Lords Sitting of 11 November 1999

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

River Danube: Clearance
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the probable consequences of NATO's decision not to provide assistance for clearing the Danube of debris as long as President Milosevic remains in power.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, there has been no decision by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation not to provide assistance for clearing the Danube while President Milosevic remains in power. Nor is there any decision in similar terms by any other organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member. The main obstacle to clearing the Danube remains President Milosevic's own policy of refusing to permit the wreckage to be removed unless the international community agrees to lift sanctions against Yugoslavia. Such demands are not acceptable to the international community.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that quite helpful Answer. Are the Government fully aware of the horrendous consequences that may flow if the debris is not removed? The ice that will form around it this winter will create natural dams which will cause extensive flooding in the region with possibly severe humanitarian disasters as a result.
Can the Minister assure us that if the European Union and others involved in NATO are not able or willing to mobilise the necessary technical and financial means to be able to solve the problem before winter arrives, they will consider the precedent set in 1956 when the United Nations, by resolution, mobilised an international salvage team to clear the Suez Canal effectively and efficiently?
Finally, does she agree that however much we may want to see the end of Mr Milosevic and his regime, maintaining the navigability of an international waterway of such importance must take precedence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that we all totally agree that preserving the Danube is a matter of real importance. There is, of course, a major distinction between the action taken in Suez in 1956 and the position with which we are now faced as regards the Danube. In 1956 the Egyptians wanted such action; President Milosevic does not. That is a significant difference. We are aware, therefore, that that operation and the circumstances relating to it were very different.
1440
We are also aware of Hungary's fear, which is widespread, about flooding due to winter ice collecting on the wreckage. For the Danube Commission to assess the risks, Yugoslavia needs to honour its obligations. The primary responsibility for clearing the wreckage lies with Mr Milosevic. By taking no steps to do so, he is in breach of his obligations under the Danube conventions. He is refusing to allow the wreckage to be cleared until sanctions are lifted. As I told your Lordships' House, that is not acceptable to the international community.
Your Lordships' House should be aware that while Milosevic remains in power, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that assistance for reconstruction in Serbia is possible. However, clearing the wreckage is not reconstruction work. The EU could consider on their merits any detailed proposals that may come forward for clearing the Danube.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that apart from possible flooding, the damage caused by the wanton blocking of the Danube has affected Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland and even Belarus. The damage, therefore, has affected a far wider area than Serbia, which it was intended to intimidate in the first place.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we accept that the potential for damage is wider. Your Lordships will be aware of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe. That pact indicates hope of support for all the regions mentioned by the noble Earl. The aid package currently in place, which will be funnelled through the stability pact, is considerable. I am sure your Lordships will be aware of the bilateral programmes we have through DFID. Six million pounds has been given to Romania, £4 million to Bulgaria and £2.5 million to Hungary. The EU support package is also considerable: 155 million euros for Romania, 105 million for Hungary and 50 million for Bulgaria. Her Majesty's Government, together with the EU, are conscious of the situation in which that region finds itself. They are looking at the total package and trying to have an holistic approach to the management of the problem.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we appreciate that the United Kingdom is not a member of the Danube commission. My information is that the commission is meeting to discuss this matter today. Can the Minister also confirm that because of the timescale it is no longer possible to clear the wreckage before this winter is over? Can she reassure us that Her Majesty's Government will co-operate in whatever efforts there may be to mount a collective effort as soon as spring arrives? That will involve three or four months' planning ahead of time to mount a multilateral effort to clear this important waterway.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the House that this matter is being addressed with a great deal of energy. Our information to date is that it should take around four months and will cost

1441
approximately £14 million. The issues are being canvassed. The noble Lord is correct in relation to the timescale. We shall know shortly whether or not Yugoslavia intends to ameliorate her attitude and allow work to commence. There are hopeful signs. But we know from Mr Milosevic that those signs cannot be relied upon until they are consolidated in very firm terms.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House roughly what proportion of the damage to Danube bridges was done by bombers under the operational command of the NATO council, and, on the other hand, by B2 American bombers flying from the United States which were under American national command only?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot. Indeed, with respect, it would be inappropriate for there to be such a distinction. We were allies. We took up arms together in order to defeat a regime which was systematically killing large numbers of people. We were right to do that. We were right to do it together and division at this stage is intolerable and unacceptable.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether, in view of the present situation in the Balkans, she considers that the war conducted there earlier this year was a success?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, yes. Before I sit down perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Grenfell on raising this question. He will be greatly missed for his sage counsel and his erudition.

Coalfield Areas: Regeneration
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they have given to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in its efforts to form partnerships with companies receiving investments from the miners' pension fund to assist in the regeneration of the former coalfield areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is an independent grant-giving body which provides help, support and funding for all the coalfields communities. It is a matter for the trust to form any partnerships with companies to assist in the regeneration of the former coalfield areas, including those receiving investments from the miners' pension fund. However, the Government encourage the trust to build partnerships where appropriate and we shall welcome positive responses from the private
1442
sector, including in particular those linked to the miners' pension fund, to back their coalfields to the benefit of both themselves and local people.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the nation owes the miners a great debt not only for the contribution that they made to the economy of the country in the most dangerous and difficult of jobs, but also because of the butchery of their industry by the former government? Is he aware also that in spite of the great help being given by the Government to the former coalfield areas, they are still experiencing high unemployment and physical devastation? Can my noble friend say how many companies have been approached, and what has been the response?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The position for the mining communities over the last period has been devastating and it will take some time for them to recover physically, socially and psychologically to good health. However, that era has passed and we must move into a new era based on new industries for the mining communities. There is a responsibility on the Government. We have used a number of different instruments. We have help from the European Community. The trust, which will deal with small-scale projects, approached a range of companies, including 16 in which the miners' pension fund has significant investments. A number responded positively. Of course, the trust was finally set up only in September and we hope therefore to have more news to give my noble friend shortly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I endorse the tribute paid to the miners by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. But is the Minister aware that many of the coalfields were in such remote places that there was no alternative employment? The miners' pension fund will go only a small way towards creating the alternative employment which is needed in those communities.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are not reliant on the miners' pension fund to provide alternative prosperity for those areas which have been devastated by the closure of coalmines. I am saying that we are moving into a new era and that we must attract industry of all kinds into those areas. As noble Lords will know, the vast majority of mining areas are rural areas and on top of the more general problems experienced by rural areas, they suffer also from the closure of the mining industry. It is important, therefore, to have a concerted effort from all the agencies of government to help those areas and to attract private sector investment and jobs to them.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend accepts that marked improvement in many areas is under way, but will he accept also that the brutal and rather abrupt devastation to which my noble friend Lord Dormand referred exercised an effective social corrosion which remains extremely serious? In order

