any special treatment of Peers of Great Britain or of the United Kingdom who happen also to be Scottish. We do not believe that it is timely, especially in the light of the great success to which the noble and learned Lord called attention, of the Scots without any special quotas to revert to that historic position today.
Of course Scotland must continue to be properly represented in this House, as must all parts of the United Kingdom. But that has been done through the distribution of life peerages, and Scottish hereditary Peers will be as eligible as any others for election under the terms of Clause 2. If they fare as well here as they do generally when they offer themselves for election, they have nothing in particular to fear.
I know that this is becoming a rather tedious refrain, but the second reason why the noble and learned Lord's proposal is unacceptable is that it would alter the numbers to which we agreed as part of the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and to which I believe the Opposition Front Bench assents.
Others may say that the numbers are wrong. We have been offered alternatives enough during our debates today. But those are the numbers that have been agreed, and they are as far as the Government are prepared to go. We are not prepared to add to them arbitrary
868
allocations for the benefit of special interest groups, even when the special interest group is as beguilingly defined as "people domiciled in Scotland".
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor remarked that the 1963 Act did away with statutorily guaranteed representation for Scotland. Does he agree that Section 4 of that Act extended sitting and voting rights to all Peers of Scotland, presumably to represent Scotland as the treaty states? Also, is there any commitment in the manifesto to the removal of Scotland's rights to guaranteed seats in this House?
The Lord Chancellor: I do not accept the noble Lord's point. Having regard to the position of the hands on the clock, I think it would be better if I wrote to him on this matter.
Lord Gray: Before my noble friend Lord Dundee replies, the debate seems to have strayed rather far from his intention. He made his intention clear, in which I support him; namely, that he was looking beyond stage one reform. He made the point that he sought to discuss this matter now merely to see whether the Government would perhaps not preclude it as a matter for consideration in the future, once the repeal of the Section 4 provision of the 1963 Act was effective.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not read Section 4 of the 1963 Act, but I have offered to write to noble Lords on this subject as offering a guarantee of a quota to the Scottish peerage. It provides that they will have the same right to receive Writs of Summons, to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote as the holder of a peerage of the United Kingdom. What this amendment would claim is a quota right.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have joined in the debate and to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, as my noble friend Lord Gray confirmed, the context of the amendment is not the adoption of the proposal by stage one. The context, instead, is that its evaluation by stage two should not have been precluded by the Bill. In view of that, there may have been some misapprehensions expressed in the debate.
The amendment is not concerned with the transition House; still less is it concerned with hereditary Peers in the transition House. It has not even been suggested as a response to the devolved Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh. The case for the amendment rests upon the need for improving our own arrangements during the process of reform of the House. A cross-party electoral college is a different concept and it does not feather the nest of any particular party political group.
The case for this option rests upon its consistency with the Act of Union, with current proposals for Lords' reform and for the value which it can add to them. Thus the matter under discussion is not for stage one, it is for stage two. All I seek tonight is for the noble and learned Lord to provide the reassurance which he may have done a moment ago in reply to my noble friend

869
Lord Gray. This is that stage one of the Bill does not preclude, by my noble friend Lord Wakeham and by the architects of stage two, the evaluation of the option just outlined. Meanwhile, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 20 not moved.]
9 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Marshal") insert ("of England")
The noble Duke said: I wish to speak to three amendments. I do not know whether I may offer a small crumb of comfort to my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Of the more or less 20 groups tonight there will be two with a Scottish flavour which is a fair proportion of the Committee's time. One relief I hope I can offer the Committee is that I do not propose to become further involved in mathematics than that element that I have just introduced.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are similar. I hope that some fairly simple reasoning will suffice to explain my case. Amendment No. 23 is an attempt to take matters a stage further and it will perhaps take a little more explanation.
It must be fairly unique in parliamentary history that such a radical constitutional Bill should be brought in which does not contain a clear explanation of its long-term arrangements and the new legislative processes it wishes to put in place to justify all the upheaval. The Weatherill amendment is perhaps a straw in the wind for us, but given the earlier lack of content, I suppose Members of the Committee should say that we now have something for which we can be grateful.
The Committee will be familiar with the saying from the other side of the Atlantic that when a session of Congress reaches its last year in office, it then becomes known as a "lame duck" session. I only trust that the noble and learned Lord or whoever answers will not just regard these as the protestations of a lame Duke. Even so, because of the sweeping way in which it will come into effect, a great many of us will not be able to put our views on what the long-term structure of a second Chamber should be to those who are gathered in this place.
I am, of course, delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in drawing up his amendment, has seen fit to bring in as a special case the two great hereditary officers of state: the Earl Marshal of England and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, in particular, as the Government's manifesto commitment appeared to be an attempt to preclude the consideration of any such links to the future of your Lordships' House.
Many here will be even more readily aware than I am that the Earl Marshal of England is a most senior hereditary title. As I understand it, it traces its powers and privileges back to the time of Richard II and continues under Letters Patent granted to Henry Lord Howard of Castle Rising, later the sixth Duke of Norfolk, given to him by Charles II in 1672.
According to a Home Office memo on the jurisdiction of English, Scottish and Irish heraldic authorities, on 1st April 1906, the terms of the patent state:
"the Office is that of the Earl Marshal of England only".
Also that,
"no change was effected to its powers either at the Union of England and Scotland or that of Great Britain and Ireland".
Even in the Roll of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of 15th November 1995, the office is similarly listed. That document unfortunately does not deal with the other case we are looking at: the office occupied by the Marquess of Cholmondeley which simply omits to mention his office. This office of Lord Great Chamberlain of England is of equal antiquity. having first been instituted in 1133 by Henry I, though the present holder's claims to the office have been subject to more complicated legal settlement than most of us would care to endure.
Unfortunately, the wording in the Bill as it stands does not actually define accurately the titles of the two offices, but just refers to the "Earl Marshal" and the "Lord Great Chamberlain". Part of my difficulty with the Bill as at present drafted is that historically there has been an office of Earl Marischal in Scotland. The last holder of this office, which was exactly parallel to the office in England, had the misfortune of being the subject of an attainder following the rebellion of 1745. But there has also been an office of Great Chamberlain which, in its hereditary sense, was surrendered to the Crown in 1705, but was briefly revived after the Act of Union by Queen Anne. I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell the Committee whether it was revived as a Scottish title or whether it was revived as a title of the United Kingdom. Perhaps there is not much chance of someone reviving a claim to one of these ancient titles or the Sovereign deciding to bestow an office such as Great Chamberlain of Scotland on some deserving individual, but you never know. Even so, both from the point of view of avoiding possible confusion and purely historical correctness the two offices of state which the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, had in mind should surely be referred to as the Earl Marshal of England and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England.
I move to Amendment No. 23. There is an element of history that cannot be contained solely in history books or the lectures of academics. Part of it is folk history and part family history and it is intertwined with and makes more vital our national history. The Labour Party makes much of the fact that it has sought reform of this House for 90 years, and during that time a certain amount of reform has taken place. But this democracy has been subject to evolution for over 700 years. There are some in your Lordships' House representing families who have participated in this process for almost as long.
Here I invoke the hereditary principle in a way that goes beyond its merely genetic or scientific element, More than eight generations ago my direct ancestor, along with the majority of the Scottish Parliament, voted for the Treaty of Union. This together with many other occasions on which Scottish matters have been dealt with in your Lordships' House has given my family a sense of involvement in the future of Scotland as part

871
of the United Kingdom over all the intervening years. The fact that the Government have launched us down the path of devolution for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales means that more than ever this House and another place must be recognised as the Parliament of the United Kingdom and constituted so that at all times it focuses the loyalty of all its component parts.
I recognise that the Bill as amended by the Weatherill amendment is posited as merely a temporary measure and that the Government may have plans to cross the t's and dot the i's at a later date. But if for no other reason than that the Government are determined to curtail my right, and perhaps that of a great number of my fellow hereditary Peers, to participate in the long-term plans for the House, I have no hesitation in bringing this issue to your Lordships' attention as one that is truly of equal importance in the interim House.
The Weatherill amendment allows the two hereditary officers just mentioned to remain as Members of your Lordships' House. They are the two hereditary officers of state of England who have particular responsibilities towards the Royal Family within Parliament.
Earlier I tried to give an indication of the history and tradition that lie behind these titles. As far as I can understand these matters, they are the only hereditary great offices of state of the English Crown still in being. The 1996 Stationery Office publication on honours and titles reviewed these great offices of state and explained that, among others, those of Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable were now granted only for a single day at the time of the coronation. The other offices with which noble Lords who come to this House from another place are more familiar are the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, or the Government Whips.
I hope it is clear to the Committee that the particular area to which my amendment is directed is the category of great officers of state whose responsibilities lie within the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. I do not try to make a case for officers of the Royal Household or holders of other hereditary offices.
In inquiring about this matter I have been directed by the Lord Lyon of Scotland to some writings by the late Sir Iain Moncreiffe, one of the Heralds of the Lyon Court. He points out that all the great officers of Scotland who had a place in Parliament by virtue of their office are entitled "Lord". The main ones that remain to this day are the Lord High Commissioner, the Lord Justice General, the Lord Clerk Register, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Lord Advocate. To this day all those positions are filled by appointment. Other than these, there are two hereditary great offices of state of Scotland which remain: the Great Steward of Scotland and the Lord High Constable. The first office is held by HRH Prince Charles. He has been excluded from any future participation in this Chamber under several of his other titles and presumably would also be under that heading.
That leaves the Lord High Constable who, historically, along with the Earl Marischal mentioned earlier, had the Scottish Parliament under their special
872
protection as their service to the Crown. According to Sir fain Moncreiffe, the Lord High Constable sat on a chair in front of the Throne with the Regalia on a table between him and the Earl Marischal. This office of Lord High Constable, like the others I mentioned, became hereditary in the 12th century and from 1314 has continued in one family, the Hays, later Earls of Errol, until the present day.
Until publication of the Bill, as we discussed in the past few minutes, the Scots have had to guarantee that such of their hereditary office bearers as they saw fit were able to come and take their place within the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As drafted, the Bill means that for the first time that right will no longer exist.
Scotland and the Scots have had a great tradition of loyalty to their kings and monarchs down the centuries. The major wars in Scotland have been either about monarchs or religion, and more often than not about both. The Scots still have a great affection for the Queen and the Royal Family. Many of us are extremely grateful for all the time and effort that Her Majesty and so many members of the Royal Family spend in Scotland. However, despite that, in the present political climate there is a mistaken school of thought that likes to regard Her Majesty the Queen as Queen of our southern neighbours, namely, England.
Noble Lords have only to consider the considerable fuss engendered just over a week ago at the ceremony of taking the loyal Oath at the swearing in of new Members of the Scottish Parliament to understand what I mean. There I believe that about 20 per cent. of the new Members made some form of protest over taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. I feel that it is important at this stage to consider ways of reinforcing the concept of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
As I have sought to explain, my amendment is founded on the fact that Her Majesty the Queen still has one parliamentary hereditary great officer of state emanating from the tradition of Scotland in the person of the Lord High Constable. The holder of this office, I humbly submit, could be quite acceptable as one of those who could wait upon Her Majesty in the Parliament of the United Kingdom along with the Officers of State of England. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I support my noble friend's amendment. First, on the drafting, what he proposes is accurate. What he seeks to replace is inaccurate. Secondly, in the terms of the Weatherill amendment, I agree with him regarding the inference of membership of this House for the holder of the office of Lord High Constable of Scotland.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Duke's amendment attempts to remedy substantial mistakes made in the 1706 treaty negotiations. Those were conducted in a fairly despicable manner.
The Earl of Onslow: I shall have a small bet that had my noble friend Lord Cranborne suggested this

