Code of Conduct

HL Deb 24 July 2001 vol 626 cc1849-62

11.59 a.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

With one exception, the Motion is purely consequential on the resolution that your Lordships passed on 2nd July, when the House agreed to adopt a new code of conduct to take effect from 31st March next year. The Motion simply gives effect to that decision in the usual way.

The code to which we agreed requires us all to register various interests in various categories by the date that I mentioned. To allow us to comply, there needs to be a register in existence between now and then so that interests may be registered.

There may have been some misunderstanding, so I must make it plain to your Lordships that the Motion has been tabled on the advice of the Clerk of the Parliaments and drafted by the House authorities. They have advised me—and I entirely accept their advice—that the Motion is a procedural necessity consequential on our earlier decisions.

I said that there was one exception. Your Lordships will have seen that one part of the Motion is not consequential on our earlier decision. It is the amendment to paragraph 18 of the code, which inserts "in private" after "allegation". I promised your Lordships that I would bring forward an amendment to ensure that any allegations of misconduct were to be made privately. I took that—I think correctly—to be the will of the House. That is the reason for that single amendment. I made that promise and I hope to have fulfilled it by placing that matter in the Motion.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has tabled an amendment. I thank him for his invariable scruple in informing me of what lay behind his views. Perhaps I can help him and the House by setting out the thinking that I have come to. I agree that we would benefit from a review of the operation of the code once it has bedded down. I have mentioned to him that I thought that 12 months was rather a short period for a review and have suggested 18 months. If it will satisfy the noble Lord, I am happy to give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to have a full debate reviewing the operation of the code 18 months after it comes into force. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That the resolution of the House of 2nd July be amended as follows:

After paragraph 6, insert:.

"Register of Interests.

6A. There shall be established a Register of Lords' Interests referred to in this Code. The register shall be maintained under the authority of the Clerk of the Parliaments by a Registrar appointed by him.

A Member of the House must register relevant interests before 31st March 2002 and thereafter within one month of acquiring them.

The register shall be available for public inspection in accordance with arrangements made by the Registrar. The register shall be regularly updated and shall be reprinted annually. The annual publication shall include all interests registered since the previous edition and all continuing interests unless their termination has been notified to the Registrar.".

In paragraph 17, at beginning insert "The operation of the register shall be overseen by a Sub-Committee of the Committee for Privileges on Lords' Interests and the Registrar shall consult the Sub-Committee when necessary.".

In paragraph 18, in sub-paragraph (b), line 2, after "allegation" insert "in private".

Leave out paragraph 19 and insert:.

"19. Paragraph 6A shall have effect forthwith; the remainder of this Code shall have effect from 31st March 2002; and the resolution of the House of 7th November 1995 on the practice of the House in relation to Lords' interests shall cease to have effect on the same date."—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Elton

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at the end of paragraph 19 to insert "; and the Code apart from paragraph 6A shall cease to have effect on 31st March 2003."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will not have forgotten the temperature of our discussion on 2nd July. I certainly never will. On that occasion we came to a decision. It was achieved by a narrow vote and I suspect that many kicked themselves afterwards for the way in which they voted, but our rules of procedure are that we do not return to the same question in the same Session. I do not intend to do that. I have my reservations. They are known because of the dissenting report that my noble friend Lord Kingsland and I signed when the report of the committee was adopted.

However, we are committed to a course about which many of your Lordships have sincere, deep and, in my view, well founded anxieties. As we cannot re-open the issue now, we wish to be assured that there will be an opportunity to re-open it in the future.

My amendment would provide for the system that we have put in place to cease on 31st March, 12 months after it comes into force. I would have tabled a different amendment had the procedure been available to provide for the debate that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has undertaken to afford us an opportunity to hold—that is, to make our order a negative procedure order. I see the Clerk furrowing his brow to follow my reasoning. If he is having difficulty, I am sure that I have lost the rest of your Lordships entirely.

