asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have altered the policy outlined in their manifesto on the establishment of regional assemblies in England.

My Lords, we remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government in England where there is a demand for it. First, however, the English regions themselves, including the voluntary regional chambers, regional development agencies and others, will need to develop—and, indeed, are developing—their own views and thereby contribute to moving forward.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, can he tell the House how many specific requests for regional assemblies the Government have received from English regions and what, in that case, has been their response? Is there to be a referendum in each such region?

My Lords, I am not sure that I can reply to the noble Lord in the terms that he asks the question. The position is that a significant number of people in local government and business in many regions of England have indicated support. The northeast probably has the most advanced and widespread support for an English region. It is clear that different regions wish to move at different paces. Where a firm consensus exists among politicians and business leaders, we would move to a referendum. However, that is not imminent in any English region.

My Lords, bearing in mind the unfortunately low poll in recent local elections, what does the Minister mean by the sufficiency of demand in a region? Does he mean a majority of all the electors in an area or a majority of those who happen to vote on a particular occasion?

My Lords, whether we like it or not, the tradition in this country is to take the balance of those who vote. Clearly, in setting up a new constitutional structure it would be desirable to ensure a higher turnout. However, were we to conduct a referendum in any English region, the result would be based on the majority of those who vote.

My Lords, in any election where fewer than 35 per cent of the electorate voted, would it not be a good idea if that tier of government were abolished until the next election? Would that not save unnecessary tiers of government, save a lot of public money, be completely democratic, solve the Government's problems in London and enable us to get rid of both the Mayor of London and the European Parliament?

My Lords, that is a novel notion which appears to have a superficial attraction to certain noble Lords. However, I believe that from time to time it would lead to the abolition of a number of parliamentary constituencies which were subject to by-elections and also to the abolition of a significant number of older councils. Surely, our objective must be not to abolish local government and local accountability but to try to ensure that a larger proportion of the electorate takes an interest in those matters. That involves bringing in decision-making at the appropriate level. We believe that in England too many decisions, which would more sensibly be taken at a regional level, are still taken centrally.

My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the north-east a moment ago. I wonder whether he will reaffirm that he is aware that we are at a fairly advanced stage, with the northeast convention, in drawing up detailed regional assembly plans? At what point does he advise that we approach the Government with the proposals?

My Lords, I am indeed aware of the interest and pressure for a regional assembly in the north-east. We would expect to receive an approach from the north-east local authorities and others collectively when the details of the convention have been finalised. However, I believe that it would be right to say that it is unlikely that a move in that direction will occur within the lifetime of this Parliament.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of any enthusiasm for regional government in the south-east of England?

My Lords, as elsewhere, there is enthusiasm in the south-east of England for more decisions to be taken at regional level. Therefore, the development of regional planning bodies, regional transport planning and regional development agencies in the south-east are fairly well supported, both in the local authority and the business sectors. The noble Earl is correct to say that the overt demand for a regional assembly is significantly less in the south-east than it is in many regions of England, particularly the north-east and the north-west.

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that the dividing up of England into regions, the "Balkanisation" of England, plays into the hands of those who hanker after a federal Europe of the regions, which would mean the end of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, until this moment, I had not realised that that was the motivation. Some of your Lordships have a degree of paranoia about the European Union which seems to be reflected in a number of questions. This is about better democracy within this country and taking decisions at the appropriate level. Regional assemblies would be responsible for strategic planning decisions which are not sensibly taken in Whitehall or at individual local authority level. It is important that we bring local authorities together. It is important also, however, that we allow that development to grow organically rather than impose a solution and a time-scale from here. That is the exact opposite to the top-down approach which the noble Lord implied.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is high time that, for example, regional health authorities, regional institutions of higher education, new authorities dealing with skills and learning and many other quangos were brought under effective regional democratic accountability?

My Lords, in principle, there is an argument for that, but I should move cautiously. For example, there is a degree of democratic accountability in relation to health authorities. If we establish regional assemblies, the pattern of their responsibilities may need to be relatively small to start with and, indeed, the pattern may vary from region to region. Certainly, the strategic planning aspects of their responsibilities would be the most important. It may well be that some of the other areas to which the noble Lord refers would he brought in at a later stage.

My Lords, if the Minister accuses my noble friend Lord Waddington of paranoia towards the intention of the European Union in this regard, would he at least admit that the boundaries of these regional assemblies have been agreed in Brussels? Will he say whether it is the Government's intention that these assemblies should be eventually financed by local taxpayers, by Westminster or by the European Union?

My Lords, they would be a strand of local government and their financing would reflect the funding of local government. Clearly, the exact form of financing would be a matter for decision at the time. They would certainly not be an extension of any European structure. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the fact that the Commission has accepted the UK Government's proposals on what the statistical regions within Europe should be for Government Office purposes. That is nothing to do with how we devolve power within the United Kingdom. It is and will continue to be entirely a matter for the United Kingdom and the people of the United Kingdom.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What legislation they intend to introduce in the light of the report by the European Union's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare entitled The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers).

My Lords, the report by the European Union's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare addresses production at the EU level. That is consistent with the Government's view that any new legislation should be pursued on an EU basis. We look forward to proposals from the EU Commission to that end. We must aim, if at all possible, for EU legislation which will apply to all EU producers rather than take unilateral measures which would impose requirements on our producers alone.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he not agree that we have often in the past set a good example to Europe and have paved the way by producing our own legislation? Does he remember that as long ago as 1992 the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that maximum stocking densities should be statutory? When I introduced a Bill to that effect in 1996, the then Labour Party Front-Bench spokesman was very sympathetic to the idea.

Yes, my Lords; I remember that very well indeed. Unfortunately, the Bill did not get very far. The noble Lord is correct that there was an excellent report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1992 which led to research and to the broiler welfare code. I understand that additional research is being undertaken and that we are awaiting a further report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It would be wrong for me to try to second-guess its conclusions. It is an entirely independent body.

My Lords, will the Minister say whether he has the same concern for the welfare of farmers?

My Lords, the noble Lord should know that the welfare of farmers has been my lifetime career.

My Lords, if the regulations are introduced in this country or in the European Union, how will this Government or European governments enforce the same standards on imported chickens and chicken products from countries where the same standards may not apply?

My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. There are strict rules on the importation of poultry meat from third countries outside the EU. They must originate from a third country that is approved by the Commission; they must originate from premises that are approved by the Commission; and they must be accompanied by a health certificate completed by an official, a veterinary in the country of origin. Under EU rules, all consignments of poultry meat imported from third countries are subject to veterinary inspection. Therefore, there is a wide-ranging area of inspection and regulation with regard to imports. It is true that standards are lower in some countries than in others. However, the rules are there, and if they are complied with, the poultry meat is perfectly safe.

My Lords, do the Government agree that the key to this matter is labelling so that consumers know whether or not they are buying a chicken that is produced to high animal welfare standards? In the pig industry, labelling on pig meat products is still inadequate. What progress has there been on the Government's better labelling initiative which the Minister launched with the statement that it would contain information about how foods were produced? We have yet to see the effect of that initiative on the supermarket shelves.

My Lords, the labelling proposals are going forward. They require agreement from the Commission. Of equal importance are the new assurance schemes that are being implemented. A chicken assurance scheme will be part of the British farm standard. If one adds to that the high standards demanded by supermarkets of their suppliers and the work that we are carrying out on labelling, consumers can be satisfied that poultry meat is safe.

My Lords, can the Minister state what percentage of imported chicken meat is tested to ensure that it meets the standards that he mentioned earlier?

My Lords, every consignment of poultry meat imported from a third country is subject to at least a documentary and identity check at a border inspection post at the external EU border. On average, one out of every two consignments is also physically checked for health and other purposes.

My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of the possible cost implications to the British poultry industry of implementing the EU regulations as opposed to those that we have at present?

My Lords, we have not even seen the regulations. At some stage, the report will lead to a draft directive. We shall then know what the regulations are and the cost of them. I believe that every farmer now realises that the safety of the product and the satisfaction of the consumer is well worth paying for.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the industry in this country is already at risk of being uncompetitive due to the hundred-plus pieces of legislation emanating from the United Kingdom and the EU? Does he also agree that any further legislation will put businesses in this country at risk and open the door for further imports from countries that are far less regulated, particularly those in the Far East?

Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is correct. The Government are concerned to raise the standards of broiler welfare in this country. As I have said, any changes are best achieved on a Europe-wide basis to maintain our competitive position. National legislation, however well intentioned, has a real risk, referred to already, of simply exporting the welfare problems of the home market to products produced elsewhere to lower welfare standards.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied with the process for the recent election of the Mayor of London.

My Lords, a number of electoral innovations were tried out for the first time in the Greater London elections. I am unsure whether the Question of the noble Lord refers to the constitutional arrangements, the voting system, the communications with electors, the new voting arrangements, the turnout, the count, or indeed the result. While there are many grounds for satisfaction on all of those, it would be true to say that the Government are not entirely satisfied on many aspects.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that almost honest Answer. Is it fair to say, on a non-party political basis—the Mayor of London is now an independent— that the shambles was probably the worst since Admiral Byng was shot for not relieving the garrison in Menorca? At least that has not happened yet to poor "Dobbo". He is on the Back Benches, which is probably the equivalent.

Does the Minister agree that the result is probably the worst possible for London as the Prime Minister is on record as constantly saying that he neither has any trust in Mr Livingstone nor does he believe that he will he a good mayor? Despite all the hoo-ha, only one-third of the electorate voted. Do the Government seriously intend to proceed with elected mayors for every unitary authority in the country? What other constitutional changes does the Pied Piper of Downing Street have in mind? Surely, the British people have a right to know.

My Lords, on the situation in London, we should do what the new Mayor has said. We should draw a line under the electoral period and, in effect, all parties should try to make the new structure of our capital city work. To that end, the Government will be supportive of the Mayor and the Assembly. There will be difficult tasks for the Mayor and the Assembly. This is a big extension of democracy in London. Clearly, I regret that the turnout was not as high as anticipated. However, it was significantly higher than in many previous local elections. I believe that the people of London gave a fairly clear indication that they wished to see the authority work.

With regard to the rest of the country, the proposals that have been debated at great length in this House under the Local Government Bill give the option for other local authorities to go for directly elected mayors. Whether they do so or not will not be decided in Downing Street or by this House; it will be decided by the people in the localities, as should happen.

My Lords, with the new constitutional arrangements for London now in place, will Her Majesty's Government decline to answer for London issues in this House, as they now do for almost everything affecting Scotland and Wales? If English regional assemblies are set up, will we, in this House, end up with more and more new Labour Peers who will have less and less to do?

My Lords, there are a few new Labour Peers who wish that they had a little less to do. As always, the demands of this House are quite substantial for Front Benchers and Back Benchers. The position must be that the Government will take responsibility for that which is within the powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is responsible for local government and that includes Greater London. On areas of competence, the situation is not equivalent to that of the Assembly in Wales or the Parliament in Scotland. Nevertheless, the Government have never sought to defend every single decision of any local authority. I suspect the same will be true of the Greater London Authority.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a widespread cross-party view, including that of the Mayor of London himself, that the whole idea of an executive mayorship is a failure and should be dumped as soon as possible?

My Lords, I suspect that that is no longer the view of the Mayor of London. Indeed, four or five days after the elections it would be a little premature for us to take that view, and we certainly do not. We believe that an executive mayor, certainly in London and probably elsewhere, will be of benefit.

My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating your Lordships' House for ensuring, by our recent votes, that everyone in London received at least an election address from all the candidates? Looking at the electoral system, I understand that the number of spoilt ballot papers was significantly greater than normal. Can the noble Lord tell me how many ballot papers were spoilt and confirm whether that number is significantly greater than normal? Does he put that down to a bad explanation in the leaflet from the Home Office or the fact that the PR system was as complex as some of us suggested during the debates? As Livingstone's victims always end up in your Lordships' House, when can we welcome "Lord Dobbins"?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, my noble friend Lord Bassam and myself can congratulate ourselves on the cross-party agreement reached in this House on the communication which meant that 5 or 6 million Londoners had in a single leaflet the claims and promises of all the candidates. That was useful and therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord for his cooperation in the matter. As regards his other questions, I fear I cannot be quite so forthcoming.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, rightly raised the question of spoiled ballot papers. In one electoral division in which I took a particular interest, there were, I believe, 12,494 spoiled ballot papers in relation to the assembly election. That represented a figure approximately 3·5 times the size of the majority of the winning candidate—I make that comment with some interest. It was not so much the information provided by the Home Office but rather that provided on the ballot paper, instructing people to cast two votes and to register those votes in different columns, that perhaps should be reviewed. Can my noble friend offer his views?

My Lords, the reason I was unable to be more forthcoming on that aspect of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was that I do not yet have the full picture. My noble friend is correct to point out an unusually high number of spoiled ballot papers. Undoubtedly that will lead to an investigation by the returning officer for Greater London. He will look at all aspects of the election and will shortly make recommendations to Ministers. My colleagues and I will need to consider those recommendations in due course.

My Lords, since the Government have repeatedly assured us that they believe in transparency in all matters electoral and political, is the noble Lord able to enlighten us as to what advice was given to members of the Labour Party as to how they should use their second vote?

My Lords, as far as I am aware, the Labour Party gave no advice. However, that is not a matter for this House. No doubt political parties will give different advice and, as I understand it, they will give different advice in different parts of London. I do not believe that that in any way invalidates the transparency of this election and the fact that, by and large, London now has an authority which, for the sake of everyone in the capital, we now wish to see work.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether HM Inspector of Prisons will produce a further report on the situation at Portland following the disturbance last week.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not intend to ask the Chief Inspector of Prisons to investigate this incident as it is rightly a matter for the Prison Service, which is conducting its own inquiry. The chief inspector's recent report highlights a number of serious deficiencies in the treatment of young offenders and in conditions at Portland, but it also recognises the significant progress and plans being made by the new governor. In his report Sir David Ramsbotham stated that the new governor was to be commended on what he had done and should be supported in what he has in mind for the future. The three key issues raised by the prisoners in the recent disturbance are already being addressed.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but it will be of little comfort to parents and in particular to young offenders serving sentences in Portland. Why is it that the Home Office has still to respond to the HMI report of the inspection carried out in October and November 1999? Furthermore, is it not a shocking indictment of the Prison Service when the chief inspector says, in effect, that the treatment of young offenders was wholly unacceptable and that the approach of the staff was based on fear and intimidation? Does the Minister accept that a great many things are going wrong at Portland, as reflected by the recent disturbances, and is it not time for him to arrange for Sir David to inspect Portland again sooner rather than later?

My Lords, it has been acknowledged that the chief inspector's report was extremely valuable. It has been accepted that some aspects of the regime at Portland were overly militaristic and thus were unacceptable. For that reason, the director-general was keen to see in place a new governor for Portland young offender institution. Very good work is now being undertaken. Sir David Ramsbotham has made clear his support for the plans being made by the new governor. As regards the question of whether Sir David should reinspect, naturally he will do so in due course. That usually happens after a period of around 12 months. The visit will be unannounced. No doubt we shall reflect carefully on the findings of that fresh inspection in the context of the 157 recommendations made in his initial report. However, the board of visitors and the director-general found no evidence of institutionalised brutality; neither did the chief inspector. Other aspects of the regime at Portland were of more concern to him.

My Lords, the chief inspector did find evidence of widespread bullying at Portland. Has the Prison Service given further thought to the question of why the board of visitors to Portland was unable to pinpoint and report on that bullying? In particular, has the Prison Service decided what further guidance should be given to boards of visitors on the action that they should take under prison rule 774 which calls on boards immediately to inform the Secretary of State of any abuse that is brought to their notice? Furthermore, will the Minister ask the Prison Service to use form F213 relating to reports on violence against inmates and staff rather than findings at adjudications when evaluating key performance indicator 2 concerning violence against prisoners?

My Lords, specific action has been taken to deal with the issue of bullying. An anti-bullying committee has been re-formed. I understand that it will be given a high profile within the institution. However, a balance must be struck here. The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of performance indicators. My understanding is that the recorded instances of bullying in Portland are lower than those elsewhere within the prison estate. I am extremely pleased to tell the House that the governor has recently issued firm instructions to staff; a document entitled HMYO Portland: A Vision for the 21st Century has been produced which deals with precisely these issues; and a whole new training regime has been put in place to address issues of bullying. We believe that these actions are right and that these matters should be tackled firmly. We shall not tolerate bullying in the prison estate as a whole.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the Government's figures, in this country we lock up more young people than most of the rest of Europe apart from Romania, Estonia and Lithuania? Can he tell us when government policies might lead to a reduction in the number of young people being locked up so that the staff at Portland will have an opportunity to deal with fewer prisoners and thus do a better job?

My Lords, I am aware that we have a large prison estate that covers young offenders. Since 1st May 1997 the general thrust of this Government's policy has been to focus much more attention towards activities based on re-educating and reorienting young offenders. That is now developing into a very successful programme. Young offenders also benefit greatly from the welfare-to-work and New Deal programmes that are in place outside prison. The purpose of our policy is to ensure that those who are released from prisons and institutions are better prepared for the world of work. Contact with the world of work is probably one of the biggest deterrents to slipping back into an offending pattern of life.

My Lords, I apologise for taking up a moment or two of your Lordships' time, and I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for allowing me to ask a question.

Noble Lords will be aware that outside this building, in Millbank, there are at the present moment encamped the gathered legions of a company called McNicholas who are planting green piping all over the place. They are either utterly unaware or do not care that they are an infernal nuisance to the citizens of London because they are blocking the highway. Incidentally, if they do not actually block it, they are also restricting access to your Lordships' House.

I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for his courtesy in looking into this matter. I hope that he will be now be nasty enough to move these people on.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. However, as soon as I saw the roadworks in place after the Easter Recess, I rather expected that the noble Lord would ask me about them. I wish only that I could state that they are now the responsibility of the Mayor of London rather than the Government Chief Whip.

The roadworks outside the Palace were planned for the week of the Easter Recess. That was announced on the Peers' Notice Board. On the sensible instructions of the police, the work was delayed to avoid the possibility of providing material for use in the demonstration which took place on Monday, 1st May. The work will now be completed by 13th or 14th May.

rose to call attention to the case for a review of the workings of the House of Lords in the 21st century; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my approach to today's debate will be a good deal less portentous than the wording of the Motion. I would be glad to think that what we suggest will last as much as a decade rather than a century. In addition, my concern is with practicalities. My main focus is on the question: what can your Lordships' House usefully do? Many of the suggestions that will be made, in my judgment, can be met without involving a committee of inquiry. But I accept that, for some proposals, further discussion by a committee may be necessary.