873
proposal in his negotiations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor it is one of those matters which probably would have been accepted. I speak solely as an Anglo-Saxon suburban Surrey Peer. I have nothing to do with Scotland except an occasional desire that the XXth Vintrix Legion should go back and garrison the wall.
The amendment has considerable merit. If we do not have the provision in the Bill, I hope that he will be elected at least as one of the 15 hereditary Peers who will be able to sit on the Woolsack. There is an elegance to the amendment which deserves considerable thought and sympathy.
Lord Sempill: I support my noble friend. Perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am struck by an interesting anomaly. Following the clear disposition of the case, perhaps we can address the issue: is it or is it not an anomaly?
Lord Gray: My noble friend is to be congratulated on bringing forward the amendment. It is interesting that it has taken a Scot to point out the references to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Chamberlain. I hope that he will receive a favourable response with regard to the office of Lord High Constable of Scotland. I commend the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Now that the amendment has the support of my noble friend Lord Onslow, it may be unnecessary for me to say much more. I could be provoked into one of my longer speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware, I am capable of a 45-minute speech with just minor provocation!
This is a different issue from the one with which the Scots were possibly accused of boring the House when the last grouping was debated. It refers to the role of a very senior position in Scotland. With respect, the matter merits further consideration.
It has struck me as somewhat strange when observing the ceremonial in this Chamber, both at the Introduction ceremony and, more importantly, at State Opening, that it is English officials and holders of great high office who take part, and not their Scottish counterparts. Garter attends at the State Opening with English Heralds, but not Lord Lyon with the Scottish Heralds. English High Court judges are invited to sit on the Woolsack, but Scottish High Court judges are not; nor are High Court judges from Northern Ireland.
While taking into account the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of avoiding any English backlash, it is equally important to continue to recognise that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Many of us are very keen that that should be steadily and tactfully reinforced. The amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose draws attention to that anomaly, but one cannot expect a positive response at this stage to such highly sensitive issues. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that this matter merits serious consideration not only as regards the Lord High Constable's position in this
874
House, which may well be solved by electing the Earl of Erroll, but also in the other aspects which I have mentioned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, offered to take a bet, which I think is very improper behaviour in your Lordships' House. It is well known that the hereditary aristocracy is a role model the younger generation in this country and anything that induces them into the path of addictive gambling is wholly to be deprecated.
The Earl of Onslow: I cannot let that kind of challenge go totally by me. The life peerage in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has got a hundred quid on with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that the House will not exist like this for 10 years! I am only following the example of what can only be classed as the "modern jumped-up peerage". It is as simple as that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is entirely my point! The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has not had the benefit of centuries of exquisite inbreeding, and therefore one could not expect him to be able to discharge his public responsibilities as a role model in the way of which one would have been confident when looking to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
It is true that the shorter speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, normally extend beyond 45 minute—mainly, I have to say from my recent recollection, on the Government of Wales Bill.
Turning first to Amendment No. 21, our advice is that the term "Earl Marshal" is quite sufficient to place beyond doubt the identity of the office-holder in question. The same observation applies to the subject:, or object, of Amendment No. 22, with regard to the Lord Great Chamberlain.
The substantive amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is Amendment No. 23. I do not believe that loyalty to the United Kingdom or to the Crown depends on a, or an, hereditary representation in this House. There is no recent Duke extant in the Principality of Wales, so far as my present researches indicate. But tomorrow I shall attend the opening of the Welsh Assembly, which is to be opened graciously by Her Majesty the Queen in the company of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and the Prince of Wales. These things do not depend on historical representation.
I ought to say why on the Weatherill compromise, two hereditary office-holders, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, were included. As your Lordships know, the office of Earl Marshal is held by the Dukedom of Norfolk and the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain revolves on a kind of flexi-time basis between the Marquessate of Cholmondeley, the Earldom of Ancaster and the Marquessate of Lincolnshire.
Those two office-holders were invited to remain on the Weatherill compromise because both have ceremonial functions in this House. For instance, they

875
have duties and obligations on the State Opening of Parliament and the Coronation. The Lord Great Chamberlain retains his seat as the Queen's representative in this House and the Earl Marshal retains his as the person responsible for ceremony. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is right in his historical survey. However, he is also right in pointing out that the Lord High Constable of Scotland has no duties in this Parliament. I believe the noble Duke made reference to Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly I believe the noble Duke left out "of that Ilk". One should be scrupulous about such matters. It often takes a grammar school boy from North Wales to reflect on such historical resonances. If I remember correctly from my childhood talks with my father, Sir Ian Moncreiffe of that Ilk is the father of the present Lord High Constable of Scotland, the noble Earl, Lord Errol, who is, I believe, again reflecting dimly, the 28th hereditary Lord High Constable of Scotland. One needs to bear such matters in mind. He has no role to play in your Lordships' House. He sits in this House as a Member, pure and simple, with no additional, specialised role.
An important point has been prefigured in what I was hoping to put as my marshalled arguments upon this occasion. Earlier today, a number of noble Lords in discussing whether the number of the Weatherill relicts should be 92, 46, 180, 120, 207 and so forth, quite rightly made particular reference to the Act of Union 1707. I now produce my trump card. There is no reference at all anywhere in the Act of Union 1707 to ensure the Lord High Constable a seat in this House. Need I say more? I shall.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He will correct me if I am wrong, but is there any reference in the Treaty of Union, which I respectfully suggest is the important document, as to whether either the Earl Marshal or the Lord Great Chamberlain should be Members of this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course not; nor would the informed mind expect there to be. It is well known to most of us—I hope it is well known to all of us—that the function of the Lord High Constable of Scotland is to defend the person of Her Majesty north of the Border. It has nothing to do with any duties he might have in your Lordships' House. Therefore, although the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, rightly brings these matters to our attention, as always, his amendment is misplaced because the true functions of the Earls of Errol as hereditary Constables lie north of the Border. I could go further and expand a little, but I think that perhaps my argument is so overwhelming that no further contribution is needed.
The Duke of Montrose: I know that the hereditary aristocracy is supposed to set a standard and give people something to follow. However, I would have thought,
876
perhaps contrary to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that they probably invented gambling. They have not always had what I might call the Presbyterian attitude to some of these occupations.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's point of view on the issues I raised. My point was not that the Lord High Constable had a duty currently in Parliament here, but merely that by widening those involved to cover the full scope of the officers of state within the United Kingdom, it became more of a United Kingdom Parliament than it currently appears to be to some observers.
The question of whether or not there is any duplication in these titles is a slightly difficult one. If one consults with somebody like the Lord Lyon in Scotland, he would see that there was a possible duplication in these matters. If one consulted the Garter King of Arms, he perhaps would not see it in terms of a Parliament of England.
The question to which I am trying to find an answer is this. Considering that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who can lay down whether or not there is a possible confusion? But rather than keeping the Committee any later tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The number of people counted towards the limit set out in subsection (2) shall not be less than 90 for an:?,, period exceeding 30 sitting days.")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. Its purpose is relatively plain so I shall move it briefly. I must say at the outset that the Opposition attach considerable importance to the principle underlying this amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Lucas, Amendment No. 31, which may be a marginally better amendment than my own.
Amendment No. 25 says that the limit of 90 Peers should be replaced within 30 sitting days, while the amendment of my noble friend says it should be,
"as soon as may be reasonably convenient".
I hope that the Government will give a positive reply. It is important to make sure that there is a floor on the number 90. The two are the ex officio posts held by the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal, and we want to make absolutely sure that the number cannot be reduced. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I should perhaps speak briefly to Amendment No. 31. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for outlining what it says. It is quite clear that the Cranborne-Chancellor agreement embraces the fact that there will be 90 hereditary Peers coming in under the various electoral arrangements, and that is the figure which it is intended should remain. But that is not at present what the Bill says. I shall be

877
interested to know why the Bill does not say that, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not intend to table an alternative amendment to those we propose.
The Earl of Onslow: There is considerable virtue in the spirit of this amendment. If we are to have this arrangement which has been fixed by the "odd" channels rather than the "normal" channels, it must still be properly set out in the Procedure Committee's rules. We must make certain that there is a replacement in the event of a death or a resignation. I hope that there will he a proper method of re-election.
I suspect that there was a perfectly sound precedent set by the Act of Union with Ireland. When an Irish Peer died he was replaced. I believe a writ went to the Lord Chancellor's office though I cannot remember the exact details. My noble friends are asking for a proper procedure, not subject to delay, to replace those who fall by the wayside through death, resignation or for some other reason. I support the spirit of the amendment. We do not need to amend the Bill but the matter should be examined carefully within the standing orders of the Procedure Committee.
Viscount Bledisloe: I strongly support the principle behind the amendment, which is designed to ensure that the 90 are replaced promptly when someone dies. It is nice to know that this cannot be answered by the argument that the amendment is contrary to the deal done, because the deal expressly says that the 90 will remain as transitional Peers, not up to the 90. These amendments seek to achieve the deal and not to vary it. It seems to me that an amendment along the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proper and suitable, whereas the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the Government Front Bench, seems to suffer from the defects of King Canute's courtiers who they seemed to think that they could forbid death, which is as impossible as forbidding the ebb flow of the tide. If one such Peer dies, a procedure is put in hand to replace him but, if just before he is replaced another such Peer dies, and if the 30 days have been exceeded, the amendment will have been breached. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, considers that Parliament can forbid death, but hope that the Government will either say that they will accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or do something to ensure that the 90 must be maintained.
The Lord Chancellor: There is no issue of principle between us. I have made that absolutely plain. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is absolutely right that it will not be heard from me this evening that there is any reason of incompatibility with the agreement as to why this amendment cannot be properly considered.
The agreement is quite clear. The 90 is intended to be both a ceiling and a floor. The issue is one of practicalities. Noble Lords opposite want to have as firm a guarantee as possible that the number of excepted hereditary Peers will remain at 90 and that when vacancies occur, they will he filled. That is certainly
878
the Government's intention. I have given a 100 per cent assurance that that is so. I should not like anything that I say now to suggest that I have a closed mind on this point.
The problem is, as quite often it is, the English language, admirable though that is. The Bill says not more than 90. Therefore, people fear that this may mean fewer than 90 because fewer than 90 is not more than 90. But if we were then to say, "not fewer than 90" others from a different standpoint would start fearing that that might mean more than 90. I have to tell the Committee that language gives rise to difficulties. There is nothing sinister whatsoever about the language of Clause 2, which provides for a maximum number of 90 hereditary Peers to be excepted. I have given before and shall give again the Government's absolute pledge that, of course, we intend any vacancies that arise to be filled. As I say, the figure is both a ceiling and a floor.
The matter of filling the vacancies will not be a matter for the Government as such; it will be a matter for the House and for the parties. I repeat my unequivocal assurance that the figure of 90 will be honoured by the Government throughout the whole period of the transitional House. I wonder what more is sought from me.
The provisions are framed in this way because of the legal difficulties of providing anything else. I appreciate that in the light of what I said when we last discussed this, noble Lords opposite have amended their original proposals to provide for a minimum time during which a replacement must be identified rather than—I think they were persuaded before by my arguments—to provide that there must be 90 excepted Peers at all times, because of course it is recognised that vacancies do occur and that such an absolute requirement could not in the real world be continuously complied with.
I then suggested that the similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also posed real problems. This revised proposal does not address those problems. First, it does not say who is to be responsible for ensuring that the vacancy is filled. Neither individual Peers nor the House itself could be answerable to the courts for failing to fill a vacancy.
Secondly, the amendment does not say what the consequences are to be if the vacancy is left unfilled. Would the proceedings of the whole House be invalidated? Surely not. What happens if honest efforts are made to find a replacement within the time limit, but a number of noble Lords decline the invitation? Alternatively, what happens if a replacement. Peer, having been identified within the requisite period, is ready and available to be appointed, but a second Peer dies within the 30-day limit?
The Earl of Onslow: I have been following with immense interest the noble and learned Lord's argument. However, we do not want him to explain the individual difficulties with the amendment because he has accepted the principle of re-election. We do not want to hear about the faults of my noble friend's argument, which are self-evident. What we want to hear from him is how the Government would actually like