My intention is that there shall be a cast iron opportunity for a review. That can be achieved by the undertaking that the Leader of the House has offered your Lordships. That does not mean that the system will collapse if the date passes without his honouring that opportunity. We rely on his good faith and that of the Government to deliver his undertaking. I am therefore minded to seek the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment when your Lordships have had an opportunity to speak your minds and have heard the noble and learned Lord repeat his undertaking that there will be a full debate on the system in government time before 31st October 2003. In that debate, any noble Lord will be able to table an amendment to bring the system to an end. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at the end of paragraph 19 to insert "; and the Code apart from paragraph 6A shall cease to have effect on 31st March 2003."—(Lord Elton.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, I support the proposals of my noble friend Lord Elton, but I feel bound to make some other points. I welcome the amendments now proposed by the Government. They will help, but they do not overcome the problems raised by paragraph 12 of the code of conduct, about which I protested on 2nd July and have done so again at Question Time since then. It would be helpful to the House—and to the Leader of the House—if, in preparation for any future development, the inadequacy of the drafting of that paragraph was addressed. The paragraph requires us to declare "relevant financial interests", which may include: shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest; landholdings (excluding Members' homes); the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend". That last provision is the most obscure and puzzling.

The difficulty with paragraph 12 is that there is no limit, except the rather strange limit "depending on their significance", which appears in brackets on the second line. We are not told what the significance is. There is no limit to that definition. When Members are anxious about the issue, who is to decide what the significance is to be? The phrase is undefined. Requiring the declaration of the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend covers a very broad range and the provision is unenforceable. If the Leader of the House wants the code of conduct to be acceptable in all parts of the House and to be successful, he should consider what can be done about that.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. There are significant problems in the drafting of the code. I shall touch on some of the points that he raised in a moment.

On 2nd July we debated a new code of conduct and Register of Interests. The Motion was passed by the House, albeit by a very narrow majority. The code was the noble and learned Lord's first gift to the House as its leader. In authorship and advocacy, it is truly the Williams code. It might be helpful if we called it that, to differentiate it from the Griffiths code, which we have had until now.

After only three weeks, we are seeing amendments to the code. The noble and learned Lord rightly said that the Motion was to some extent consequential. But one of the main reasons that it is consequential is the glaring inadequacy of aspects of it, as pointed out at the time by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Originally, there was no requirement that complaints against Peers should be made in private, thus avoiding the unedifying spectacle of competitive allegation by press release that has so damaged the reputation of another place. When my noble friend put forward amendments to put that and, in my submission, other defects right, the noble and learned Lord advised the House to reject those amendments. He has now accepted this one. I thank him very much for doing so, and I urge the House to support the Motion in that respect.

However, if the noble and learned Lord missed that fundamental point after many months of work on the code that he recommended, is he sure that he is still happy with the rest of it? For example, as my noble friend pointed out, is he still happy with the requirement to register relevant interests of friends? After all, who are friends and how are they defined? Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he has no friends. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a friend. Therefore, will the noble Baroness. Lady Jay of Paddington, now be obliged to spell out to the House the interests of friends who contributed to the Prime Minister's blind trust, of which she was the chief trustee? Shall we hear the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Levy, carrying his black book up the staircase to the registrar's office? If not, why not? After all, they voted for this code. There appears to be no guidance anywhere as to what will constitute "friends".

In the past, the Leader of the House has claimed that all that is set out in the Griffiths code. But if he cannot see the distinction between a recommendation to declare orally a relevant interest in a specific debate and mandatorily hanging the interests of one's friends, relatives, spouses and partners on the Internet washing line in a register, I suspect that the House can.

I also understand that concerns have been raised about human rights, on which the noble and learned Lord is an expert. Therefore, I wonder whether he will be able to explain exactly how his code is compatible with the human rights of those who are not Members of the House but whose privacy will be infringed by the publication of their interests on the Internet.

We still do not know how widely drawn the definition of "relatives" will be. Will it include a stepbrother, a second cousin or a divorced wife's sister? I refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, who perhaps expressed the matter rather better than I am doing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, prides himself on his mastery of precision in language. But it is striking that the Williams code is riddled with generalities and uncertainties, and I do not believe that it does a service to this House to leave Peers in this position. It is also grotesquely unfair to the Clerks of the House to place all responsibility in relation to what is right and what is wrong on the registrar.

In the past, the noble and learned Lord has spoken of a "light touch". Therefore, perhaps I may ask him where the light touch will be applied, to whom it will be applied and on what grounds. Those questions require clear answers. Furthermore, why is there no de minimis rule in the code or the register? After all, another place has one. Under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord's predecessor and, indeed, on his own guidance, noble Lords opposite who are Ministers have had to register interests as trivial as the gift of a golf ball or a packet of tea leaves. That is all set out in the ministerial register. Is that the way that the noble and learned Lord wants all Peers in this House to behave?