I start with the assumption that the House remains a balanced one with no party having a majority, but with the Government and principal Opposition being about the same size. I am not sure that it is fully appreciated how significant that is. I take it for granted that we continue to govern ourselves, preferably without a Speaker.

We must also accept the preliminary wording of the Royal Commission and have,

"regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament".

I also assume that there will be no significant reform of the Commons for the next few years.

That leads me to the first possible controversial topic. We are not an elected Chamber, and even if the hybrid Chamber recommended by the Royal Commission were accepted—I have grave doubts about that—we would continue to be predominantly appointed. It follows that for the foreseeable future the Salisbury convention must hold. I interpret that to mean that legislation promised in the government party's manifesto must, in principle, be carried. I use the words, "in principle", advisedly. I do not take them to mean that such proposed legislation is not to be amended. Quite the contrary. A manifesto Bill is likely to be very important and therefore deserves extra scrutiny from your Lordships rather than less.

I offer two hypothetical examples. When the Tories decided to introduce a poll tax, it was not the job of your Lordships, whatever their views, to wreck such a proposal. But it was reasonable for Peers to seek to make the tax more sensitive; for example, to differences in income and wealth. Noble Lords will recall that Peers from all parties tried to do that, but failed. Such an attempt would not fall foul of the convention. Equally, we are about to examine a Freedom of Information Bill. The Government are entitled to have such a Bill passed. But in my judgment, the Government's definition of "freedom of information" is not ipso facto the only possibly valid one. Thus a Peer who sought to amend the Bill by saying this rather than that is the proper definition, is quite within his or her rights to do so.

I hasten to add, by the way, that in saying on matters of legislation that the Government are not automatically right, I am not saying that the Government are automatically wrong.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord so early in his remarks, but he said something rather important in relation to the Salisbury convention. Does it follow from what he said that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, believes that we would be within our rights, and within the convention as he understands it, to insist on the sort of changes to the principle and how it should be applied that he outlined, in any quarrel with another place?

My Lords, the noble Viscount anticipates what I am going to say. The word "insist" appears in a moment and he will hear in a few minutes my view of it. I was discussing something slightly more general, but I am glad he raises the point.

If the Commons is pre-eminent and the Salisbury convention holds, it follows inexorably that we must regard ourselves as largely, but not entirely, a revising chamber. I believe that we can do that job on the basis of our experience, our knowledge and our expertise. Perhaps I may make an uncharacteristically acerbic comment here. One of the more fatuous recommendations of the Royal Commission is that we should be broadly representative of British society. My view is much more old-fashioned, and is precisely the opposite; namely, that our value derives from the fact that we are not representative, either as individuals or as a group. That is, of course, quite different from the need for our Chamber to be balanced.

We have a comparative advantage compared with the Commons and, for reasons which I do not understand, we also appear to have more time seriously to scrutinise Bills. We are useful when we are able to say, "That part of the Bill makes no sense"; or "That part of the Bill does not achieve what it sets out to do"; or "That part of the Bill has damaging side effects"; or, as happens quite frequently, "Would it not help if the Bill were amended to attend to this additional problem?". That is a way in which we can make a great contribution.

If scrutiny is our main task, there are certain procedural consequences, many of which are already built into our system. If I may don my old-fogy hat, in recent times we seem to have forgotten our own ways. One is that Second Reading speeches on broad matters of principle should be confined to Second Reading. I admit that I offend as often as others, but we should all behave ourselves better.

Next, I for one should like to see a more dispassionate approach to the Committee stage. That involves greater tolerance and a willingness to listen on all sides. Government briefs with the word "resist" typed all over them can no longer be the norm. I have always believed, and my experience of Whitehall stretches back to nearly four decades, that that is for the convenience of officials, not Ministers, and they sell it as a kind of macho principle. But if Ministers have to be macho, no one can blame the Opposition or sundry Back-Benchers from showing what they can do by flexing their muscles.

Having said that, the Opposition must be reasonable too. Indeed, if we accept that the Government, having been elected by the people, are entitled to govern, then the Opposition have to show more tolerance. They cannot operate on the equally daft approach of "insist, insist, insist", let alone, "divide, divide, divide". I do not doubt that sometimes an amendment is seen by its proponents as so fundamental that they cannot compromise and must insist and must divide. And of course we are a political House and have our basic differences. But I have to say that we cannot die in the last ditch on everything; indeed, logically we can only die in the last ditch once. It follows that when either side can agree on an amendment after due reflection following the Committee stage, the Report stage is when we should divide. And I return to the consequence of such Divisions in a moment.

Let me now mention briefly Third Reading. When I first came to your Lordships' House I was told that Third Reading was for minor technical amendments and was a way of last minute tidying up. Over the past few years that has gone by default. We see substantive new amendments tabled by all and sundry, not least the Government. Sometimes we appear to get entirely new departures at Third Reading. I am convinced that that must stop, and the Government must take the lead. If the Bill is not broadly right by Third Reading then it really ought to go.

All governments have a rather inflated sense of the value of their legislation. I can only say that I can think of quite a few Acts of Parliament of which, quite independent of their political origins, it is difficult to say what net loss to national welfare would have occurred if they had been allowed quietly to die. To put it the other way round: if the Bills are that important, they ought to be drafted correctly to begin with.

Where there are Divisions, how is their outcome to be responded to? Let me start with a non-government amendment which is defeated. The practice has grown that if we are defeated once, we must try, try and try again; which means using the same speech over and over again. Again, ignoring the dying in the last ditch phenomenon, we ought largely to stop that.

More importantly, what of a non-government amendment, opposed by the Government, which is carried? It will go back to the Commons in the usual way and what is important is how the Government respond to it. Two changes in the method of response are required. They are both based on the assumption that what we have done is to ask the Government to think again. First, having put forward a reasoned case, even though the Minister in our House disagreed, there need be no loss of face on the part of the Government if they say that on further reflection that amendment, or something similar to it, is now acceptable.

Secondly, if their conclusion remains that the view of your Lordships is not acceptable, they must be obliged to come back to us with a fully reasoned argument as to why not and not merely say, "The Commons do not like it: end of story". If the Government are more open-minded in their approach to defeats in this House, it would seem to me that the so-called game of "ping pong" between the two Houses should become more of a rarity than it has been in the past few years. I reiterate that all that depends on good sense on both sides.

I turn briefly to secondary legislation. Many of us expressed our views on that in the excellent debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, just a couple of weeks ago. All the contributions made that day were sensible and do not need repeating now, except to emphasise that we should, on occasion, vote on such matters as secondary legislation, obliging the Government to come back again, preferably with the order amended satisfactorily.

When I have discussed these points with other Peers throughout your Lordships' House they have objected that the approach of constructive engagement that I have outlined here holds the executive less to account than direct confrontation. Frankly, on the basis of my experience in your Lordships' House, I beg to differ. Speaking directly to the Opposition and also to some of my colleagues on the Back Benches, the best way to embarrass the executive is by informed exposure of their failings; not knockabout rough stuff, much as I enjoy that sort of thing.

Furthermore, what I propose is an implicit contract. If one side does not meet its part of the deal, the other side should feel no obligation to continue to do so. I am talking about a convention here, rather than something set in tablets of stone—that is to say, something that should really be dear to your Lordships' hearts.

There are a few other topics that I wish to mention before concluding. The specialist committees, including the European committee of your Lordships' House, have been most successful. They investigate topics of public importance, throwing light on them and often preparing the ground for future policy and legislation. In my judgment, we should have more of them. My own view is that we should not imitate the other place and track individual departments. Instead, our committees—our new committees, I hope—should be subject based; for example, I believe that we should have one based very broadly on international affairs, one on all aspects of social policy and one on constitutional questions. Indeed, there may be others that noble Lords will suggest. In addition, we should continue to have general debates in which we are able dispassionately to participate in the process of helping the public form opinions on matters of general importance.

We should not exaggerate how important we are. Sometimes I, and others, despair that we talk to no one but ourselves. I hope that that is not entirely true. Certainly, as long as we are privileged to be a central part of the parliamentary system, we have a duty to raise public awareness of difficult problems, not least in the realm of values. Let me add that I remain an old-fashioned liberal in the sense of recognising that, on many of these topics, there is no certainty and more than one approach may be valid.

All this leads me to the questions of facilities and working hours. Perhaps I may be allowed one anecdote. When I first came to your Lordships' House, Lord Home sat next to me in the Bishops Bar and regaled me for a long time with marvellous stories of life when Baldwin was Prime Minister. He asked me what I thought of this House. I said, "Well, I actually love it"—it was only early days—"but the only thing that troubles me is the enormous length of the working day here". I cannot do an imitation of his marvellous voice, but he said, "Oh yes, dear boy, I fully understand that. When I first came we had difficulty in keeping the business going until tea time".

On the subject of resources and working hours perhaps I may say, first, that we have lived too long as church mice. It is high time that we had a substantial increase in resources, not equal to, but not far from what the Commons have. Secondly, our working hours are absurd. We really must take more seriously the possibility of at least one morning session. If committees can meet in the morning, surely some legislative business can take place then as it does on some Fridays. The obvious time to experiment with is Thursday morning. My general view is that if we ask industry, commerce and the public services to reexamine what they do and raise their productivity, why should we not do the same?

I have two concluding remarks to make. One is that we ought to discuss these subjects today independently of where we sit. The future is uncertain. Governments do change, as do oppositions. We do not know when, but we can be confident that some day all of us, for one reason or another, will be sitting or lying elsewhere. I hope, therefore, that this debate does not deteriorate into a party wrangle.

A leading Member on the Opposition Benches, a man I hold in the highest esteem, said to me, "The trouble with you, Maurice, is that you are hopelessly naive. You believe totally in reason and reasonableness". I pleaded guilty to him then and I plead guilty to the charge again today. It seems to me that we have a great opportunity to make this House very much more effective and able to fulfil a serious role in the constitution. I hope that we take the chance and do not walk away because of the risks involved. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for giving us the opportunity to discuss a very important issue. My noble friend opened the debate this afternoon with characteristic individualism and panache. He focused attention on the primary task of how we scrutinise legislation. I know that other speakers will also concentrate on this procedure, but the agenda is very wide. We may this afternoon legitimately range from computer facilities to committee structures, from financial resources to organising refreshments.

My purpose in speaking early is to welcome such a broad debate and to hope that we can translate at least some of the proposals that I expect to hear today into action and change.

In his conclusion, my noble friend said that,

"we have a great opportunity to make this House very much more effective and able to fulfil a serious role in the constitution".

I entirely endorse that position. Noble Lords are aware that the Government have accepted the principles of the Wakeham report on stage two reform, but I think that we should separate the Royal Commission's proposals from the kind of ideas that may come forward today and approach their consideration in a different, perhaps more ad hoc, more flexible way. A House .for the Future, to borrow the title used by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, can be built in many ways. After all, despite perceptions that our working practices may have been set in particularly sticky Victorian aspic, they have been regularly altered in modern times.

Until last year, the ways by which people became Members of this House had been constant for 40 years. The volume of business had increased but not fundamentally changed in character; but the ways of doing business have changed considerably over that same period. For example, we now have the Grand Committee procedure on some Bills. The dinner hour is now used more productively, following the introduction of time-limited Unstarred Questions. We have established the authoritative Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and now have two topical Questions each week. I am sure that noble Lords on all Benches will agree that these changes have improved the capacity of the House as a revising and debating chamber. I give these examples simply to illustrate that it is possible to pursue a practical agenda to make the House more effective, without embarking on fundamental constitutional reform.

As I say, I think that we have now a great opportunity. It is an opportunity where we could even lead the Westminster Parliament in bringing this House more obviously into line with some aspects of contemporary life. After all, in 1985 we were the first Chamber to introduce television coverage—four years before the other place followed suit. The House of Lords was rightly praised for its early recognition of future trends.

I do not need to remind your Lordships that, today, digital television and computer technology are revolutionising every part of our lives. They are revolutionising the way people work and the way they want to live. Achieving a good work:life balance has become a universal aim. I would suggest that it has particular resonance for those engaged in parliamentary life.

I turn to one fundamental issue to which my noble friend has already referred. I believe that we should examine our sitting hours and days. This House already sits longer than almost any other legislative chamber in the world. In terms of weeks, it outranks the House of Commons, and in terms of the hours, it runs very close. We need to analyse whether this is necessary, desirable or even defensible.

The need to balance sensible sitting hours with effective scrutiny is not a new problem. The other place has long made efforts to structure its workload in ways which reduce the need for that House to sit late, while retaining Members' ability to hold the Government to account. Under a previous administration, the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—who I am pleased to see in his place—introduced a package of reforms, securing him a very important place in parliamentary history.

In this Parliament, the House of Commons has achieved an increase in debating time without an increase in sitting time by holding "parallel sittings" in Westminster Hall. Parliament's role is not reduced, but the time is used more efficiently.

The devolved institutions and the European Parliament have written into their standing orders what are called "social hours", compared with the often "unsocial hours" we demand of ourselves.

In Canada and Australia, the second chambers have also similarly altered their patterns of sitting. I am not suggesting that the issues are identical for your Lordships' House, but I do think that we should look at these other chambers to see what we can learn from their working practices.

One special characteristic of your Lordships' House is that we take pride in being part time, and, in the best sense of the word, an amateur House. However, this has consequences. The first consequence is that many Members of the House want to play a full part here but also need to earn their living. Members of this House are typically juggling three competing priorities: their work here, their work outside, and their family responsibilities.

So we need seriously to ask whether the way we work here balances those competing priorities in the best way possible. My personal view is that the answer is "No". Our hours, like those of the other place, to some extent reflect the desire to juggle two careers: to earn a living in the mornings, and to be in the House later in the day.

But where does that leave family life, especially for those who do not live in central London? And, can anyone feel that they are performing adequately in their other roles if they have been in this House until 2 a.m., as they were this morning, fulfilling their duties as legislators?

One alternative would see the House working a more nine to five pattern, finishing at a time that allowed for some free evenings. But what would that mean for those who pursue a professional career outside the House, or indeed for those who may enjoy being here for social reasons because their families are far away?

It is, of course, possible that morning sittings could be arranged so that they involved an active quorum of Members—after all, the quorum for business on the Floor of the House is only 30—or that our new offices should include the latest modern technology to make it easier for people to keep in touch with outside work, which is often now not tied to a particular physical place.

I am not going to pretend that I, or the Government, have a blueprint for any such change. But I do believe that we should consider very carefully how we try to reconcile parliamentary and personal priorities in a 21st century context. From my experience as a Minister in this Government with responsibility for improving working lives across the public sector and as Minister for Women, I know that the issue of the work:life balance has become a top priority in today's society. This week is national Work:Life Balance Week and the House may have seen the research published to mark it—showing that half of this country's fathers spend fewer than five minutes a day with their children during the working week.

As my noble friend Lord Peston suggested, handling legislation is at the pivot of our improved effectiveness. But to the outsider, although I recognise not to the traditional parliamentarian, it seems common sense, for example, to try to reduce the number of occasions on which virtually every Member of the House has to be here in case there is a vote.

There are a variety of ways of achieving change. For example, do we need to take as much legislation on the Floor of the House? As my noble friend Lord Peston suggested, do we need to have a regular format for Divisions in Committee, or should we look more daringly at alternative procedures? Could we, for example, contemplate electronic methods of voting?

I am not going to canvass the full range of options this afternoon. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will have their favourites which they will urge on the House. I know that some noble Lords will suggest that the only thing we need to do is to reduce the amount of legislative and other business the House is asked to consider.

Oh!

My Lords, I am glad to have obtained that response from the Opposition. The amount of parliamentary business is not a unique burden imposed by this Government. In 1980, for example, the Conservative administration acted as newly elected administrations often do to achieve the programme on which they were elected. That administration put 57 government Bills through this House, compared with a total of 27 in 1998–1999.

If we are not prepared seriously to examine the issues of timetables and social hours, I am afraid that there will be increasing difficulty in attracting those whom we would all wish to see as working Members of the House. Those with professional and business careers and who enjoy professional distinction outside the House add greatly to its authority, but they do not expect the vagaries of timetable that our present arrangements produce. These days people are not prepared to order their working lives so that they never know whether they are going to finish at 7 p.m. or midnight. This is especially true of younger people and for everyone with family responsibilities.

The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords proposes a chamber that encourages membership from under-represented groups. It proposes that at least one-third of the membership should comprise women. Frankly, I think that it may be difficult to achieve and sustain this proper ambition with our present working practices.

Following last year's reforms, this House operates less like an exclusive gentleman's club. But there is much more we can now do to make it an attractive modern environment for effective work. I suggest that these are issues that can be considered and not postponed until further constitutional reform.

This debate offers an important opportunity to look critically at ourselves in the context of the changes that have taken place in working practices in other legislatures and in the outside world.

In conclusion, last year my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon chaired a very useful working party on procedures. In 1994, Lord Rippon's inquiry produced far-reaching proposals on saving the time of the House. If we believe—as I do—that there could be still further practical change to the benefit of Parliament and its Members, we should build on that experience and find a mechanism to consider progress now. I am hopeful that practical, useful proposals will emerge this afternoon and as Leader of the House I look forward to working to achieve them.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is already an institution in this House. He has been here long enough to see many changes. As he well knows, the most useful changes have always been those adopted by agreement within. I respect his honesty and integrity. He is a party loyalist but he is also an independent man. He, no more than I, would want to see an attempt by the Executive to "mug" this House under the misnomer of modernisation.

Let me make clear where I stand on these matters as Leader of the Opposition as well as a simple Member of the House. We should not make changes in our procedures for our own personal convenience—still less that of Ministers—but only such changes as enable our House to operate more effectively in scrutinising not just this Government but all governments. I believe that in essence that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made.

As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, this House is not one that never changes. Let us consider some of the things that have happened during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been a Member of the House. I refer to the Denham Convention; the strengthening of the Select Committees of the House and the creation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. These and many other changes have been agreed by this House. They range from sparing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from the necessity to wear breaches or to read out the Queen's Speech to far more significant issues—these were not recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—such as suspending Peers' right to re-open issues voted on in Committee and lost. Therefore no one should claim that this House rejects change; quite the reverse is the case.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned the introduction of the Grand Committee or Moses Room procedures. Some see this as an example to debate more widely at Committee stage. However, it is not a change that has been entirely successful, I fear. The use of the Moses Room was intended to relieve pressure on the Chamber—to reduce the number of late Sittings. All that has happened is that governments have tried to cram even more business into already overloaded timetables. Here is an example of a way of improving the working practices of this House which has failed and has simply allowed governments to snatch an advantage. The number of sittings which last until after 10 p.m. has risen, not fallen. That is not because the Opposition are any better than their predecessor, or more tiresome, but because the Government are pushing through more major, and often poorly drafted, Bills. We should be wary of not making it easier for governments to stuff the legislative sausage machine ever more tightly with ever less scrutiny.