879
this to be done. That is what we are asking for. It is great fun producing these arguments as to why it is silly—and I am in sympathy with that—but what we want, and are entitled to have, is a positive answer about something that the noble and learned Lord has already said he will do.
The Lord Chancellor: If I am unable to think of it, I cannot give Members of the Committee a satisfactory answer as regards putting something on the face of the Bill. I believe that the scheme for replacement set out in the draft Standing Order is the most simple and straightforward way to go. That is actually what I think. In my view, until someone comes forward with something better than this amendment, it should be left on that basis. It must be appreciated that this must be dealt with on a basis of trust against a background where people have made their position unequivocally clear.
Noble Lords opposite have no interest in allowing their allocated share to fall beneath that level. That is the case with the Cross-Benchers and indeed with everyone else. The Government have made their position absolutely plain: even if we were able to do anything to prevent that happening, we would not dream of doing so. We shall stand by what we have said.
The Standing Order provides that if for some reason the scheme becomes unworkable, other arrangements will have to be made. They will have to be made by the House. Beyond that, I feel unable to go. With the best will in the world, I cannot be expected to devise an effective amendment if my own considered view is that it is best to leave the matter to Standing Orders.
Lord Lucas: From the basis of my own ignorance, perhaps I may enquire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what they do in another place when faced with the same problem. Surely the situation is analogous; in other words, if they lose a Member, they replace him. There must be obligations on the parties to do various things for that to happen and consequences of it not happening. Would it not be possible to produce a mirror or an analogue of that in some way?
The Lord Chancellor: No. There are by-elections in the other place; indeed, it is an entirely different state of affairs.
Lord Strathclyde: I sense that the noble and learned Lord is trying to be helpful and I am grateful to him. I suspect that what happens in another place is that a Writ is issued for a by-election and that that is how they get around it. It is possible that we may be able to find a similar system in this Chamber. The solution to this situation may be found when we discuss my amendment. Amendment No. 32, which deals with by-elections because that is also part of dealing with replacements.
The noble and learned Lord started by saying that he does not have a closed mind. We shall examine what he said to see whether there is a way round the problem. In parenthesis, I should point out that this is not an issue of trust or mistrust between the noble and learned Lord
880
and everyone else. However, the noble and learned Lord may not always be with us. He may be replaced by someone who is far less considerate than himself. Of course, that would never do. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to find a way to deal with this problem which is mutually acceptable to the noble and learned Lord and ourselves, and which actually renders a service to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) If any persons are to he selected for exception under subsection (1) by reference to a connection with any group or political party, they shall be elected by all peers recognised as provided by Standing Orders as members of that group or party in the House of Lords, unless such peers resolve that the electorate shall consist only of hereditary peers recognised as such members.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment states that the 75 Peers to be elected by the parties and the Cross-Benchers may be selected by all Peers, hereditary and life, if the group so decides, or by the hereditaries only, if that is how the group equally decides.
We went over much of the ground covered by this amendment earlier in the day when we discussed the group of amendments headed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I do not intend to detain the Committee long with the arguments that many Members of the Committee will already have heard. I say only that that debate demonstrated that there are two views on the nature of the Weatherill Peers. The view that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, clearly expressed was that they should be representative Peers. I believe we would accept that if you take that view it is logical that they would simply be elected by other hereditary Peers in their group. They are literally a sub-sect of the hereditaries elected by the hereditaries to preserve a hereditary principle in this Chamber.
The other view, which I believe many of my colleagues would hold—and which I think is shared, at least in part, by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—is that we hope that the Weatherill Peers would represent those Peers who make the greatest contribution to the work of this Chamber. Although there would obviously be a great overlap in numbers, we are looking at a slightly different concept here. If you accept our view—which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, described as the elitist view rather than the representative view—it seems to us that it is logical that all Peers in a group, life and hereditary, should have the opportunity to decide which of their number remain.
This amendment simply states that the groups would have the option to choose whichever system they wished. The Conservatives and the Cross-Benchers may decide to go down the representative route. We might decide to go down the other route. The provision does not preclude any group from adopting its preferred route. I believe that we would thereby avoid the nightmare scene depicted by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, of a plethora of options because one group would have only one system to operate and another

881
group, meeting elsewhere, would operate a separate system. What we seek here is some statement from the Government that the detailed provisions for the election of the Weatherill Peers will be permissive in the options that they allow groups to follow rather than forcing a single option on all groups. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: I do not intend to repeat the arguments so elegantly laid out by the noble Lord. I say merely that I entirely subscribe to his version of what I said and the reasons for it. I emphasise that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord who has just spoken both acknowledge that if the Peers who are to be elected are representative, the logic must be that those whom they represent must elect them. I stand my argument on that logic, validated as it has been by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord. That is my argument.
Therefore it seems to me that if that is right, it is difficult for individual groups—even for the Liberal Party which we know is sui generic in a way which most other political parties are not—to be an exception if that is the logic that prevails. For that reason alone, I find it extremely difficult to support the amendment.
Lord Monson: I think it is a very good amendment. Until about a year ago we never mentally divided ourselves into life Peers and hereditary Peers. It was a happy state of affairs. It was possible to see a fellow Peer every working day for a year or more without being certain whether he or she was a life Peer or a hereditary Peer. I should like to revert to that, but unfortunately it will not be possible. However, the spirit of the amendment is good. As was said earlier today, the life Peers know well which hereditary Peers are the right people to be elected, and such an amendment should be supported in principle at any rate.
Lord Kingsland: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will forgive me if I express some wry amusement over this amendment. I seem to recall that for years and years my party was heavily criticised by the Liberal Party in European parliamentary elections for opting for a system of election which was different from that of all the other member states: the first-past-the-post system. I now find that, instead of endorsing the principle of uniformity and equality which was so wished for by his party in the European Parliament, in the House of Lords the Liberal Party wish for a devolved system whereby each party can choose its own method of election. Such an approach is totally contrary to the traditions of equality in the House of Lords, so eloquently expressed this afternoon by the noble Lord. Lord Peston.
Viscount Bledisloe: I share the view that has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that it would be wrong if different parts of the House of Lords had different systems.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I had a discussion earlier on the principle of whether the election should be by hereditary Peers or all Peers. It amuses me to find the Cecil family criticising a system on the grounds that it is elitist. That is at least unusual.
882
The noble Viscount and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that it was contrary to the deal done to suggest that the election could be done by all Peers. Of course, I know not what went on in the inner sessions of the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Lord over their whiskies. The only contemporary record of the deal they did is contained in the press announcement made by my noble friend Lord Weatherill and others, which is wholly equivocal upon the question of whether the election should be done by the hereditaries or otherwise. It may have been locked in the intentions of the noble Viscount that it should be done by hereditaries. But that intention has not manifested itself in any way until now.
We lawyers know full well that very often a party to a negotiation thinks that he has made something plain and it is not. Certainly, if we look at the written record of that agreement we see that the matter is wholly equivocal. I suggest that it would be entirely open to the House at the proper stage to consider this matter, namely, upon the report of the Procedure Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that we shall keep to the principle of representation. This principle of representative hereditary Peers is deeply in our history. It goes back to the Act of Union 1707. It was followed by the Act of Union of 1801, admittedly in a different form. But there is good, sound historical precedent. I am an Englishman. I like to use our history to advance reform. Therefore, we should stick solely to this method of the representatives.
I hope that when my noble friend Lord Wakeham reports on the findings of his Royal Commission he will extend the principle of representation to other groups and other sections of society, because it is a principle which has served us well. Therefore, let us not get muddled up with Liberal Party ideas of messing up the constitution. It has had so much time to do it and, one hopes, it will go on failing.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the noble Earl sits down, does he not recognise that this Bill, in its content, abolishes the concept of what we have done for many years in the past? Therefore, it is a little curious to suggest that we should be dictated to by what Scotland did in 1707 when the whole concept of the hereditary peerage is being abolished by the Bill. It is rather odd to invoke in support of clauses in this Bill any principle of long-term history.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe exactly the opposite. There has been the most marvellous English muddle. The Government have decided to do one thing; others told them not to do it. The Government said they would do it and then produced something totally different. Everybody has given something. The Bill as published has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing at present. Something totally different has come out of it. That is a perfect example of English constitutional muddle at its very best.
Viscount Tenby: The arguments against the amendment have already been well rehearsed. With

883
the principle contained therein, I have no quarrel. Indeed, I support it. However, I do not believe that we should be discussing it in detail now. As I say, this matter should be discussed at a later date. But I cannot resist paying tribute to the silken presentational skills of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I am sorry to come back to this so quickly. As a Welshman, I should have known that to joust with someone of Welsh ancestry would invite trouble.
At an earlier state of our deliberations on the Bill, I advanced the proposition that to confine the electorate on the choice of hereditary Peers to hereditary Peers reduces the operation to charges of it being like, for example, election to White's or Boodle's. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I heard the noble Viscount, on at least two subsequent occasions, turn the argument subtly on its face. Accordingly, I promise solemnly not to provide the noble Viscount with any further ammunition, especially since, with a heavy heart, I must confess that he has not so far managed to convince me of the force of his argument. He may well do so at a later stage but, somehow, I doubt it.
My reasons for taking that view I shall leave to the day when the Bill returns to the Floor of this House after scrutiny by the Procedure Committee, a course of action I commend to other Members of the Committee this evening.
The Lord Chancellor: This is a very narrow point. The Committee will appreciate that my interest in it is rather limited. It is coterminous with the interests of my party which secures from the compromise two hereditaries to be retained.
But I am a witness to the agreement, as is the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Although I can well appreciate how the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would regard the press notice issued by the Cross-Benchers as the record of the agreement, it is not, however, the record of the agreement. That record is the witness of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and myself as to the agreement that was actually made.
In fact, we agreed that the elections in the several constituencies would be of hereditaries by hereditaries for hereditaries. We both agreed that that was an integral part of the compromise and for my part, although my party's interest is as limited as I have described, I shall not resile from it.
But it is not merely a matter of the amendment contravening the terms of the proposal. One thought behind the agreement was that it would be an invidious electoral system which would enable life Peers to pass judgment on their hereditary colleagues. I can well see how the opposite view may well reasonably be entertained. But it was agreed that the electorate within each grouping consists of the hereditaries and, therefore, I stand by it.
Lord Newby: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I am pleased that
884
I managed to bring a smile to his face. The European election procedures can be prayed in aid by virtually anybody wishing to promote virtually any argument.
It can certainly be argued, for example, that there is no uniformity in the way in which the lists have been drawn up between the different parties where the methods vary greatly. I doubt whether the Conservatives would support the methods we adopted in selecting our candidates. I doubt too whether the Government would be happy with the methods that either of us adopted. Equally, it simply is not the case that there is a uniform system of elections across the EU at the moment; we have different methods. I do not think that the unity and uniformity argument goes very far.
As to the response by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I understand that the representative clause was in the agreement. As he has said many times on other matters, that is virtually the end of the matter for him; as we have said many times on other matters, that is not the end of the matter for us. No doubt we will return to it. As to the principle, I am afraid that we disagree and, again, we may wish to return to it.
However, we have had a full airing of the issues and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 1, leave out line 14 and insert ("for a term of up to 7 years which shall expire on the day another person is excepted from that section by or in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.")
The noble Earl said: In speaking to the amendment which concerns electoral colleges, after the description of what it entails is the explanation of what it achieves. This is consistency with the current proposals for House of Lords reform. Such follows from the system for election proposed within the amendment. Yet the benefit outlined presents an option for consideration by the Royal Commission and for adjudication at stage two.
What then is the justification for this discussion at all at stage one and within this Bill? The amendment as proposed does not seek incorporation within the present Bill. In that respect it resembles the amendment moved today concerning Scottish independent Peers. That amendment, too, did not seek incorporation within the present Bill. Nor is it intended that the terms of this amendment should form part of the arrangements for the transition House. Instead, its option is for my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues and for the architects of stage two. However, its evaluation by them can only occur if it has not been precluded in the first place by the present Bill. Therefore, the sole purpose of discussing the matter today is to obtain the guidance and assurance of the noble and learned Lord that the option within the amendment, as about to be explained, will not have been precluded by the present Bill by the time it has become an Act.
The option within the amendment is based upon one of my submissions to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues. If electoral colleges were to become a feature of the post-transition House, this submission