1443
to encourage further support for the trust, will he publish the names of the 16 companies to which he referred and ensure that at all times the Government remain keen to promote involvement in the trust so that it can fulfil the valuable role it is designed to serve?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, I entirely agree with what has been said about the corrosive effects on the mining communities of developments during the 1980s and early 1990s. It is for the trust to decide what is put in the public arena in terms of the companies it has approached. However, I hope that we can indicate some strong support for initiatives taken by the trust. Indeed, the Government have put £50 million of pump-priming into the trust. It is now up to the trust to develop such partnerships. I believe that it is well on the way to doing so successfully.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the Question so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and the emphasis placed on the provision of alternative job opportunities in former coalfield areas, can the Minister in any way indicate the number of jobs which have so far been created in relation to the number of redundant mineworkers, and what progression in that respect can be expected in the years ahead?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot specifically identify jobs which have been created as a result of government action. However, coalfield area by coalfield area, it is clear that there is a long way to go before the number of jobs is restored to the level that existed when the coalfields were operating, when the mining industry was employing large numbers of men and there were many dependent industries. We are talking about a very substantial programme of regeneration. The specific sum of money which has gone to the coalfields through coalfields activity by the Government was £350 million last year. The European Union designation of assisted area status for the coalfields, and, in some cases, of Objective 1 and Objective 2 status, together go towards providing a basis for new employment. However, there is a long way to go.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government recognise that the accelerating pace of technological and, consequently, economic and sociological change means that industry after industry will capitulate to that change? Further, in pursuing the policies that the noble Lord has just described, will the Government seek to develop economic skills and administrative methods which will enable them to nurse successive communities through change from one means of livelihood to another—probably starting with the agricultural industry in the near future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had considerable discussion on the current problems of the agricultural industry in this House. However, in many ways the mining industry is a special case. I agree that we need these measures to ease people over change more
1444
generally. But the way in which the mining industry was closed down so brutally, with a contempt for the mining communities demonstrated by the previous administration, means that we have been left with a terrible problem in those areas. We want to put that behind us. I have no nostalgia for the mining industry; indeed, I have seen too many miners grow old before their time. We do not want to go backwards: we want to go forwards in those communities, but we must recognise that the previous administration's activities in the 1980s greatly aggravated the problem.

North Korea and Nuclear Weapons
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the United Nations' and United States Government's efforts to bring North Korea within the system of international treaties so as to control weapons of mass destruction.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, North Korea acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1985 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1987. It has not signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention. We and our allies use every opportunity to urge it to do so. The United Kingdom also supports the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO), and the efforts of the United States to persuade North Korea to end its destabilising missile proliferation activities.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. She will be very well aware of the profound concern in Japan, South Korea and elsewhere about the possible destabilising effects of the long-range missile production programme of North Korea. Therefore, before the bilateral American-North Korean meetings in Berlin on 15th November, can the noble Baroness confirm that the EU will continue to finance the KEDO operation in view of the extreme importance of ensuring that plutonium production is not resumed in North Korea? Further, can the Minister say whether she and the Government fully support the new engagement policy of South Korea, which seems to indicate some hope of reducing the very dangerous tensions in the region?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to be able to say yes to both those questions from he noble Baroness, Lady Williams. We and our allies are doing all we can to persuade North Korea to renounce weapons of mass destruction and become law-abiding members of the international community. As the noble Baroness will know, the development and testing by North Korea of long-range missiles, which could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction, is also a matter of international concern. There are no international treaties to prevent such activities, but we

1445
applaud efforts by the US to persuade North Korea to exercise restraint and, in particular, welcome the agreement reached in September for North Korea to freeze its missile tests while talks with the US continue. We most warmly welcome the fact that South Korea is coming to the table at this crucial time.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said about the fact that North Korea already possesses weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them over long distances, can she tell us what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the provision of defence against these missiles to protect both ourselves and our allies in the event that all these arms control and non-proliferation agreements come to nothing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not taken the view that that would be an appropriate way forward. Nuclear disarmament is very much key to this Government's policy. We are pursuing with vigour general disarmament and trying to encourage all our allies to engage with us in that regard.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that at the beginning of the Korean War this country introduced prescription charges in the free National Health Service of its day—which currently raise some £400 million for the service—and the fact that this country now spends £1,000 million a year on nuclear weapons, can my noble friend the Minister suggest to her colleagues that, when North Korea signs up to these treaties, the UK Government might take the opportunity to cut our nuclear arsenals in half and eliminate prescription charges in the National Health Service?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I believe I told the House on a previous occasion, Her Majesty's Government have already reduced this country's nuclear capacity. We have also become a leader in terms of transparency. I am afraid that little reliance can be placed upon the Koreans signing any treaty; indeed, we know that they have reneged on virtually all of them in the past. So we have no comfort in that quarter.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House to which countries North Korea has exported long-range missile technology in the past few years? Can she also tell us to which countries North Korea has exported nuclear weapons technology?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the information in that regard is something upon which I think it would be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Viscount.

Taxation
3.27 p.m.
Earl Cathcart Earl Cathcart asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much the burden of taxation has increased in the United Kingdom since May 1997.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a result of the last Budget, the tax to GDP ratio is lower this year than last year. The tax ratio in the two following years will also be lower than last year. Under the previous government's plan these rates would have been higher than the latest projections in this year and both of the next two years.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given the fact that before the last election the Prime Minister vowed that he had,
"no plans to increase tax at all",
and went on to say:
"This is my covenant to the British people. Judge me upon it. The buck stops with me",
can the Minister reconcile these pledges with the figures from the House of Commons Library, which show that over the life of this Parliament taxes have increased by over £40 billion, or £1,500 per taxpayer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister said that he would not increase taxes. He did not say that there would be no increases or decreases. He did not say that there would be no changes in taxes. There have been substantial reductions in taxes which have benefited the ordinary people of this country. We have never accepted the figures produced by the House of Commons Library, as the Chancellor made clear at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is it not a slightly sterile debate to concentrate on which proportion of the increased tax burden has been caused by the policies of the previous government and which proportion has been caused by those of the present Government, especially as so much depends on the growth rate of the economy? Is not the real question, given the strong state of the Government's finances, and even with the greatest respect to the demands of the Lady Prudence, whether we should give priority to tax cuts, as the Conservatives want, or to more spending on schools and health, as the Liberal Democrats want? Does the Minister agree that the priority this time should be given to the better provision of public services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the grain of truth behind what the noble Lord says is that the tax to GDP ratio is a percentage which is the difference between two very large figures. The tax figure is, of course, under the control of government; the GDP ratio is less directly under the control of government, although this Government have been outstandingly successful in achieving growth at a time when the Opposition said only a year ago that we were on the brink of an economic abyss. Under those