We have had two record Sessions since 1997. That is perhaps not surprising on the part of a new government. But already, it seems, we face another, and this is after we have devolved Scottish legislation to the Scottish Parliament. The insatiable appetite of the Whitehall bureaucracy never seems to wane.

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt. I know that it is a timed debate, but there is a certain amount of flexibility.

I referred to only one figure in my opening remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to comment on the fact that during the year 1979–80, under a Conservative government, the total number of Bills passed in this House was 71; in the second Session of that government it was 57; and in the third 60. In the first Session under this Government it was 52 and in the second 27. Does that reflect what the noble Lord is describing?

My Lords, I make two points in response. First, successive governments are all guilty of that. Secondly, the noble Baroness will recognise the weight and size of the Bills that have been introduced by this Government and the weight and number of amendments. No doubt the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, when he responds to the debate, will confirm that record numbers of amendments have been agreed in this House during the last two Sessions of Parliament.

It must be right to review our procedures from time to time, but I have always felt that the Procedure Committee is effective enough to do that. Perhaps that should be the way forward.

I dislike the wording of the Motion because it implies that the workings of the House are somehow outdated and unfit for the 21st century—even for the first decade of the 21st century—and that they should therefore, in the cliché of Blairism, be "modernised" or changed to fit into what the noble Baroness called "contemporary life". Change for change's sake is not a good maxim, particularly for the procedures of Parliament.

I am all for changes which strengthen the ability of this House to do its job and which improve the committee system in order better to scrutinise governments. For instance, I am all for the new Economics Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has championed; for a new Constitutional Committee; for a truly independent Appointments Commission; for shorter ministerial answers; for a weekly Question Time of the Leader of the House; and for better scrutiny of the mass of regulations that all too often amount to "rule by decree" by government departments. But when it comes to modernisation, I am a sceptic.

Whether on the receiving end in government or on the scrutinising end in opposition, I have come to see the open procedures of this House as a treasure store of parliamentary freedom. In my view, if this House is to function effectively as a revising chamber, there is one prerequisite of fundamental importance, and that is to preserve the freedom of Back-Benchers in this House.

We are a House of equals. A Bill Committee is a conversation of the whole House; every Peer has a right to set down business, to ask questions, to propose amendments and to take the opinion of the House. That business, those questions, those amendments will always be heard. It is important that we should maintain those rights—and that would include the right to take the opinion of the House.

After all, what is the function of Parliament if not to express an opinion? Nothing provides government Ministers with more incentive to explain a case and to draft legislation properly than the fear of facing a difficult vote at a time not necessarily to their convenience or of their choosing.

We—and Back-Benchers in particular—are fortunate that there is no mandatory grouping or selection of amendments; no ban on manuscript amendments, except at Third Reading; and no curtailing of discussion by timed votes. Do we, for the convenience of a few Ministers, want to be the generation that looks back and says, "Yes, we were the House that introduced the guillotine into the Second Chamber"? The Government do not have a stranglehold on our timetable or our business, as in another place; we do it by agreement—and, surprisingly, it works rather well.

There is therefore in this House the implicit contract mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The newest Back-Bencher has the same right to press his or her point as the most venerable former Leader o f the House. That is the mark of a truly free House. I do not want to see that changed; I do not want to see matters rearranged for the convenience of the Front Benches rather than the Back Benches; I do not want us to lose, for example, the minimum intervals that protect this House from the executive railroading legislation through, as all too often happens in another place.

I have heard it said that some of our newer colleagues are annoyed that they have to spend time hanging around in the evening waiting for a vote. To them I say, "Welcome to Parliament". They will have to learn that that goes with the privilege of being a Member of this Parliament.

I shall say one thing about "family friendly". I am the father of three small children. They are in bed in the evening and therefore I am free to do my work in this House. But my children, who are of school age, revel in playing with me in the mornings. I find the idea of going to morning sittings rather more complicated than other noble Lords whose children may be older. I am not saying that there is not a case for it; I am simply saying that it is not quite as obvious as some of its proponents believe.

If you curtail discussion on an issue, you curtail the freedoms of this House. This House does not filibuster; I trust that it never will. Equally, it looks into the nooks and crannies of the law; I hope that it always will. Too often I have the sense that some in the executive considers Parliament at best a boring formality and at worst a tiresome nuisance, to be swatted or bypassed whenever it can be.

I hope that when we come to look at our procedures we shall remember that they are the product of the wisdom of many generations; that they are part of the safety glass in our constitution; and that they are one reason why a perceived House of privilege has so often been the defender of the weak and the disabled when the other House has been rolled over into submission by the Whips of the government of the day. I believe that, far from encroaching on the free procedures of this House, we should be exporting some of our freedoms to another place. Any changes to procedure that we consider should begin and end with one great principle—that is, to build a stronger and more independent Parliament. That would surely be a noble cross-party objective for politics in the 21st century.

My Lords, I, too, from these Benches, welcome the bold and far-ranging Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It will result in something of a portfolio of a debate, with many rather different ideas about somewhat unrelated subjects, but it need not be the worse for that. I very much liked the tone of the noble Lord's remarks; it was what I would call "moderate radicalism". He was looking at the case for change but not assuming that we could in some way fundamentally alter the character of the House. This seems precisely the moment for the House to be discussing the issue. Following the changes, which occupied us for much of last year, the House has become more confident in a way that we could not have foreseen. That is good; but it places new responsibilities on us. The changes to the composition of the House have brought into it more men and women with recent and valuable professional interests. We have to take account of that as well. My conclusion is that we are a rather better House than we were a year ago. It is therefore entirely right that we should review its work and consider how Members of the House can best contribute to it.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in a great deal of what he said. Certainly, when it comes to legislation, the official conduct of business does not involve a failure to scrutinise. On the contrary, if we are orderly and there is a large measure of agreement on both sides of the House, the Government are more likely to get their legislation through in good time. At the same time, the opposition parties will have reasonable opportunities to have their amendments accepted.

The noble Lord referred to "constructive engagement" and to "flexibility". It would be a very good thing if all in the House today—government and opposition parties—agreed on more flexibility in matters relating to legislation.

Where I do not necessarily follow the noble Lord—or, for that matter, the Leader of the House—is in the attempt to look for a "family friendly" House, to use what seems to be developing as the conventional description. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness put forward powerful arguments that need to be seriously considered.

However, I counsel caution. First, it is very important that the House should not reduce its effectiveness in relation to government by changing the balance in favour of the government of the day, of whichever party. It would be very easy for the Government to say, "Go home early; stay away— except when we require you to be here to enable us to get our business through." That is not the way to approach the second Chamber. We need balanced debate on all issues; we must not simply be creatures of the government in terms of how we do our job. Back-Benchers on all sides can be a nuisance to government. However, if they spent too much time with their families they would be rather less of a nuisance than they ought to be.

Secondly, all professional people, certainly in mid-career, have very demanding hours. Those hours involve evenings away. I hope that we do not complain too much about the life that we lead. Most of us rather enjoy it. I say that both in relation to Members of this House and Members of another place as well. Let us not complain too much. It is a hard life for many men and women pursuing their careers, whatever those careers may be. It follows from my comments about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that as between change and the status quo I unequivocally vote for change, although it must be sure-footed and enduring. It must be incremental to achieve those purposes. Change which the House is obliged to accept against its best judgment is not change which will survive. The more there can be broad consensus for change, and for particular changes, the better.

Perhaps I may summarise the areas of change I should like to see. First, I think we should consider and, if we agree, implement without delay all those recommendations of the Wakeham report which do not require legislation. I do not press that further today because I think that the approach I have suggested would be fully consistent with avoiding the cherry-picking—however much some of us might like it—against which the Leader of the House has set her face. Many recommendations in the Wakeham report chime very well with points made in the past by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I see no reason why—indeed the Liaison Committee is considering some of the recommendations now—at an early date the House should not have an opportunity of reaching agreement on those proposals.

Secondly, we should refuse to allow any Treasury reservations to prevent or inhibit the expansion of the Select Committee system. This cannot happen quickly. It requires Members willing to serve. We all know that there are problems of accommodation. But we should not treat the Treasury as a private bank which will allow us only a drip-feed for any changes we want to see. We are a very cheap House, compared even with the Commons, and it is very important that the argument that the Treasury will not like it should not carry if we decide, as I hope we will, to expand our Select Committee system in a number of important directions.

Thirdly, I hope we can adopt a more efficient system for the management of our part of the Palace of Westminster. I have seldom sat through more unsatisfactory meetings than those of the Offices Committee of this House, for reasons that most of those who have been members of it will readily know. By any standards, the Offices Committee, as presently constructed, is a very poor advertisement for the way Parliament conducts itself. I hope we shall see some change. Indeed, I wonder whether the time has come for a House of Lords Commission, comparable to the Commons Commission, which, it seems to me, gives responsibility to a wide spread of Members and yet allows the House of Commons finally to decide. I ask only that we look hard at more efficient management—and that the House is receptive to it when the time comes—of the prosaic aspects of our business.

Fourthly, I hope that the time will come, and the mechanism does exist, for considering jointly with the House of Commons some better ways of working together. I have more than once mentioned from these Benches, without many enthusiastic nods except from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that there is a case for all Bills having a Second Reading first in the Commons, and then coming for Committee, Report and Third Reading to this House before moving back to the Commons. I think there would be real advantages for government. Furthermore, it would enable this House of Parliament to scrutinise legislation before the government of the day are irrevocably committed to it because it has been through the elected House. I think that legislation would be better, and I think that this House would feel more satisfied that its flexibility had achieved the purposes it is meant to serve.

There is scope for change—for incremental change. We should not postpone it until after the general election. Let us begin now. And we should not postpone it until further reform of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, it seems right and proper that at this point in deliberations all the discussions that are taking place in various quarters should be brought together on the Floor of this House to give us the opportunity to hear what is going on in other quarters. So we are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for this initiative.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for her openness to reform and her readiness to discuss the relationship between the personal lives of Members of this House and their effectiveness here. I should like to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about the urgency of getting on with the non-legislative matter contained in the Wakeham report.

I hope I do not need to repeat the keen and continuing interest of the Bishops on these Benches in the reform of both the membership and the workings of this House. A great deal of work is going on, with a group of Bishops looking at detailed responses to the Wakeham report. We are hoping to be in discussion with the Government about that.

I should like to make one very general point and then two more detailed but minor points. The general point concerns the ethos of this House, which the Bishops very much appreciate. The workings of the House reflect that distinctive ethos. It is not perhaps professional in the political terms of another place, which is rightly so. That does not make the House less effective but it does make for a different approach to debate and decision-making. It is certainly my hope that we should retain something of that distinctive ethos.

Many Members of this House make their best contributions because they are not tied to party affiliation. Many Members—not by any means only Bishops—make their best contributions because they hold responsible jobs and exert an influence in their regions and within their professions. Therefore, they are able to bring quite distinctive professional commitments, views and responses to this House.

In any new working arrangements, means should be found to include those without party affiliation and who are not full-time participants in the committee and other machinery which makes this House effective and efficient. I think I would extend that argument to include the retention of Bill scrutiny on the Floor of the House, rather than farming it out to a committee that is hidden away somewhere else in this place. It does make it much easier for those of us who cannot be here every day to participate in Bill reform when it takes place here in the Chamber.

That is my general point. I want to make two smaller but significant points. One is that these Benches appreciate very much the very significant attendance at the daily prayers of the House. We believe that they are integral to our working; that work and worship are two parts of a single song. Although there may be room for some discussion about the content and the style of those prayers, we hope that any working arrangements of the House that are under discussion might retain that as an essential feature of our life.

Finally, could those who are looking at the workings of the House of Lords in the 21st century please look at why it requires 26 of its Members to dress in the 17th century style? We are quite ready to continue with our dog-collars as a sign of the proper humility that would be expected of us, but robes simply make for billowing in the corridors and perspiration in the Chamber.

My Lords, I sense that in this debate noble Lords probably want to talk about procedures rather than facilities. However, the two are connected and it is just worth remembering that improvements in facilities do not necessarily improve the workings of a place any more than do changes in procedures. For instance, more office accommodation and more secretarial assistance undoubtedly accelerated the decline in attendance in the Chamber of the House of Commons and, consequently, the importance and influence of debates there. Anyone who has been in the other place would not doubt that for one moment.

We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his reasonable and conciliatory approach. I certainly agree with him that this is not an appropriate time for a full-blown inquiry into our procedures with a view to major change. It is not an appropriate time simply because we have gone through so much change recently in any event and we have little idea yet what effect those changes will have on the authority of our House and the balance between the two Chambers, let alone what effect any Wakeham changes may have. It cannot be disputed that some procedural changes could have a dramatic effect on our ability to check the Government and cause them to pause and think again. No one questions for one moment the right of the Government to get their business. What is open to question is whether it should be made easier for a government to get their business; and easier at a time when most commentators recognise that there has been a decline in the authority of the other place and in its ability and willingness to check the executive.

Two separate factors seem to have been at work. I have canvassed these in debate before and so I shall put them only in summary form. First, the Prime Minister has adopted a policy of bypassing Parliament whenever possible. The most obvious example is the practice of making important policy statements outside Parliament rather than within, which time and time again has attracted adverse comment from Madam Speaker. Secondly, the Government have sought, not always successfully, to take a very firm grip on the Parliamentary Labour Party, threatening with draconian penalties those who step out of line. If I, when Chief Whip, had tried to enforce a rule requiring Members to tell me if they were going to table any Motion, amendment or Prayer, people would have thought that I had gone off my head. When the House of Commons has been weakened, let us for goodness' sake be jealous of our own procedures.

I am sure that noble Lords opposite are keenly aware of the fact that Labour will not be the government forever and that the day may come when they will be very glad to see this place operating as an effective check on the executive. We are certainly entitled to ask members of the Labour Party to remember that under our system the power to impose delay on the passage of government business is the one effective protection which minorities and individuals have to enforce consideration of their points of view. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, saying that if that right were taken away, Parliament would cease to be an instrument for the preservation of freedom and would become an organ of tyranny and oppression.

I think it is a very happy circumstance that we have no guillotine here. I cannot imagine any democratic government wishing to impose on this place restrictions on debate which were forced on another place only by Irish obstruction of government business in the latter part of the 19th century and which I can say from my experience are wholly unnecessary here. I do not think that any noble Lord can point to a practice of filibustering in this place and to any need for formal restriction on debate. As to intervals between the stages of Bills, they are necessary not just to secure proper consideration here but to give interests outside the House the opportunity to contact noble Lords and try to mobilise support for their points of view. One of our most precious rights, a right long ago removed from Members of another place, is the right to insist on separate discussion of amendments to Bills.

Lastly, with regard to working hours, I really am deeply suspicious of any suggestion that they should be changed. Morning sittings could conflict seriously with committee work. I fear that what the Government are really interested in is not to make life easier for noble Lords but to make life easier for themselves. It is no part of our duty as Back-Benchers to help them in that ambition.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on identifying this topic for debate today. I remember being taught macro-economics by him as a young civil servant. I am pleased to see that he retains his capacity to challenge the established order.

As a fairly new Member of this House, I suppose I ought to show due reticence in commenting on its workings. However, 18 months' experience has caused me to be deeply underwhelmed by the way it operates. For those who like to while away hours in a club-like atmosphere, it provides an extremely convenient location and an appropriately courteous and relaxing atmosphere. But as a business-like place of work, functioning in the 21st century, it leaves much to be desired.

Inevitably, the working arrangements need to be related to role and composition. If we take as our starting point the Royal Commission's report, I believe that we need fundamentally to re-engineer our working practices. This is particularly the case if we expect a reformed House, in the words of the Royal Commission's report,

"to bring a range of different perspectives to bear on the development of public policy".

If we want men and women from a variety of ethnic, social and professional backgrounds to serve here and to combine that service with other jobs and responsibilities, the processes and practices of this place have to change.

Perhaps I may mention a few areas to illustrate where I believe change would improve efficiency with no loss of effectiveness. The first is the way we deal with legislation. I have no quarrel with this House subjecting a government's legislative programme to effective and rigorous scrutiny. What I do have difficulty with is taking the great majority of Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House. That simply ties up a large number of people unnecessarily in the House in order to keep the Government on edge by playing the voting game. It is not about effective scrutiny. There is no reason whatever why detailed scrutiny could not be undertaken in smaller committees by those with real interest in the subject and expertise. That would also make it possible to have more flexible working arrangements using mornings sensibly and sensitively in respect of other people's demands and commitments. It would also reduce the number of—

My Lords, perhaps I may—

My Lords, I thought that the rules of the game are that we are allowed to make our speeches uninterrupted.

Secondly, our rule book—and our lack of policing of it—is a recipe for filibustering and wasting time. For example, we allow the same or virtually the same amendments to be moved and the same speeches to be made successively in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. People move an amendment, withdraw it, move it again, withdraw it, move it again and divide. For the most part this is a waste of everyone's time. In 18 months I have rarely heard many new arguments brought out. What it does do is enable people to polish their speeches between Committee and Third Reading. At the very least, there should be just one shot at an amendment after a reformed Committee stage. Moreover, the absence of a Speaker means that there is no one to put a stop to breaches of procedure and time-wasting. On this issue I differ slightly from my noble friend. I do not think that we should accept the status quo.

Thirdly, if this Chamber is to scrutinise the government of the day effectively, it needs to move to much more of a research and evidence-collecting committee style of operating and to link its work much more with the Select Committee system adopted in the Commons. Why should there not be more combined committees of both Houses covering the main areas of government? The second Chamber could give a lead by taking more functional areas which spread across government departments—for instance, matters relating to children or elderly people.—and scrutinise the activities of several departments and the joined-up approach of government policy.

I very much welcome the commission on the scrutiny role of Parliament set up by the Hansard Society under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, with other Members of this House. I hope that it will be radical and that we shall not be stuffy about responding to its recommendations.

Time does not permit me to go into the many other areas where I believe change is needed. Some have already been mentioned and more will no doubt arise during the course of the debate. I merely say in conclusion that my perception of this place after 18 months is that it is excessively introspective and rather self-satisfied, with some deeply held social prejudices. It needs to open itself up far more to external influences on its working practices and bring in outside help and expertise to modernise its arrangements.

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord with increasing surprise and disagreement, as he gave us the benefit of his views and long experience of this House. If I had to characterise his speech, I rather came to the conclusion as he reached his peroration that perhaps he was committing what has seemed to me to be a perennial difficulty for newcomers to Parliament; namely, they confuse efficiency with effectiveness. I shall not bother to go further into the noble Lord's remarks. I profoundly disagreed with the substantial burden of what he said.