885
recommends that candidates or members should be elected or re-elected every seven years. Thus, regardless of by-elections, the interval between the main elections would never be wider than seven years.
That system for elections is consistent with the aims of House of Lords reform. First, there is its connection with the aim of achieving approximate voting parity between the main political parties. Through time, a number of factors may militate against the capacity or desire for party political voting. Let alone age or infirmity, such factors may even include disinclination owing to other conflicting priorities. Electoral colleges functioning every seven years may therefore take note of the situation as it changes.
Secondly there is the paradox relating to part-time attendance. If electoral colleges provide fixed quotas, then elected members will be expected to be regular attenders. Otherwise the terms and trust of election in the first place would appear to have been breached. On the other hand, part-time attendance is arguably the backbone of the deliberative function and its present quality within this Chamber. There are first-class contributions from more elderly Members who may not be able to attend as much as others. In any case, distinguishing it from the daily voting function is the separate pattern and timetable of the deliberative function itself. This includes questions and debates, the highly-regarded Lords Select Committee reports, the work of overseas delegations such as the Council of Europe. As it is, many of your Lordships in the days when they are not here are often working on these and related parliamentary matters.
If electoral colleges perform every seven years, they can make balanced readjustments. They will be able to distinguish between what is part-time attendance for the right reasons and what is irregular or even regular attendance for the wrong reasons. If electoral colleges appoint only once and for life, no such readjustments are possible.
As I have already indicated, the institution of such arrangements are for stage two. Their details need not concern us now. The important question today is that stage one and the current Bill should not preclude their evaluation. Thus the purpose of the amendment is to obtain the reassurance of the noble and learned Lord that it will not do so. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 29.
Lord Gray: When speaking in the debate on the White Paper, I said that I favoured an elected second Chamber. I regret that the Government apparently do not. If in due course a reformed House is to be at least partly elected, then electoral colleges acting in the way described by the amendment would be an important feature of any electoral scheme and a bridge linking the present with the future in a way that could only benefit Parliament. Electoral colleges would then carry through into the future what Clause 2 of the Bill inaugurates. So
886
the scheme envisaged by the amendment has significant advantages over any system where appointment or election for life is the basis.
As my noble friend has pointed out, judgment of performance would influence voting whereas life appointment is not subject to such considerations. It might well be that the electoral college idea could be expanded beyond peerage representation. The amendment suggests a term of up to seven years. I shall be interested to hear what other views there may be as to the length of an appropriate term to provide the balanced readjustments to which my noble friend referred in moving the amendment. Certainly, readjustments will, perforce, be necessary. An adjustment by appointment is likely to give rise to all kinds of complications. If one accepts that the future should reflect the best or the present, the scheme proposed by the amendment deserves serious consideration. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Weatherill: I assume that the purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that anyone can have a term if the arrangement envisaged in Clause 2 lasts for any length of time. I cannot otherwise see the point of proposing, as the amendment apparently does, that a Peer should not be eligible for re-selection. The purpose of our proposals was to provide an element of continuity during the transitional House. I do not see how a scheme which would force excepted Peers to retire and be replaced by those who had been outside the House for up to seven years can help to fulfil that purpose. Of course I very much hope that the provision would be entirely academic in that further reform of your Lordships' House will take place long before the seven years are completed. But one should not—
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may come to the kernel of his point in this way. As he said, it would not make sense if the amendment were to address itself to the transitional House. It does not. All it seeks to do is to elicit from the noble and learned Lord a reassurance that stage one in the present Bill does not preclude my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues and the architects of stage two from considering seven year term elections for the post-transitional House.
Lord Weatherill: I am sorry if I misunderstood what the noble Earl's amendment is intended to do. But I must stress the point that our proposals were intended for the transitional period and not for the longer term. I hope that that point is absolutely clear.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that the Government will resist this amendment. It is one of the few hopes that I have that will be fulfilled. We have a new, stand-alone Bill, which has within it the ability to last very much longer than the Government hope that it will. If it does, that is important; if it does not, that does not matter. But to attempt in this Bill to prescribe what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will do would be a mistake. I suspect

887
that that may not be a million miles from the Lord Chancellor's brief and that, for once, he may even agree with me.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder if I could direct the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, to the draft standing order on what was, after all, his own amendment. It states:
"It is proposed that hereditary peers who were the runners-up in the initial elections should fill the vacancies. This is set out in paragraph (7) of the draft Standing Order. This provision should provide suitable candidates until Stage II reform is effective or until the expiry of five years, whichever is the earlier. If the scheme exists for such length of time that the Standing Order provision becomes unworkable, the House will be able to consider alternative methods of filling vacancies and amend the Standing Order, if necessary".
That seems to suggest that this may last longer than five years, and the amendment itself does not deal with that problem. We may have to come back to standing orders. If it lasts for five years, why should it not last for seven? It seems to me that the amendment could be reasonable if phase one lasts for that sort of length of time.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that my noble friend's amendment was directed to what we have come to call stage two. Indeed, if the hereditary peerage becomes a permanent part of the stage two solution, as I earnestly hope it will, then the Scottish electoral system is a real runner; although of course it would be hard to escape the conclusion that the same provisions would have to apply to the life peerage as well.
Here we are considering only the transitional House. The noble and learned Lord has the option of either the Scottish or the Irish solution. It is my view that, in the transitional period, the correct solution is the Irish solution.
But if one tests what is proposed against the Irish solution, one discovers that the Government's proposals do not meet that solution, because there is to be no system of by-elections but, instead, a list established in 1999 which will presumably run on until stage two. I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will review the system of by-elections and reconsider his position as regards the 1999 list.
The Lord Chancellor: Hope springs eternal that the transitional House will become a permanent House. I had shared with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the view that this proposal related to the transitional House. I had thought that because that is all that we are debating and all that amendments should now address.
I had thought that the proposal was that the maximum term that anyone may serve as an excepted Peer should be seven years. I certainly shared with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the view that this was an attempt to ensure that everyone, or as many as possible, would have an opportunity to serve as a hereditary if the arrangement lasted for any length of time. But looking at the position as it affects the transitional House, the Government's view, consistent with the agreement made, is that excepted Peers should be here on the same basis as everyone else, namely for life, until stage two reform takes place.
888
I am pleased that I am not in any way disappointing the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who correctly anticipated what I would say. I am happy once again to have given him satisfaction. We are now told by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the amendment does not relate at all to the transitional House but looks forward to a wholly reformed House. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we should not now be addressing anything that might be available to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his commission to recommend.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments, but perhaps I may put one question to him. Within this Bill we should not do the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. That work is for him and his commission. Yet the converse is this. The Bill could preclude the evaluation by him of something which he might otherwise wish to evaluate. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could say whether, in his view, the present Bill, either as it is or as it may be before it becomes an Act, will preclude the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues from evaluating the purport of the option described by this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The remit of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his commission is as set out in his terms of reference.
The Earl of Dundee: I thank the noble and learned Lord. They are, but following what he has just said, does he feel able to give the reassurance that nothing in the Bill would preclude the evaluation of seven term elections for stage two by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues?
The Lord Chancellor: In my view the commission will have regard to the implications of the Bill and will want to ensure that there is a smooth passage between what the Bill provides for when it passes and what a fully reformed House will provide for. But it is not intended, by any provision in the Bill, to cut down any part of the remit of the Royal Commission.
The Earl of Dundee: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reassurance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley The Earl of Dudley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("to the contrary") and insert ("for an elected second House of Parliament")
The noble Earl said: It has been a long day and it is late. I saw the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take a deep breath. The last thing the Committee wants is for me to move my amendment. Nevertheless, it is not my fault that I have to move it at 10.15 at night on re-committal. I was guaranteed this spot when I withdrew my amendment a week ago.
There is a simple reason for the amendment. I object to the Government's avowed intent that the 90 hereditaries should remain Members of the House on

889
sufferance with a limited life span, as compared with the life Peers. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal made it clear on Second Reading when she was introducing the Bill when she described the then Weatherill amendment as,
"a later amendment to retain temporary membership for some hereditary Peers"."—[Official Report, 29/4/99; col. 12.]
I hope to persuade all Members of the Committee on all sides to share my objection and support my amendment, although I regard the Lib-Dem Benches as rather wobbly in that respect. If the amendment achieves nothing more, it provides an opportunity for what I hope will be a brief debate on the terms whereby the 90 hereditary Peers may remain as compared with the expectations of life Peers.
I personally have no aspirations or expectations and regard my amendment as a parting shot fired by a powerful objection to the unequal temporary status accorded by the Government to the 90 hereditaries as compared with the expectations of life Peers. It is not improved by Clause 2(3) of the Bill. Although the first part decrees that the 90 hereditaries shall remain Members of this House for life, the words in brackets (which I seek to amend) envisage the stage-two legislation that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite repeatedly state is guaranteed by the Weatherill amendment, which is now Clause 2 of the Bill. They have gone further and implied that stage two would be the point in time when further legislation would "provide to the contrary" and when the 90 hereditaries would cease to be exempted from the effects of Clause 1 of the Bill.
I should like to see their crystal ball. No one can predict what reforms the Royal Commission will propose. It may recommend removal of the 90 hereditaries or their retention. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can anticipate how the Government will react if the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues report favourably on the hereditary element in the Lords. I do not expect them to tell the Committee today and therefore do not propose to ask them. Be that as it may, the House is in for a transitional period of illusion and disillusion—illusion for the hereditaries who are to remain and disillusion for noble Lords opposite who want them to go.
Why do I object to the bracketed words in the Bill? First, they are superfluous. An Act of Parliament can provide to the contrary at any time—as it can for life Peers—without the proviso being written into the Bill. The words carry no force and are unnecessary. My second objection is that they create the illusion that the 90 hereditaries are more vulnerable as regards membership of this House than life Peers. As far as I know, never having been in that situation, no one says to a person that from the moment he is offered a life peerage until he takes a seat in this House he is a Peer for life on condition that no Act of Parliament provides to the contrary. In this respect, the subsection is divisive as it discriminates between hereditary and life Peers in a way foreseen by a number of noble Lords this evening.
My amendment is designed to create the illusion that the 90 hereditaries are on a level playing field with the life Peers as regards lifetime membership of this House. To achieve that, I have devised the only cut-off point that I visualise as being capable of applying to both hereditary and life Peers; namely, an elected second Chamber. That will put both elements of this House on a level footing which will militate against divisiveness. That element of divisiveness has been referred to in the course of the debate this evening.
I could have moved an amendment to omit the objectionable bracketed words. but Clause 2 has been a bitter pill for the Government and their supporters here and in another place to swallow. I suspect that they want some flavouring or sugar-coating on the pill. It seems appropriate to keep an exit gate for hereditaries, as long as it opens for life Peers simultaneously. Therefore, my amendment does not gainsay the noble Baroness's definition of some Peers' continued membership of the House as temporary.
I admit that my amendment offers nothing more than an alternative illusory device. It is not a plea for an elected House of Lords, although I favour that option for stage two after my departure. It is not an attempt to pre-empt the Royal Commission, and in my view it does not breach the compromise between the Front Benches in ways feared and defined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his remarks at Second Reading. I hope that my modest amendment is acceptable to the Government and inoffensive to more moderate Labour supporters, although doubtless anathema to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I commend the amendment to the remainder of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: The words of which my noble friend complains are a gratuitous insult. However, I have a difficulty with the amendment. The Bill provides for an elected upper House with a continued, appointed element of life Peers. Therefore the coming into force of the Bill would immediately extinguish we hereditary Peers as an elected element of the House. I have difficulty as to whether that destroys the Bill entirely, or whether it means that we go round in circles being appointed and disappointed in rapid succession.
Lord Kingsland: I congratulate my noble friend on tabling the amendment. The proposal builds imaginatively on the 1911 Parliament Act which sought to retain the hereditary peerage until some popular and democratic new House was put in its place.
Considering Clause 2(3), it is hard to understand how "provides to the contrary" could mean "provides a nominated substitute for the transitional House." In my submission, "provides to the contrary" must mean some kind of elected House although not necessarily a wholly elected Chamber. The great value of my noble friend's amendment is that it challenges the Government to come up with their own ideas about stage two. As we have done on many occasions from this Dispatch Box, I again invite the noble and learned Lord to speculate a