1447
circumstances I think that the achievement of sustainable growth is the correct objective and decisions on both tax and expenditure follow from that.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a categoric assurance was given at the previous general election that taxes would not be increased? While the Minister will not accept the House of Commons Library figures, has he looked at the international figures which confirm the House of Commons Library research? Is it not high time, in view of the promise given, which has been sadly broken, that the Government should admit that they misled the general public and should apologise?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume from what the noble Lord says that he refers to the OECD report which was published last month. I have to tell him that that report was based on tax levels in 1997, for four months of which his own party was in power, and on preliminary estimates only for 1998. This is certainly not up-to-date information.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the Deputy Chief Whip's earlier answer, is he suggesting that the House of Commons Library gave incorrect information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could give a long lecture on the different ways of interpreting—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that noble Lords would not want me to do that. There are two basic ways in which it is possible to define the tax burden: one is the cash basis, which the Treasury uses; the other is the national accounts on an accruals basis. There are variations within that. What we do—which is the honourable thing—is to make it possible for both of these methods of estimation to be calculated from the pre-Budget report and from our other financial documents.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say how many, if any, tax increases that have occurred have been attributable to the previous government's tax plans? Further, can he say what was the burden of debt that we inherited? What steps have been taken to reduce that and what has been the cost of doing so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the question of the previous government's tax plans, I think that we ought to look at the forecast in the FSBR of 1996, which was the previous Conservative government's final Budget. The figures for tax as a percentage of GDP are as follows: for 1998–99 the figures are 36.6 compared with our figure of 37.4; for 1999–2000 the figure is 37.1 under the Conservatives and 37.0 for us. For 2000–20001, the figures are 37.6 for the Conservatives as opposed to 36.8 for us.
1448
I believe that that is a more useful measure than some of the more detailed figures which my noble friend would like me to give.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House whether the Government propose to compensate pension funds for the reduction of income amounting to more than £5 billion a year that they are suffering as a result of the abolition of advanced corporation tax credits? Is he also able to tell the House whether he proposes to compensate charities which, starting this year, will progressively be similarly penalised?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the announcement in July 1997 of the change to the taxation of pension funds was based on the abolition of a tax credit for tax benefits which pension funds did not receive. It was therefore a correction of an anomaly and no compensation is therefore required. The noble Viscount will know that in the pre-Budget report statement on Tuesday considerable help is to be given to charities by the Chancellor.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the figures published in the Guardian yesterday show that there is an enormous disparity between the wealth and incomes of the top 10 per cent. and the poorest in our community? Does he therefore also agree that it was a pity that the Prime Minister constrained this Government not to increase tax rates on the highest incomes in the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we have disparities in income between the richest and the poorest in this country—I certainly agree that these disparities exist—surely the right approach to the problem is the approach of this Government; namely, to seek to improve the conditions of those most in need in this country. That has been the object of our tax policy and of our social policy for the past two and a half years and we shall stick to it.

Message from the Commons
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the amendments made by your Lordships to the House of Lords Bill without amendment and they disagree to the remaining amendments, for which they assign reasons.

House of Lords Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 38 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
  2 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  (".—(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission ("the Commission") which shall make proposals to the Prime Minister for recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.
  (2) The Commission shall be an advisory non-departmental public body and shall-

  (a) be appointed in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and may seek his advice about best practice in attracting and assessing potential nominees;

  (b) operate an open and transparent nominations system for peers not belonging to, or recommended by, any political party ("the Cross Bench peers");

  (c) actively invite nominations by the general public and encourage nominations from professional associations, charities and other public bodies that it judges appropriate;

  (d) publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination;

  (e) reinforce the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all nominations to life peerages by the political parties; and

  (f) scrutinise all candidates for life peerages on the grounds of propriety in relation to political donations, as proposed in the 5th Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  (3) The Commission shall appoint its own Chairman.
  (4) It shall, at most every 6 months, and at least every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords.
  (5) The Prime Minister may not refuse to submit to Her Majesty the names of those recommended as Cross Bench peers by the Commission, and shall not seek to influence such nominations, save in exceptional circumstances, such as those endangering the security of the realm.
  (6) The Commission, in considering nominations as Cross Bench peers, shall not give any additional weight to recommendations from the Prime Minister or the Leaders of other political parties.
  (7) Following the passing of this Act the Commission shall make a report annually to Parliament on the recommendations made to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister for the conferment of life peerages, which it will declare if the following criteria are being observed, namely that-

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

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

  (c) the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of peers in the House remains the same as the proportion of the Cross Bench life peers to the total number of life peers in the House on the day before the passing of this Act; and

  (d) more than half of the total membership of the House of Lords is composed of peers who in the opinion of the Commission have experience of, and expertise in, fields other than (or in addition to) politics.

  1450
  (8) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council, of whom four shall be appointed by a special Commission of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Lord Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords.
  (9) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party, and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.").

  COMMONS REASON
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  2A Because it is not appropriate to make statutory provision for an Appointments Commission.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley 3B Lord Stanley of Alderley rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  2C Insert the following new clause-

  APPOINTMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  (". In making, or making provision in connection with, recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958 the Prime Minister shall ensure that more than half of the total membership of the House of Lords is composed of peers who have experience of, and expertise in, fields other than (or in addition to) politics.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment with the support of my noble friend Lord Caithness because we feel strongly that the Commons have not addressed the main purpose of the appointments commission as stated in our amendment which was accepted by your Lordships at Third Reading.
  This amendment goes to the heart of the controversy over the reform of your Lordships' House. While I have no objection to the Government removing the rights of the hereditary Peers—indeed they received that mandate at the general election—the Government did not receive a mandate to get rid of us without stating clearly who is to follow us. Despite repeated requests, we have been unable to get much, if any, guide from the Government, in particular as regards the Commons consideration of the amendment which is now before us.
  Our amendment guides the appointments commission as to who is to follow us in the interim Chamber which inevitably will affect the final reformed Chamber. The amendment states that over 50 per cent of Members should be persons whose main occupation and experience is non-political, commonly called in your Lordships' House specialist Peers. This criteria would apply to those sitting on Labour, Conservative and Liberal Benches, not just the Cross Benches.
  This view is widely supported throughout the country, by letters in The Times yesterday, in particular, and on page 34 of the Economist last week—a paper which, perhaps, noble Lords opposite read more widely than I because it spends most of its time criticising the farming industry. It is also a view which was widely supported by the Australian

  1451
  electorate, who voted for Her Majesty as a non-political head of state, rather than for one appointed by politicians. A t Report stage, even the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, did not object to the principle of our amendment.
  To sum up, I hope that our amendment will concentrate your Lordships' minds on the original theme of no stage one without stage two. I commend our amendment to your Lordships on those grounds. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose Amendment No. 2C in lieu thereof. —(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. Right from the beginning we have been consistent in our approach: we want to know who will succeed us.
  Since Second Reading, the Government have made a complete U-turn on their manifesto commitment by allowing 92 hereditary Peers to stay. As a point of interest, there is almost a secondary hereditary system within that system. I am honoured and. privileged to be joining the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, as the fifth members of our families to be elected by our fellow Peers. That is not quite as good as my noble friend Lord Northesk, who represents his family for the sixth time.
  The amendment before the House does not refer back to the appointments commission; we accept that the Government have rejected that sensible amendment. This amendment now places the onus on the Prime Minister. It is worth bearing in mind that a quarter of those who will comprise the future House will have been appointed by this Prime Minister. This will be a "Tony Crony" House. Sadly, it will become almost the rubber stamp of another place. Some hereditary Peers do not attend the House on a regular basis, but the proceedings of this House will suffer from the loss of the expertise of those who, unfortunately, will not be with us from today. In order to preserve our role as scrutineers of legislation from another place, it is vitally important that we preserve the widest diversity of interests within your Lordships' House.
  With regard to the usual channels, clearly the Government prefer the votes of people who will acquiesce. It is clear from last night's proceedings and debacle that the House will not be able to continue by way of agreements between the usual channels. We shall have to scrutinise much more carefully what the usual channels agree if we are to fulfil our role in the future.
  For that reason and the many other reasons that my noble friend Lord Stanley has elucidated, I support the amendment. It will enable this House to continue to do its proper job until we get on to stage two.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, it seems to me that in this substitute amendment my noble friends drift further from the principle to which the original amendment was addressed.
  Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the function of Parliament is the control of the executive. All our debates are about that. It is perfectly understandable that a party in government would expect to have parity within the revising Chamber of a Parliament. However, it is not only that matter but the control of the balance in that House of Parliament that is now at issue.
  Your Lordships have been told—as often as I was told by my son that he was giving up smoking—that the Prime Minister will give up the power of patronage of appointments to this House. My son has honoured his undertaking. I hope that the Prime Minister will do so as swiftly. I am not talking only about this Prime Minister; this legislation is not only about "a" prime minister. This House has historically restrained some of the greater enthusiasms of prime ministers of all colours, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher would readily, if sorrowfully, confirm. There may be other prime ministers of that or a different colour who may go further from the central line of political consensus in this country, whether towards fascism or towards communism.
  I speak merely to remind your Lordships that the Bill gives the privilege and power to the executive to determine the balance of political power in the second House of Parliament—the House of Parliament which has a veto on the extension of the life of the other place. I shall give your Lordships a moment to think of the implications of that, were we ever to have a prime minister too far towards the fascist or the communist end of the political spectrum. Were that power to be used to extend the life of the other place beyond its elected period, we would be within a whisker of joining all those countries in Europe which, having lost the power of changing governments by election, were eventually released from their control after very many years, either by revolution or by war. That is a Cassandra's remark, I fear.
  My noble friend has driven further from the principle of the control of the executive resting in Parliament. The control of the executive party in Parliament is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. The amendment does not go nearly far enough to be acceptable. I merely mark for your Lordships the great danger in which we stand.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, although one is exceptionally pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, thought it better to compromise than to capitulate, I, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, question the removal of the originally proposed appointments commission, the composition of which was to be eight members of the Privy Council, no matter that their title might be necessarily by succession.