However, I was much more agreeably, not surprised, but confirmed in my views when I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the manner in which he introduced the debate. If I understood him aright, he emphasised the value that he attaches to our habit of proceeding by convention, and therefore by agreement, rather than by rules. That has been one of the great strengths of this House. The noble Lord also implied that there would be virtue, as we examined our procedures, in a gradual and cumulative approach—that does not necessarily mean an unhurried one—rather than a "big bang". In both respects, I find myself in profound agreement with the noble Lord.

It is sensible from time to time for all institutions—particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, observed, an ancient institution such as this House—to examine the mechanics of how they work. That is particularly necessary at a time when the nature of this House has changed so rapidly, as indeed has its membership. Surely it is true that, even though the fundamentals of our structure may be sound—a view to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would subscribe—it is sensible for us to examine what barnacles may have grown on our collective bottom during the course of the past few decades, and to examine whether innovations might be necessary; to continue the nautical analogy, to see whether a ski-jump might not improve the performance on our flight-deck.

If we are to examine our procedures and to follow the principles proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I hope that above all we shall remember one thing. During the short amount of time available to all noble Lords in this debate, I hope that I shall set a good example by making only one broad point among the many that have no doubt occurred to all Members of this House in the consideration of what is clearly a broad subject. The single point that I want to make applies equally to the debate that will follow this one.

It is a truism, but I shall nevertheless repeat it, that the interests of this House in performing its proper functions and the interests of the Government are not one and the same. I refer not only to the present administration; I mean all governments, including the government of whom I was a member. All governments, as your Lordships have no doubt observed ad nauseam, want to cram as much legislation through Parliament as they can. That is the nature of governments. Anyone who has served on legislation committees will testify to that.

As distinguished Members of this House have frequently observed, notably my noble friend Lord Renton, the result is far too much legislation, and, increasingly, legislation that is both ill conceived and ill prepared. As a result, Parliament and our system of government are brought into disrepute and are held increasingly in contempt. I have noted that the present Government deplore, as we all do, the increasingly low turn-outs at elections. I cannot help wondering whether the disillusion that that betokens may have been generated, at least in part, by lousy legislative arrangements cumulatively occurring over the past few decades.

I am convinced that any government will want to ensure that any review of our procedures makes it easier for legislation to pass through this House. For us to become even more of a legislative sausage machine, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde called it, than we already are would merely add to the poor results of which I am already complaining. Any change that increases the volume rather than improves the quality of legislation will pander to any government's short-term perceived self-interest. As someone who enthusiastically endorsed the original Grand Committee procedure in the Moses Room, I put into that category taking Committee stages in Standing Committee, and certainly any encouragement of your Lordships to retire to luxurious offices with substantial facilities. I wholly subscribe to the experience in another place of my noble friend Lord Waddington when that process was beginning and when I was briefly a Member there. It will undermine the ability of Parliament in general to do its work and of this House in particular to maintain its independence.

So by all means I hope that the Procedure Committee will undertake a number of inquiries and begin to consider a number of the suggestions that may arise from this debate and possibly produce them in the form of a number of reports which could be debated at convenient intervals in this House, and that we can, in the incremental fashion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, begin to adopt them so long as they begin to satisfy the one criterion against which this House ought to consider any suggestion: whether it will make us more effective, rather than more efficient as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has in my view erroneously suggested.

My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to that already expressed to my noble friend Lord Peston for initiating this important debate and for his skilful introduction. The debate is timely. We all spend time behind the scenes discussing these issues, and it is time that they were aired in the Chamber. Irrespective of some of the comments, I believe that there is considerable support for the idea that improvement should be made in the structures and facilities provided for both Members and staff. I believe that that view is shared on all sides of the House, not merely on these Benches.

As might have been expected, it has been suggested that the debate is about reducing the level of scrutiny of the executive—making the House more government-friendly. For me, it is about efficiency, effectiveness, doing our job of scrutiny much better, and making the House people-friendly. While I fully agree with the observation of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about the ethos of this House, there has been a change in its nature, structure and make-up as a result of changing expectations. It is balancing those factors which is so important.

Turning to the change in the composition of the House, the number of women Peers has increased, if somewhat slowly, to 105. There has been a significant drop in the average age of Members. More Members have young children or care responsibilities for the young and old, full-time occupations outside the House, and differing life responsibilities and work patterns. All of those should be respected. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal rightly said, this means that Members must balance their parliamentary duties with home and work.

Research shows that both men and women single out as important their ability to balance work with personal life requirements. I do not believe that it is any different for parliamentarians. This is a matter which, increasingly, leading employers understand, with the result that family-friendly working practices have been implemented. Sometimes we forget that this House is a major employer. We should consider how to implement such practices in this House, which means changing the procedures and sitting hours. It would be regrettable if the mother of Parliaments was the last in line to put such policies into practice. As my noble friend Lord Peston observed, our sitting hours are absurd. The House rose at 1·42 this morning. We shall sit late tonight and, with the Committee stage tomorrow, we shall be late again on Thursday. That is not acceptable.

This Chamber works longer hours than any other, including the other place. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have sensibly not followed our example. Longer hours do not equate to effectiveness, efficiency or adequate scrutiny. However, even those who believe that it does—incorrectly, in my view—should accept the need to restructure and reorder our business timetable. That does not mean closures and guillotines. Various red herrings have been introduced into the debate. I do not believe that those matters are on the agenda because this is a revising chamber. However, we can look at sitting hours and how we structure our business.

The idea of morning sittings has been raised. That may not be acceptable to all, but it should not be dismissed out of hand. Morning sittings would be acceptable to many Members and therefore should be considered. We should also consider a greater number of Friday sittings and how we can use our time more efficiently. We have also had comments about the conduct of the Committee stage of Bills in the Grand Committee Room. It has been suggested that somehow that will detract from the level of scrutiny. The reverse is true. I believe that such a procedure will enable noble Lords to explore matters further, to hold much more detailed debates, and to examine Bills line by line in a way that is not always possible in this Chamber. We should consider that idea and dismiss the red herring that that means that the Government can bring forward much more legislation.

We need to look at the procedures laid down in the Companion, in particular the timing of speeches on amendments which at the moment are not limited. Sometimes speeches can be very long. Perhaps there should be a limit of 15 minutes. Perhaps we should also consider proceedings on Third Reading where the Companion appears to have been forgotten. If we want an example of that, we need look no further than the House of Lords Bill. It may be that we should be more radical and question whether all the stages are necessary. Should we introduce electronic voting and times at which we vote? How can we achieve the best procedure for true scrutiny?

All of these points need consideration. I hope that this is not just an interesting debate and intervention in our proceedings, but that the matter will be followed through. Some do not agree with the idea that a committee should consider this. I believe that we need an all-party Select Committee with the widest remit, which the Procedure Committee cannot have, to look at all of these issues.

There are many other matters that I do not have time to raise, not least facilities, allowances, the whole question of reporting structures, and how to provide a much healthier environment. We spend a good deal of time in this environment which leaves a lot to be desired. It is time to move from rhetoric to reality and to plan positively for an efficient and effective legislative Chamber for the 21st century.

My Lords, many of your Lordships have referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The noble Lord does us a great service in introducing the debate this afternoon. We are always told that the House of Lords is different, and so it is: it is so different that those of us who come here from another place often find it very difficult to gain an understanding of the way that business is performed in this House and the manner in which noble Lords behave in dealing with it. There are no rules of order, very little of the ribaldry and party-political point-scoring to which we were accustomed in another place and practically no filibustering. When my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Waddington made that point I detected no murmurs of dissent from noble Lords opposite.

There are other differences. All this is hardly surprising as the roles of the two Houses are quite different, as many noble Lords have already said. I believe that it is sensible for the two Houses to perform their functions in broadly the way they do at present, but we must look at the possibility of change. In considering change I should like to make two principal points that are common to both Houses. While there are differences, there are principles which apply fundamentally to both Houses. I speak with the experience to which the Leader of the House referred. She was extremely generous to me in her remarks. I am not entirely sure that she would have been quite so generous had she been aware that I was the Government Chief Whip who was responsible for all the legislation between 1979 and 1983. In passing, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that morning sittings are all very well. In another place the committee which I chaired introduced morning sittings, but only for uncontentious business. Ministers' lives are made a misery if they must always be present for the possibility of votes. Therefore, morning sittings are a possibility. We proposed that measure down the corridor and it proved to be very successful.

If we are thinking of change there are two fundamental principles which must never be forgotten or undermined. First, as my noble friend Lord Waddington observed, the government of the day must always, in the end, get their business. Secondly, the very delicate balance of power which exists between government and opposition must not be unfairly tilted to give the government of the day a short-term advantage. Those two principles were never far from the mind of the Select Committee of another place which I chaired some years ago, and they must never be far from the mind of anyone who considers change in your Lordships' House.

The Government must get their business. That creates a problem in your Lordships' House where the government party is in a minority. At the risk of being tedious, I say for the fourth time—the Government Front Bench has never responded to me—that I believe the present number of government supporters in your Lordships' House, which now stands at 27 per cent, is not enough. I am not one of those who complain about Tony's cronies being packed into your Lordships' House. I believe that the government of the day are entitled to more than 27 per cent of the membership. I hope that I shall receive some response from the Front Bench following my fourth request. I dealt with the issue in detail in the Wakeham debate. I shall not repeat my argument now. I think that it is only fair to government to have a larger presence. Of course, overall, government must have the means of overcoming their deficit on the arithmetic through having only a minority of Members. That is provided for the Government in your Lordships' House by the Parliament Act. In your Lordships' House that is equivalent to the guillotine in another place.

Secondly, I referred, as a principle, to the rights of opposition which must not be diluted for the short-term advantage of government. I cannot overstress how vital it is to keep in mind that delicate balance between government and opposition. There is not, and I hope never would be here, a danger of reducing the opportunity for your Lordships to examine legislation. That would be very dangerous. Therefore no thought should be given to the introduction of guillotines here.

Nor should there be any thought given to the growth of carry-over Bills or, worse, letting Sessions run into each other without a State Opening and a new start each year. As a former business manager in another place, I often thought how much easier life would have been if we had had more carry-over Bills and did not need to have State Openings. But it never became a serious option in any discussion I had with colleagues at that time. So let change be our ally. Let us consider reform, but let us not ignore those two principles.

Finally, if reform is proposed, it should be introduced with broad all-party support. I remind your Lordships that when I was chairman of a committee along the corridor all those years ago, it took between three and four years to gain all-party agreement on its recommendations. Virtually all the matters we recommended were taken up by the House of Commons. It is crucial that changes in procedures of this kind must have all-party support.

My Lords, this is a huge topic and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for raising it. How can I condense all that I have to say into six minutes? I shall limit myself to two issues: modernising what I value most and what I like least about your Lordships' House.

What I value most is the opportunity to serve the public. I am sure most noble Lords value this honour and privilege. However, in the 21st century, having just a feel-good glow is not enough. This is the information age, the communication age. So we should be communicating with and informing the British public about what we are doing—talking to them, as my noble friend Lord Peston said.

At the end of the 20th century this communication was largely achieved through press officers, spin doctors, public relations experts and communications experts. I think and hope that in the 21st century many of these people will become redundant. People will want to communicate with us directly over the Internet. It is already happening. Requests via e-mail for general information about your Lordships' House rose from 100 in March last year to 320 in March this year. That led me to explore the website of your Lordships' House. It is informative but unfriendly and impersonal. Nowhere does it say anything about us as individuals and about our role in serving the public. That led me to submit a paper to the January meeting of your Lordships' Library and Computers subcommittee whose members are the people who look after these matters. I suggested that all noble Lords should have their own website informing the public about who we are, what we have done, what our interests are, the topics on which we speak and the issues we support. The public would be better informed about us and we could receive directly their thoughts and ideas and be better informed about them. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal touched on this issue.

If we are to be a revising chamber and a chamber of experts as described by my noble friend Lord Peston, we need such outside communication to do our job effectively, especially now that the old certainties of Left and Right have gone and there are so many new issues which have become politicised. Some noble Lords may feel awkward and insufficiently skilled to work in this way, but we shall have to learn to adapt because that is the way it will be in the 21st century. If we do not learn to adapt we shall become marginalised. So that is my view of one way in which we can modernise the way we serve the public in the 21st century.

My other point relates to what I value least about your Lordships' House—the many hours wasted while waiting to vote. From many points of view it really is an imposition. The Lord Privy Seal reminded us that this is work:life balance week; and we certainly have our voting arrangements out of balance with the rest of our lives. Like my noble friend Lady Jay I think that it is an unjustified imposition on busy men and women who have work to do other than in your Lordships' House or who do not live in London. I agree with Recommendation 63 in the Royal Commission's report which states that the reformed second Chamber should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians.

The commission calls for part-time membership of the second Chamber to be facilitated and encouraged. Hanging about endlessly waiting to vote neither facilitates nor encourages that kind of membership. What can we do about it? I believe that we should abolish Divisions in Committee. My noble friend Lord Peston has other reasons. But my argument is that it would eliminate 50 per cent of the time spent waiting to vote; and voting on Report and at Third Reading would take place on important issues which noble Lords can understand and appreciate.

Noble Lords have suggested other ways of reducing the waiting time to vote: the guillotine; time limits; or debating only selected amendments. Generally, I am not in favour of those solutions because I do not wish to curtail discussion. We are a revising Chamber and all issues deserve to be debated. But I wish to avoid repetition. The serious issues will reach Report stage and Third Reading—issues which could justify our working late occasionally into the evenings in order to divide.

Indeed, I would go further and suggest that in order to emphasise the importance of the voting stage, Ministers from another place could be invited to attend your Lordships' House to respond to the Opposition. In fact that might facilitate the deals between the Government and the Opposition on Report or at Third Reading —deals so often necessary for the Government to get their legislation through, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, pointed out. That is important in a House where, as my noble friend Lord Peston reminded us, the Government do not have a majority.

If I had more time I should speak about improving our work in the Chamber by giving the Chairmen more authority, re-editing the Companion to make the rules firmer and more precise, and improving our efficiency with better facilities and services. I also have remarks to make about the way committees take evidence and on combined committees. I spoke on this issue in the Second Reading debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Sadly, those issues will have to wait.

My Lords, it is always fun listening to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, even if one disagrees with most of what he says. The noble Lord spent several years on the Opposition Benches longing to become a member of the Government; and now that he finds himself on the government side he complains like mad at having to stay around and vote. That happens to be an elementary part of politics. If he does not like it, all I can say to him is what the schoolboy would say, which is "hard chops".

It is customary to congratulate the mover of the Motion—in this case, the noble Lord, Lord Peston—on introducing an excellent debate. Perhaps I may excuse myself from that because when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper I thought that it was a frantic waste of time. Anyone who says, "Such and such is not suitable for the 21st century", is rather like a person six months ago who would have said, "Such and such is not suitable for the latter part of the 20th century". That usually means that they cannot think of any other argument. It is a bad argument. Having said that, I congratulate the noble Lord on his excellent, fair, balanced and reasonable speech.

We spend a great deal of our time considering the House, what we are doing and what we might do better. We spent ages discussing the breeches and buckled shoes of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I believe that we spent two hours discussing that matter on the Floor of the House. It then went to a committee, which reported, and the matter then returned to your Lordships' House. We then spent two hours debating not only the breeches and buckled shoes, but also the alteration to the introduction procedure. What for: to save five minutes when it took 10 hours of debate?

Now we have this debate. Later on we are having a debate concerning the noble Lord, Lord Neill. So a whole day will be spent discussing the work of your Lordships. Then we say that we have not got enough time and that it is running out. I believe that we spend far too much time messing around with our own institutions instead of getting on with things. On the whole, I believe that the procedures of your Lordships' House work very well. There may be one or two things which we can tidy up and alter here and there, but to say that the procedures do not work well is an irrelevance.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that he wants lots of changes to the practices of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, not only nodded assent, but even said "Hear, hear!". Of course, she would, wouldn't she? She would like to alter everything, but, fortunately, not everyone thinks that way. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that he wants Committee stages to be taken off the Floor of the House, and a Speaker. I am sorry that the noble Lord is so dissatisfied. Perhaps he is a slow learner and needs more than 18 months. He reminded me of the schoolmaster who wrote a half-term report on a child and said that he was "trying". The parents said that they were so pleased. The end-of-term report arrived. It said, "Very trying". I would not put the noble Lord quite into that category, but I believe that his views are such that they do not necessarily meet with everyone's approval.

We talk about there being not enough time for things. Instead of wagging her head, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, might like to listen to this particular part of my argument. In fact, only 12 Bills have been passed so far through your Lordships' House. We are practically up to the Whitsun Recess. After that, another 23 Bills have to be dealt with. What have the Government been doing with the time? A great deal of this problem is due to the Government not applying themselves properly. They are going to produce an absolute bow wave of work later on.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that secondary legislation should be voted on. I believe that that would be bad because it would mean that the unelected Chamber—except for a few noble Lords who have been elected—would be overturning the views of the elected Chamber. That would be quite wrong. He and a number of other noble Lords said that they wanted the hours of working altered in order to raise productivity. There is nothing the matter with productivity. If one makes more and more new Peers and tells them that they are working Peers, how do they work? They make speeches. Just consider the number on our speakers' list today. One of the best ways of getting the business of the House through better and more quickly is to reduce the number of Peers to 400. We would find that we would get on equally well.

I believe that it would be a disaster to have Thursday morning sittings. It would certainly fall out of kilter with the Scots who said earlier that they did not even want to attend on Thursday because it was such a bore getting back to Scotland on Thursday evening. They wanted the business to end on Wednesday.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that she wants to make this House a nicer place in which to work. I would have thought that this is one of the most agreeable Houses in which anyone could work. It is difficult to imagine any other place of work which would be better than this House. We must stop nannying ourselves. The Government must stop interfering with procedures which work perfectly well.

There is no virtue in passing more and more legislation. One of the best things that happened was the Lib-Lab pact because no legislation could be passed because no one could agree. Everyone loved it; the House of Commons loved it; your Lordships loved it; and the people out in the sticks loved it because they all knew where they were and the law was not being changed. Now there seems to be virtue in putting through as much legislation as possible. I do not agree with that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington who said, "Let us be jealous of our procedures". That means that they can, of course, be amended, but they should not be capsized completely.

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made so far. As regards working practices, many suggestions have been made. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, but I did not care for the way in which he said it. He made some good points.

