House of Lords Reform (Hansard, 13 May 2002)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
With permission, my Lords, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's proposals for taking forward reform of the House of Lords.
The Government began the process of Lords reform with the removal of the great majority of the hereditary Peers, in 1999. We are committed to further reform of the House of Lords, to remove the remaining hereditary Peers and to provide Parliament with a modern, effective second Chamber.
We have listened carefully to the wide range of views expressed in the recent debates on Lords reform in both Houses of Parliament and to the responses to the White Paper. We have taken account of the report of the Public Administration Select Committee. We have also considered statements from all parties that this issue should be considered further by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope therefore that the way forward I am announcing today will be welcomed and supported on all sides of the House.
We have decided that, on this vital constitutional issue, which concerns not only the composition of the House of Lords but also the role of Parliament as a whole and the relations between the two Houses, it would be right to invite the two Houses to establish a Joint Committee, in the hope that we can forge the broadest possible parliamentary consensus on the way forward. We hope that the Houses will be able to proceed with the establishment of the Joint Committee as soon as possible. We have noted the recent joint statement of the two main opposition parties that such a Joint Committee would help reconcile differences and seek a principled consensus on the way forward. I therefore hope that we can look forward to their cooperation in setting up the Joint Committee as soon as possible and making a success of its work.
Reform of the second Chamber has implications for the future of Parliament as a whole, and in particular for the relations between the two Chambers. It is right that Parliament itself should record its views on the composition of the second Chamber. For this we believe that a Joint Committee alone is insufficient. We therefore intend to ask the Joint Committee, as the first phase of its work, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords once reform has been completed. This will define options for composition, to include a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options. Both Houses will then be asked to record their views on those options in free votes.
In the second phase of its work, on which the committee will report, it will define in greater detail the proposed composition, role and powers of the reformed second Chamber, taking account of the opinions expressed by the two Houses. It should also recommend the transitional strategy for transforming the existing House of Lords into its fully reformed state. This will be particularly important if the recommendation were to be for a significantly smaller 13 House. The Government's intention would then be to bring forward legislation in the light of the report of the Joint Committee and the opinions of both Houses expressed in those free votes.
As both the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, and the Government's White Paper made clear, any proposals on the powers and composition of the House of Lords must flow from a clear understanding of its role and functions. The issues to be considered by the Joint Committee therefore will include: first, the role and authority intended for the second Chamber within the context of Parliament as a whole—there is, we believe, a consensus that its main role should continue to be as a revising, scrutinising and deliberative assembly with the power to delay but not to seek to veto legislation; secondly, the impact of that role and authority on the existing supremacy of the House of Commons and relations with the executive—there is, we believe, broad agreement that the Commons should retain its role as the pre-eminent Chamber and that the test for any government should continue to be whether it can command a majority in the House of Commons; thirdly, the composition and powers of the second Chamber best suited to give effect to the role and authority intended for that House. This consideration should include the implications of a House composed of more than one "class" of Member and also the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber.
It will also be necessary to consider the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new parliamentary settlement, including any mechanisms required for resolving conflicts between the two Houses. In order to inform the Joint Committee's deliberations, the Government are today publishing the full results of the consultation on their White Paper. We received over 1,000 responses. The full analysis is now available in the Printed Paper Office and on the Lord Chancellor's Department website.
The Government have a major record of constitutional reform. Since 1997 we have created a Scottish Parliament and Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland. We have enacted the first House of Lords Act, the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act. We have given the Bank of England independence in the setting of interest rates. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister set out our plans to allow the creation of regional assemblies in those regions of England that vote for them. We have enhanced the role of the Select Committees, including my right honourable friend's announcement that he will be the first Prime Minister ever to appear before the Liaison Committee. In addition, we are modernising the working practices of both Chambers. Taken together, this is the most substantial programme of constitutional reform for over a century and will stand as one of this Government's historic achievements.
Today's announcement is another important step towards ensuring that reform of the House of Lords ranks alongside those achievements. We must not 14 allow a repeat of past history in which reform has been delayed because those who wanted it could not agree and therefore left the field to those who opposed it.
Our objective is to secure a second Chamber that is broadly representative of the Britain of today, a Chamber which will complement the Commons by reinforcing Parliament's ability to conduct scrutiny and hold the executive to account and which will increase the respect of the public for Parliament. The way forward I have outlined puts responsibility in the hands of Parliament itself in free votes. I urge Members of all sides of the House to respond not as party politicians but as parliamentarians committed to a strong Parliament within a modern democracy.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Statement he has made.