  1453
  The reason given by the House of Commons for disagreeing with the original amendment is that,
  "it is not appropriate to make statutory provision for an Appointments Commission".
  Very well. But what is to prevent the proposal contained in the original amendment being pursued through secondary legislation? Surely the collective opinions of eight wise men would be better than the opinion of only one man; and it would be very much fairer to that single person.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government rejected the amendment in another place. After all, the Leader of the House told us that this would be done when it was proposed a few months ago in the summer. But that is not the beginning of the story of the appointments commission; it is quite a long way into the book. The Government promised an independent appointments commission as long ago as May 1997 and then did nothing about it. They repeated that promise in their quite dreadful White Paper on this House. Even then not a shred of action was taken. The Government made the same promise in the Labour Party's evidence to the Wakeham commission. They said, in what I believe are rather ludicrous terms which were repeated yesterday in another place by the Minister, Mr Tipping, that, "Tony Blair is the first Prime Minister to relinquish his powers of patronage". I am bound to say, when looking around this Chamber, that I do not see much evidence of that. Promises, promises: how many times must a dead horse be flogged before it rings hollow? "Trust Tony" may be an article of faith for many on the Benches opposite but it cannot be elevated into a constitutional doctrine.
  In the amendment before noble Lords, we took the Labour Party's own proposals from its own documents and have tabled a measure to put them on to the face of the Bill. The ideas in the amendment are not our ideas. They are not even the ideas of the Liberal Democrats. They are the Labour Party's ideas. But it appears that they were unacceptable to the party opposite and I believe that we are entitled to ask why.
  As we move closer and closer to the creation of a patronage-dominated House without any statutory defence against the abuse of patronage, it is high time that the country also began to ask why. Exactly what is the Prime Minister's game in respect of this House? The case put forward by the Minister in another place was greeted on all sides—quite rightly—by an enormous belly-laugh. The Minister said that your Lordships' amendments had stopped the Government setting up an appointments commission because a proposal was before Parliament.
  The fact that the Scotland Bill was before Parliament did not prevent a fortune being spent on preparing for the Scottish Parliament, nor did the Government of Wales Bill in relation to the creation of the Welsh Assembly. Even in the Bill before us, the Government have been quite happy to have elections of Weatherill Peers. Only in the case of an
  1454
  appointments commission does it seem that nothing can be done. As my noble friends have said, in particular my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, the whole argument is as spurious as it is shallow and as self-seeking as it is spurious.
  The Minister in another place also said that it would be wrong to have a statutory appointments commission because the new House might only be temporary and it might be necessary to change a statutory system if a reformed House were ever introduced. Did the Minister in another place not realise that a new reform of this House would require a new statute in any case? It would be just as easy to amend an appointments commission as it would be to amend the powers or composition of this House—and perhaps even a good deal easier. The argument sounds rather like, "Even though it is raining heavily I won't put on a raincoat because I might need a T-shirt next summer". The argument is an insult to the intelligence of Parliament and, I believe, to the people of this country.
  I do not pretend that there would be any point in pressing this issue today. The Government have spent two-and-a-half years promising an appointments commission and then doing nothing. They will not change their mind today of all days. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment, excellent though it is in spirit and much though I agree with the intention behind it. I do not believe that the amendment is practical and I do not think that it would be right to enshrine this particular proposal in legislation.
  I prefer the last vote in the old House to have been the smashing victory over the Government on the matter of the penalising of disabled people who have saved. The House was right on that matter. The Government refused to listen then and they will not listen to my noble friend's arguments this afternoon. I think that we should let the Government rest in embarrassment and shame on this matter.
  However, when the noble Baroness comes to reply, I hope that she will be able to answer one or two questions. First, when will the appointments commission be created? Will there be a Statement in this House next week? Will the Millennium Honours—about which we have heard so much in recent months—be covered and, if not, why not? If the answers to those questions are not forthcoming when this House meets again, we should seek other ways to make the Government stand by their promise.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall be delighted to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and indeed to the new amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sought to range much more broadly than the amendment before us and to revive the discussions held at every stage of the Bill about the position of the appointments commission. In regard to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I would say simply that I would be very happy to debate those with him in the new House when it becomes relevant—as it will—to the transition.