891
little further than he has been prepared to do on what an Act of Parliament which "provides to the contrary" might contain.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, expressed a little concern at the outset of his observations that my taking a deep breath might signal that I was running out of energy. I can assure the noble Earl that I was not. It is always my practice to take a very deep breath in order to steady myself for whatever may be about to come from the noble Earl.
The amendment strays into matters which are not the proper territory of the Bill. The composition of a fully reformed second Chamber is an issue for consideration by the Royal Commission which we have set up and which is due to report by the end of the year. We have said time and again that we are not willing to pre-empt the deliberations and findings of the commission. That would not be right. It would be equally wrong for the Bill to seek to pre-empt the recommendations of the Royal Commission by enshrining a particular outcome in statute. I was asked earlier to give an assurance that the Bill did not seek to cut down the terms of the remit to the Royal Commission contained in its terms of reference. I gave that assurance subject to the obvious recognition that the Royal Commission would wish to make recommendations that would promote a smooth transfer from this House to a fully reformed House.
Conversely, it would be wrong for this Bill to seek to pre-empt the commission's recommendations by attempting to enshrine in statute a particular outcome for stage two. That would not be consistent with the consultation process on which the Royal Commission is currently engaged. It is a wide-ranging exercise which aims to seek the views of the public, not just those of politicians.
The White Paper makes it perfectly clear that an elected House is one of the options that the Royal Commission ought to consider, but there are other options, too, which are highlighted in the White Paper. Contrary to various recent press reports, the Labour Party's own evidence to the Royal Commission did not express a preference for an appointed second Chamber over an elected one. The evidence set out the underlying principles which we believe should determine the nature of the second Chamber. It should be representative in the sense that it should represent the groups which make up today's society and the nations which make up the United Kingdom. It should be distinctive from the House of Commons both in its function and composition. And it should have an independent element which brings experience and expertise to this House. Shortly put, it should be a House of all the talents of the nation and it should ensure that no one political party has an overall majority.
However, these are all matters for the Royal Commission. It will recommend what in its view the actual composition of the reformed House should be
892
and how it should be chosen. Meanwhile, we could not conceivably accept the amendment because it strays substantially into stage two.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble and learned Lord then explain why there is a necessity for the bracketed words? They seem to me totally tautological. Any Act of Parliament can say what it likes and it can enact what it likes when it likes. That is called the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament. Therefore, it is totally tautological to have the words in brackets in the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: In a sense, the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, is right. Until an Act of Parliament provides "to the contrary" is probably unnecessary because an Act of Parliament can always provide as it chooses for the reason he gives. However, in my frequent exchanges with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who unhappily is not with us tonight—
Noble Lords: He is!
The Lord Chancellor: He is here! I have made a double error because I may be encouraging him to rise to his feet on a subject dear to his heart. I have occasionally been lured by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, into accepting that there is a possibility that words are surplusage and that would be a red rag to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were he not so restrained at this hour. But the reason for the emphasis in "to the contrary" is to make plain to all concerned that what is provided for by the accepted Peers is a transitional, temporary arrangement.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, may feel restrained at this late hour, but such restraint does not prevail itself upon me. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is always enormously persuasive. He said earlier that he could not conceivably advise the Committee to accept the amendment. I wonder whether he could tell us what amendments he could conceivably advise the House to accept, because it seems that the briefs which he and his Front Bench team have given themselves are to accept no argument and accept no amendment.
It is pretty depressing, after seven days of debate full of minutiae of great importance, irritating though they may be to the Government Front Bench, to be told that it is impossible to accept any amendments and they are completely wrong. We have already seen the Government go through a tautological hoop of first saying that the Bill will reject all hereditary Peers and then accepting 100. Not everything therefore can be right. What makes the noble and learned Lord so

893
convinced that everything the Government have said is right and everything the Opposition have said is bound to be wrong?
The Lord Chancellor: I have heard nothing that has persuaded me!
Earl Ferrers: Presumably his brief is, "Accept no amendment; accept no argument". Would the noble and learned Lord care to say whether that is so?
The Lord Chancellor: That is not so.
The Earl of Dudley: I was careful to say that I was not pre-empting the Royal Commission and careful to try to direct my words not towards the problem of an elected second Chamber, but to the problem of the terms on which the hereditaries remain in this House. I do not believe, in that respect, that I was straying beyond any bounds, even those set by the "Cranborne convention/Weatherill amendment", which is now Clause 2.
However, it is late at night. I understand that we are in a period of armistice and that what we say is said for effect rather than for result. In that sense; knowing that the noble and learned Lord and I share one thing in common, of which he may not be aware—our mothers were born in Sutherland—on that spirit of hands across the ocean, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("unless, by instrument of disclaimer delivered to the Lord Chancellor, he disclaims the right to sit and vole as a member of the House of Lords.
(3A) The holder of a peerage who exercises the right of disclaimer conferred by subsection (3) shall retain rights of access to, and use of, the House of Lords and any premises occupied by the House.
(3B) If the holder of a peerage exercises his right of disclaimer conferred by subsection (3), arrangements shall be put in hand to replace the vacancy created within twenty sitting days.")
The noble Earl said: My mother was not born in Sutherland. My grandmother always said that she was born on the groundsheet of a grenadier, but we shall leave that aside.
I sincerely hope that this amendment is not incorporated in the Bill. My purpose in tabling it is solely to receive information from the Government and to put down markers for the Standing Orders about our successors. We must assume that the Bill will last longer than the Government said it would. I do not necessarily believe that it will, but we must assume that it will and act as if it will.
Therefore, there must be a method whereby hereditary Peers can not only be replaced but are able to resign if they become old, incapacitated or totally disreputable. It surely is a sensible arrangement that somebody should be able to resign from a position of authority or privilege. Life Peers cannot do that, but they need not attend. However, because of the representational
894
element of the 90 "self-elected" Peers, I suggest that there must be arrangements for them to be able to resign and be replaced.
I have hardly read the details of my own amendment. I went to the Public Bill Office and explained what I wanted to do and the parliamentary draftsman wrote it down in legal jargon. All I ask is that when we come to the Standing Orders that recreate the re-electoral principle, we build in a provision on ability to resign. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am rather attracted to the amendment although I do not suggest for one moment that my noble friend should press it. I entirely accept his reasoning. However, I can see no fundamental objection to the principle that there should be a right to disclaim the right to sit and vote. After all, a hereditary Peer already has a right to disclaim under the great reforming Tory legislation of the late 1950s and early 1960s, which, among other things, brought life Peers to the House of Lords. However, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, that right is circumscribed at present. It may be exercised only within a given period and involves the surrender of title outside this House as well as privileges within it.
The new Weatherill peerages set up a new system and it is entirely reasonable to look at the rules. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said this afternoon that he does not like the idea of older elected Peers staying on to preside on the Woolsack when they are not able. The obvious solution to that is to give them a voluntary opportunity to retire. It does not give them the right to sit and vote; it does not affect the numbers game and therefore there should be no issue of principle.
I understand that the Labour Party is not in favour of an age limit, and nor are we. This amendment could well deal with that issue in so far as Peers can be replaced when they have got to the stage when they no longer wish to come to your Lordships' House. Why do not the Government accept the principle underlying the amendment? Why not let us modernise to a small degree and allow this section of the House, which is after all elected, to be a working element and therefore to retire? I shall be intrigued to hear what objection the noble and learned Lord has to what is an imaginative idea.
The Lord Chancellor: The central point is that this suggestion arises in the context of this Bill, and what it comes down to is that there should be a right to disclaim at any time so as to give someone else a shot, while at the same time the Peer who disclaims retains his club rights. The question of whether somebody who has voluntarily requisitioned the membership of the House should have a statutory right of access to the facilities of the House should be a matter for the House itself.
The Earl of Onslow: To talk about "pub" rights when we are talking about something much more important is not acceptable.
The Lord Chancellor: It is in the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I accept that it is in the amendment. But it is trivial compared to the issue. of,

895
let us say, an elected Peer becoming involved in a major drug scandal or armed robbery. I know the idea of a doddery old marquess holding up Barclays Bank stretches the imagination, but it cannot possibly be right for him to continue; it would surely be right for him to have the ability to resign. If he is not allowed to go in the bar afterwards I do not mind; that was put in by the draftsman. That is not the main issue at stake; it is the right to resign. I am sorry to get mildly irritated with the Lord Chancellor. I have never done that before and will try never to do it again.
The Lord Chancellor: I must try not to encourage the noble Earl to do so. But he must stand up for the amendment he tabled. He must either say that he does not stand by it or he must support it. If I may remind him, he said that he wants a power, by instrument of disclaimer delivered to me the Lord Chancellor, to be able to disclaim the right to sit and vote as a Member of the House of Lords.
But the matter does not stop there. He goes on straightaway to say that,
"The holder of a peerage who exercises the right of disclaimer … shall retain rights of access to, and use of, the House of Lords and any premises occupied by the House".
I apologise if it caused offence to describe them as "club" rights but that is an apt description which should not cause offence to the noble Earl. Whether there is something to be said for that will be a matter to be considered by the Committee.
It appears to me today that the position is that life Peers are Peers for life. I take the view, as at present advised, that the same position should apply to hereditary Peers as applies to life Peers; that is, that they should be Peers for life. It is on that basis that I have taken the view that the agreement made between myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, entailed—though I do not recall that we actually said it in terms—that an excepted Peer would remain until phase two or for life, in the sense that it would be a position for life if not previously brought to an end by phase two. That appears to me to be an entirely consistent position and I do not think it is really timely to bring up an issue of disclaimer in this context
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Is it not true though that life Peers are not representative Peers and that other groups of Peers in this House, notably the bishops and the law Lords, have different methods of being appointed and of continuing in office which accord with their own particular function and status in this House? It does not seem to me to be outwith the way in which this House operates at present that the hereditary Peers should have a different basis that they should be able to resign in order that the hereditary Peers who are active in this House can properly represent and carry out the function
896
which, under the agreement which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made, they are supposed to do.
The Lord Chancellor: I regard hereditary Peers as representative of the hereditary peerage and I regard life Peers as representative of the country.
Lord Monson: Would the noble and learned Lord not agree that if a life Peer who was appointed, say, 10 years ago, feels no longer inclined to attend very often, he need have no feelings of guilt, but if an elected hereditary Peer feels the same way he is bound to feel guilty because he will not be doing the job to which he was elected? There is a difference between the two.
Earl Ferrers: How can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that life Peers are representative of the country?
The Lord Chancellor: The life peerage is representative of the whole country and the hereditary peerage owes its position to birth and the excepted Peers will be representatives of the hereditary peerage and no-one else.
Earl Ferrers: But life Peers are representative of the people who appointed the life Peers and nobody else.
The Lord Chancellor: No.
The Earl of Onslow: This wonderful argument about who is representative is arcane, to put it mildly. The idea that the life Peers are representative of the country does not hold a great deal of water. They were appointed for exactly the same reason as we hereditary Peers were over the centuries: some for merit, some for chicanery, some for money and some for all the other jolly things for which we have all been appointed to this House.
Your Lordships know perfectly well that I am a reformer and want this House to be properly reformed and to fulfil its function, but there is a fundamental difference in the representative limited part of the hereditary peerage. Those numbers are limited by statute. If somebody is doing 15 years for armed robbery, to put it at its ludicrous extent, he cannot come here and exercise his hereditary rights or his duties and he is therefore depriving somebody else. It is that point. A life Peer not doing his duty is not depriving your Lordships' House of a Member and it is that point on which I really wish to concentrate.
Of course it should not go into the Bill and of course the legalese, which I was far too idle to read, about club rights may be superfluous, and of course the Lord Chancellor, being a brilliant lawyer, needless to say put his teeth into that because all good lawyers try to avoid the issue which is difficult for them. They find an issue which is easy to cope with. That is why he was one of the stars of the Bar and that is why he is the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. I stand in awe of his brilliance and his imagination.