I have taken a few minutes of the House's time to illustrate a few of the many difficulties that still lie in the code as voted through on 2nd July. It is right that we should review sceptically all aspects of the code before we are made to live with it. It is not the principle that is the problem; that is done, dusted and agreed. However, the small print is causing an increasing amount of confusion. It cries out for clarification and amendment if this House is not to risk division and, still worse, ridicule. Even worse, the code may risk being ignored by Members of this House.

Therefore, I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord has accepted the suggestion by my noble friend of a review. I welcome the fact that today he brought forward the first amendment to the code. However, I very much hope that it will not be the last.

I hope that we shall be able to use the next six months to make changes in order to avoid some obvious and avoidable problems, and I look forward to receiving the assurance of the noble and learned Lord in his reply.

I also do not believe that on the last day before the Summer Recess, with almost a minimum of notice, we should discuss a matter which touches every Peer. We should not bring in a new register forthwith before, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, wrinkles identified in the code are ironed out. It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord to say that "forthwith" applies only to the existence of the register and not to its operation. But can he confirm that, as from the end of this debate, any Peer who goes to the registrar will have to register the interests in the Williams code and not the Griffiths code? We were not given notice of that through the usual channels before the Motion was laid. It is only because I do not wish to be churlish or to confuse what is a crucially important issue of finding a workable register that I let that rest.

Perhaps I may repeat the advice that I gave to the noble and learned Lord last week. He risks allowing himself to appear a little too much in a hurry, a little too impatient for the detail and a little too ready to identify wisdom with his personal conviction. Today, the noble and learned Lord has made a good move in listening and acting on the matter of privacy. I hope that he will now listen and act on other worries that many Peers have. It is not sufficient merely to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton; he will need to be ready to make other amendments before next March.

12.15 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. I had not realised that my noble friend was intending to rise. Then the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip rose and I believed that he was going to tell us to hurry along.

Lord Carter

My Lords, in response to the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I was intending to remind the House of the section in the Companion which states that debate must be relevant to the Question before the House. Of course, the Question before the House is the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We should restrict our discussions to that amendment and to the words in the Motion of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is fine but, of course, the amendment seeks to amend the code. Therefore, surely one must be permitted to ask a few questions. If I am not permitted to do so, I shall not. However, were your Lordships to be kind enough to allow me to ask a few questions, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would answer them.

We are moving into a different sphere. I am a simpleton with regard to this issue. Everyone may say, "It is perfectly all right. The matter has been decided, so don't bother about it". However, the noble and learned Lord may be able to explain one point for me. If one describes one's employment as "a non-parliamentary consultant", does that mean that a solicitor, or perhaps an accountant, who retires from his firm must register the fact that he is a consultant? Or must a retired director say, "I am now a consultant"? With regard to voluntary organisations, if one is involved with the local cricket or British Legion club, must one register that fact?

As my noble friend Lord Renton said, what about the position of spouses, relatives and friends? Your Lordships may say that that has nothing to do with the amendment. However, it has much to do with the original Motion which is being discussed. What, for example, about a partner? That is a very fashionable expression. Does it refer to a wife, a friend or a spouse? Under what category does it come? As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, why must this matter be hurried? We have been without the code for a long time but have now accepted that it should be put in place. Apparently, it will come into effect as from tomorrow.

Noble Lords

No.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I make that point so that the noble and learned Lord can push me down and say what a fool I am.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the code does not come into effect from tomorrow. It comes into effect from March next year. I simply want to assist the noble Earl. I declare my interest as being a friend of his.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am deeply gratified by that. I am even more gratified that the noble and learned Lord has been able to provide me with an answer.

However, I am anxious to ask the noble and learned Lord about another matter which I do not understand. Under the noble and learned Lord's amendment to the code, under "Register of Interests", paragraph 6A would read: A Member of the House must register relevant interests before 31st March 2002". The amended paragraph 19 would read: Paragraph 6A shall have effect forthwith". Those statements appear to be contradictory. The noble and learned Lord signals to me that they are not. That is fine. I have explained to your Lordships that I am very stupid in relation to these matters and that I climb uphill very slowly. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would put me right on that issue in due course.