  1455
  However, on the particular point that he made today—it is one that he has made many times before—with regard to the fact that what he has proposed and that what was in the amendment when it went to another place is exactly the same proposal as that in the Government's White Paper, I could identify five substantive ways in which the amendment is completely different from the Government's White Paper proposals. If I were not aware that the House would like to press on, I would stretch the patience of noble Lords by repeating them. However, they are substantial differences and they are the reason why, although there was a proposal that that amendment be included in the legislation as it stood, it would be impossible to set up an appointments commission. However, to suggest that no preparation has been carried out would be equally false.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was kind enough to say in his opening remarks that of course he did not dispute the intentions of the Government (as they depended on the Labour Party's manifesto in the 1997 election; the Government's ability to carry them out being enshrined therein) to take these steps on the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit in this House. However, the second sentence of that particular commitment stated that this would be a stand-alone reform, not dependent on future reform. I think he would therefore agree—I know that the noble Lord has studied the matter very carefully—that that is consistent with the position we have taken.
  This is the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has invited the Government to address the specific point in his amendment. On Report, he introduced an amendment which he said at the time formed part of a wider proposal on the appointments commission. He raised it for the second time at Third Reading when he tabled a less prescriptive form of requirement that the appointments commission should report on whether the criteria he was suggesting had been met. In this variation the noble Lord has suggested that the Prime Minister should ensure that at least half the Members of this House have experience outside Parliament. The noble Lord will know, because he has been a most attentive participant in our debates on this subject, that throughout the proceedings the Government have said that they intend, for example, that the Cross-Bench element in your Lordships' House, which to a great extent represents a different point of view and a different form of experience, should continue to be substantially represented. He will know that that is our general intention. However, on the specific way of achieving that, the amendment before us suggests that more rather than less authority and power to intervene in the nominations of other parties should be given to the Prime Minister. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and I apologise for interrupting her. If I correctly understood her remarks, there was no indication given in the way the noble Baroness addressed the question of the
  1456
  appointments commission about when we can expect the Government to bring forward proposals. Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she favour the House with some indication of whether she would be prepared to give an undertaking to bring forward proposals for an appointments commission in the next Session of Parliament?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a commitment I am certainly prepared to give. I had feared that the noble Viscount was going to suggest that it should be done in the next week, which might have been a little premature. That would suggest that we were able to take on board the detailed work that has genuinely been suspended because of the inaccurate amendment included in the Bill when it went to another place.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is so and that is the advice that we have been given by the constitutional authorities whom I, am least, am not about to challenge.
  I shall return to the points made in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, insisting that the Prime Minister should ensure that the criteria the noble Lord wishes to see should be introduced on a statutory basis so as to obtain such a cross-section of interests in this House. In those circumstances, the Prime Minister's hand might be more constrained than it is at the moment. He would not necessarily be able, for example, to forward recommendations from other party leaders to the Queen because his suggested criteria might already have been fulfilled and the balance of interests sought by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, might already have been achieved. Indeed, the easiest way for the Prime Minister to ensure that the criteria were met would be to take the whole responsibility for nominations into his own hands.
  We also return to the slightly subjective point which we discussed on the noble Lord's previous amendments about how these people would be determined in terms of their external interests. The noble Lord earlier dismissed our concern about that point by saying that he could tell within a few minutes of meeting someone whether or not he or she knew anything about agriculture. With all due respect to the noble Lord's expertise in that industry, I think that those subjective criteria, on the basis perhaps of "I know one when I see one", would not be sufficient to enshrine this proposal in legislation.
  We have discussed very widely and deeply on many previous occasions the extent of the appointments commission. The amendment requires the Prime Minister to exercise a subjective judgment about the overall balance and composition of the House of Lords which I would suggest is inappropriate for an amendment. We have given the commitments, which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks to challenge yet again, about the Government's overall ambitions as regards maintaining the wide interests which the

  1457
  House presently represents. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that this is not the moment to pursue the matter on a statutory basis and urge him to withdraw the Motion.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. I noticed that the one time she had a smile on her face was when my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggested that we did not support the amendment. If there were to be, as I understand that there may be, some additional life Peers created in the New Year's Honours List in January—it is now November—would those be as a result of appointment by the Prime Minister or the appointments commission?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that would be venturing into the realms of the Prime Minister's arrangements, which it is not for me to do.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that my peerage dates from Walpole, Pitt and now Mr Blair, for which I thank him very much indeed? We elected Peers, an experience which the noble Baroness has not undergone—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we should remind ourselves that the rules on the consideration of Commons amendments are the same as for Report and Third Reading. The only noble Lord who should speak after the Minister is the mover of the amendment unless there are short questions of fact.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House and I do not intend to press this Motion. I do not intend either to answer many of the noble Baroness's questions, particularly those about the appointments commission, because we have done it all before.
  I wish to make two points. One is in reply to my noble friend Lord Elton and indeed to the noble Baroness. I would like to have gone much, much further. I liked the "sunrise" or "sunset" amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, but I do think that this is the wrong time to do that. All that I felt was proper at this time was a fairly minor amendment, which I hope your Lordships will accept it is.
  As far as concerns the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, I am sure that it would be very hard indeed to make into Lobby fodder the type of Peers that I am suggesting should be appointed. They will have better things to do than that and they will have strong views on their subject.
  Some noble Lords will have said that we are wasting your Lordships' time. I totally disagree. I was anxious that the final words on the demise of your Lordships' House should not be a history lesson of what good or indeed evil your Lordships have done since Magna Carta but on the future of your Lordships' House. This Motion draws your Lordships and, it is to be
  1458
  hoped, those outside your Lordships' House into the matter of who should succeed us. I hope that is kept firmly in the minds of the Government and everyone else. Therefore, with some regret, I must ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have studied the debates on this matter in another place. It is a simple amendment and it would have been so easy for the Government to accept it. I am amazed that they did not. Yet the Government made another meal of it. I just wonder whether the noble Baroness will consider further in due course the arguments which the Government put forward yesterday. Is there any chance that in the same offer as she made to my noble friend Lord Ferrers she will consider whether this would be an appropriate subject to return to in the new Session?
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, before the noble Baroness speaks, perhaps I may make one specific point—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, there is some discussion going on to which I am not privy. When one of your Lordships is on his feet, it is not for the occupant of the Woolsack to intervene.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe the position is that the noble Lord on the Woolsack should put the Question.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful for that very proper intervention from Her Majesty's Government's Front Bench. The Question is that this House do not insist on their—
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that a noble Lord was trying to make an observation and it would be appropriate if he were to be allowed to make the observation as opposed to being shut up by the Front Bench opposite.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not see any other noble Lord on his feet
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this new amendment as a postscript to Clause 2, especially having read the

  1459
  reason given by Her Majesty's Government for disagreeing to our Amendment No. 4; that was:
  "Because it is unnecessary to protect further the position of the Septennial Act 1715".
  I shall not need the microphones because—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene again but I do think there is some confusion. I agree that the procedure is a little complex. One has to have a GCSE in double negatives to understand the procedure. But believe—and I would seek the support of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on this point—that we are on the Question that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, and not the later amendments or any new amendments.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist—
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps I may—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, for the sake of guidance to the House, I should perhaps indicate, because I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding, that I put the Question for the first time before the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rose. Indeed, I paused before he did so in order to see whether it was appropriate for me to collect the voices. I think that that guidance might be appropriate.
  The Question is, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, there seems to be an almost total misunderstanding of what is going on. We have debated the first group, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, relating to his proposed amendment, which he withdrew. The House can now only formally accept the Motion on Lords Amendment No. 2. There is no procedure on which the House can divide against it. I see Members all round the House nodding. We must now formally accept the Motion, which relates to Lords Amendment No. 2. We then move on to that which relates to Lords Amendment No. 4.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Government Chief Whip that the occupant of the Woolsack has put the Question, and I think that the Question should indeed be put.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is for the occupant of the Woolsack to collect the voices after
  1460
  putting the Question. However, in view of what has happened, for the convenience of your Lordships, I shall put the Question again.
  The Question is, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. The Contents have it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  4After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  VOTING RIGHTS OF LIFE PEERS; EXTENSION OF DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
  (". In respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a Bill providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond five years, no peer appointed to the House of Lords under the Life Peerages Act 1958 during the course of that Parliament shall be entitled to vote on such proceedings.").

  COMMONS REASON
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  4A Because it is unnecessary to protect further the position of the Septennial Act 1715.
  The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  13 In the Title, line 4, after ("Commons;") insert ("to establish an Appointments Commission with functions in relation to the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958;").

  COMMONS REASON
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  13A Because it is not appropriate to make statutory provision for an Appointments Commission.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 13A.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that—
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Motion having been moved, I must put the Question. The noble Earl will forgive me, I am sure.

