---

7 pm

I know that it is invidious to mention names, but I have tried to select Cross-Bench peers who are known for particular interests. Lord Selborne, who chaired the royal commission on the environment, and who everybody agrees played an enormously constructive role in the upper House over those years, spoke 32 times. Lord Alexander of Weedon, who is a great banker and was a great lawyer, spoke 28 times. The Labour peer, Lord Wedderburn, a great trade union lawyer and a considerable constitutionalist, spoke 28 times. Lord Runciman, who chaired the royal commission on criminal justice, is an outstanding academic and has played an active role in the House, spoke 12 times. I could take the list on. Lord Gowrie, who used to play a great part in Government and is well recognised as a leader in the arts, spoke six times during that period. All those contributions were valuable.

We are discussing an interim, which the Government--I accept in good faith, although they may not achieve it--say will be relatively short. We need to keep the spirit of the House's diversity alive while we decide what to put in its place.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend support the concept that those hereditary peers who have played a part in the work of the other place over many years, whether they have spoken often or only on a few occasions, should be given a continuing role? That is what I suggested on Second Reading. My right hon. and learned Friend might be interested to know that I have discussed the matter with a number of newly elected Labour Members. Whatever they may say publicly in the Chamber, informally many of them agree that those who have done the work in the other place should be allowed a continuing role and that the number of those allowed to remain should not be restricted to 91.

15 Feb 1999 : Column 657

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. At the risk of immodesty, my amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are in the next group, propose precisely that. It would be out of order to discuss them now.

As I said, faute de mieux and, because it has genuine merit, I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. It provides an opportunity for those who are active in the House of Lords to continue to play a real role in the interim without threatening the Government's proposals. The Government's argument that they might be voted down by the trooping out of backwoodsmen might have some force--they grossly overstate the case, as they grossly overstate much of their case--but they cannot oppose the amendment on that ground.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given any consideration to bishops? When a bishop ceases to have a diocese, he is booted out of the House of Lords. He may be a very wise and experienced bishop. He is allowed to use the Dining Room, but he is not allowed to sit in the House. What makes hereditary peers better than retired bishops? The first Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, who did retire, was made a peer because the Government suddenly realised that, as a retired archbishop, he could do nothing, so they gave him a barony.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must study what he is talking about. He is speaking as if hereditary peers were better than bishops, but there is no logic in that. I find it fascinating and I shall promote the Hansard of this debate even more actively among my constituents, but it would be helpful if he knew a bit more about the Chamber that he speaks about so fully.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect and for whom the House has great affection, is obviously intoxicated by his own vision of logic. In commending the example of bishops, he commends corporatism: the bishops represent the Church and the Law Lords represent the law. There is a genuine argument, which the Government are rightly considering, for setting up a partly corporatist upper House. If one is partly corporatist and one is booted out after a time, one disappears. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to that, but I now see that he has a sneaking affection for it. He has also noted that archbishops--of York as well as of Canterbury--have been appointed life peers at the end of their term.

Let me return to my theme. The merit of the amendment is that it allows us to continue to benefit from the wisdom of Members of the upper House without threatening the Government. The threat to the Government from the upper House has always been grossly overplayed. What we need from an upper House is people of calibre, diversity and independence. That, above all, is what we need for our constitutional anchor while we consider carefully what to put in the place of the existing House.

I do not support the House of Lords' continuance provided that we can put something better in its place. The artificial attempts of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others to suggest that all Conservative Members are wedded to the principle of hereditary peerage is not just simplistic but self-deluding,

15 Feb 1999 : Column 658

because that is an easy windmill at which to tilt. That is what the Government, with all their spin doctors behind them, like to pretend is the view of Conservative Members.

I was proposing constructive reform of the upper House within a year of being elected to this House because I did not want the kind of reform, flooded with nominated peers, that was then being proposed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going wide of the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes, Mr. Martin, I was going wide. I accept that.

None the less, we must look at the interim. We do not seek to uphold the hereditary peerage in the last ditch; we want a constitutional anchor in the interim, and the amendment provides one constructive way in which we might get it.

Mr. Swayne: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is no longer in his place, for he appeared to be taking up the role of inquisitor-general that was played by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on Second Reading in asking each Conservative Member if he or she were in favour of the hereditary principle and whether he or she maintained that support for it despite its abandonment by Conservative Front-Bench Members.

For the benefit of Labour Members, may I say that I share the affection of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for the hereditary principle. However, it ignores one salient fact: that, on 1 May 1997, the Labour party, which had explicitly put in its manifesto a commitment to abolish the voting rights of hereditary peers, won that election. Those of us with an affection for the hereditary principle therefore moved on, having lost that battle.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: How many electors does my hon. Friend think voted Labour specifically because of that manifesto pledge?

Mr. Swayne: I have not the remotest idea. However, it does not strike me as a matter of significance because the Labour party has a majority; it has introduced a Bill and can pursue that Bill in accordance with its manifesto. An academic discussion about who voted for what would be profitless.

The amendment is entirely consistent with the principle of the Bill--to abolish the voting rights of hereditary peers--but deals with the consequent practical difficulties that arise from giving effect to that manifesto pledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said in moving the amendment, the main practical difficulty is that more than half the present occupants of the House of Lords will be dispensed with. That creates an enormous hole in terms of expertise on both procedure and particular issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire mentioned to hereditary peers who have specialised in certain subjects and been of great public service in using their expertise to draw attention to those. Those peers would be unlikely to find themselves saved by

15 Feb 1999 : Column 659

amendments that may or may not be passed during the passage of this Bill. Amendment No. 1 is intended to deal with the loss of that expertise.

Having read the amendment, I still cannot muster any great enthusiasm for the proposed arrangement. My misgivings are not addressed by the fact that it is a transitory arrangement, which will fulfil a need during the hopefully short period that will be required before more fundamental reforms make the amendment--and, indeed, the entire settlement proposed in the Bill--unnecessary.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) was perhaps more charitable than me in saying that, if it took rather longer for final reform to come about, that might not be because of the Government's intention. I regard the amendment as a powerful incentive to the effecting of speedy reform. It has become clear in the debate that Labour Members have a passionate desire for the hereditary principle, in every form, to be dispensed with; let us therefore pass an amendment such as this, which will give them every incentive to maintain pressure on the Executive, and on Ministers in particular, to dispense with it. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, I suspect that the Government have every intention of letting the Bill remain as it is for ever, if necessary. It is therefore entirely appropriate for us to insert arrangements to ensure that the transitional period remains a transitional period.

The Government say that the matter is urgent, but that is belied by the fact that they did not establish a royal commission 20 months ago so that we could examine its findings now. Let amendment No. 1 supply the urgency.

---