897
He has, however, still ducked the question of how we get round the disqualification by crime, dishonour, age or incapacity of one person who is holding a place which somebody else could fulfil. I totally accept that this is an issue for the standing orders. I hope we can bring it up again in the standing orders but, with that, I am converted by the noble and learned Lord's brilliance and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) If a vacancy arises by reason of the death or disqualification of an elected hereditary peer excepted from section I the vacancy shall be filled—

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

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

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is both direct and simple. It is to provide for the hereditary Peers elected by this House to be representative Peers in this Chamber, if and when the Bill becomes law, to be replaced at by-elections. It does not lay down the procedures for those by-elections—although that was done. and done in statute, for the Irish representative peerage, even down to the method of breaking of a tie, which was achieved by the Clerk of the Parliaments drawing a name from a glass jar placed on the Table of the House.
There is thus nothing impossible about either envisaging or enacting a by-election system. It has been done before and it operated successfully for generations. The Government did not have to invent or even re-invent the wheel; they could have dusted down what we have. But they did not do so. Some of your Lordships may have found that, in itself, to be significant.
However, I do not propose to ask that this should all be set out in statute. I recognise the will of the Government and, perhaps, the will of the House, that much of the detail may be provided in Standing Orders, although I have never hidden the belief of these Benches that more should be on the face of the Bill. I am content to allow much of the details of the by-elections to be carried through in our discussions on Standing Orders. However, I feel very strongly that the principle of by-elections should appear on the face of the Bill. It is the proper way to provide for membership of a House that may have to endure for a long time.
It has been said before in our debates—and, indeed, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that we do not need to think through the long-term future of the House. It is said that there will be a second House of Lords Bill before too long, although it is impossible to see such a Bill being presented before the end of this Parliament. Therefore, it is said that it is
898
reasonable to allow hereditary Peers to be replaced on their deaths from the preference list that will follow the first election when this Bill becomes law.
In my amendment, I have come to meet the noble and learned Lord and to accept that viewpoint for the immediate future. I judge that that may be for the convenience of the House. I have even gone so far as to allow for one further Session at the beginning of the next Parliament when this top-up system may be used, but that will take us to the year 2001 or perhaps even to 2002. However, we cannot go on topping-up the House on the basis of elections held three or four years previously. In time, some of those Peers may become less qualified in the eyes of their colleagues, disinclined to serve or be otherwise engaged. Under these proposals, the government of that time, whether Labour or Conservative, will have an opportunity to bring forward reform proposals over three or perhaps four parliamentary Sessions. After that, I believe that the matter needs to be set on a proper and lasting footing.
We are not dealing here with a short-term fix; we are seeking to legislate in proper order. Legislation for the membership of a Parliament must be securely and clearly based and, in subscribing to these arrangements, the House must ensure that it is not open to be tampered with for the passing advantage of any party or combination of parties.
I do not believe that this should be an issue of principle between us and the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that it ought to be possible to find a way forward. Indeed, I should point out to him that there can be nothing that would more convince hereditary Peers on these Benches of his good faith than that he should open his mind further in this respect.
We heard today that the Liberal Democrats openly want to end the Weatherill peerage; they want to see it wither away. The House is not so full of well-wishers towards a representative hereditary peerage that we must rely only on the good faith, which I, for one. wholly accept, of the noble and learned Lord. However, if it is left only to Standing Orders, the fear is that the latter may be changed—and changed far more easily than primary legislation—by a new majority in an interim House and that there would not be the kind of security and stability that arrangements for the membership of this House require.
I know that the assurances of the noble and learned Lord are given in good faith, but I also think that we need more. I hope that he will be able to be even more positive in his reply than he has been to some of the previous amendments discussed this evening. I conclude by re-emphasising what I said at the beginning; namely, that we attach a great deal of importance to this amendment. It can come into force only when such time has elapsed that there is no stage two Bill. It is therefore in the hands of the Government—under the control of whichever party—to decide whether or not those by-elections should take place. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: I have often, and gratefully, alluded during the course of our debates on this Bill—some people may feel they are endless debates—to the

899
extraordinarily agreeable atmosphere which pertained during the course of the negotiations between the noble and learned Lord and myself what seems aeons ago. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to suggest that the joint memory—agreeable as it is—that he and I have of those negotiations is the right record of the details of the agreement. I am flattered that he should feel that I am adequate witness to that. I hope that he will feel equally flattered when I say that to this moment he has entirely accorded with my memory of what we discussed.
Therefore I venture with some trepidation into making an assertion. I think that we both felt that it was impossible for us to cover every detail of the mechanics that would flow from this agreement and it was for that reason that we suggested that a committee of representatives from the Government and from all groups in this Chamber should convene to consider the detailed mechanics under the guidance of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I think that the entire Committee is familiar with the conclusions that that group reached.
My memory—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to confirm this—is that during the course of our conversations we did not cover the question of by-elections until a late stage indeed. I remember that I suggested to the noble and learned Lord that the matter of by-elections was important. The noble and learned Lord poured what I shall describe as a modest amount of cold water on that suggestion. I hope that he will also confirm that I emphasised to him that I attached great importance to this matter for exactly the reasons that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. If we subscribe—as I certainly do—to the theory that the principal reason for the existence of the 92 hereditary Peers in the transitional Chamber is that it is a continuing incentive for the government of the day to progress to a full stage two reform, then evidently it is of interest to maintain that full number so long as a full stage two reform has not taken place.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made clear, it does not seem practical that we should hold by-elections if a full stage two reform takes place within the timescale that the Government have suggested they would like. I think we all accept that that is fully what the Government intend. However, we also know that governments can conceivably and very occasionally—even this Government perhaps—find themselves blown off course by events, pressure and perhaps even by successful oppositions. Were that to happen, it might just be possible after the next election for the new Conservative government to be blown off course as well. Therefore, I would suggest that my noble friend's amendment is not a partisan amendment; it is a further incentive for whatever government take office after the next general election. Since my party is now fully committed to the cause of reform, a little sand in their shoe would be at least as welcome as the sand we are now suggesting would be welcome in the Government's shoe as well.
Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable, if we are to make sure that the 92 fulfil their primary purpose and to act as an incentive for reform for whatever
900
government are in power after the next election, that there should be some provision for maintaining their number in a satisfactory manner over and above the proxime accessit which is at the moment suggested by the noble and learned Lord. That is perfectly splendid in every way for the short time scale that the noble and learned Lord and the Government have in mind, but it is not so satisfactory if any government are blown off course.
If my memory of our conversations is accurate—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is—I hope that he will look very seriously at the suggestion of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, if only to ensure that whatever government are in power realise that so odious, despicable and unacceptable thing as a hereditary peer should not sully the House of Lords for longer than absolutely necessary.
11 p.m.
Lord Richard: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for what he has to say. He has lifted a little at least of the veil covering the agreement between him and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. From what he said it is perfectly clear that there was no agreement between the two of them as to the issue of filling vacancies by by-elections.
Viscount Cranborne: Obviously, I was not clear, as usual. There was absolute agreement about the question of filling a vacancy from the proxime accessit to start with. Where we did not agree was on what was to happen if by some misfortune stage two was delayed.
Lord Richard: I think it is my turn to apologise. I obviously did not express myself very clearly. As I understand it, there was no agreement about the possibility of holding by-elections from within the constituency of all the hereditary Peers in the event that after the initial stages of the arrangement it should continue and there should be a vacancy caused by death or disqualification. I think that is right, and I think it is what the noble Viscount has said.
Two possible alternatives have been adumbrated. One is that the next in line should take over and the other is that there should be a by-election. The first seems to me to have all the merits, and the second seems to me to have an immense number of demerits.
Let us postulate what the noble Viscount was hinting at. Suppose that this arrangement is still in existence, because a government have been blown off course, or whatever phrase one wishes to use, in seven, eight or nine years' time. What is seriously suggested is that when one of the 90 representative Peers, as they are now quite clearly going to be called, dies, the other 660 will be wheeled out, brought back and asked to judge, presumably in the electoral colleges of their own parties or the Cross Benches, who should replace the individual. After such a period, or a decade even, of absence from the House of Lords, they would be the last people who could possibly judge the worth of who should take over.

901
The noble Viscount shakes his head. He will know, and my noble and learned friend knows full well, that I am not exactly enthusiastic about the Cranborne/Weatherill/Irvine compromise, arrangement, concordat or whatever it has been called in the course of this debate. But I accept it; I accept it as a matter of convenience between the parties for the purposes of getting legislation through.
However, I am bound to say the idea that somehow to wheel out all the hereditary Peers, as someone said in one of our earlier debates, dust them down, put them in their Bath chairs and wheel them in to take a decision as to who should now become the new representative seems to me to be absolutely incredible.
Viscount Cranborne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord for a second time but we dust down the electorate once every four or five years in exactly the same way.
Lord Richard: With great respect, the electorate outside has had the opportunity of seeing what the Government have been doing for five years. It would seem to me that somebody who has not been inside this House for a period of five, six, seven years or a decade, will really not be in the best position to decide precisely who should take over to fill the vacancy.
This is meant to be a temporary arrangement. That is the basis upon which many Members on this side of the Committee and I have accepted it. If it is a temporary arrangement, it seems to me that the best way to deal with it is by having one election; all groups have their electoral colleges and decide who their representatives are to be; and that election having taken place, the next on the list moves in if there is a vacancy by death or disqualification.
The Earl of Onslow: Peradventure this temporary arrangement lasts for 10 years. Let us then assume that of the 10 runners-up, seven are dead and three are dotty.
A noble Lord: We will take the three!
The Earl of Onslow: You will take the three, I accept that. Peradventure that arrangement lasts not for 10 years but for 20 years. It is no good the noble Lord raising his eyes towards heaven and saying that it will not happen. We must assume that it will happen, not because we wish it to happen but because we must make certain that what comes into place is workable. We all assume that it will be a temporary House but it must be a workable temporary House. The last temporary House has lasted for 88 years. Every single Member of the 1911 House of Lords is dead. If it lasts slightly longer, how on earth are we to manage that arrangement?
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may answer the noble Earl. He asks me what will happen. It is quite a simple proposition. He forgets that the Government have the right, and, indeed, the duty to attempt to legislate and that Parliament can pass laws. If there is a difficulty in six, seven or 20 years' time, that is the time I would expect a government to look at that problem; to
902
acknowledge it is a real one; and to do something about it. Until that time, it should be treated as a temporary arrangement—and frankly, a somewhat unwelcome temporary arrangement—and accepted as such.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems to me a ridiculous proposal to say that when there is a difficulty which is foreseeable now, we duck it and we should only do something if the problem arises, as it will inevitably, in 20 years' time. With respect, that is not an intelligent proposition.
I want the place to be reformed and I want it to have real influence and power. But I want to make certain, as far as I possibly can, that the interim House is a stand-alone interim House. If there is no method for replacing those people, it is deeply flawed as an Act of Parliament. The problem is visible now and. therefore. we should address it now. We should not say, "Oh well, it will go away because it is inconvenient". That is not an intelligent way to act.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the noble Earl not agree that if the 1911 Act had in it the same sort of provision for a successor not to succeed, then the whole problem would have been resolved and now we should not have any hereditary Peers? Therefore, there is a certain advantage to that secondary method.
The Earl of Onslow: It is not for me, as a Tory, to enter into the mind of Lloyd George. That is perhaps better coming from the Benches from which the noble Lord has just spoken.
Lord Desai: One the absurdities of these fanciful scenarios of the transitional House lasting eight, 10 or 15 years is a very simple arithmetical one. Perhaps I may illustrate. There are only 18 Labour hereditary Peers; there will not be an electorate very soon. I know that some of my noble friends are young and hearty but, as we are drawing hypothetical pictures, it is conceivable that the whole thing will fail. Two Labour Peers must be elected and we may not reach the 90. The Act says that there has to be two hereditary Peers from the Labour Party. There may not be two left. Then what will we do?
As my noble friend Lord Richard said, when we come to those difficulties we will pass another Bill. We will have to trust the Parliament of the day to do it right. It has always happened that way; there has never been eternal legislation.
The Earl of Onslow: The Bill does not say anything about numbers of people; it just says 90. If one reads Clause 2, one will find that it says nothing about that at all. If it lasts longer than only next Wednesday, we have to make certain that it lasts properly. That is all I am suggesting. If the Government cannot see that that raises difficulties, God help us; that is all I can say.
Lord Coleraine: The arguments advanced by my noble friends are what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to earlier as "ingenious arguments"; that is to say, if I understood him, that they are designed mainly