The word "historic" is a much overused cliché in this House but on this occasion I can say that it was an historic Statement as it concerns the future of Parliament as a whole and it shows that the Government accept that reform of Parliament does not belong to one party alone. The Statement trusts Parliament and parliamentarians with the responsibility of finding the best way forward to strengthen this House and Parliament itself for the benefit of the country as a whole. That is something we on this side have long argued for and which we now clearly welcome.
No doubt some may be tempted to say, "If only the Government had taken this course before" as, indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wisely promised as long ago as 1997. But I think that 'we must now look to the future. It is not the time to dwell on the past or what was done in the past. Instead, I say to my noble friends that we should welcome the fact that today the Government have held out a constructive hand. On behalf of my party I assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall respond in the same constructive spirit to that gesture.
As the noble and learned Lord said, less than a fortnight ago the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I made a joint appeal to the Government to abandon a single party approach and establish a Joint Committee. The fact that the Government have now agreed to do what we asked is a statesmanlike and sensible step and I am grateful for that. It would, I believe, have been a disaster to plough on into bitter parliamentary warfare over the reform scheme that was put forward at the end of last year. It would not have served the Government's objectives; it would not have served Parliament and it would not have served the country or the voters' priorities.
In welcoming the Joint Committee, which I hope will be established soon, I make it clear that my party's basic position is unchanged. To us it seems obvious and urgent that the authority of this House—for all its successes since 1999—and the authority of the other place both need to be strengthened in the face of the 15 executive. We have put forward proposals that we believe would strengthen both Houses and we still hope that progress will be made towards them.
However, the purpose of the Joint Committee is to build consensus and reconcile differences, so far as is possible, and to open the way to lasting reform; it is not to enable sensible aspirations for reform to be sidelined or smothered.
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the committee will be large enough to include shades of opinion within parties and across parties? In the context of this House, will he assure us that there will be places for Cross-Bench Peers on that committee?
We look forward to early discussions on the composition and remit of the committee. However, will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that the Government's proposals, which we bitterly opposed when they were announced, to reduce the powers of this House have been shelved—and, I trust, shelved permanently?
If the Joint Committee has authority, vision and independence, today could be a very good day for this House and Parliament. The threat of legislation that would have weakened this House and Parliament has been lifted. The Government have shown themselves ready to listen to Parliament—they would gain infinitely from that, if only they were ready to do it more. As a result, we now have a once-and-for-all opportunity to grasp something that eluded us in 1911, 1968 and 1999—a chance to set this House on a secure and lasting footing, as a full partner with another place in upholding the ancient liberties of the British people. All of us on all sides have a high and solemn duty to participate with a will in that work. On this side of the House, we will assuredly do so.
I end by thanking the noble and learned Lord for turning the Government away from the sterile conflict that we were threatened with in December last year. The Statement, if it means anything, could mark an historic moment at which the steady diminution of Parliament at last began to be reversed. Let us hope that it will; if it does not, a rare and remarkable opportunity will have been squandered to the lasting detriment of us all.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his Statement. Moreover, I thank him and the Leader of the House of Commons for having piloted through the proposal in what we recognise were controversial and difficult times. We are very grateful for what we believe to be a very exciting and promising way forward.
We appreciate in particular the proposal for a Joint Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has much to do with this matter, will not object if I mention the name of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who persistently pressed in that direction as a way forward 16 for reform of your Lordships' House. Many noble Lords will, on this occasion, wish to appreciate his major contribution.
We on these Benches particularly welcome the use in the Statement of the phrase, the role of Parliament as a whole". We have never sought in any way to compete with the pre-eminence of another place. We recognise that the considerable loss of respect for Parliament since the Second World War must be reversed. One way to do so is to consider the role of Parliament—the role of the House of Commons and the ways in which this House can complement the work of the House of Commons in the most constructive way.
It is incumbent on all of us in this House—on every single Member, not simply those in a particular party—to seize the opportunity that has been granted to us and to approach it as constructively as we can. We believe that the people of this country are looking to both Houses of Parliament to rise to the occasion and to come forward with constructive proposals for reform in a way that will make Parliament once again central to the whole constitutional structure of this country.
I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The first concerns whether the composition and powers of the House and of another place will be taken side by side during the first stage, on strategy, and during the second stage, on tactics. There are innovative and exciting proposals concerning ways in which the powers of this House could be extended into areas that are not currently scrutinised by Parliament in any way. Will that be taken into account by the Joint Committee?
Secondly, will the Lord Chancellor bear in mind the need for at least a reasonable sense of the importance of moving ahead with this reform—if not urgency—when considering the size and balance of the proposed Joint Committee?
I do not wish to detain the House. In conclusion, the position of Parliament is the keystone of the constitutional arch in this country, and has been for centuries. We believe that it is time that that keystone was refurbished and brought up to date. We thank the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House of Commons for giving all of us the opportunity to create out of Parliament the institution that all of us would like it to be. For many parts of the world, it has become, over the years, a model of how democracy should be carried out.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords—