I turn to an important point—although all my points are important. A relevant interest involves not whether a Member's actions will be influenced by the interest but whether the public might reasonably think that that might be the case. How on earth does one judge what the public are going to think about an interest? Who is to decide whether the interest should be registered in the public interest? There is a tremendous variety in that regard. A great deal of responsibility is placed on the registrar, who will decide what is and what is not permitted. I apologise for having taken up so much time and for doing so in the wrong sequence.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the code's effect—sometimes, I feel, because no great effort has been made to understand it. I do not want to go into the issues again today because they were debated on 2nd July and because the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out that they are not being raised today.

We on these Benches welcome the proposal that the allegations must be made in private. We believe that the code is unlikely in practice to cause the difficulties envisaged by some noble Lords but we are happy to welcome the undertaking that we understand the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will give about a review in due course of the code's operation.

Lord Waddington

My Lords, it would be advisable if the code were to lapse after a period if only to provide an opportunity to redraft it in more understandable language. I raised that matter with the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House a while ago.

Paragraph 5 refers to, "Members of the House", and to "Holders of public office". I asked the noble and learned Lord for a definition of a holder of a public office but he gave me no reply. For the life of me I cannot understand how it can be said that a life Peer is a holder of a public office. I stand by that statement. If the noble and learned Lord says that we are holders of public office, I should like him to explain why; if we are not, paragraph 5 is a complete nonsense.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope that it is in order and of advantage for me to reassure the noble Lord the Chief Whip that that part of our discussion that he said was irrelevant is not irrelevant. I refer him to proposed paragraph 6A of the code, which states: A Member of the House must register relevant interests". It was in an effort to explain the significance of "relevant interests" that some of my noble friends and I felt that it was right to draw attention to the difficulty that that phrase created in relation to paragraph 12.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I begin by accepting that one deals with a Motion as it stands and point out that the proposed amendment to paragraph 17 would not meet the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and would require the serious attention of any review. The sooner that that review is held the better.

Paragraph 12 refers to the financial interests of spouses. Paragraph 17 will have to be amended in due course to give effect to the requirements of Article 8 of the convention and to deal with the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. Furthermore, when the code is operated by the registrar, the test that he will apply will be governed by that article. There is no reference in that article—I am not going into legalistic details—to public interest. The adjudication is strictly governed by the terms of that article. That matter will require detailed consideration as soon as possible and perhaps the addition of amendments to the code.

I gather that it is acceptable to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that we should wait for 18 months. So be it. I should prefer it if we could have a debate before 31st March, when all of those matters could be considered. I do not want to use up the House's time further. My respectful suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is that he should accept that the House is unsettled on this matter. We should have this debate and consider general amendments before 31st March 2002.

Lord Selsdon

My Lords, I had not intended to speak today; I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak last week but because we ran out of time I took the liberty of writing to the noble and learned Lord—I sent him a letter containing what I would have said to the House. I shall speak to his amendment and to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. I shall try to provide some help and guidance.

All my life I have been forced to disclose—and have willingly disclosed—interests. That was mainly on the commercial side. I have a concern about the code's drafting but not its principles. The experience of codes in the commercial sector has highlighted problems of which noble Lords may be aware—I refer to the codes of Cadbury, of Greenbury and of Turnbull and to the Hample combined code, which relates to the way in which directors should behave. Those codes have caused many problems of interpretation and involve tremendous bureaucracy. We are debating another code that is based on no law of which I am aware. I suggested to the noble and learned Lord that we might examine the commercial sector and follow some of its rules in the declaration of interests.

I turn to the disclosure of directorships. The Williams code, as it is called, states that only remunerated directorships should be involved. However, any director of a company is required each year to fill in form 288A listing all of his directorships. It would be simple to adopt that approach. The disclosure of directorships would be public.

The second area that caused me concern involved the definition of spouse, family, friends and so on. In Section 12 of the Companies Act there is a description of connected parties, which effectively means a spouse, children, including illegitimate children, and stepchildren under the age of 18. It draws attention to companies and interests related thereto. That is quite a good guideline for the Williams code.

I turn to the problem of families. The noble and learned Lord will have appreciated from my letter to him my difficulty, which arises because my wife's family name and my mother's family name is Williams. According to the advice that I received last weekend and the Internet—I visited Salt Lake City with the Mormons—a relative is any blood relative of a particular generation or the generations that follow. I am happy to inform the noble and learned Lord that I have, I am advised, about 57 Williams cousins, including my kinsman, the Spanish ambassador in London. The Williams girls in my family all preferred to marry Latin lovers, became Catholic and produced quite exorbitantly—I think that it is fair to say that. We need to define what a relative is.