903
to keep alive the faith of our Benches in the everlasting nature of the Weatherill amendment. That is something that my noble friends are perfectly entitled to believe. It seems to me that there is a possibility that at the end of this Parliament we shall not have had a second Act and the Weatherill amendment will not have been spent by then. It seems to me to be perfectly sensible to deal with that situation when it arises. We should then follow the advice in the Memorandum of the Clerk of the Parliaments that when the scheme exists for such a length of time that the standing order provision becomes unworkable, the House will be able to consider alternative methods of filling vacancies and amend the standing order then if necessary.
Lord Elton: The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Desai, and now my noble friend Lord Coleraine, have all said that we will be able to deal with this difficulty when we arrive at it. The difficulty will be that we have arrived there because it has been impossible to legislate. The difficulty will not exist if phase two comes in. Phase two will only fail to come in if Parliament has not been able to legislate. To say the difficulty will be resolved by legislation therefore flies in the face of logic. Parliament will already have not been able to legislate or the difficulty would not have arisen.
I do not want to prolong the debate. It seems to me that there are two merits in the Weatherill amendment. One is that it perpetuates a motive for successive Governments to bring in phase two; the other is that when phase two comes in there will be an element in the House, which is neither appointed nor elected, to put its four-penn'orth into the argument, which will be a valuable thing to have. I believe that that is generally accepted.
Noble Lords opposite suggest that it is not necessary to provide for the possibility that Weatherill will have faded because all candidates will have been exhausted by the effluxion of time. The Government opposite have expressed their alarm at aeroplanes travelling a great distance to London, intending to arrive at Heathrow, with insufficient fuel on board. They are alarmed because the aircraft might not have been able to land there and would have had to go somewhere further off. That is exactly the principle we ask the Government to apply to this Bill. There should be sufficient fuel on board in the form of elected representative hereditary Peers, even if they cannot touch down in the three to seven years envisaged. That seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition. I hope that the Government will give careful attention to my noble friend's amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Elton said that he did not wish to prolong the debate for very much longer. I do not wish to prolong it for very much longer either other than for the duration of the modest speech which I propose to make if your Lordships will be kind enough to listen to it.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has done the Committee a great service because he has showed what a total farce the whole position is. The noble Lord
904
asked whether one could imagine a situation whereby in seven, eight, nine or 10 years' time all the hereditary Peers would be wheeled out—people who have not been here at all—to vote for their new representatives. That is a totally farcical position. But it is equally farcical to say that after that length of time one ought to choose from the runners-up of an election that happened 10 years before. That is a farce.
My noble friend Lord Onslow makes some remarkable speeches from time to time. Some of them are sensible and some of them are less so. This evening he was in sensible mode. He is quite right: if you can foresee something, for goodness' sake, legislate for it; do not wait to see what happens. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that when there is a real problem you can legislate for it and that if you legislate now, you make a mess. That is what has happened to the Government with this Bill. They are making a mess of it because they are legislating in a hurry. If we see something that could go wrong, for goodness' sake, let us put it right now and not wait for the thing to blow up in our faces in 10 years' time.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps we could have hereditary representatives of the hereditary peerage.
The Lord Chancellor: Having listened to the debate, I think the key question to ask is whether this is really a transitional measure or whether on its face the Bill should give effect to some principle about a continued right on the part of the hereditary peerage outside the House to be associated with decisions about who in the future may be a Member of the House.
Noble Lords on the Opposition Benches hope—there is no shame in this—that the Government will be blown off course and that what is intended to be transitional will prove to be permanent. That is why they stray into the language of saying that the 90 excepted Peers should stay on as representatives of the hereditary peerage and therefore that the entire hereditary peerage should have a continuing role in deciding who should fill the vacancies. That is what underlies these arguments. I have to say to noble Lords that such an approach could not find favour with us and certainly would not find favour with the other place.
I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has revised his earlier proposal and has conceded in his new amendment that the top-up system should not last just for the remainder of this Parliament but for the first Session of the next as well. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We have to consider all possibilities and we have to start from a premise that there will be no stage-two legislation—for if there was, this problem would not arise; that is to say, if the stage-two legislation came within the time-scale demarcated by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his amendment for the top-up system to continue to apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, indicated that the Procedure Committee has given its answer, which is that, if the scheme exists for such length of time that the Standing Order provisions become unworkable, the House will be able to consider alternative methods of filling vacancies and to amend the Standing Order if

905
necessary. The House could, for example, take the view that the relevant hereditary group in the House should elect the replacements itself. That would be a perfectly tenable view to take. Another view is that, if the whole of the hereditary peerage was in the relevant group—if that could be identified—after ceasing to subscribe to a party Whip because hereditary Peers were excluded from the House, that alternative might also be tenable. My present inclination is to express that view, which is consistent with much that has been said before by others.
The more that we put on the face of the Bill, the more this. House throws itself at the mercy of the other place. But if we leave these matters to standing orders to be dealt with as circumstances and need arise, then the discretion to determine the most effective method of replacements, should it prove necessary, remains with this House. Therefore, that is the route down which I continue to urge the Committee to go, and not to tempt the other place by seeking on the face of the Bill an apparently permanent role for the hereditary peerage excluded from this House to determine in the future who may sit in this House.
Lord Strathclyde: What has surprised me in this short debate on a rather humble amendment is the degree of excitement that it has caused to noble Lords opposite. The situation as I have always understood it is that they are committed to a two-stage process, which wild, in its final stage, lead to a more representative House; and that the stage one House, including the provisions of the Weatherill amendment, will cease to be. I take it as a matter of trust that that is what the Government want. I believe it and accept it.
But we are being asked to legislate. All I am asking is that we should do something which, as noble Lords opposite accept, will never need to happen because they will introduce their stage two Bill. So how can they possibly object to this humble and helpful amendment, which we should like to see in the Bill, and which they need never see in action because they will have proposed their stage two Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has failed to answer that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said it was ridiculous to assume that in seven or eight years' time the hereditaries could be asked to elect one of their number, that they will not have seen anyone in action. But the onus would be on them to keep in touch and to discuss among themselves whom they would like to represent them. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, is that not a far better system than relying on an election process that will have taken place seven or eight years earlier?
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, says that we are all painting fanciful scenarios. But none is more fanciful than the one he himself paints. The noble Lord said that the Labour Party had only 18 hereditary Peers, and asked about the future. At that stage, the Labour Party may well have attracted the support of more hereditary Peers, who are well represented on the Benches opposite. There is no reason why, in the future, hereditary Peers may wish to take the Labour Whip outside this House so that when one of the
906
representative Peers dies they can stand as a replacement. It shows little faith on the part of the Labour Party if it does not believe that anyone will wish to support it in the future.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposes an even more intriguing prospect. He says that it may well be that we should allow the representative hereditary Peers to be the electorate to choose Peers outside this House. That is a perfectly viable alternative, although not one to which I subscribe.
The point is that we have an opportunity to prevent uncertainty. Surely one of the tasks for Parliament is to make sure that we have got rid of uncertainty. This is a valuable opportunity, a valuable method of reducing uncertainty. That is why when we return at Report stage, having considered the reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in more detail, we shall seek the opinion of the House and seek to provide for violations in the future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No 35:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate") and insert ("Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords, whose decision")
The noble Lord said: This is a humble amendment, even more humble than the last one. What we are trying to do here is to provide, on page 1, line 19, that it is the Clerk of the Parliaments who issues a certificate which shall be conclusive as to who is to be elected. I have no problem whatever with the Clerk of the Parliaments. but I wonder whether it is right that the House should put him in the position of deciding who should and who should not be elected to the House.
I propose that it should be the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House that makes the decision and the decision is conclusive. It is what happens at the moment with disputed hereditary peerages. All hereditary peerages go through the Committee for Privileges, therefore I hope that this is a nice cleaning up amendment which the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept, without my having to come back at a later stage. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not convinced and I rather think the Standing Orders as at present drawn have got it right. I am not convinced that the Committee for Privileges is the right body to consider the mechanics, the nuts and bolts of the operation of Clause 2 and the Standing Order.
The committee deals and will continue to deal with the question of whether someone is a. hereditary Peer at all. That is a proper function for the Committee for Privileges. These proposals will have no effect whatever on the traditional jurisdiction of the Committee for Privileges.
Paragraph 6 of the draft Standing Order provides that the Clerk of the Parliaments may refer to the Committee for Privileges any perceived or alleged malpractice in the electoral process. That seems to me to get the

907
balance right between the two committees. I do not begin to be convinced that the minutiae of the routine electoral procedures should be a matter for this most senior of our committees, the Committee for Privileges.
It is necessary, in the interests of efficiency, to work out what is the proper role for the Procedure Committee and what is the proper role for the Committee for Privileges. It is perfectly sensible to put mechanical matters, nuts and bolts matters, validation matters in the hands of the Clerk of the Parliaments and provide that the certificate of the Clerk shall be conclusive. He will be responsible for the electoral arrangements, but he can refer any question of propriety to the Committee for Privileges. There is therefore already a role for the Committee for Privileges in the process when issues arise which are related, akin to its present functions.
But Clause 2(5) has three purposes which seem to me to be perfectly sensible. First, it allows the Clerk to administer the elections and, as the returning officer, to certify who has been elected. I cannot see what on earth that has to do with the Committee for Privileges.
Secondly, it gives a means by which an excepted Peer can prove that he is excepted. That is a procedural matter, it is a matter for the Clerk. Thirdly, it prevents any court or the House from questioning whether an excepted Peer has been excepted. It provides a means to deal largely with routine matters which are not suited for the Committee for Privileges, but the Committee for Privileges is brought in when it is right that it should be troubled. As at present advised, I believe that the Standing Orders have got the balance right. It cannot be right that everything should be given to the Committee for Privileges in an area that is utterly inappropriate for a committee of that seniority. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will consider what I have said and, in the light of it, decide not to press his amendment either now or later.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: All I seek to ask the noble and learned Lord is whether, if a Peer disagrees with a decision of the Clerk of the Parliaments, he or she can take it to the Committee for Privileges. Is that precluded by virtue of subsection (5), which provides that the decision of the Clerk of the Parliaments is conclusive? Is there a role for the Committee for Privileges to take a view or is the decision of the Clerk of the Parliaments final, in which case it puts him in a slightly awkward position? If he believes that there is some doubt but decides not to send it to the Committee for Privileges that gives no right of appeal to a Peer who feels hard done by. If the noble and learned Lord does not have an answer to that question now, perhaps he will give it consideration before we return to the matter at Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly give it further thought. It is not contemplated that there should be a right of appeal from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Committee for Privileges but that there should be a reference by him to that committee where it appears to him that there is an allegation or suspicion of
908
malpractice or something of that kind. But it is intended that purely administrative matters should be left with the Clerk of the Parliaments for the last word without any right of appeal. If it is suggested that for some reason the Clerk of the Parliaments cannot be relied upon in this area and therefore there should be an appeal to the committee—which would have to be defined in some way; otherwise the Committee for Privileges would just constitute a pure rehearing—we would be willing to give thought to it. However, as at present advised, we believe that the balance in the Standing Orders is about right. If a credible proposal is made falling short of a complete rehearing in all cases by the Committee for Privileges, we shall give thought to it.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall study that response carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is always daunting to address your Lordships' House, especially late at night, but it is even more frightening when one proposes that a clause which the House has approved by 351 votes to 32 a fortnight ago should not stand part of the Bill. Yet it seems to me that the so-called Weatherill amendment, or Clause 2 of the Bill as it now is, has so many defects that an attempt must be made to remove it and replace it with something very much better at Report stage. After all, although the vote was decisive it was not a very big vote for an issue of such constitutional importance. Some 775 Peers either abstained or did not attend the House that day.
Also, the clause has been recommitted for a whole day's debate in Committee today and so presumably can be amended, even radically. The trouble is that, as we have heard, the deal which gave birth to the Weatherill amendment was a compromise. Compromises by their nature have a habit of not suiting everyone, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has reminded us. But a compromise becomes a bad compromise when it does not suit anyone; and it becomes a very bad compromise when it is actively disliked by everyone, which is what the new Clause 2 manages to achieve. Worse still, and not surprisingly, the new clause does not set up the best possible interim House, which is surely what the national interest requires us to attempt to do.
Part of the problem lies in the provenance of the deal itself. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed today, the Weatherill amendment, now Clause 2, is the result of a private deal struck with the Government and my noble friend Lord Cranborne when he was our Opposition leader in your Lordships' House and with the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and two eminent Cross-Bench Peers in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon.
The Cross Benches were not party to the deal before it was struck. Nor was the Conservation Opposition, to judge by the reaction to it of my right honourable friend