When considering the working of the House we need also to consider its composition because that will be very important. Until now our relations with the House of Commons have been clouded by the fact that the Liberal and Labour parties disliked the House of Lords because of the enormous influence of the Tory hereditary Peers, somewhat modified by the Salisbury convention, but nevertheless that influence hung over the whole proceedings of the House. That did not make for good relations with the Commons.

If we are to be effective, not only do we need good working procedures, but a good relationship with the Commons. I believe that most people are agreed that our present powers of delay represent the proper stance to take. But we want to be more effective. We need to see that there is more good government. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord. Lord Jopling. The main point is not to get through government business, but to improve government proposals, and perhaps even to delay them. Certainly, we should act for the people of this country.

The composition of this House is therefore very important—there will be no hereditary Peers—but how will that be achieved? There are two possibilities. One is election and the other is selection. The Commons would not like election because there would then be a competing House. I believe that we are all agreed on that.

I cannot see that a partially elected House would help its business. If we had a partially elected House I would despise the elected Members and I daresay that they would despise me. There would two types of Member. That cannot be a good thing for the smooth working of the House, which is what is required. Nomination appears to be the proper way to proceed. If we have that then we have a point at which we could all work together.

I totally agree that there should be no majority for the Government. I totally agree also that if the other procedures are followed and the independent selection committee or nomination committee notes that people of ability and standing are coming into the House constantly, that would be admirable, particularly for our Select Committees, which are valuable and highly appreciated in Brussels, certainly, and in many other places. That would be a great help to the workings of the House.

In the main what has been said about procedures is useful. We do not want to have a great deal of morning working because you cannot expect people of standing in their profession or business to be here in the mornings. There is no reason why they should not attend during the afternoons or evenings to debate subjects in which they are interested.

The procedure of the House depends on the people in the House, therefore we need to be careful. When two years ago I made a speech on the subject I said that there should be a retiring age of 78. I was then 78. I am now 80, so I put the retiring age at 80. However, I believe that there should be a lower age limit. While I am allowed and my fare is paid, I shall come to the House, becoming less useful as each year passes.

I hope that our procedures will improve and that we shall be more courteous than we are at the moment. During Question Time, for example, too many people stand up and fail to sit down when it is obvious that someone else has priority. Like many people, I like this House and believe that it could be even more useful.

My Lords, in the leisurely history of your Lordships' House—an evolution which can make the process of natural selection of homo sapiens seem a bit rushed—now, the year 2000, is clearly the perfect time to discuss the workings of the House in the 21st century. After all, it was only in 1999 that, for most of us, the House slipped into the 20th century— and in the nick of time. Your Lordships need a long run-up, it seems, and by offering us the whole century my noble friend Lord Peston, in his excellent speech, has done your Lordships' House a service.

There is bound to be repetition in this debate. We ought to welcome it. Repetition is itself a statement.

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow",

said Shakespeare, and that repetition says so much more than one sole, weedy "tomorrow" on its own ever could. Repetition makes the point. Repetition is often the point.

Like many of your Lordships, I am a working Peer. However, Garter King of Arms was at pains to emphasise that the title emanated from Her Majesty in the same manner as all other titles and seemed rather miffed—if "miffed" is a word at all applicable to the dignity of Garter—that the word "working" should have interfered with the purity of the word "Peer".

As a working Peer, and privileged to be so, I was properly quizzed by my noble friend Lord Carter, and while promises were not exacted, reassurances were expected and given. I made it plain, as I am sure did all other working Peers, that I was not giving up my job outside the House, but would and could find the time to discharge obligations required here. But I needed to keep the other work going.

Let me emphasise, first, that those who serve the diurnal workings of the House, from the doorkeepers, to the librarians, to the restaurant staff and everything to do with the office of Black Rod, exercise considerable intelligence and care to ensure that the present system works. Indeed, I sometimes think that we see a little daily miracle, especially in the matter of messages—often like notes on a cleft stick smuggled through the lines to Mafeking.

Now to the Motion. I shall stick, rather glancingly and by indirection, to days, hours, conditions and pay. Detailed constitutional matters have already been well dealt with by many of your Lordships who are much more qualified than I.

We do three days of what I might call "official work" here, but then we turn them into four by insisting on Wednesday as a kind of seigneurial sabbath. I have listened to arguments for the retention of Wednesday as a breather, based, I may say, on a rather "invalid", even "invalid", view of your Lordships' House.

To the serious argument that the only way to get your Lordships to stay for our normal Wednesday business is to keep it on Wednesday because it would flit the coop if it transferred to Thursday, one has to say, "If it is not important enough to bear waiting for, it is not important enough".

Three official days, with one or two mornings thrown in, would make it much more practicable for a Peer such as myself and many others to be here. Helping our effectiveness—in tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—could help yours. Wednesdays should become Thursdays. Lewis Carroll would have approved and you cannot be more traditional than that.

The hours are hopeless. The Duc de Berry would go mad commissioning a Book of Hours for your Lordships' House. The hours I am objecting to are those which rightly require votes, but, to my mind, often maroon us in admittedly pleasant Bars or Libraries waiting sometimes for Godot who never arrives. Again, it seems to me a largely unnecessary strain.

Is it beyond the combined wisdom of the House to resolve matters on the majority of issues within known parameters which would be of greater assistance to all, especially to those of us who have outside meetings and events which should not be needlessly a: odds with the work we do here?

What about conditions? Well, with the greatest respect, as the 19th century mills of Lancashire are to Silicon Valley, so are the conditions of your Lordships' House to the way the 21st century really conducts its business. It is often hilarious.

Perhaps I may give one small example from scores. I hope that like my noble friend Lord Peston I may be allowed one anecdote. I refer to those phones in the Corridors—often the only phones available. Try to work out a difficult contract with international musicians, as I was doing the other day, while a metre away a noble Lord, whose name will never escape my mind or my mouth, read out in full, fortissimo and with feeling the entire menu of that evening's fare in the Barry Room. It was a tour de force. It was probably much more important than my contract. It was magnificent. It was interminable. I abandoned my contractual negotiations, retreated to the Library and came back some minutes later to find all the phones occupied. Miffed! It really will not do. If we are invited to come here as working Peers, our outside work should also he taken seriously; more and better phones, faxes, e-mails, privacy and the message system. There is now a n opportunity to show the world that we can leap from the Middle Ages to the New Millennium in one bound.

Finally, I turn to pay. We do not mind footballers being paid £50,000 a week, but we—or rather we as represented by the wealth of the fourth estate—do not seem to like paying those who pass, scrutinise, devote themselves to, and deliver, the laws of the land.

Traditionally, of course, politics was regarded as an occupation largely for a gentleman of independent means, and one certainty about our country is that such traditions die very hard. But now we are populated by many who do not have independent means and while that has been recognised in another place, here, in your Lordships' House, there is a lag which is the single most restrictive factor for those who can come here.

We are in a transient House; we are in a temporary House. But we are here as Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and to have people barred for lack of means, or to see hard-working Peers unable to afford a very late night taxi back to constrained accommodation, is no longer amusing or tolerable. We should seize this nettle.

I suggest £10,000 a Session for those who attend over 50 per cent of the time; and for those who attend less than 50 per cent, pro rata payments. That, in my opinion, should be the least of it. If some of your Lordships wish to waive it, all well and good. If the press cries, "Mercenary", let them try a Session's work experience among us at our rates. I am convinced that the quaint antiquity of our remuneration is part of the reason that in the public eye your Lordships' House receives less respect than its achievements merit.

All of us here are proud to be here. All of us want the best for this House, this country, these countries. We took 99 years to catch up to the 20th century; let us surprise them all and ambush the 21st at the outset.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who certainly gave us a great deal to think about. It is also a great pleasure to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on securing the debate.

I approach the subject with a degree of humility appropriate to my paucity of years in your Lordships' House. I am constantly finding new features here, from the hour glasses we use to time Divisions to the more arcane intricacies of procedures. However, I brought with me some 27 years' experience in the other place, more than 15 of them spent in government. So I am not without sympathy with the Government's first and last aim in Parliament, which is to get their business through both Houses unscathed.

It was said of the American Senate that it provided "the pause that refreshes", and that is certainly true of your Lordships' House. The volume of government amendments that are tabled in this place is a constant reminder of the inestimable value of the time and opportunity provided by the second Chamber to the government of the day to ensure that legislation is as clear, effective and durable as possible before it reaches the statute book.

We do not always achieve that high aim, despite our best endeavours, but most of us would agree that time is of the essence even to achieve a modicum of success. Therefore, if we change our working methods we must exercise the greatest care that we do not reduce the time available to those who work behind the scenes to give effect to improvements proposed in legislation. The integrity of our law-making process must, therefore, be maintained at all costs, and enhanced if possible.

Of course, there is a great deal more that can be said about this basic issue which is so central to our role as a revising chamber. We could encourage the Government to legislate less. That suggestion achieved a cheer this afternoon. However, in my experience that is a forlorn hope. Every government must learn the hard way just how much legislation they can get into the pint pot of a parliamentary Session.

More pre-legislative consideration is also a fashionable cry these days, and it has its value, especially when the subject of legislation is complex. However, such consideration has its limitations when it is conducted remotely, as has been the case with a number of Bills in this Session, the Welsh content of which has been discussed in the National Assembly for Wales and its committees.

One of the most glaring drawbacks of such consideration is that a verbatim record of the discussions in Cardiff is not available to your Lordships, except on the Internet. The effect is to promote isolation. I welcome the fact that the Government are clearly dissatisfied with the present position, and the Secretary of State for Wales has announced that they are working with the Assembly on a protocol to deal with primary legislation as it affects Wales. I sincerely hope that they will be successful in their efforts, otherwise the Assembly and the people of Wales will soon find themselves with deficient laws which are inadequate to meet their needs.

What I said with regard to Wales opens up the whole field of devolution, to which the Royal Commission on the reform of your Lordships' House devoted much thought. Its conclusion was that one of the new second Chamber's four main roles should be to,

"provide a voice for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom at the centre of public affairs.

"These 'regional members' should not be drawn from the devolved administrations … but should be able to speak for each national or regional unit of the United Kingdom".

In short, they would be directly elected.

Neither the commission nor I know the pattern of future devolution. The Government's ardour appears to be cooling as the centrifugal forces inherent in it become more apparent and unmanageable from the centre of power. Those tendencies are manifesting themselves in a demand for ever more separate and independent powers. Those of us who warned that that would happen may reiterate our warnings till the cows come home. However, our cries will be drowned by the incoming tide of perceived self-interest that vents itself through nationalism in Scotland and Wales and a sharp metropolitan/urban awareness that will become increasingly evident in London and the big cities.

With due respect to the Royal Commission, I am far from certain that more regional representation here is the bulwark that will stem the rising tide of regional interests. It may even turn out to be the high wind that drives the sea to shore, to hatter the weakened walls of the United Kingdom's unity. But something must be done. There is a growing urgency to tighten the apron strings that bind our fledgling devolved bodies to this United Kingdom Parliament. The Government can make a start by examining closely what has been done and the way that it works, or is failing to work, for the benefit of the people whom it is designed to serve.

That is why I support the commission's Recommendation 32 for a committee,

"to provide a focus for its [the second Chamber's] consideration of the issues raised by devolution, possibly as a further Subcommittee of the proposed Constitutional Committee".

If the Government wash their hands of the devolved bodies and leave them to their own devices, as the Government tend to do currently, and wrongly in my opinion, they and Parliament will be blamed before the electorate for any governmental shortcomings. Of that we may be sure. A better, closer working relationship must be developed between this Parliament and the devolved bodies before the centrifuge of devolution spins us into ever greater separation.

My Lords, the debate is in danger of being repetitive. That is why I emphasise that I do not intend to repeat the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Warner, who evinced some criticism from the Benches opposite. Suffice it to say that he enjoys a great deal of support for his arguments from these Benches.

First, I want to emphasise that, once again, two myths are being portrayed. The first is that there is too much legislation. As my noble friend the Leader of the House emphasised, the amount of legislation that passes through the House under this Government roughly parallels the amount of legislation dealt with under previous Conservative governments. Therefore, in my view, it ill befits a former Chief Whip and former Home Secretary to berate this Government for overwhelming Parliament with excessive legislation when in fact he served in administrations which were capable of putting forward legislation at much the same rate.

The issue is quite straightforward. This House does not dictate the amount of legislation to be dealt with within the parliamentary timetable. We all know that such issues are planned against the perspective of what it is possible to achieve in the Lower House on the number of days available. That is the case both in relation to the Opposition in presenting their arguments and to the Government in getting through their legislation. It takes place against a background where it is recognised on all sides that a principle obtains with regard to this House; namely, that at the end of the day the Government must have their legislation.

If that means that in some extreme circumstances (perhaps I may say that it is very unlikely to occur this year) 12th August—the grouse shooting season—is threatened with postponement by Parliament still sitting until that date, then that will be what happens if the Government need their legislation. Therefore, let us not pretend that we are concerned about restraining governments with regard to the amount of legislation that they put forward. That is dictated by the conventions and rules largely of the lower House. That is where the authority should lie because that is the elected mandate.

We must decide whether we are effective in dealing with legislation. The real issue which stands out on every side and which must be considered is this: there can be no argument for saying that consideration of legislation benefits from constant repetition of the arguments, day after day and week after week, on the same piece of legislation. That cannot be defended and, therefore, must lead us to conclude that we should organise ourselves more effectively.

People could be nominated, or, indeed, could put themselves forward, for specialist Committee stages of Bills to be held in another part of the House. Issues on which we need to vote could be identified for consideration at a later stage of a Bill. However, the issues at Committee stage should be scrutinised effectively and carefully by those who have the expertise. In this House we pride ourselves that we have expertise. Let us be frank and admit that in some areas we have greater expertise than has the Commons.

However, that expertise should be concentrated in the Committee stage of a Bill and we should avoid the absurd situation in which the whole House is expected to be on duty. At present, many of us participate in circumstances in which we know that, in effect, we are passing the time until the crucial voting issues must be faced. We would not be a serious chamber if we did not take the issue of voting seriously because that is an important duty laid upon us.

The second myth is that somehow we earn respect from prolonged consideration of legislation late into the night. It was a myth perpetuated in the other place, too, that somehow we earned medals for the number of occasions on which we continued until three or four o'clock in the morning. Of course, the reality was that the general public thought that we could not organise ourselves effectively. We never received any commendation for that at all; neither does this House. If I go back, as I did today, to my place of work in Coventry and say that I regret that I urn five minutes late for a 9.30 meeting this morning but I was in the House deliberating until past midnight last night and may be doing so again this evening, the people there merely look askance upon a situation in which it looks as though we cannot organise ourselves effectively. We should address those issues.

Although we cannot look forward easily into the deeper recess of the 21st century, we can clearly see that it is the intention on all sides—just look at the Wakeham report; it makes it quite clear—that this House should have a broader representation. There will be people who are not based solely in London, able to fulfil their important jobs in London, be working Peers and able to contribute to this House. Many people will live so far away that that is not possible. Many of my colleagues are in just that situation at present. Working Peers are eager to play their role and yet they are faced with a situation in which this place wastes hours of their time and occupies them for four days a week when the work could be done in three days.

The pressures will clearly exist. That is why it is essential that we address the question of whether we cannot organise the issues in such a way that they can be dealt with on three working days per week. The business which we usually deal with on a Wednesday should be shifted to a Thursday to make things more manageable for noble Lords in the regions. That is a recognition that in the 21st century we cannot have a House based upon the premise that we come from the deep landed shires to comfortable abodes in London to while away our time in gentlemanly pursuits.

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing this valuable debate. As he was good enough to say, it is really a follow—up from the balloted Motion which I was fortunate to have on 29th March. Time is very short so I want to deal with two points: first, Select Committees; and secondly, the implication of devolution for your Lordships' House.

As regards Select Committees, it is generally agreed on all sides of the House that the House excels in the high quality of its Select Committee reports. They help to form government policy; they influence government; they influence the Commission in Brussels. I am very glad that we are now building on the success of the long—established Select Committees.

We now have ad hoc Select Committees which look at draft Bills. Pre—legislative scrutiny by Parliament and outside interests may influence the shape of Bills before they are set in concrete. That new activity should lead to better legislation.

We also have in prospect a Joint Committee on human rights to monitor the Human Rights Act. That is of great importance. When that Act comes into operation, there is a greater risk of disputes developing between Parliament and the judiciary. It has happened in previous centuries. It did not do Parliament or the judiciary any good. If that new Select Committee can help to avoid those disputes arising in the future, it will do a very valuable job.

Then there is a proposal for a constitutional committee in your Lordships' House. That was recommended by the Royal Commission; it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; and I believe that there is general agreement in the House that that would be valuable. The fact is that our constitution is still largely unwritten. That is a British way of doing things. It provides flexibility and room for manoeuvre. But it has its dangers. It means that one single vote, particularly down the Corridor in another place, may mean that a Bill of major constitutional importance is passed, having gone through exactly the same procedures as those which apply to the most technical, detailed Bill. So there are dangers in that.

If we can be given an early warning by the proposed constitutional committee as to the importance of any constitutional issues arising in Bills, that would be a valuable safeguard for the House. I expect that if the new committee is set up, which I hope it will be, it will work in a way which is similar to that of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which is already doing a very good job in warning the House of matters with regard to delegated legislation. When the Government Chief Whip replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give a fair wind to that proposal for a constitutional committee.

My second point concerns devolution. The Royal Commission stressed that your Lordships' House should play a valuable role in giving a voice to the nations and the regions of the United Kingdom and should serve the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that good relations between Westminster and the new bodies will require tact and good sense on everybody's part and a real understanding of each other's differing points of view. That was mentioned by my noble friend a few moments ago.

I believe that your Lordships' House can be more effective than another place in fulfilling that role. After all, in another place, there is bound to be some competition between Westminster MPs and MPs elected by the same constituents in the devolved bodies. There are bound to be some demarcation disputes. That does not apply in your Lordships' House because, at any rate at the moment, we are all here either by succession or by nomination.

It is the case also that in your Lordships' House there is a strong representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So noble Lords can carry out a valuable job in helping to provide a unified force for the United Kingdom as a whole, without treading on the toes of the devolved bodies in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

It is clear from what has been said in the debate so far that our procedures are evolving to suit the changed House and new needs. None of those proposals which have been mentioned so far questions the primacy of another place or the right of government to get their business after adequate scrutiny. Therefore, I believe that the proposals which are being discussed today show that the House is developing new vigour and greater legitimacy to serve Britain.