Relationships and money do not mix well. Divorce rates and internal family problems and squabbles all come down to money. Disclosure of other people's interests leads to problems that I have also considered and on which I have taken advice. If you break a confidence, whether or not there is a letter of confidentiality, and a material loss occurs, or extra costs occur, the person who makes that disclosure could, I understand, be personally liable. Therefore, I have taken the step of inquiring what professional indemnity insurances we should consider taking out if we are forced or required, wittingly or unwittingly, to disclose something which could lead to a material loss. Those are all minor issues but they can mount up and if, over the coming year, and before the matter is reviewed, we could perhaps look at the harmonisation of what is now known as the Williams code, I should appreciate it and many people outside would appreciate it.

If we fail to do that, there is a danger that the investigative press and others may have a field day. That is a worry because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said in her excellent speech the other day, a low opinion is accorded Parliament, followed by politicians, even lower, and the press at the bottom. There are many worries for the future but I wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, well.

12.30 p.m.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. He is suggesting that the House should have the opportunity to review this code, its practicality and the effect of its implementation.

My worry about the amendment is that it would not come into effect until one year after the code had been in force. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House suggests that it should be 1.5 years after the code has come into force. I really feel that that is much too late. It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to say that the concerns which have been expressed are overdone, as he implied a few moments ago; that it will all be quite simple; and that we should get on with it.

I remind your Lordships of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who, in a sense, is the father of much of this invigilation, said: First, whatever form of resolution or amendment is adopted by the House, please let what has to go in the register be as clear as possible. The burden placed on the registrar will be very heavy. Many instances have been raised when, with the best will in the world, it will be difficult to say that something should or should not go in".—[Official Report, 2/7/01; col. 671.] It is not acceptable that the code should come into effect before the questions have been answered. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made a crucial point when he referred to the difference between declaration and registration.

On 2nd July, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House referred repeatedly to the fact that the Griffiths Committee had already accepted the concept of "friends". Of course that is so, but he did so in terms of declaration. That is the crucial difference. Registration produces far more instances of difficulty.

The noble and learned Lord referred to his original proposals as being to accommodate public perception. In that context, I suggest that "perception" means "viewed through the eyes of the beholder". As the public is an amorphous concept, public perception is the view as seen and expressed by the media.

The noble and learned Lord volunteered an example of the sort of interests of friends which it may be necessary to register. He gave the example of a 1 per cent shareholding of BP. As your Lordships all know, the market capitalisation of BP is £126 billion. Therefore a 1 per cent share would be £1.26 billion. With great respect, that was not a very realistic example to take. Therefore, I tried to persuade the noble and learned Lord to make his example more realistic. I suggested a figure of 0.001 per cent. As your Lordships will realise immediately, 0.001 per cent of £126 billion is £1.26 million. That is not an impossible figure. The noble and learned Lord did not reply to the example which I gave. But it is not impossible that a friend of one of us in this House might have that sort of a shareholding.

But are we seriously expected to declare that interest in a register? Are we expected to register that interest as opposed to declaring it, possibly if there were to be a debate directly affecting BP or some part of the oil industry? That is the absolute basic point I wish to make. I shall illustrate it with another example that the noble and learned Lord gave. The noble and learned Lord said: A noble Lord might have such a close friend that if he knows of a significant interest … he might feel that he had discharged his duty properly by saying, have to say that a close friend of mine is a very large landowner … and that will affect him. It is as simple as that".—[Official Report, 2/7/01; cols. 640 and 641.] That is totally unclear. What is meant by a "very large landowner"? The implication is that that should be declared during a debate. I have much less of a problem declaring matters during debates than I have with declaring them in the register.

Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord referred also to "a close friend of mine". A fundamental question to which we have not received an answer, and to which we need an answer before we go any further with this debate, is whether or not the noble and learned Lord suggests that we shall be required to register the names of those who have those interests. Nobody has yet made that clear. Are we or are we not required to register the names?

The noble and learned Lord gave an example of a very large landowner. In this House, we probably all know a number of landowners. Whether they are large or very large is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I do not believe that it is sensible for us to proceed further without those questions being answered.

Finally, I return to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton. I am rather worried as to whether he has taken into account the desirability of travelling in the dark for a year, let alone a year and a half, before we receive the appropriate guidance.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am sorry to repeat myself. This is a purely consequential order, following on a decision which has already been made. Some of your Lordships did not agree with it; the majority did. Your Lordships would have looked at me with some disfavour if I had attempted to reopen the issue today. If anybody had pressed me to do so, I should have refused for the single reason that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his invariable scruple, identified right at the beginning of his remarks.