909
the Leader of the Opposition. Nor were the Liberal Democrats, as they have told us today. But of course they would not have agreed to it anyway.
I should go no further without paying tribute to the noble Lords who reached the deal with the Government and to the Government themselves. They were all undoubtedly acting in good faith to achieve what they saw as being in the best interests of your Lordships' House and of the nation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Cranborne even put his job on the line and lost it because he could not get the agreement of our Front Bench in the Commons to the proposed deal and because he went ahead and made it anyway.
But with hindsight and the benefit of our Committee proceedings, I have to submit that the resultant clause is fundamentally flawed and that it should be replaced. One has only to recall the atmosphere in your Lordships' House after Question Time last Tuesday, when the usual channels had clearly broken down, to see that that is so.
So why did so many of your Lordships agree to the amendment? The Government agreed it and voted for it, thus compromising their manifesto, because they believed that it would ensure that all their business would go through reasonably smoothly and that your Lordships' House would not use its undoubted power to frustrate the Government's legislative programme. Indeed, the Government have said that if their expectations are not met in this regard they will knock out the clause in the Commons. So that is why the Government voted for the Weatherill amendment.
The Conservatives voted for it, so far as I can understand, because they believed that 92 hereditary Peers in the interim Chamber are better than none, because it therefore makes a very bad Bill somewhat better, and because it was the only show in town.
The Liberals largely abstained in the vote on the Weatherill amendment, although they dislike it so much that one would have thought that they should have voted against it. Perhaps they shared the Government's hopes that it would have ensured a reasonably comfortable interim House.
So much for the unhappy provenance of Clause 2 of the Bill—née, Weatherill. But it has some serious technical defects as well. For instance, as we have discussed today, it gives 42 of the 75 hereditary Peers who are to be elected by their fellow party hereditaries to the Conservatives. Only 28 go to the Cross Benches, three to the Liberals, and just two to Labour. This also means that the Government will have to create a large number of new Peers if they wish to achieve parity with the Conservatives, perhaps as many as 60. I mention this as a defect because one is aware that the attendance and voting record of those Peers appointed by the Government since the election is not perhaps quite what they had hoped it would be. It is not easy to find large numbers of good working Peers at short notice. The Conservatives will also presumably score a good proportion of the 15 hereditary Peers who are to be elected by the whole House as deputy speakers.
910
Clause 2, if enacted, will give us a House of only 150 Cross Bench or independent Peers, regarded by many as perhaps the most valuable aspect of your Lordships' House, but with at least 212 Conservative Peers, 159 Labour and only 47 Liberals, plus the 15 for the Woolsack, and of course the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. So Weatherill does little to address the Conservative preponderance in your Lordships' House which is just about the only thing that most people agree is really wrong with the present composition.
Clause 2 has other defects, all of which I suggest could be remedied with a different amendment. For instance, the new clause is not designed to last more than five years, as we have just considered under Amendment No. 32. That raises the longer term problem of by-elections which the clause does not address. Further, and more importantly, a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be removed completely, not even allowed to speak any more, whereas a large number of less than excellent appointed Peers will stay on with full powers. So, on that basis alone, the proposed interim House cannot really be the best interim House, which is what the national interest requires.
There is another very important fact which Clause 2 fails to address and which could easily be met in a well thought-out replacement. This is that the power to legislate lies entirely in the power to vote. It is, I submit, the hereditary Peers' power to legislate which the Government and others find so wrong. So it is their power to vote that is the problem. It is not their ability to contribute to your Lordships' debates, which many of them do with such wisdom and knowledge every day we sit.
This is not the time to rehearse the details of any replacement for Clause 2 of the Bill. There are a number of ideas in the air—or, rather, on the pages of Hansard— from Second Reading and our Committee stage. There is, for instance, the concept of weighted voting put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. It is a pity that so many of your Lordships have shied away from this one because the mathematics—or rather the arithmetic—appear too daunting. I submit that this is not a good enough reason to rule it out if it would give us a more fluent and competent interim House than would the present: Clause 2, as I am sure it would.
The debate on my own humble attempt at an alternative, Amendment No. 110E, can be found at cols. 43 to 59 of the Official Report of 17th May. That debate was very helpful to me at least because it forced me, to appreciate the huge difference between voting and non-voting Peers in a way I had not done before. It enabled me to simplify the amendment considerably for Report stage. Indeed, it is now very simple and I believe that it meets most of the defects to be found in Clause 2 as drafted. It also meets the principles which I submit we must respect if we really do want to achieve the best possible interim House.
Briefly, it leaves all Peers with the right to speak. It then forms four electoral colleges of all Peers for each of the three parties and the Cross Benches to elect a

911
given number of voting Peers from among their number. It thus avoids completely the problem of how many hereditary Peers should stay on because they would simply emerge from the electoral process. There might be more than 92 but there might be fewer. The pages of Hansard reveal that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal did not pay quite her usual attention to my introduction of the amendment last Monday. I mean no discourtesy when I say that. I am full of admiration for the many hours that she spends listening and contributing to your Lordships' deliberations on this Bill and on other matters. But she is, after all, human—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope that she is, anyway. I fear that her attention appears to have wandered when my turn came. However, as I now conclude, I beg her, if it is she who is to answer the question, to listen carefully to the following five propositions about the Bill and to say whether she does not agree with any of them and why. These propositions emerged in our debate last week. I did not press her on the answers then, so I feel that I should do so now.
First, does she or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if he is to reply, agree that the power to legislate in your Lordships' House rests almost entirely upon the power to vote?
Secondly, does she agree that under Clause 2 as drafted a number of excellent hereditary Peers will be entirely excluded from your Lordships' interim Chamber while a large number of less excellent appointed Peers will stay on with full powers?
Thirdly, does she agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects about the present composition of your Lordships' House is the preponderance of Conservative Members and that Clause 2 does not solve this problem?
Fourthly, does she agree that we should respect as much of the Government's election manifesto for the interim House as the Government themselves now intend to do after they have conceded the principle that 92 hereditary Peers can stay on?
Fifthly and finally, and by far the most important, does she agree that we have a clear duty to the nation to set up the best possible interim House?
If the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal agrees with any of these propositions, particularly the last one, I humbly suggest that she and the Government should work with the House to find a clause which meets them all. Clause 2, as drafted, meets none of them.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: The hour is late. I shall not rehearse again the background to the amendment which could properly be called the "Cranborne" or "Weatherill" amendment, whatever noble Lords wish. It sought, and seeks, to overcome a short-term problem which we all recognise; namely, to carry on the work of the House with regard to the contributions made by 75 hereditary Peers, particularly those who do such
912
excellent work in the Committees of your Lordships' House, and by the further hereditary Peers who sit on the Woolsack or serve as Chairmen of Committees.
As we all know, this proposition was supported a fortnight ago by a majority—said to be the largest for many years, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—of 351 to 32. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will agree to support it again tonight.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I do not want to prolong our discussion either. Whatever our previous intentions, we have no wish now to delay the further progress of the Bill. As we have been reminded, we shall have in due course a Report stage. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, among others, reminded us that there will be discussion in the Procedure Committee and then an opportunity for the House further to discuss the Standing Orders.
I would say only this to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration: one of our difficulties, which became very plain today, is knowing what the agreement between himself and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, actually comprises. This evening, on the question of by-elections, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, "If my memory is accurate". He was somewhat uncertain about what he and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had agreed. At one stage, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he was glad that the veil had been lifted a little on the agreement. It would be helpful to the Committee to know what was agreed; the matter on which there is little opportunity to improve, for the reasons we now understand: and what area is left for the scrutiny of the House and upon which the House will make its own decisions.
We take our medicine, the Weatherill medicine, under protest. However, there is still surely room, round and about that agreement, for the House to take a view of its own. Just before the dinner break this evening, I raised the question with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and asked him to consider it. I do not ask for a reply this evening, but my question was very much focused on how far there was an agreement about how elections should take place in the separate groups. All the indications I have is that there was no such agreement. Therefore, that is a legitimate area on which the House can decide.
If we know what the original agreement was and may assume that it is not a moving agreement, being made up as things go along, it will be much easier when we reach the further stages of the Bill. Every Bill is capable of improvement. I believe that round the central core of that agreement there are improvements which your Lordships' House could still make.
Lord Monson: A great many noble Lords—mainly, but not exclusively, on the Government Benches—laughed when the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asserted that a great many noble Lords had abstained in the vote on the Weatherill amendment. However, one reliable national broadsheet established that over 200 noble Lords who were present on the day abstained from

913
voting; in other words, not just the Liberals. Taken in conjunction with the 32 who voted against, that perhaps shows that 40 per cent of those noble Lords who attend relatively regularly have some doubts about Clause 2 as it stands. I believe that is worth bearing in mind.
Lord Strathclyde: This is a rotten little Bill; it has always been a rotten little Bill and remains one now. However, it has been marginally improved by the insertion of Clause 2, formerly the Weatherill amendment.
It is still not too late for the Government to get this Bill right. But in order to get it right they should withdraw it; they should wait for the Royal Commission headed by my noble friend Lord Wakeham to make its recommendations; they should wait for Parliament to review those recommendations in a joint committee of both Houses. They should then, having had a great public debate and achieved broad consensus between the parties, come forward with a properly formulated Bill to reform this House, a reform for which we have waited nearly a century. That is almost certainly the best way of achieving a proper reform of this House.
My noble friend Lord Pearson may well, in a few moments, give us an opportunity to reconsider a decision that this Committee has already made on Clause 2. I hope that that decision is not reversed. If he does call a Division, I shall support my earlier decision to support this clause.
The Lord Chancellor: I welcome what came a moment or two ago out of the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I realise that at an earlier stage in his mercifully short observations, which I shall try to emulate for brevity, he had to go through the motions.
On 11th May we agreed to make the amendment that has now become Clause 2. We agreed to it by a massive majority of 351 to 32. Prior to debating the amendment, we considered a number of other amendments which
914
suggested alternative ways of retaining the services of some hereditary Peers. Therefore, in debating Amendment No. 31 the Committee was well aware that further on in our business were a number of alternative amendments incompatible with Amendment No. 31. Among those amendments was an earlier version of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which we finally debated on 17th May. If the Committee had been likely to be attracted to the noble Lord's amendment in preference to what is now Clause 2, then it would not have voted by the massive majority of 320 in favour of Clause 2. That vote was not only a vote for the sensible amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill; it was clearly a vote against every alternative that was on offer. The Committee therefore made its decision on 11th May and it should stand by it now.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But have we been wasting our time today? Supposing the Committee had divided and agreed an amendment of any noble Lord which proposed devastating changes to the Weatherill amendment by way of increasing the number of Peers, would that have been possible? The Government may reply that they would have overturned it in the Commons. But I hope that our being here all day has not been a complete waste of time.
I must point out to the Lord Chancellor that he did not answer any one of the five questions that I posed to him or his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. I feel once again that one is being told, "Bang, bang! You are dead and we are not playing". In those circumstances, for the moment I reserve my position to come back at Report stage.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes before midnight.