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am grateful to the—

Noble Lords
Cross Bench!

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I believe that the procedure of this House is invariable and that when the leaders of both parties respond to a Statement, the 17 maker of the Statement responds at the same time to those responses; thereafter, there is—noble Lords may correct me if I am wrong— minutes for questions from elsewhere in the House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their welcome to the Government's announcement. The noble Lord's comments were sweeter than those associated with bitter parliamentary warfare, which the noble Lord, in his most menacing—as well as his most engaging—manner announced is now happily avoided.
I accept that the noble Lord has been calling for a Joint Committee for some time. I also accept that the noble Baroness has often said in her speeches on this subject that reform of the House of Lords should not be considered separately from reform of Parliament as a whole, and that she, too, has called for a Joint Committee. It was right in this context that she should have mentioned the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The Government accept that neither the Wakeham commission nor our White Paper, which was based on it, produced consensus. Now, as part of our continuing effort to achieve consensus, the Government propose a Joint Committee in which parliamentarians of great experience will consider these hugely difficult issues with the benefit of all of the opinion and discussion that has gone before, and will fashion composition options on which free votes will be taken in both Houses.
I assure the noble Lord that the usual channels will discuss the size and balance of the Joint Committee. I agree with him that it must be large enough to include a broad range of opinion, that the Cross-Benchers should certainly be involved and that there should be early discussions between the usual channels on composition. There is no merit, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, in political point-scoring over what has gone before; nor, I hasten to say, has there been any from the noble Baroness or the noble Lord.
The intractability of House of Lords reform has been proved by failure, during virtually a whole century, to achieve progress until the 1999 Act removed about nine-tenths of the hereditary Peers. The noble Lord asked whether the White Paper was shelved. That is a reasonable question and is not point-scoring. The White Paper is not shelved; nor is the report of the Wakeham commission. Neither succeeded in achieving consensus on its own. Plainly, the Joint Committee will wish to consider both with great care. It is a matter for the Joint Committee whether it brings forward options for both Houses to consider that are based on, or which closely resemble, any of the Wakeham or White Paper proposals. We simply have to wait and see, and await the outcome of the free votes.
Finally, I mention that the noble Baroness has said many times that reform of the House of Lords should be seen in the context of wider issues relating to Parliament as a whole. She will therefore have welcomed the sections in the Statement that said that 18 reform of the second Chamber has implications for the future of Parliament as a whole and, in particular, for the relations between the two Chambers.
How fast it will be possible to proceed and how quickly the Joint Committee will proceed is of course a matter for it. But certainly it is the wish of the Government for the momentum to be maintained.
The noble Baroness asked very detailed questions about what the committee may consider in the context of specific powers of this House. She referred, in particular, to areas where there is currently no scrutiny on the part of this House. Although the committee will itself determine the issues which it wishes to consider within its remit, I believe that for the present it is sufficient to say that the passage in the Statement which says that the Joint Committee will be asked, as the first phase of its work, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords indicates that those issues will be very wide.
I hope that that covers all the major points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I appreciate the general welcome that they have offered and the description of "statesmanlike" which they applied to this new way forward.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and apologise if I in any way got the arrangements wrong. On behalf of all Cross-Benchers, I welcome very much his indication that the Cross-Benchers will be represented on the Joint Committee. In that representation, I hope that it will be possible to take account of the numerical strength of the Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House and the fact that the 2:2:1:1 formula does not necessarily guide us as well as it normally does when we come to a reform of this nature. I should also be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give some indication as to when terms of reference for the Joint Committee will be available.