  1461
  The Question is, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 13A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 13A.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise to speak because of the confusion that has just arisen. As a Cross-Bencher, I am fed up with Front Bench on either side steam-rollering matters. My noble friend on the Cross Benches attempted to speak to Lords Amendment No. 4. Mistakenly, he spoke to Lords Amendment No. 2. The real challenge then came, and when the Motion on Lords Amendment No. 4 was moved, we were steam-rollered. Was there a chance to leap up and speak? No. I am afraid the problem is that the Government are trying to railroad matters through and are not observing the proper procedures.
  Fortunately, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke up on our behalf; whether noble Lords agree with his remarks is another matter. If we are to move into a new era, with a new Chamber and new House, we might at least have some independence of thought and mind and the Government should not railroad matters through—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords—
  The Earl of Erroll: You guillotined me last time so I do not dare let you get up.
  Noble Lords: Order! Order!
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House guillotined me on Third Reading. It has normally been a courtesy in this House, if a Peer had managed to get a sentence out, to stand up and say, "Perhaps we should allow the noble Lord to finish". Instead, the Question was called. So I have now learnt the danger—since the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, advised me that I should not give way in future. We seem to have new customs coming into the House. I shall now shut up and sit down. I shall merely say: for goodness' sake, let us not forget that we were a courteous House. We used to listen to people. Five minutes now is not going to change history.
  On the previous Motion, I should have said that the only reason the Commons had to fear that amendment was the possible intention at the back of someone's mind that they might want to prolong the life of Parliament. Otherwise, why did they fear the proposal? There are many other things like that which should be said in our last moments before the only independent voice disappears. With that, I shall sit down.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I apologise to the whole House for a slight misunderstanding—
  Noble Lords: Order.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I want to speak as well. This is not the first that this has happened.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think I am entitled to reply. The two are not alternatives.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: They are.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am entitled to observe that when I moved the previous Motion, I sat down to await any contributions which might or might not have come. I did nothing discourteous to any Member of this House. There was quite a substantial pause. The Question was then put and assented to. There was no question of anyone being shut out at that stage.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Question was put and, I repeat, assented to. I think I am entitled, as always, to look for the courteous support of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He saw me waiting; no one intervened; and the Question was put and determined.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must bear some of the responsibility for the confusion that has arisen. By making the few brief remarks that I had intended to make to the Motion on Lords Amendment No 4, to the Motion on Lords Amendment No. 2, I think that I inadvertently misled the House.
  However, having heard the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I wonder whether it is now in order, in regard to this amendment, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, or whether that is out of order. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has been trying to enter the debate for a large part of the afternoon. This is the last time that he will be present in this House as he is one of the excluded Peers. I look to the Government Front Bench to make a decision which I believe will be a fair one and will receive the support of the House.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a very reasonable approach. I think the sense is that your Lordships want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I should like to thank those on the Government Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

  1463
  I am wholeheartedly in favour of the amendment as a postscript to Clause 2, especially having read the reason given by Her Majesty's Government for disagreeing to our Amendment No. 4; namely,
  "Because it is unnecessary to protect further the position of the Septennial Act 1715".
  The period specified in that Act was shortened to five years in Section '7 of the 1911 Parliament Act. But just as the Triennial Parliament Act 1693 was altered and changed in 1715, and that 18th century Act altered in 1911, what is to prevent this Government, or any ensuing elected government, altering Section 7 of the Parliament Act 1911? Control of the appointments of Peers to this Chamber, and a government with a majority of 50 or 100 will have the power to change the life of a Parliament from five to seven years, from five to 10 years, or to whenever.
  It is our right and our responsibility to protect the electorate. We should insist on the original Amendment No. 4 which another place considered negatively last night, as well as the new amendment proposed to follow Clause 2. I support the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord rises, we have bowled along rather briskly and he will gratifyingly find that we shot over Amendment No. 4 fairly quickly. We now come to Amendment No. 13 which is in the Long Title.
  I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord why the Government have not chosen to insert the matter of the appointments commission on which they have given an undertaking. Why do they not wish to find it in the Bill? Why is it so bad, if the proposed amendment, which has gone, was put down in order to prevent some government of a future date—not the present one—importing a lot of life Peers in order to prolong the life of Parliament? As I understand it, the idea was that that should not happen. I cannot understand why the Government have refused it.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a little confusion in the noble Earl's mind. At the moment, so far as I am aware, we are dealing with Amendment No. 4.
  Several noble Lords: No!
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I say this with trepidation, but I think there is confusion in the noble and learned Lord's mind. I believe we are dealing with Amendment No. 13.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Earl is right—-and he invariably is, mast of the time—I always agree with him. He is living testimony to that; in fact, we are having lunch together next week.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the week after. The noble and learned Lord has misdirected his mind again. He will have to look not only at his brief but also at his diary.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that I need leave to make a personal statement of apology for
  1464
  misleading the House. As to the questions which the noble Earl put on the appointments commission, I believe that the Leader of the House dealt with the matter as fully as the House could reasonably expect and certainly to an extent where there is nothing that I could usefully add.
  A noble Lord: My Lords, I thought we were discussing Amendment No. 4.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I know that your Lordships will not take this as an observation from the Woolsack, but perhaps it is rather appropriate that this happens to be Amendment No. 13.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Adjournment
  4.23 p.m.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, hoping not to extend the confusion, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. In moving the adjournment I want to pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to ensure the efficient running of the House and, very importantly—and I say this with great emphasis in view of the past half-hour's proceedings—the orderly completion of business; not a small feat in these last crowded days and hours.
  Every year at this time we say that this has been a very busy Session. I do not believe that any noble Lord on any side of the House will challenge me when I underline that and say that this year has been no exception. A total of 35 Bills supported by the Government have reached Royal Assent and although we have avoided all-night sittings, we have often sat very late. I believe I can say that we have all spent many pleasant evenings becoming better acquainted with one another, which has been to our mutual satisfaction and certainly to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and his Refreshment Committee. I do not see him in his place, but I know that he would agree.
  Throughout, we have been exceptionally well served by the loyal and dedicated staff of the House. They help us to make our time in the building both comfortable and worth while. I am sure all noble Lords here today will wish to join me in congratulating them on both their professional dedication and diligence and their friendly support during this long Session.
  This is the last time the House of Lords will sit in its present form. In a few minutes Royal Assent will be given to the House of Lords Bill to turn it into the House of Lords Act. A reform that has been discussed for more than 100 years will finally take effect. In the last year of the 20th century, this can only be right. The step-by-step approach towards this achievement was the proper one. By undertaking reform in that way, we succeeded where others before us have failed. Full consideration of the next steps of reform will now be possible once the Royal Commission, chaired by the