My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House by going into all the topics which have been covered today and which have been covered by the Royal Commission. I shall content myself with dealing with one matter which I think is important and which could very easily be remedied; that is, the question of unsociable hours. To sit at three o'clock on a Thursday afternoon to start a day's business is not only unsociable hours but it is quite ridiculous. It means, of course, that Peers from Scotland and Northern Ireland and other places find it very difficult to stay if they want to get home that evening. In fact, it is virtually impossible. It is all right for Peers from the Home Counties to say that they can sit here late at night: to get home, they only have to take their car a few miles down the road. Many of us must go a good deal further.

It is sometimes said that it is done so as to allow party meetings to take place. I find it very difficult to understand why party meetings cannot take place on a Monday, a Tuesday or a Wednesday and why we must be detained by them on a Thursday. Indeed, at the end of a Session, the House usually sits on a Thursday at eleven o'clock or half past eleven. If that can be achieved at the end of a Session to allow those who live in the Home Counties to push off to the Continent, it could easily be done every week.

It has been suggested, although I may not try to propagate it, that this Government and the previous Government, when dealing with an unpopular measure for Northern Ireland or Scotland, would table it at the end of Thursday's business in the hope that we had all gone home and they would get it through without any difficulty.

It has also been suggested that the Law Lords frequently give judgments on a Thursday morning, but they could give those judgments on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I believe it would be quite easy to cure that. I find it difficult to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that it would be disastrous if the House sat on a Thursday morning. I am not sure where he lives: if he lives somewhere round about, it may be disastrous, although, from the point of view of those who have much further to travel, it would certainly not be disastrous. I believe it is time that this matter was cured.

My Lords, I join with those who have already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The speeches of the noble Lord are always worth listening to, even if one does not agree with them in their entirety. I believe that today he spoke particularly well, with a lot of good sense, and his approach was commendable.

The purpose of reviewing our procedures should be to ensure that the legislation that we produce is effectively scrutinised, revised and in some cases amended so that it may be understood more easily by those who have to implement it outside this place. The House must always be mindful of the motives for change, the least justifiable of which would be to facilitate the passage of government business.

The role of this House, as a revising chamber, increases in every Parliament as successive governments choke the legislative system with more and more Bills. One advantage of the House of Lords is that it can take a broader, longer—term and more detached view than the Commons. Unhampered by penal whipping arrangements and constituency considerations, it can be much less partisan in reaching its conclusions. Moreover, so long as it maintains its amateur status it will retain that degree of independence which is so admired outside Parliament.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned the composition of the House. From the outset, I have had reservations about an all—elected Chamber. The more I have thought about the matter and the more I have read the proposals of the Select Committee, the less I like them. Now, I believe that to have any elected members would be a great error and would drastically change the character of the House, sadly not for the better.

We seem to have become victims of the "democracy at all costs" syndrome, referred to during our debate on 7th March by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and by my noble friend Lord Waddington. Democratic elections do not guarantee democracy, nor do they necessarily contribute to efficiency. We have enjoyed the best of both worlds with an elected House of Commons and a non—elected House of Lords.

Presumably in any new House elected members would be paid; perhaps all Peers will be paid. Whichever route is followed, two, or several, categories of Peer will emerge, which will cause rivalries and the relationship with another place will give even more cause for concern.

The Royal Commission and the Government appear to be of one mind, in that the Commons must remain supreme. Few would disagree. However, in my view, that admirable objective could be put at risk in the longer term by the introduction of elected Peers.

The setting up of a constitutional committee is a good suggestion, even if it could be represented as closing the stable door after the horses—in the form of Scotland and Wales—have bolted. Nevertheless, it would provide the opportunity to eliminate earlier mistakes and provide wise counsel for overenthusiastic Ministers. Setting up further committees, such as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested, or Joint Committees of both Houses may help to provide experience which nowadays is lacking in the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell touched upon that subject in the debate on 7th March. I agree with what he said.

When, 30 years ago, I was first elected to the Commons, I found that it contained a wealth of experience from many walks of life. Distinguished servicemen, successful businessmen, captains of industry, trade unionists who had been at the coalface have now been replaced by schoolteachers, university lecturers, merchant bankers and, of course, professional politicians, many of whom have never run anything. I do not criticise any of them individually, but I suggest that there is a lack of that wide experience that used to be available to the House of Commons. Anything that can be done to supplement existing resources should not be ignored.

Extending the role of the House of Lords by involvement in special committees and so on is one thing, but I am less convinced about increasing the powers of the House, especially if there is a possibility of having any elected members whatever. That is exactly where an elected element may see opportunities to flex its muscles and prove its legitimacy. I would prefer to see a more gradual sanction employed rather than the giving of full—blown powers of rejection.

My Lords, like many speakers before me, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on introducing the debate. I have found it most interesting, having been in the House since the previous general election, and having been on both the Front Bench and the Back Benches.

I like some points about the way in which the House operates, but I feel that some matters need to be changed. However, I believe that we must get away from the amateur status. If those outside the House are to respect the work carried out here, we must move towards a more professional chamber. Like other members, I feel that we must strike a balance between the Government wanting to get their legislation through the House and our right to scrutinise it. That will always be so, whichever party is in power. We must be careful to ensure that that balance is maintained whatever changes are brought about.

This may be a jarring note, but I feel that we need some radical solutions, for instance, dealing with all Committee stages off the Floor of the House, unless constitutional changes are involved. If we did that, I wonder whether all Members of the House should be involved in such a Committee—I have no fixed view on the matter—but that may lead to better scrutiny. I also believe that at Second Reading and in Committee amendments should not be tabled; amendments should be tabled on Report or at Third Reading. However, I do not believe that the same amendments as were tabled on Report should then be retabled at Third Reading. Like other noble Lords, I do not believe that we should have "Second Reading" speeches at every stage. That would help to improve matters. I disagree with those who say that there is no filibustering; I take that itself to be filibustering. If, once defeated, one tries again, I believe that that is filibustering.

I also agree with what has been said about Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I believe that we should have government business on those days. On Thursdays we could have non—government business so that those with long journeys could get away if they needed to do so. I believe that would make for more sensible use of the time of the House.

I know that I disagree with most noble Lords when I say that I think that we are coming to the end of self—regulation in this House. As the House becomes more professional, I feel that, even if we do not need a Speaker, we should at least give the right to intervene to the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen. That would increase control over the House. At the moment, speakers can go on and on and often we do not know who is going to speak from which Bench. Often at that point the Whip has to intervene. It would be better to put this on a more practical footing.

We ought to consider also the facilities for Members. Although sometimes we can agree, on this occasion I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, because I think that we have got to provide facilities for Members so that they can do their jobs. There should be better office, research and secretarial facilities. It would benefit the House if those were provided. Furthermore, it would help those entering the House and, in the future, those who are part—timers. That kind of back—up service would enable them to do their work properly.

I have always found it rather surprising that so many noble Lords simply rise and read out a speech. Whatever has been said in the debate, some noble Lords are determined to read out that particular speech to the end. I do not think that that adds to the debates that take place in this House or, indeed, in the other Chamber when the same thing happens there. Some noble Lords who have been Members for a long time have told me that this practice has grown. I am also a little critical of the other place because more speakers there are reading out speeches and asking extremely lengthy questions. Such practices do not add to the value of debates in either House.

Finally, perhaps I may say that I do not think that we should lose the benefit of this debate today. We should carry it forward. The only way to do that is by securing the agreement of all parts of the House. We shall never make progress if that is not done. To that end, perhaps we should set up a review committee to look at what has been said today and at other matters that may not have been raised.

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this important debate today, but when I heard that there may be a request for a crèche, I felt that I had to make a short intervention.

However, before I come to that point, I want to say that I think it is important to keep procedures under review and to note what, if anything, is not working. But change for change's sake is, I believe, a huge mistake and change just because we are now in the 21st century is, in my estimation, rather silly.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for instigating this debate. I have never thought of him as an arch moderniser, but having listened to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, I hope that this is not another of the Government's modernisations, which, to date, have not been a howling success.

I worry that what is behind this debate is the wish of the Government to get their business more easily without the necessity for Members to be present in the House for many hours just in case Divisions might be called. However, I believe that the role of this House is not to set up procedures which would, in effect, rubber stamp the decisions of the other place. We are here to scrutinise legislation and, from time to time, to ask the other place to think again. It is the duty of the Opposition to operate in this way and I would be absolutely against any proposals of change for that purpose.

I am very anxious that we do establish family friendly policies so that both mothers and fathers are able to share in the thrills and spills of family life and still contribute to public life. My mind goes back about 15 years to when I was invited to take part in a discussion on "Woman's Hour". My fellow interviewee was a woman living in Bristol who, as a single parent, had employment in London. She told me that she had a three year—old daughter who accompanied her to work each day. Everything was wonderful because there was a crèche. She seemed to be quite unfazed by the demands she was making on that little girl. She could not understand why I was concerned that she was dragging her daughter away from home in the early hours and not returning until late at night. I feel that such actions are selfish in the extreme and verge on cruelty. I wonder why people who take such a cavalier attitude towards their children have children at all. I believe that children's needs come first and that parents who wish to further their careers should take that into account.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, I take the view that a crèche in your Lordships' House would be quite inappropriate as our timings are, shall I say, flexible and very often go on into the hours when children should be in bed. I believe that parents should make appropriate arrangements for their children based around the home so that their upbringing can be as uninterrupted and as free as possible.

In consequence, I would favour Members being able to receive some financial support if they have a relative for whom they are responsible. I believe that that could apply to a Member with young children or children who are in need of constant care. In addition, it could apply to a Member who has a sick spouse needing care. Obviously there would have to be strict guidelines along the lines of the financial loss allowance that magistrates are able to claim under arrangements approved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Members who attend and work in your Lordships' House without remuneration are performing a public service and should, I believe, if they incur expenditure, be able to qualify for benefits that other volunteers receive. The amount of the allowance would be the amount of the expenditure incurred or up to a limit to be set in the same manner as other allowances.

As I said earlier, I am all in favour of family friendly policies and have spent much of my life encouraging women into all forms of public life. As a consequence of that, I am aware of the demands on a mother, and indeed a father, especially at times of school holidays. I should like to suggest that your Lordships' vacation should take place in July and August when schools are on holiday. I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, in her role as Minister for Women, talks continually about helping women. I speak for myself only, but I hope that the noble Baroness and noble Lords will give sympathetic consideration to these two family friendly ideas.

Finally, I am sure that this year the Lord Privy Seal will use all her powers of persuasion to ensure that everyone will be able to start their family holiday with their children and grandchildren by the end of July. Such a family friendly decision would certainly be worthy of inclusion in her glossy magazine, "Voices".

My Lords, as I have 1,000 things to say but only around 100 seconds in which to say them, I shall confine my remarks to the role, function and practice of the committee system of the House.

Because the House of Lords is primarily a revising and scrutinising chamber, it should play to those strengths by enlarging and improving its committee system. First, the proposal in the Wakeham report that we should institute new committees associated with human rights and with UK devolution is spot on. Secondly, but spot off, is the relationship we have with the other place—our co—legislature. Indeed, that quaint phrase, "the other place", succinctly illustrates the yawning and unforgivable gap between the two legislative Houses. We should find better ways of working for common aims. Greater use of joint committees of Parliament is one way to save time, cost and muddle.

Thirdly, the House of Lords should abandon the tortuous process of the House sitting in Committee in this Chamber. Its confrontational format and the use of the redundant grace—notes of forced politeness are barriers to the serious study and parsing of the before us. At the moment, the Moses Room is used for non—controversial legislation; yet that is inadequate because of its hopeless acoustics. But we carry on taking the tablets. Real people sit around real tables to sort out real problems. Let us get real by formatting a proper, modern committee system.

Fourthly, let us increase the good work done in the European Select Committees. The House of Lords should fill the niche market of scrutinising European legislation. We should become the House of Europe. Indeed, we should become the "Time Lords" of Europe because, unlike the Commons, we have the time and inclination to forge links with other national parliaments and with the European Parliament. That is a proposal enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, but left unactivated. Let us work with other parliaments through joint committees to fill the democratic deficit.

Incidentally, since arriving here six months ago, I am often told that your Lordships' EU reports, the contents of which are often first class if boringly and unhelpfully presented, are widely read throughout Europe. Indeed, I heard that view repeated this afternoon. I am afraid that does not square with my experience of a decade as an MEP. I received only those reports for which I specifically asked. When I asked the House authorities to whom such reports were sent in Brussels, I was told only to the chairs of European parliamentary committees. How foolish! All the expenditure of producing excellent reports but failing to provide copies to British MEPs of all political persuasions on the spurious grounds of limited budgets. British MEPs are, after all, the other legislators whose vote might make the difference for Britain.

Let us recommit ourselves to that worthy objective through an improved committee system, worthy of this worthy House, at the front end of the 21st century. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on helping us to get there. I see that I shall finish early; I feel that noble Lords who finish before their time should receive a special bonus at the end of the year!

My Lords, I hope I qualify for that bonus.

The whole House is, of course, immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject today. The length of the list of speakers indicates the degree of interest in the way that this House runs and conducts its business.

There are one or two things that your Lordships may like to bear in mind. First, this House has just undergone one of the biggest changes in its history with the departure of an enormous proportion of its Members and the arrival, within the lifetime of one Parliament (in this House's terms, a mere blip in time) of an enormous number of new Members. While of course we welcome all new noble Lords and value their contributions, I am unclear how valuable those contributions are to this debate. I know that after 13 years' membership of the House I am only just beginning to fully comprehend the many nuances of its work and procedures, and that any opinion that I formed during the early months and years of my membership, when I was rather more active than I am now, were often misconceived. On balance, I would have done better to have listened and learned, and kept my own counsel for a while.

I should also say at the outset that after three years of this chaotic and unusually incompetent Government with their passion for modernisation, I have little idea of what "modernisation" means, except perhaps change for the sake of it or for short—term political gain with little thought to the long—term consequences, unless it is to engender the feeling that the Government are doing something. I have a feeling that this Government embark on programmes of change, particularly constitutional ones, as a way of distracting the electorate's attention from the failure of their domestic policies, just as mediaeval kings went to war to keep their subjects' minds off problems at home.

That having been said, I am firmly in favour of change if it leads to improvement, and this House, like any body or institution, is always capable of being improved. There are two distinct areas which bear careful examination. First, your Lordships may wish to examine ways in which the Members might be assisted in fulfilling their role. The conditions in which we work, the facilities made available to us and the system of remuneration are all areas that could be improved. For instance, I should like to see better research facilities, and I am not the first speaker today to say that. Like other speakers, I have long thought that the present system of expenses is wholly inappropriate, and the concept that it is linked to daily attendance presumes that all activity linked to membership of this House ceases on those days when this House is not sitting. That is clearly absurd. While I am uncomfortable with the idea of a salary, I recognise too that the amounts provided for day and overnight subsistence are way below a reasonable sum for either, and I suspect it results in some real difficulties for some Members of your Lordships' House.

I have heard, and my noble friend Lady Seccombe mentioned it, that there is talk of a crèche. I have no desire to get involved in that particular debate today and on balance would probably prefer a kennel to a crèche. But I am one of the younger Members of this House who has young children. My noble friend Lord Goschen in front of me has also, as well as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. Of course there are difficulties, though they are not perhaps difficulties for the fathers as much as for the mothers. I am not sure if I am correct in this, but I believe only one noble Baroness has a small baby. I understand the difficulties. But this is not an ordinary workplace. This is not a factory; it is not an office. It is the second Chamber of the legislature of our nation. To be a Member of this House is both a great honour and a great privilege. In accepting membership and the privilege that goes with it, we must understand that privilege has its burdens. One of those is the stricture under which we work. We all make sacrifices of one kind or another to attend and play our parts. If we cannot make those sacrifices, then we should not accept the honour of membership.

The other area we should look at is the way that the House conducts its business—the procedures of the House. In fact we do change and develop our procedures through the committees of the House. There have been many changes in the time that I have been here, and doubtless there will be more in the future. But the governing criteria that we should all bear in mind is that change should facilitate the role of the Back—Bencher and, most important of all, it should not make it easier for the executive to get their business through. That only serves to diminish the role of Parliament in general and this House in particular. That role has already been diminished too much and, particularly under the present Government, the position of the executive is far too strong.

It is for that reason that I am opposed to guillotines. I am equally concerned about the idea of having fixed sitting times and fixed votes, both of which, though helpful to individual Members, are far more helpful to the government of the day.

There are enormous problems in bringing forward any changes, and many of them have been touched upon today. The biggest of those I suspect is the enormous increase in legislation—not only the increase in the size of legislation, but also the deterioration in its quality. There are too many Bills; they are far too big; and they arrive in your Lordships' House in a frightful mess. Consequently, they require far too many amendments, and far too many government amendments. Those we should resist if we possibly can. Perhaps this House should have the ability to compel the Government to divide over-sized Bills into smaller, more manageable ones and the power to reject at any stage, even before Second Reading, Bills that require amendments that fundamentally alter their shape and which the Commons has not debated. That would at least focus the Government's attention on the need to improve their legislative performance.

It is difficult to make progress in this area, but the clock is ticking and this debate serves to remind us of that. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and it is interesting that it should take such an experienced and respected Labour Back-Bencher to put his own party under pressure on this subject.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, we are indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for initiating this very important and timely debate. He did so highly effectively and in a balanced way that was, as always, run through with much humour and wit.

It is an enormous privilege, especially as a relatively new Peer, to be a legislator in the House of Lords in the 21st century. Our aim in our work, from whichever part of the House we originate, has to be to increase the effectiveness of this Chamber in making good law and, of course, in holding the executive to account. To do that properly and in a modern context, we must facilitate Peers' work, particularly by ensuring that we are able, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, effectively to combine our parliamentary work, our paid and unpaid work outside the House, as well as our family life and responsibilities.

In order to achieve these properly ambitious aims of being a first-class modern legislature, it is not good enough at the beginning of the 21st century to say, "Well, this is how things have always been for decades and with the odd tweak of procedure here and there we can carry on this way for the next half century". Nor is it any use to say to those of us who do advocate some sensible modernisation, "Well, you knew what you were letting yourself in for when you came into this House; you knew that late nights and politics go together like Flanders and Swann, fish and chips and New and Labour".

Those arguments, as well as having more than a whiff of complacency about them, will cut no ice with the kind of people we want to attract to our 21st-century House. Who are the people that we want to attract? They are the experts and the professionals in their fields—people who need more than a few communal phones on an open-corridor table to conduct their professional lives outside the House, as well as their political responsibilities within the House. Who are the people we want to see? We want to see the captains and "captainesses"—if that is a word—of industry, who need more than serial tea parties to ensure that their corporate business remains intact while they perform their political duties. They need a few facilities, such as offices, computer points and workstations along with, perhaps, a proper reception area for visitors. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the staff in this House, who do an enormous amount of good work and are extremely courteous. Indeed, as one of my noble friends has said, it is a small miracle how the staff keep this place operating day by day.