However, those are questions of taste and judgment upon which we all have different views. I share the view that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, nobly set out because I bear in mind that he was a member of the group which I chaired and he did not share the conclusions of the majority. Nevertheless, he made the point scrupulously that that decision has already been taken by this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also took the same principled stand; namely, to urge this House to approve the Motion which is tabled in my name. I listened to your Lordships. We needed no vote. It seemed to me that the feeling of the House in the privacy context was very substantial. That is why I brought forward this measure as soon as I sensibly could. If I had left it until later in the year, I believe that your Lordships, quite reasonably, would have inquired of me, "What is the reason for the delay?"

Yesterday I moved a consequential procedural Motion in the usual way and today I am doing exactly the same. It is not for us today to re-open the issue that has already been decided. I do not propose to enter into that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, called it the "Williams code", so at least one Welsh family will be happy. He said that it was my "gift". I hope that it was not regarded in that way; I hope it was regarded as a service. I could be wrong—it is possible.

If I am wrong, we shall meet that situation, with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He was good enough to discuss it with me—I hope I met his concerns—and I suggested that a review after 18 months would be prudent and reasonable. I cannot guarantee him government time—the Chief Whip tells me that there is no such thing. I reiterate my promise—I am happy to stand by it—that, when challenged 18 months after March of next year, we shall have the opportunity to debate these matters. In these circumstances it is inevitable that not everyone is pleased, but on 2nd July we had a full debate and there was a majority in favour of what was put forward, which is now the subject of this procedural resolution. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord cannot move his Motion until I have had my say.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I apologise.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have deployed, even if on the margins of good order, their concerns about what will happen under the code because that will direct the attention of those who supervise our procedures to where it is most needed. My noble friend Lord Marlesford is anxious that even a year may be too soon and that I should not be satisfied with 18 months. There is nothing in what I am proposing or in what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is offering that prevents any noble Lords tabling a Motion in the next six months. This amendment states that it shall not be later than a certain date; that does not mean that it shall not be earlier.

The impatience of my noble friend Lord Marlesford may gain him sufficient friends to start a movement in that direction. I do not encourage him to do that because, having reflected on the opinion of the Leader of the House, which I was courteously given yesterday, I am minded to conclude that 18 months may be better than a year. If in the first six months things go disastrously wrong, your Lordships can take the matter into your own hands; if it does not, we shall want a good slice of experience on which to base our decision. Your Lordships can take what steps you believe are correct 18 months after March next year.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, has declared his friendship for my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In due time the register will reveal, if not the closeness of, at least the depth of knowledge of that friendship, because he will now have to put down everything that he knows about my noble friend's interests. I see that my noble friend is looking somewhat anxious.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton has answered the point that was agitating me. If the noble and learned Lord regards me as a friend—he said that that fact is an interest—I intended to ask him, but of course I forgot, whether that entitled him to put down all my personal interests as a friend of his in his register entry. I hope not.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not believe that the Leader of the House is to be drawn into breaking the rules of order further by answering that point.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Earl and I have been friends for some time. I do not know what his shareholdings are; I do not know what his land-holdings are; I do not know the financial interests of his spouse, relative or friend, or of any hospitality or gifts. As I said the other day in the context of the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, if one does not know, one cannot be influenced. The only thing that influences me about my friendship with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that I believe we agree on virtually nothing, but we never quarrel about anything.

Lord Elton

My Lords, in future we shall choose our friends with care. In conclusion, I regret I omitted to acknowledge the importance of the introduction of the word "private" into the code. The greatest damage that can be done to this House will be by the premature feeding to the press of allegations and suspicions that they then pursue, like the hell-hounds that many of them are. I counsel all noble Lords to regard that privacy as sacrosanct until the moment at which either the procedure makes it necessary for it to become public, or the person accused feels that it is in his or her interests to make it so.

I believe that we have done all that we can. If the Leader of the House will signify that the debate that he proposes, which cannot be in government time—because there is no such thing—will be in prime time—your Lordships all know what that is—on a government Motion, I shall yield to him and I shall be happy to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, all time in this House is prime, but I understand what the noble Lord means and I give him that assurance. From my recollection, I believe that that is a little more generous than that which we received when we were in opposition.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I can think of no courteous reply to that so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.