  1465
  noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has reported at the end of this year. I am sure that we all look forward to examining his proposals with the dispassionate, detailed appraisal that characterises the best work of your Lordships' House.
  Although many hereditary Peers will have left us, we should today look back as well as forwards and respectfully acknowledge that in this House hereditary Peers have served honourably and have held the highest offices of state. When he spoke on Second Reading, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rightly paid detailed tribute to the history of those hereditary Peers who throughout the centuries have served the nation with distinction. Some hereditary Peers who have held high office most recently will continue to be Members of your Lordships' House, either as life Peers or as elected Weatherill Peers. Their role for the next transition period continues.
  In future, of course, those hereditary Peers who are no longer Members of your Lordships' House and who want to continue a political life will have the chance to be elected to another place or be made Members of this House because of their own achievements. These are opportunities which I am sure will be widely enjoyed.
  Away from politics, as your Lordships know, individual hereditary Peers have achieved much in their chosen professions. Again, I am sure that they and their heirs will continue to do so.
  In speaking so optimistically about the future, I must repeat that the Government do not denigrate the past. We understand and appreciate the contribution of individual hereditary Peers to the Chamber and to the country over many centuries. We are simply saying that what may have been appropriate 800, or even 200, years ago is not appropriate now.
  Of course, change is always a difficult process and particularly for those most closely involved. That has been true for many hereditary Members of the House. I sincerely believe that most have the grace and the realism to accept that this change is necessary. We have seen, for the most part, moderation, dignity and authority throughout this parliamentary Session. We have been given a timely reminder of the part played by the hereditary peerage in the counsels of this nation.
  My earlier words at Third Reading, which some said were a little brusque, were to say: "Thank you and goodbye." Let me say this afternoon that that gratitude was sincere, genuinely meant and properly merited. The friendly goodbyes we offer are also simply meant. We wish you all very well.
  Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
  4.28 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a rare occasion on which I rise and wholeheartedly concur with a Motion moved by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I join her in wishing that this debate will be relatively short before the ceremony of the Prorogation.
  1466
  Noble Lords will be unsurprised to hear that I have never run a marathon. I think I never will, but this Session has been its political equivalent. It has been an enormous struggle which is now at an end. This has been one of the busiest Sessions in living memory, and yet it was this House which again sat for longer, and for more days, than our colleagues in another place.
  I too join the noble Baroness in thanking the staff of the House. They have all played their part in the way that this House expects. They have showed continuous and unfailing decency and courtesy throughout the process, which sometimes has been as uncomfortable for them as for us. In particular, I pay tribute to the Doorkeepers who have served us well. Today there was an impromptu gathering of some Members of this House in the Chamber at 11 o'clock and the Doorkeepers organised it extremely effectively. I also pay tribute to those who work in the Refreshment Department who have been gathering signatures and saying final words to Peers who have become friends over the past few years. I pay tribute to the staff of the Parliament Office and the Clerks who put up with endless inquiries about the Bill and the amendments. I also refer to the Judicial Clerk who, unusually, was dragged into the debate by virtue of the legal challenge and the proceedings before the Committee for Privileges. Those who witnessed it know that it was handled superbly.
  I said that this had been a difficult Session. It is certainly the most difficult Session that I have seen, and it is probably one of the most difficult of the century. But it is worth reflecting for a moment on the past. This House has inflicted no evil in its history and much good has been done by it. Many people, including the weak, the unheard and the politically unfashionable, have come to this House when the doors of another place have been shut to them by the prevailing majority—of all governments. One matter that has characterised this House in the time that I have served it has been its courtesy, humility and instinctive sense of what is just and what is false and what counts in the long term rather than the passing fashion of the hour. The reason for that lies not in the fabric of the building but the fibre of the people who have worked so hard and long in this place and given of themselves fully and freely in service to the nation. I salute those of all parties who are being excluded from our ranks today.
  This is not a time for recrimination but a time for resolution that we who stay will be worthy in every way of those who go, that we shall not rest in the battle to achieve genuine and lasting reform and we shall practise the virtues of modesty, courtesy and a willingness to listen as much as we talk. Then, those of us who return next Wednesday may begin to be half-worthy of the great and ancient House that is being dismembered today.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I associate these Benches with everything that has been said by the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about how well we have been looked after by all the staff during a tiring, difficult and sometimes

  1467
  very fraught year. As to the business, we have had a lot of it, and probably too much. Alas, some of the legislation has left us inadequately scrutinised. But these are matters to which we should return on another occasion. Today is very special as is recognised by both those who will be here next week and those who leave us today.
  It has been said by all of us in one way or another that this marks the end of an era. That may well be history's verdict. But the much more human consideration is that it will be the end of a way of life for many men and women—mainly men—who spend a good deal of their time in this place and serve it with a great sense of duty, as others have done before. Those of us who remain and come after must remember that. The strong feeling on these Benches—it is shared on all sides of the House—has been one of anticipated bereavement in these restless and uncomfortable days and for that reason we have found it a very difficult place in which to be.
  We are saying goodbye to friends and colleagues. We are also saying goodbye to people we know less well. I shall be saying goodbye to faces that are familiar but to which, even now, I cannot easily give a name. Nevertheless, I say goodbye. I want them to know the sense of privilege that I have had in sharing this place with them.
  The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I associate the Archbishops and. Bishops on this Bench with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House this afternoon. It is perhaps appropriate that a successor of someone who signed Magna Carta and, to his cost, knows a little about it, should be the spokesman for this particular Bench this afternoon. On behalf of this Bench, I add my thanks to all those in this House, particularly the hereditary Peers, who always treat the Bishops with courtesy and understanding. Having been here this week, I am conscious of the sense of bereavement to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred. Bishops are not unfamiliar with it, but it does not make it any easier to deal with.
  This afternoon, quite deliberately, I spoke the psalm to pray that,
  "The Lord shall preserve thy going out, and thy coming in: from this time forth for evermore".
  That was not chosen lightly. I add my own thanks to the House and say farewell to those who will not sit here in future. I thank the Officers of the House who, as always, treat us so well and support us so generously.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, this is a historic day but also a very sad one. Naturally, I am pleased that the amendment which bears my name has been agreed by both Houses of Parliament by such substantive majorities. Nevertheless, it is a sadness to say farewell to so many friends who have graced this place and who in many instances have contributed greatly to its work over the centuries. Though largely unsung, their labours over the years—indeed, the centuries—have
  1468
  upheld our democratic freedoms and contributed to the health and welfare of our country. It is right that tribute should be paid to them and to their forebears for their dedicated services. I echo the remarks of the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln in gratitude to the staff of this House, those who are often seen and those seldom seen, who serve us so well.
  I am a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House. I came here only in 1992 after 28 years in the other place, which is dominated by the clash of adverse opinions. In the words of John Stuart Mill,
  "Truth emerges from the clash of adverse opinions".
  The adverse opinions in your Lordships' House are less raucous but no less effective. The hallmark of your Lordships' House has been, and is, courtesy. I hope that we shall not lose it in the new House of Lords which inevitably will be much more political than the present one.
  The role of the Cross Benches will inevitably change in that those of us who remain, in particular the 28 hereditary Peers who will remain on our Benches, are more likely to become working Peers. We have not been so called in the past although I must pay tribute to the work that all of them have done.
  This is the last time that I shall speak in my role as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, a post that I have held now for five years. So I should like to pay tribute to and express thanks for the support and friendship of those on all our Benches, but particularly on the Cross-Benches; and especially to the hereditary Peers. They and their forebears have made a massive contribution over the years, indeed over the centuries, in defending our country's democratic freedoms, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights to the present day. The hereditary peerage has served our country faithfully and well; and it is right that we should thank them and salute them for their services.
  I understand that there is a book in the Commons which seeks to discover which of the hereditary Peers will be the first Prime Minister in the new millennium. I suspect that this is not the last post, but reveille. I suspect that the hereditary peerage will continue to serve our country well in the future as they have in the past.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I commend the Motion that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 5 p.m. to receive the Royal Commission.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 4.32 to 5 p.m.]