I suggest that what we want to see as regards the people who come here in the 21st century—at least, what many of us want—is the minimum 30 per cent of women Members as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his Recommendation 70. If that is ever to come about, we need to have a House of Lords that is female friendly and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccornbe, said, is also family friendly. It is not just special pleading, as intimated by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, when we call for realistic facilities to be made available. Indeed, every effective business and firm in modern Britain would see that as a reasonable demand from a trade union. Childcare facilities for Peers' families should be part of the modernisation process.

Along with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, I helped to establish the crèche in the European Parliament 10 years ago. We heard all the arguments about it not being necessary and about it being completely outside the reason for us doing our political work. Yet we overcame those arguments and, indeed, the challenges of having children from 15 countries speaking 11 different languages to each other in that crèche. It is now accepted as a normal, reasonable part of the working facilities of that Parliament and is highly effective.

So we have a challenge to ensure that Members in this Parliament can complete their work in the knowledge that they are making a contribution and without bearing the burden of guilt that they are not giving enough time to their responsibilities here because of the pull on their outside responsibilities. We are already making progress in that respect. I believe that the transitional House has a working atmosphere that perhaps the pre-transitional Chamber did not quite have.

While listening to the reaction of some noble Lords to even the necessity for this debate, it seemed to me that there was a danger of the debate becoming hijacked by the past and by a certain ancestor worship. Indeed, we must respect the past but we must not cling to it without justification. Recruiting people with different experiences and from different industries and races means that we are being seen by the public as a pluralist, progressive and purposeful House of Lords. Down the road we have a building called the Tate Modern: let us be the "politics modern" of the 21st century.

My Lords, I thought that the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, clearly illustrated an independent-minded, thought-provoking and loyal Back-Bencher—indeed, to use the term of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, a "real person". I hope the noble Lord considers that there are more than one or two real people in this House—perhaps even some who do not find the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, seems to believe, to be artificially polite, but only when they are in this Chamber and when they do not have their sleeves rolled up. This House is full of people who give a very real contribution to our political settlement, to the debate of important issues and to the scrutiny of government. That is why we are here. I do not believe that we should ever lose sight of our primary objective.

I feel that this discussion of procedures is extremely valid, particularly in the context of the extraordinary changes that this House has undergone within the past year. However, we ought to look at those procedures with a certain degree of respect. I wholly reject the statement made a few moments ago that the House of Lords as it was formerly constituted perhaps did not have the reputation of being, shall we say, a working House. I firmly believe that it did. There were a number of objections and strong points of view as to the way in which that House was constituted, but I believe that we would find very few people who would argue with the output of that House and the job that it actually performed. That is why I feel that the description of some Peers as "working Peers" and others, presumably, as idle or "non-working Peers" is tremendously artificial.

It must be the keynote of our debate to look at the effectiveness of the House of Lords as it stands at present. We must look at the output of the House and the degree to which it does hold government to account. That is sometimes uncomfortable for government. I certainly felt very uncomfortable at 2 o'clock in the morning, when, as a Whip, I used to sit and listen to employment debates. I see the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is nodding his head; indeed, I believe that we shared a degree of discomfort at that time. However, we were doing an important job. Part of the reason why this House sits so long is because of the freedom of the Back-Bencher to raise issues—not to face a guillotine and an executive that says, "We've heard enough of this line of argument. Therefore, we shall stop it". The key of this House is the ability of the Back-Bencher, as well as the Official Opposition and all Members of the House, to hold government strongly to account.

This House comes out well in any comparison with another place and, indeed, with the European Parliament in terms of the volume of legislation that it considers and the commitment of all its Members—be they hereditary Peers, appointed Peers, Bishops, Law Lords, or whoever. We should be measured by the output of the House. However, that does not mean that I am against change. I believe that we should look very carefully at our procedures in many areas, but I would argue most strongly against constraints such as guillotine measures and timed votes designed to make the Government's life easier. As almost every speaker this afternoon has said, the Government have a very strong role to play here by bringing forward more carefully considered legislation—legislation which does not require 300, 400 or 500 government amendments to put it into the sort of shape that the public demands and expects of this House. Less legislation would undoubtedly prove to be a major benefit.

Another question that was raised this afternoon is whether our current rules are sufficient for this House. Many of the rules do cover a number of the problems that we have, or are perceived to have, as regards the way that the House works at present. However, there is, perhaps, a degree to which the rules are there but are not being adhered to; indeed, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the number of Second Reading speeches in Committee, and so on. I certainly agree with him in that respect, although I always think that it is a question of other people making Second Reading speeches and oneself making powerful and well-argued interventions that are fully suited to the Committee stage.

I believe that there is considerable advantage in taking Committee stages within the Chamber of the whole House. That focuses the attention of more Peers of the whole House on the business that is under consideration. To have too many processes running parallel might dilute that degree of consideration.

I accept that we work long hours. I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Mancroft; namely, that when Members come to this House, either via the route of the hereditary peerage or by appointment, part of the deal is that they have to put in the hours that will enable us to perform our role effectively. However, we certainly sit for extraordinary lengths of time and perhaps some of the points that have been mentioned should be considered.

I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said, particularly when he mentioned the reading of speeches. He put his finger right on the button in that regard. However, I thoroughly disagreed with him as regards the need for a Speaker. If Peers who have been Members of this House for some time as well as previous generations of Peers have been able to exercise the self-constraint and courtesy which a self-governing House requires, I see no reason whatsoever why incoming Peers should not also be fully capable of doing the same. I do not think that the noble Lord's comment says a great deal for his attitude towards his contemporaries.

Finally, I urge the Government not to pursue measures that simply make their life easier and make it easier to process legislation in pursuit of a system which fully facilitates the digestion of large quantities of legislation at short notice. We need full consideration.

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing this debate. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, I do not think that any of us should simply try to make the life of government easier.

I too believe that the prime role of the House of Lords is the scrutiny of legislation. However, that has considerable implications for both the composition and the working practices of the House of Lords. After all, nowadays the shelf life of knowledge is extremely short, particularly in some rapidly changing fields. If the House of Lords is to have access to the degree of expertise that is required, we must guard against it becoming a Chamber which only barristers, those who are fully retired or those who live within the M25 boundary can possibly attend. We need to consider that matter.

I know that noble Lords have addressed my next point in the past. I hope that they will address it again in the future and produce on that occasion a favourable verdict. I believe that there is an overwhelming case for moving the general business day from Wednesday to either Monday or Thursday. If our prime duty is the scrutiny of legislation, it does not follow that we should deliberately prolong that process to a four-day week when some people may genuinely be able to attend on only three days because of their public service commitments elsewhere in the country. Tomorrow morning I shall rise at five o' clock. I shall leave my flat at about 5.30 a.m. to get to Shetland in time to chair a 10.30 meeting of the Scottish Tourist Board. I believe that that is a legitimate public service duty. It would be far better to consider legislation on consecutive days to enable people to participate on all those days.

It would be a serious mistake—it is interesting to note how many speakers have echoed this point—if a significant element of the House were to be directly elected. I must confess that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, showed great ingenuity in suggesting a 15-year term with no re-election. However, an elected element still poses some dangers. I believe that it would undoubtedly endanger the primacy of the House of Commons. If people are elected to this House at a different point in the electoral cycle, they could claim that they have a greater democratic legitimacy than Members of the House of Commons. If they are elected by a different electoral method— perhaps a better electoral method than that employed for the House of Commons—the same claim could be made. As I said, such a process would endanger the primacy of the House of Commons. If such a process were adopted in this House, it would undoubtedly pose a danger of creating first and second-class citizens. We should guard against that danger.

Even given the ingenious suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, of the 15-year term, there is still the problem of the payment of salaries. If one pays salaries to elected Peers, one cannot in all conscience not pay salaries to all Peers. We shall all work equally hard. Problems would arise in that area. If this House, which has borne great testimony to the tradition of public service in this country, suddenly decides to pay salaries to its Members, I believe that the public will assume that they must be doing more than they were before the House took that step, and therefore that the House has more powers. I am afraid that the payment of salaries would engender that problem. On the other hand, it is important that lack of means should not be a bar to anyone entering this House. Therefore I readily support the payment of distinctly more generous allowances than those paid currently, which, frankly, are unrealistic.

I also echo the pleas for better facilities in this House. If people are to combine service in this House with some perfectly legitimate public service or business activities elsewhere, they need, for example, to be able to keep in touch with offices. Consideration of such elementary points is overdue.

There is also a case for considering the way in which we run Committee stages. As a comparative newcomer to this House, it has always seemed to me a little silly that we take virtually all stages of a Bill in one House and then do the same in the other House. Surely, if Second Reading is meant to be an issue of principle, we should take the Second Reading of a Bill in both Houses and then take the Committee stage. I wonder whether we could take a revolutionary step and have a Committee of both Houses. I wonder too whether we could replicate at the Committee stage the consultation that takes place at the pre-legislative stage and give a Committee the power to call witnesses and examine the evidence of people who really know about the subject concerned and will potentially be affected by the legislation. I believe that there is a case for taking that step.

I am sure that all noble Lords accept the vital importance of the Cross-Benchers. It its important that a government should have to win a vote in this House rather than simply rely on being able to do that. However, for that to apply, the vote must be winnable and the balance of Cross-Benchers should be genuinely independent and not closet admirers of one political party or another. A heavy onus will be placed on the body charged with the appointment of Cross-Bench Members to ensure that that result is achieved.

Finally, the present conventions, by and large, ensure that the clear will of government, as expressed in a manifesto, will not be frustrated. The delaying power of the House of Lords is, however, extremely useful in focusing media and public attention on individual issues. It is ultimately that awakened public opinion which persuades government to change their mind. If the Lords is to carry weight at the bar of public opinion, it will be because the public will have come to trust the verdict that we reach.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for initiating this debate I am sure he would agree that he is subjecting us all to intense frustration because so much that has been said is of great moment to all of us but one has time only to make broadly one point.

However, in passing, I say that as a relative new boy I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, am immensely grateful to the staff who make the working of this place not only efficient on the whole but also a pleasure. I have spent nearly 20 years of my professional life dealing with the constitutional reorganisation of institutions of every conceivable kind. I remind noble Lords—if reminder is needed—that there is no institution or organisation which is remotely as complicated as this one. To contrive to create a democratic assembly that does justice to all the things that we hold dear is, frankly, a work that the Archangel Gabriel could not satisfactorily undertake and deliver. If we were all to observe the Companion—I must be one of the most non-observant Members of your Lordships' House—many of the complaints that have been voiced today would disappear.

Many noble Lords have concentrated on the issue of the effectiveness of this House. Effectiveness can be looked at internally and externally. Today, understandably, most noble Lords have concentrated on the internal effectiveness of the workings of the House. However, even if we were perfect in all respects, it would be fruitless if we were externally ineffective, and here I take up the theme started by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.

How would we judge external effectiveness? I suspect that we would judge it by how much notice people took of what we said and did here; by how much they were aware of what we were doing here; by how much they felt they owned what we were doing here; by how much they felt involved in and committed to what we were doing here. I fear that by all those yardsticks, one would come out with a fairly dismal story.

I do not need to labour the fact that democracy in this country is currently in extremely bad shape. I think that sometimes we rather brush all that under the plush carpets of Westminster. The voting statistics—whether municipal, mayoral, national or European—all point in one direction, as do all other signs of democratic health.

Let me turn now to the Royal Commission report. It rightly stated that the new second Chamber would have four main roles; I shall refer to two of them. First,

"It should provide a voice for the nations and regions".

Secondly,

"People should feel that there is a voice in Parliament for the different aspects of their personalities—regional, gender, vocational, ethnic, professional, cultural or religious".

But, having been given a voice, one needs to have someone to provide a voice for; someone with whom one has a close relationship. I come back to what I said earlier: I do not think that we have that relationship. We have to, by every means, resuscitate the vitality of this House in the minds and hearts of our fellow countrypeople.

One may ask, "Is that not being done?" I fear that it is not. Only since 1996 have we had an information office in this House. It does brilliantly, but it comprises only one director, one personal assistant and two telephonists, with a budget of £75,000 a year. If I may say so, that is a smaller resource than even a modest sized company would have these days to spread its message and its image.

If we are to take seriously—as I am sure we do—the impact of this place in the world beyond, we have to look to perhaps creating a committee for external affairs. One hesitates to suggest creating a new committee, but we need a committee which has an exclusive duty to invigorate public realisation of what we are about. We need to make people aware when big Bills are to be discussed; to ascertain whether people have a point of view to feed into the process; to make them aware that important debates are coming up.

I am staggered how few people seem to know when we do have important debates. In the recent debate on tourism, I discovered that the East of England Tourist Board was unaware that the debate was taking place. When we have a good debate, how often does it reverberate within these ancient and hallowed walls, and nowhere else? Why is it that the Guardian newspaper has ceased to have a lobby correspondent?

We need to take the external aspects of effectiveness infinitely more seriously. They need more resources—and by that I mean significant funds—great imagination and great commitment, because none of this is easy stuff. I want to encourage consultation in an effective way. I want to encourage people to lobby us, to try and bend our ears when something that they feel passionately about is coming up. It may be a nuisance; we may all say, "For God's sake, no more crazy letters". If we have a vital House, there will be crazy letters—but there will be many more sane ones.

I want us to provide speakers for all occasions—indeed, I want to encourage people to come to us for speakers. I want us to have an effective website, to which reference has been made. I want us to do everything we possibly can to enable a bemused citizenry to take part in the deliberations of this fine House.

My Lords, I believe that the prospect of a fundamental future change to this House is a cloud which hangs over the things that need to be changed. In saying that, as the Leader of the House knows, I, among others, accepted the need to deal with the perceived problem of there being previously an overwhelming number of hereditary Peers in this House. I accepted that the Labour Party had a mandate to do what it spelt out in its manifesto. I never accepted the view of my party encapsulated in the slogan, "No stage one without stage two".

However, as a result of the brilliant negotiating skills of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I believe that we have ended up with the best of both worlds. We have now in the House more than 100 of the most distinguished and able of our hereditary colleagues, as well as having those who have been appointed for life. When one is asked, as I am sure we all are, "What is the difference in the House between then and now?", I reply that I find remarkably little difference except for a greater self-confidence.

If there were to be a need for a stage two, my noble friend Lord Wakeham has produced an ingenious and perhaps workable compromise package for the future. However, my belief is that no government should contemplate further structural reform until we have had the time—at least five years—to see how the new structure we have today works in practice.

That is not only because there is no longer the political demand for further reform at grass-roots level, or because any government's legislative programme would certainly have higher priorities—we have heard much about the compaction of the programme to introduce new, highly controversial legislation—but much more because the British constitution is a delicate plant. It would be crazy to embark on further changes when the inter-effect of many of the changes which have already taken place are only now beginning to provide perplexing and often unexpected results.

In my remaining few minutes I should like to make four points. First, it is crucial that new appointees to this House add to the lustre and credibility of the whole House. I recognise that it has not been easy for the Labour Party to find the numbers it requires in the time available. However, new Labour is so different from old Labour that its net could catch some bright fishes which would have previously swum vigorously in the opposite direction.

My second point concerns the Procedure Committee. I am extremely suspicious that there is an intention in certain quarters to use the Procedure Committee to introduce changes to make the Government's life—any government's life—easier. I would not accept that.

My third point is that we have to improve facilities for Members. I am opposed to a taxable remuneration. Indeed, I wonder how many people have recently refused peerages on the basis that we were not paid. I was a member of the ad hoc group of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We made certain proposals to the Government, which were agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said that it takes a long time for us to get anything decided. It will be a good test of what the noble Lord said to see whether we can get those modest and practical proposals imposed within a rapid time-scale.

My fourth point is much more specific: there is a significant information gap for Peers. Although we have a superb Library, and Parliament as a whole has made a big attempt to introduce us to the wonders of IT through the PDVN, there is one astonishing lacuna: Members do not have access to any of the main-line economic databases. These have been expanding very rapidly in both capability and user friendliness. For many years, Datastream and Reuters dominated the scene. They were very expensive—with an annual subscription rate of some tens of thousands of pounds—but now there are new entrants into the market.

I was recently given a demonstration of a new Swedish product called Ecowin, which, in collaboration with Reuters, provides an astonishing range of financial and economic information. Social information may easily be grafted on to it. Not only does it have the advantage of operating through the Windows system, which we all have on our PCs, but it is a great deal cheaper. For the first user, it is £6,000 per year; for the second, £3,000; and for the third and subsequent subscribers, it is only £1,500.

Those are practical ways in which I believe we can be made more effective. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for introducing this debate, will at least agree with me on that particular proposal.

My Lords, when I put down my name to speak in this debate I did so with great trepidation as I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for only a few months. I did so with the intention of regaling noble Lords with my immediate reaction on becoming a Member of this House. However, I found myself in total agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Therefore, it is with even greater trepidation that I now speak because I have only half the service of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I am twice as liable and vulnerable to the patronising of certain Members opposite. I also agreed very much with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Hoyle.

What I think is a great strength of the House is its friendly nature—we call it comradeship in some other quarters—which transcends party lines. A second strength is the quality of debate. I stand in admiration of the quality of debate which I have heard from all Benches. The third strength is the quality of the staff. Those were my initial impressions and they remain with me. I formed a second impression. On my first day as a Member of the House I could not find a hotel within the allowance paid me to stay in a hotel overnight. The only remotely reasonable allowance is the motor mileage allowance.

I also enjoyed very much the star performance of my noble friend Lord Bragg. My only point of difference with him is that I am not yet personally convinced on the question of payment of salaries. But I am convinced that if we are to have people doing a good job here we have to pay, not, as has been said, "generous expenses", but expenses which do not leave people out of pocket. I think that is not a major earth-shattering decision that requires a great deal of legislation.

I sit on the governing body of the International Labour Organisation, where I lead a group of 24 worker members from around the world. Among that group are four members of the upper chambers of their parliaments, one from Venezuela, one from Chile, one from the Czech Republic and one from Barbados. They all congratulated me on my becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. We swapped anecdotes about the workload, the allowances, the conditions and the back-up in our respective parliaments. On every single point they were astonished. None of their astonishment was to the credit of this House. The workload is far in excess of anything that they would know and the facilities are far less than anything that they would expect. I told them that the research department for the whole of this House consists of four people. That astonishes me because my research department when I was a trade union leader had eight people in it. Research cannot even start to be done unless we have adequate and efficient ways of doing it.

