Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my conundrum concerned the Irish Peers, not the eldest sons.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl may know, that is the resolution of 1806--which he would have heard, had he been listening, when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was moved on the last occasion.

As far as concerns the matters to which the amendment refers, I think everyone agrees that they are not matters for legislation but for this House to determine in whichever way it thinks appropriate. It will be for this House to determine; not both Houses to determine.

The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would allow not only people who have sat in the House to enjoy certain club rights but their heirs and successors as well. In 1957, the then Marquess of Salisbury said:


30 Jun 1999 : Column 327

    time. I think that the appropriate time for the House to resolve it is not now but once the new House is constituted. It is for the new House to decide the appropriate privileges to give.

In those circumstances, we think the amendment is misconceived, is not in the right form and is not a matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, what is his authority for the proposition that it is only the sons of Peers who sit here who are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Companion is the authority.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is the authority for that proposition?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has a better source than the Companion, no doubt he will tell me.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he reply to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers about Privy Counsellors? Can they sit on the steps of the Throne when they are former hereditary Peers?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as concerns privileges in the future, those matters should be decided by the House and not in the course of legislation.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord's reply--not only with what he said but, if I may say so, with the manner in which he said it. He displayed no sympathy for this very real problem; I am not saying sympathy for hereditary Peers. He said that this is a matter for the new House to consider. I do not think that it is. When the Government are producing a Bill, such as it is, with radical effects, it is quite right that the effects should be considered by your Lordships. It is all very fine for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity--who has been here for all of two years--to say that it is fairly undignified--

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that we are all a little exhausted by the very personal references being made this afternoon. I referred earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He then explained that he had not had time to acquaint the noble Lord, Lord Boston, with what he was going to say about him personally. Presumably the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may say the same.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal seems also to be fairly touchy. I told the Chairman of Committees that I would refer to this. I see nothing wrong with that. I did refer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity--as one does refer to speeches of other noble Lords--and he did say that he thought it was fairly undignified and that, as the Government had given

30 Jun 1999 : Column 328

the Weatherill amendment a run, we ought therefore--not his words; my interpretation--swallow the rest. I do not think that that is so. I think that what upset the noble Baroness was my reference to him having been here for all of two years. That is not particularly insulting; it is merely a fact.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right; I have been here two years. But I am here because I am qualified to come here by what I have done, rather than by who I was born to. As far as concerns good manners and civilised behaviour, it is a two-way Floor; they should come from that side of the House as well.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am beginning to agree with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. This is becoming a little personal on the part of the noble Lord.

There is a problem here. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted that there is a problem and have just kicked it into the long grass and said that it is for the new House to consider. I do not think it is. When your Lordships are considering a Bill that will have very radical effects, it is right that we should consider what the effects of that Bill are. I do not disagree with the noble and learned Lord if he says that it is not right to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. There are plenty of people who would use that argument. However, it is right that it ought to be considered and it ought to be considered by the appropriate committee.

I wrote to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. He said that he was not considering doing so at the moment. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord did not feel it appropriate to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees to consider the matter earlier. I think that he should. I think that the noble and learned Lord is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 50:


After Clause 3, insert the following new clause--

MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER

(" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be known as "members of the Selected Chamber".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we may be able to lower the temperature a little. Amendment No. 50 is joined with Amendment No. 74. They are coupled together. Amendment No. 74 changes the name from "House of Lords" to "Selected Chamber" and Amendment No. 50 says that people should be known as "members of the Selected Chamber". This will no longer be the House of Lords with its different composition and the different character of people. It will be a selected Chamber. I think it will be right for it to be so called and I think it would be correct that those people who are members of it should be called Members of the Selected Chamber. I beg to move.

30 Jun 1999 : Column 329

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 has been grouped with Amendment No. 50. I have written to my noble friends on the Front Bench, to the noble and learned Lord the Minister who is to reply and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers to say that we want to decouple it.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first is a serious historical reason why it should be opposed and the other is a purely aesthetic one. Our constitution has evolved over the years. The Bill as it now stands is completely different from how it was when it first came here. The Government, in spite of slight stroppiness over access rights and one or two other things, have behaved with considerable good sense throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That is my serious reason.

My not quite so serious but in some ways more important reason is that we could not possibly have the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, not called Lady Jay. There she is. She looks just like the best 18th Century Duchess of Devonshire and we could not under any circumstances not have her called the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, because she is the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, intends Members of your Lordships' House to be called Members of the Selected Chamber and also Members of the Lords. In Committee a number of attempts were made to change the name of your Lordships' House and the style of address for Members of the House. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wanted Members of this House to be known as "members of the Appointed Chamber" and styled as "Lords of Parliament". We did not agree then and we do not agree now. As was said in Committee, there is no reason for change. Even after this Bill becomes law there are nearly 100 hereditary Peers among us who will remain in the House of Lords. This place should therefore continue to be known as the House of Lords. Members of the transitional House will be Members of the same Chamber of Parliament, carrying out the same functions, with the same roles and responsibilities, terms and conditions as they presently have. The majority of them will be the same individuals. There is quite simply no need to change the name used to describe them. To change our style of address for the short period before the second stage reform gets under way would be unnecessary and confusing. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I am in order to speak, and I am not entirely certain that I am--


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page