  Royal Commission
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.

  1469
  Then, the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Strathclyde, the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the Baroness Jay of Paddington, and the Lord Weatherill) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
  A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

  Royal Assent
  The following Acts received the Royal Assent:

  Food Standards Act,

  Greater London Authority Act,

  Welfare Reform and Pensions Act,

  Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act,

  Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

  Immigration and Asylum Act,

  House of Lords Act.

  Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech
  Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  "The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Germany last December, of His Excellency the President of Hungary last June and of His Excellency the President of the People's Republic of China in October. We recall with
  1470
  pleasure our State Visit to Korea in April. We were delighted to pay State Visits to Ghana and South Africa over the last four days.
  "My Government have taken action to build a platform of economic stability and steady growth, based on clear long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy, with openness and transparency in policy making.
  "My Government's goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. The new system of monetary policy-making ensures that interest rate decisions are taken in the best long-term interests of the economy. As a result, the UK now has a sound and credible platform of stability. Inflation is historically low and expected to remain close to target. And long-term interest rates are also at historically low levels. Employment is up by over half a million since the election, with more people in work in Britain today than ever before.
  "To ensure high levels of employment, my Government are extending the New Deal, to help more young people and the long-term unemployed. And my Government are tackling the poverty and unemployment traps. To make work pay and encourage job creation, they have introduced the national minimum wage and the new 10p starting rate of tax, cut the basic rate of income tax from next April, and reformed national insurance. And the Working Families' Tax Credit, introduced in October, is helping to make work pay for low-paid working families.
  "My Government are continually looking at ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. They have set tough targets for outputs from every department in public service agreements.
  "My Government's legislation to raise standards for all children is now coming into effect. There has been a widespread reduction in the number of hildren in infant classes of over 30 and there is extensive support for the literacy and numeracy strategies. My Government published the Teachers Green Paper—the most radical reform of the teaching profession in a generation—and have since announced progress towards a new pay structure for teachers.
  "Parliament has passed for the first time legislation for the creation of a Disability Rights Commission, which will help create a positive climate for people with disabilities in their lives and work.
  "My Government have put in place the framework for a modern National Health Service. An Act has been passed to replace the NHS internal market with decentralised arrangements based on partnership, quality and efficiency. Waiting lists have been reduced by 200,000 since their high point in April 1998, and by 69,000 since March 1997.
  "An Act has been passed to establish a Food Standards Agency to protect public health and the interests of consumers in relation to food.
  "Legislation has been enacted to support minimum standards at work, to promote partnership and to make it easier for people to combine family responsibilities and employment.
  "An Act has been passed which takes forward my Government's programme of welfare reform, promoting work for those who are able to work and security for those who cannot.
  "My Government have begun the modernisation of local government. Legislation has been enacted to secure the delivery of high quality local services on a sound financial basis.
  "My Government have begun the process of restoring democratic, city-wide government in London. Legislation was enacted to establish the Greater London Authority, providing London with a new form of strategic governance.
  "An Act has been passed which will enable the implementation of the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, which will maintain a coherent pollution control regime for the United Kingdom.
  "Legislation has been enacted to provide a fair basis for water charging in England and Wales.
  "An Act has been passed to modernise and strengthen immigration control. It will speed up the system of immigration and asylum appeals. This Act is essential to the delivery of a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system to which my Government are committed.
  "An Act has been passed which creates a new sentencing disposal for first time defendants pleading guilty in the youth court and introduces new measures to help vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence in criminal trials.
  "Legislation has been enacted to establish a Community Legal Service and a Criminal Defence Service. They will replace existing legal aid arrangements and enable resources to be better targeted. The Act also extends the use of conditional fees, removes unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services and makes reforms to magistrates' courts and the appeals system. This will increase access to justice. Other law reform measures have been enacted.
  "As a first step in a process of reform, legislation has been enacted to remove the automatic right of hereditary peers to membership of the House of Lords.
  "The people of Scotland and Wales voted to have their own Parliament and National Assembly and it was my pleasure, with the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales to open the National Assembly for Wales on 26th May and to open the Scottish Parliament on 1st July.
  "In Northern. Ireland, my Government have continued to work to secure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They have, in co-operation with the Irish Government, established a
  1472
  review to overcome difficulties in its implementation. They have welcomed the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing.
  "Members of the House of Commons,
  "I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  "Over the last year, my Government have played a leading role in the European Union. They have continued to strengthen bilateral relations with our partners. My Government have welcomed the entry into force of new treaty provisions which strengthen the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and have welcomed the appointment of the first High Representative. In co-operation with other member states, they ensured a successful outcome to the Agenda 2000 negotiations that maintained the United Kingdom's budget abatement.
  "My Government have played a key role in preparing the European Union for the historic challenge of enlargement. They have also helped the applicant countries prepare for membership.
  "My Government welcomed the launch of the euro on 1st January. They have published an outline national changeover plan, which could be implemented should Britain decide to join. They have welcomed the appointment of a new European Commission, committed to reform.
  "My Government have maintained strong and modern defence for Britain based on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They played a leading role in the decisions taken at NATO's 50th Anniversary summit in Washington to modernise further and prepare the alliance for the challenges and opportunities it will face in the new century.
  "My Government launched an historic initiative at the Franco-British St. Malo Summit. This will make the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective and will revitalise the Atlantic Alliance.
  "My Government launched an initiative at the British-Italian London Summit to improve the effectiveness of European defence forces. My Government have continued successfully to restructure the Armed Forces to meet the demands of the modern world.
  "My Government reaffirmed their commitment to support the United Nations by signing a Memorandum of Understanding declaring United Kingdom forces potentially available for United Nations' peacekeeping operations and by announcing their intention to make an increased contribution to United Nations police operations.
  "My Government made a substantial and vital contribution to the success of the international community's diplomatic, political and military efforts to halt and reverse ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Following the end of the conflict, my

  1473
  Government have played an important role in reconstructing Kosovo and preparing it for free and fair elections.
  "My Government's political, military and financial commitment to Bosnia and Herzegovina has continued to help build peace there.—
  "My Government have supported the democratic transition in Indonesia and have played a leading role, including a military contribution, in the UN process to help bring self-determination to the people of East Timor.
  "Following the abolition of the death penalty under United Kingdom law, my Government signed and ratified the 6th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
  "My Government have published a White Paper proposing a new partnership with our Overseas Territories and offering British citizenship to their people.
  "My Government have negotiated new arrangements which re-establish links between the Falkland Islands and Argentina.
  "After extensive diplomatic effort by my Government, the Government of Libya finally agreed to hand over the two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case. We are pleased that my Government subsequently reached an agreement on the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Libya.
  "My Government supported and welcomed the transition to democratic civilian government in Nigeria.
  "My Government have played a leading role in securing international agreement to reduce further the debt burden of very poor countries. My Government have put into place a strategy to increase the proportion of the United Kingdom's bilateral development assistance going to low income countries and to increase the focus of the multilateral agencies on the reduction of poverty. An Act has been passed to convert the Commonwealth Development Corporation to a public-private partnership enabling it to make a larger contribution to development by channelling increased private sector investment into the poorest countries.
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  "I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you".
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 17th day of this instant November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the 17th day of this instant November.
  Parliament was prorogued at twenty five minutes before six o'clock.