§ The Lord Chancellor
As I have already indicated, the Government are sensitive to the interests of the Cross-Benchers, who are numerous. There is no doubt but that the usual channels will heed with care the representations from the Cross-Benchers about their inclusion in the Joint Committee. I anticipate that the usual channels will now proceed at a considerable pace to settle terms of reference. It will have been obvious to your Lordships that the Statement which I made was intended to, and did, herald the broad outlines of what the terms of reference should be. I do not doubt that they will be settled in that sense and, so far as concerns the Government, as soon as reasonably possible.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the the Lord Chancellor is well aware that a Joint Select Committee would not have been my first choice in these matters. But I think that he is right to propose one in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I shall be happy if the noble and learned Lord takes that as a welcome.
19 When the Joint Committee has considered matters and reported, I am afraid that ultimately we shall return to the question of the composition of this House. That is the only really difficult issue. I very much hope that that committee will take heed of three things that we said in our Royal Commission report. The first was that this House functions better if it is relatively free of political patronage. Secondly, the Members who serve here serve for a relatively long time. To us, that almost certainly meant that there should be no re-election. But, thirdly, that does not mean that the percentage that get here in that way need necessarily be the percentage that we recommended—indeed, in our report we recommended three percentages. Thus we had a degree of flexibility in relation to that matter. I hope that the Select Committee recognises the real value to the House of those principles.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider with care both the report of the commission led by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and what is said in these exchanges this afternoon. As to any point of detail about what the future may hold and about what the Joint Committee may consider it right to recommend, I do not believe that I should express any specific views myself. The Government should not now be seen to be giving any particular steers to the Joint Committee, given that it is charged to define options for both Houses to vote on in free votes. In fact, I go further. I consider that for me to do so would be misinterpreted at a time when the Joint Committee and its membership are about to be determined.

§ The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, like everyone else, I welcome the proposal for a Joint Committee to carry forward the reform of this House. Do the Government accept that, if a Joint Committee is to do justice to the complexity of the challenges ahead, it will be best equipped to do so if it draws its membership from a broad spectrum within this House and that that should include, among others, someone from these Benches?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I agree entirely with what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by others. The Joint Committee should reflect a very broad spectrum. However, I shall not trespass into matters which are for the usual channels.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the fact that the Government now seem to have—I use a neutral phrase—moved away from the proposals in the White Paper. Whether it is still alive and has any breath left in it is perhaps a matter for intricate discussion. But, first, so far as concerns these proposals, I believe that one should broadly give them a welcome.
Secondly, is my noble and learned friend aware that I also welcome the fact that he sees this next procedure as keeping up the momentum for reform? There are 20 two ways in which it could be presented: either as keeping up the momentum for reform or as kicking the proposals into the long grass. I have to say to my noble and learned friend—I am sure he is not aware of it—that, indeed, there has already been some briefing to the effect that this is designed to kick the matter into touch, or whatever other sporting metaphor one wishes to employ. I am very grateful for my noble and learned friend's confirmation that that is not the Government's intention.
Thirdly, if one is going to keep up the momentum, then these matters have to take place within a reasonably brisk measure of time. Is it the Government's intention that the options vote, if I may call it that, should take place before the Summer Recess, if at all possible, or do they intend that it should take a little longer? To me, as a naive and mere Back-Bench Member of this House, the analogy with the hunting Bill does not seem to be all that pleasant. But, broadly, I believe that the House should welcome these proposals as a firm step in the direction that most of us wish to go.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend abandoned the cynicism with which he began and that he ended on a note of optimism, which was well judged. This is not kicking the matter into the long grass; the momentum will be maintained. However, I am not willing to be drawn into saying anything which trespasses either on the functions of the usual channels or, more importantly, on those of the Joint Committee. It is inconsistent to praise the width of the remit proposed to the Joint Committee and, at the same time, imply that it must report the day before yesterday. That is certainly an issue for the Joint Committee. The speed with which it comes forward with its proposals will be a matter for the Joint Committee, but I am sure that it will do so with all deliberate speed commensurate with the huge importance of the subject matter for the future of Parliament as a whole.

§ Lord Naseby
My Lords, when the Lord Chancellor uses the phrase "the Britain of today", is he excluding Northern Ireland and therefore the United Kingdom? Is he also saying that the Joint Committee will consider the composition of the other place in addition to the composition of your Lordships' House?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not exclude Northern Ireland and the Joint Committee will not consider the composition of the other place.

§ Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the Lord Chancellor's Statement. I shall resist asking a number of detailed questions, which would not be appropriate at this time. However, the Lord Chancellor said that the Government do not intend to give a particular steer to the committee. Do I take it that the committee will be allowed to determine its chairman and that the chairman will not come from government sources?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, that is not a matter upon which any decisions have, as yet, been reached. 21 There will be discussions between the usual channels with a view to agreeing a chairman. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was making a job application!

Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, can I tempt the Lord Chancellor to be a little more specific about what he expects to be the remit of the Joint Committee? The effective legislative powers of this House depend upon the effectiveness of the legislative arrangements of the House of Commons. Does he expect the committee to be able to examine the legislative arrangements in the House of Commons and make reform of this House conditional upon improvement to those arrangements?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, that is a matter on which I shall not be drawn. The terms of reference of the committee have yet to be settled. Their broad outlines have been heralded by the Statement. Thereafter, it will be for the Joint Committee to interpret its remit.

§ Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, I welcome the Statement as it lays out a method of taking forward the whole process of reform, which all noble Lords want. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the resolution of differences and conflict between the two Houses is as important an issue to be addressed and resolved as the discussion of the composition of the reformed House?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, that is certainly so. The Statement itself in terms said that the Joint Committee would have to consider the most effective mechanisms—I paraphrase—for resolving conflicts between both Houses. I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point. The Government have always stated that no single party should have an overall majority in the reformed House. That means that the government of the day will always be in the minority in this House and, therefore, liable to be defeated at any time. So mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the Houses are critical and that is why the Statement highlighted that the Joint Committee should give express consideration to that issue.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, following the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the device of a Joint Committee, to which he has had such fruitful recourse, has been used in past centuries for resolving deadlock on the content of Bills? Is that a precedent worthy of re-examination?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in my view a Joint Committee on the subject of House of Lords reform is a sufficient precedent in itself.

§ Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that when his noble friend Lord Richard and I talk about momentum, we may 22 have slightly different views about pace and direction? I endorse the wisdom of his choice of words from the United States Supreme Court that the process of examination should be undertaken with all deliberate speed. But does he consider that change should occur at a pace that does not put at risk the qualities that this House values so highly?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, although this is essentially a matter for the Joint Committee, I agree that it must proceed with all deliberate speed, but commensurate with the gravity of the subject matter that it addresses. As to the second point raised by the noble and learned Lord, I believe that he lures me into the merits much further down the line.

§ Lord Dubs
My Lords, I welcome my noble and learned friend's Statement, which has been greeted with universal enthusiasm. While I fully understand why he does not believe that it is proper for the Government to seek to influence the detailed deliberations of the Joint Committee, does he agree that the first task for the Select Committee, of preparing a list of options—something that most noble Lords could accomplish by this evening—is one that could be achieved fairly quickly? Will he therefore use his influence to suggest that that stage of the committee's work could be carried out expeditiously so that a vote of both Houses could take place before the Summer Recess?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said on the final Question at Question Time, that it is more important to get things right than to proceed too quickly. With respect to my noble friend, when one considers the history of this House and the colossal difficulty of securing consensus, it is somewhat unrealistic to agree on a Joint Committee and then to crack the whip, to be prescriptive and to say that it is very easy. I prefer to trust the Joint Committee.

§ Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, in considering the future composition of this House, will it be within the terms of reference of a Joint Committee to look at the three years' experience of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies? Will it also be able to consider whether there should be more formal links between those assemblies and this House, given that, by pure coincidence, the Presiding Officers of the three assemblies are Members of this place? There is no guarantee that our successors will be likewise beneficially endowed.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the thrust of that question is in sharp contrast to the thrust of the previous question, which was to get on with it the day before yesterday. The thrust of this question is that it would be of advantage to the Joint Committee to consider the practices of the Scottish Parliament and the other Assemblies. That is a matter for the Joint Committee within its terms of reference.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking a statesmanlike and 23 welcome decision to set up the Joint Committee. I have two questions. First, does the view that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent put a constraint on the Joint Committee in considering powers, particularly if the Joint Committee wishes to recommend that this House should be wholly elected? Secondly, will the terms of reference be wide enough—I do not imagine that this point will be popular with the House—to enable the Joint Committee to consider whether there is a case for a unicameral system?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the Statement said that it is generally accepted, and I believe it to be so, that the House of Commons is the pre-eminent Chamber which should always ultimately have its way. However, I repeat that the Joint Committee is inhibited in its consideration only by its terms of reference, which will be settled by the usual channels in the light of the Statement I have made

§ Lord Haskel
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I welcome a free vote on the composition of both Houses? Does he agree that the view of both Houses on the composition of a reformed House, as expressed in a vote, would have to carry a lot more weight than the responses to the consultation to the White Paper?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, that is a nice question! In one sense, yes. However, proper weight must be given to the responses to the consultation. Obviously the Joint Committee will wish to do that, though it must be said—the question may have implied this—that those who responded to the consultation were self-selecting. It is also the fact that they are fewer in number than the total membership of both Houses. I imagine that Members of both Houses will not only be entitled but will also be interested to vote in free votes on issues critical to the nature and future of Parliament. It is for that reason that we have put responsibility in the hands of Parliament on free votes.