I will give ground to those who would say that I have not been here long enough to play a major part in a discussion about how to change the constitutional way we do things in committees and so on, but I am content, having heard speeches today and indeed previously, that within the four political groupings— if I can call the independents a political grouping—there is enough talent for a review committee. I am much attracted to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, of a review committee to take these matters forward by agreement. I do not believe that we have to confuse efficiency with effectiveness. I believe that we can improve efficiency and effectiveness. Scrutiny is about effectiveness and efficiency. What we have at the moment is a traditional way of doing things which no private sector organisation, and, dare I say, no public organisation would have endured for so long without a degree of change. As a former trade union leader, I have to say that none of my Members would have employed me for five minutes had I allowed them to work under the conditions one finds in your Lordships' House.

I do not personally quarrel about the late nights. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, you accept the package as it comes. However, I am equally clear that they are not helpful in terms of family circumstances, even my own. I have two children of school age and a wife who is an academic. We manage to balance the child care until we come to the school holidays because of course they never coincide with either her leave or mine. Therefore, there is a difficulty. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my children are at school and therefore the opportunity to see them this morning, after a finish beyond midnight, was very limited, and the opportunity to see them tonight is totally denied. We have to find more family friendly policies. One has only to look at international comparisons. We are a very strange organisation if we are not able to make changes which are not constitutional but managerial.

My final point is a personal plea. I should like to see a room here where you could simply take your laptop, plug it in and have access to the Internet. That could be communal. We do not have to have individual offices. I am not, as was suggested earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, looking for a luxurious office. A locker would be a start. I think that half a chair leg is as much as I can expect in terms of accommodation in the next five years. If we had a communal area, one could have what the Americans call "hot-desking". But your Lordships should worry not. This House, with a capacity for perhaps 300 people—for the past 300 years people entitled to be here have been measured in hundreds more than that—we could claim to have invented the phrase, but here it is called "hot-benching", particularly at Question Time when we have to wait to take our places. So if we can do it in the Chamber why can we not modernise our backroom operations? Why can we not move into the 21st century?

I am very much attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the personal website. Certainly, I have been receiving messages on the Internet. I do not know how people obtained my e-mail address, but it came after the debate on the age of consent. Most of it was fairly hostile to my view, but it did tell me how people felt and made me aware. I think that the website issue is something that we should look at with some urgency.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on introducing this debate. I believe that it has been an extremely worthwhile occasion.

All major political parties in this country agree that we should remain members of the European Union. Yet, as we all know, it is not by any means a universally popular opinion among the British public. I believe that one of the reasons for this serious matter is that government's political and administrative activities in this part of the political landscape are not sufficiently scrutinised. Rather I believe that they are thought to be arranged behind the Arras where The Foreigner—spelt with a capital T and a capital F—always cheats. I actually believe that the same kind of view is held elsewhere in other member states.

In a world which is becoming—to use an architectural metaphor—more and more open plan, government in future will take more actions which either de jure or de facto are legislative, not in this Parliament but outside it, and outside the jurisdiction as well. Whether or not we are in or out of the European Union will not alter that.

Perhaps I may for a moment put on my hat as a Member of the European Parliament, I am able to scrutinise the Commission and also the European Council as a whole. I have no direct leverage or access to Her Majesty's Government. My experience in your Lordships' House on the Government Front Bench, when I used to attend the Audio-visual and Culture Councils, corroborated by my time as an Opposition Front-Bencher and on the Back Benches, suggests to me that on the whole this House and this Parliament are often in the dark about what our government are up to on our behalf in international fora. I believe that that is inherently undesirable and that it damages the political process in this country and democracy. For that reason, I am delighted that the Royal Commission looks in the future to this House for greater scrutiny of European business.

Turning to the Government's package of constitutional reforms over the past few years, I notice one big dog that does not bark. Perhaps to be more accurate, the mastiff that was expressly muzzled by the instructions given to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his commission. I refer to the pre-eminence of the other place, which has acquired, passed down from Parliament to Parliament, a quasi-sacramental character inherited by each House of Commons from its predecessor.

As I have explained to your Lordships on other occasions, I am a bicameralist. I am not looking for parity between the Chambers, merely greater equivalence. I want this Chamber and this House to increase their political role. I am in favour of checks and balances in the constitution and I am opposed to monopoly and excessive concentrations of power.

The pre-eminence of the other place is kept in place principally by the Parliament Acts and conventions which relate, on the whole, to legislation and public Finance. They are more or less silent about scrutiny which, for the reasons I have outlined, will, I believe, become ever more important as the nature of the world we are moving into changes. I believe that, increasingly, policy areas traditionally considered to be domestic will be the subject of legislation enacted away from here.

There is a remarkable opportunity before the House which the House should seize. We should develop our system of scrutiny, already highly regarded by the specialist and the expert, and extend it thoroughly and methodically to all areas where our government are negotiating outside the jurisdiction to legislate, or committing themselves to legislate, or to spend our money. If we do that well—I believe that we can do it well—I am confident that we can regain a place much closer to the centre of national political life which has been lost over the past couple of centuries or so because of the arguments about our composition. If we can do that, we would be doing the right thing for the House but, much more importantly, it would be in the wider national interest.

My Lords, it is a special pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I suppose that I have a family bias in his case, but the noble Lord is the personification of what we want to see in an hereditary Peer. I may be biased in that direction also, but he is the kind of hereditary Peer we want.

I have said many times how saddened I have been by the disappearance of some very good Members of the House who were hereditary Peers. But, by and large, one has to say that it is now a better balanced House than when I first arrived. At that time there were only a handful of Labour Peers. It is altogether a better balanced place. As long as we have 100 or so Members who are hereditary Peers, we shall not go far wrong. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I am very optimistic about the future of the House.

I realise that many Members of the House perform their best service in committees—either during the Committee stage of Bills or in special committees or specialist bodies. I have not done anything of value in committees but I have opened many debates in the House, some of them quite recent. It is dangerous to boast because you always find someone who has opened a few more than you have, but on the face of it I have opened more than most—debates on homosexuality, prisons, universities, polytechnics, hospices and suchlike. Perhaps I may put my message in a nutshell. I hope that new and younger Members of the House, brim-full of energy, young men like the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that kind of youngster—

Say that again!

He has his hair, anyway. I hope that young men like that, or even younger, will have the same opportunities as I have had over the years.

This House is distinguished above all for the quality of its debates. The most remarkable debates are the ones on general subjects outside the party framework. I mentioned a few that I initiated myself but I shall now mention some other recent debates. In January a debate on religion generally was initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. A debate on asylum was recently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Various initiatives have been taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sometimes in connection with legislation. Those have all been notable debates.

More recently we have had a debate on the disabled. Nowhere in the whole wide world, now or at any time, would there be a more impressive debate than we had in the House recently on the disabled. Thirty years ago, Alf Morris, now the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on his own initiative—a Back-Bencher in the House of Commons—introduced a Bill in favour of disabled people which became the law of the land. I had the honour of playing a small part in that as I was the spokesman for the Bill in this House. Much more interesting than anything I did was the fact that speaking that day were two ladies in wheelchairs—the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham. They are still speaking in the same wheelchairs, so far as one can see, that they spoke in 30 years ago, having done a great deal of active work in the meanwhile for this House. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who went totally deaf, was also involved. I gather that his hearing has since improved. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on two sticks since war injuries 50 years ago, spoke in the recent debate on the disabled, as did the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who has done so much for the handicapped, having suffered some disadvantages himself at one point. Nowhere else in the world would one get that kind of debate going.

To repeat my point—it is a quite short one—I hope that in the future the new Members coming here, brim-full of life and energy will have the same chance. On present showing, I do not know whether they will. There are more than 40 Unstarred Questions down for debate. Who is arranging for these new Members to come on? It is all very well to be cannon fodder. All these people are coming here. Are they expected to sit here and toe the line? We all have to do that. I do it to the best of my ability—not quite 100 per cent but quite often. We want these young people to feel that they have a chance to make themselves heard and make their views known. I hope that that will be ensured.

I have no obvious suggestions to make except one. We need more days set apart for general debates. Today is a good example of a general debate. But, on the whole, not enough time is given for Unstarred Questions and debates. All these people are longing to express themselves and to offer some thoughts outside of the party machinery. They may be members of parties or they may be independents. There they all are—the rising generation of Peers. I hope that they will he given the chance.

My Lords, after that magnificent tour d'horifon of the noble Earl, it seems strange and unsatisfactory to be able to take only one point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the debate.

Perhaps your Lordships may well think that the crucial question arising in this debate is whether the workings of this House should be reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the Wakeham commission and whether the Select Committees should now be set up to review our procedures and conventions in accordance with those recommendations. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, there has been a continuous process of change. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that there was a great opportunity to improve the workings of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, supported expanding the working of the Select Committees now as there was scope for change now and said that we should not wait until stage two substantive reform. In that, the noble Lord was supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—grabbing the knocker of his cathedral to claim sanctuary from what I propose to say. Is not this the issue on which the Government are not prepared to give way, having maintained that there should be no review of our procedures and conventions until stage two substantive reform? Is not that the question that lies at the root of the debate—an issue for the House, not the Government, to resolve?

The issue has arisen at Question Time (pages 21 to 23 of the Library notes). It arose on the speeches of many noble Lords on the third and fourth days of the debate on the Address. In their view, circumstances no longer existed in which conventions had been devised and implemented. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, in today's circumstances new conventions are required and will have to be developed.

The matter arose again in the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree concerned with the convention as to the exercise of restraint as recorded at page 187 of the Companion. In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was deplorable that the usual channels had not arranged a full—scale debate on the mode of operation of the House. In that debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, stated that there would be no review of our conventions and procedures until stage two substantive reform-a somewhat Neronic attitude to the requisite regeneration of working practices, as it was put by one noble Lord. Indeed, having donned his toga, the noble and learned Lord proclaimed that conventions concerning primary and secondary legislation should remain, so that the elected Chamber would not be prevented from doing in principle what it proposed to do.

There is the Salisbury convention, which has not be codified. Paragraphs 4·21 to 4·34 of the Wakeham commission report suggest a new version which represents a new balance of authority as between the two Houses and reconsideration of the mandate doctrine. There are the recommendations in the Wakeham report concerning our procedures and the setting up of committees, such as the constitutional committee, and committees to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation and international treaties, and so forth.

The question is: are those recommendations as to our working practices just to lie in limbo and gather dust pending substantive reform, heaven knows when—a period of five years has been suggested; it could well be 15; it could well be more. It was not the intention of the commission that these should lie in limbo. It was the intention that they should be considered by the House. This was confirmed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, personally after the debate on the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree.

My Lords, a great deal of congratulation has been offered to my noble friend Lord Peston. I admire him, but that must be remedied by one point. There has been no criticism of the noble Lord. I have a criticism. My noble friend was far too statesmanlike. He was nothing like as provocative as I should have expected him to be, so on that I disagree with him.

A great deal has been said in the debate about the need for change. I do not agree with all of it. I strongly disagree with those who have almost implied that everything is marvellous and we should leave matters alone. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will not mind my saying that he was somewhat patronising towards one of my noble friends and the speech that he made. The noble Viscount may not have appreciated it, but he was. There is a need for change. I do not agree with all that has been suggested, but perhaps I may refer to one or two areas where change is certainly needed.

This House is a congenial place. I like it very much. But we must remember that we are the second Chamber of Parliament. We have problems in managing our affairs, and those problems need looking at. I do not believe, given what has been said in this and previous debates, that there is a consensus on the Wakeham commission recommendations on composition. I do not have time to deal with that. However, there is one area where I do believe that there is consensus. I almost referred to "my noble friend" Lord Jopling, because we were paired for so long; before the noble Lord was unfortunately made Chief Whip, he used to pair with me regularly. I agree with him on the need to make such changes by agreement between the parties. That agreement should be available to us. So I hope that there will be consensus on the need for at least some changes, because this Chamber has an important job to do.

All governments put badly drafted legislation on the statute book. Having put a large number of Finance Bills on the statute book, I willingly concede that many of those were badly drafted. Of course, they were not even allowed to be considered by this Chamber. It would be no had thing, apart from examining the money matters, if a committee of this House, on a non-party basis, did consider Finance Bills. It might result in their being rather better drafted.

What I have said applies to all governments, not merely the present one. The other place is party political, and, not surprisingly, tends to concentrate on party-political matters and soundbites rather than on the proper examination of legislation. There is a danger that that could happen in this House as well. Indeed, I have heard some soundbites in this House. Members producing them have never been reported because, as they have never appreciated, no one cares what they are saying! In this place we can offer the proper scrutiny of legislation. But if we are to do the job effectively, we need substantial increases in the resources that are available to the House. However substantial, they would he modest by comparison with what is happening in another place. I have referred to this previously: £200 million for a building providing 200 offices—a million pounds a piece. I do not suggest that we do anything like that. I have suggested to a member of the House authorities that we could perhaps build on Black Rod's Garden. The person to whom I mentioned it did not seem madly happy about the proposal, so I shall not repeat it now. But cost should not be an issue as regards the changes that need to be made.

In the past, I have criticised the House authorities. I was probably unfair, particularly to their officials, although they may have been a trifle slow in the past. It is not a matter for the House authorities; it is for this House to tell them clearly what needs doing, and I am sure that they will then do it. But we must give them clear instructions—and if the Treasury sought to stop any of the expenditure that we are talking about, it would be for this House to tell the Treasury what it could do with its opposition.

Perhaps I may list a few of the areas where there is a clear need for extra resources. First, everyone agrees that we need more Select Committees, which in this House do a first-class job in a non-party-political way, unlike those in another place. We need to recruit and train officials and staff, and we need rooms for those additional Select Committees. It is incredible that one should have to state that we need an office for every working Peer—not luxurious offices, but a desk perhaps for every Member of this House! It is not a lot to ask and I hope that it can be achieved. We need a fax and photocopier, which works all the time, in every office, not just one or two located centrally for the whole House. It is not unreasonable to ask that such facilities should be made available. We have started to use e-mail technology, for which, incidentally, we require more trainers. Those are just a few of the matters that we need.

I return to the Motion before us which asks for a review of the workings of the House of Lords in the 21st century. I take the workings of this place seriously. I believe that the House of Lords is an important second Chamber. The kinds of change to which I have referred do not need a review; they can be implemented now. It is for this House to instruct the authorities to get on and do it. If the House of Commons does not give up the rooms that it occupies, it should be told to leave; it is our accommodation and we should use it.

There is no reason why the Government Chief Whip should not tell the House tonight that, by agreement with all the Front Benches, a review will be set in place to consider the powers of your Lordships' House, and perhaps the times of sitting and the other matters referred to in the debate. That is the only way that we shall ever get change.

My Lords, I find myself wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, when he speaks about the facilities with which we must live in this House. I am lucky enough to have a desk; many noble Lords do not. I do not suppose that many noble Lords are aware of the extent to which the accommodation in this House is occupied by MPs—there are rooms full of them— when many Peers have to use desks and telephones in corridors to conduct their daily business in this place.

I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for giving us the chance to debate this subject. It is important to recognise the need for continuous evolution. This House has evolved a great deal in the time that I have been here, and evolves still I give the example of the way in which noble Lords address one another. There is a strong tendency on the part of some Peers to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as "Lord Peston" rather than "the noble Lord, Lord Peston". If I have to say "the noble Lord, Lord Peston" frequently enough I tend to agree with them. One member of the Government has gone as far as to insert his Christian name into his title on his letterhead.

Evolution is about trying out variations: those which are unsuccessful die; those which are successful are propagated. We should not try to suppress variations but ensure that they are addressed critically. Above all, we must proceed at an evolutionary pace, not with great leaps into the dark. Evolution produces a strong system and is a great ward against the law of unintended consequences. But in order to evolve we must ensure that it is a continuous process and not one that we just look at every 10 or 20 years or neglect to deal with in small doses all the time.

In the evolutionary process the guiding principle is that we should become a more effective Chamber. A long while ago we left behind the world in which railway timetables were settled by train drivers; now the public have a major influence in their determination. We should follow that principle. What the public requires of us should determine what we do. However, within that we must pay attention to our conditions of service to ensure that what is asked of us is reasonable and, if not, that perhaps we adapt the way that we work.

I should like to make three suggestions. First, on a small scale, towards the end of last year we had the very successful example of pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill. I refer to the draft Freedom of Information Bill. We were able to consider that legislation in Committee and take evidence upon it. This year I had enormous difficulty in seeking to make any changes to the Limited Partnerships Bill which did not have that scrutiny. The Minister kept saying that these matters should have been raised in pre-legislative scrutiny. We need to adapt to the changes which the Government seek to make, quite rightly, in exposing Bills to public criticism before they come before the House. We must he able to get our word in at that stage; otherwise, because so many people have been consulted and involved in it effectively it is impossible to make changes.

Secondly, I like the Moses Room procedure which has been successful for those Bills in which I have been involved. I like the idea of a group of people considering a Bill in which they have a particular interest. For most subjects the number is fairly limited; even for the important ones there may be only 20 or 30 people. Such committees can sit outside normal sitting times. It may be we can experiment by allowing them to take evidence to a limited extent, because there are always corners of specialist subjects where we do not have the expertise within this House.

But in any proceedings in the Moses Room, or any other proceedings of that kind, we must ensure that the Report stage follows the Committee pattern. Before the Bill reaches the whole House a great deal of the guff can be cut out in Committee in the Moses Room. All the little points which arise from misunderstandings have been dealt with and the Government have been given the opportunity to explain themselves in detail. The Bill is much more compact and compressed and what remain are the major issues of contention. I believe that those matters must be debated according to Committee stage rules. Report stage is far too restrictive for a Bill which has not been debated in Committee format before the whole House.

Thirdly, I am attracted by the idea that there should be a time limit on sittings. Why not start by saying that the House shall rise at midnight? That would have some interesting effects. We know that work expands to fill the time that is available. In those circumstances the Government would recognise that work could be compressed. If they faced a reduction in time they would have to do things to compress the work that the House was being asked to do, particularly in the months that lie ahead.

It is well within the power of government to bring major Bills before the House earlier. There is a great deal of unused time earlier in the Session. An enormous amount of time is taken up by government amendments which are tabled in this House merely because the draftsman has not bothered to make the changes earlier. He has not given himself sufficient time or had the manpower to do it. If the Government knew that the time available to them was limited and they could not extend sittings into the small hours they would be forced to follow better practice, which would in turn force the House to follow better practice. In those circumstances there would be better control over repetitiveness. When there is unlimited time there seems to be no reason to control it. If time were limited, repetitiveness, which is largely a Front Bench phenomenon, would be much better controlled. Self-regulation in this House works and should be encouraged.

My Lords, it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and accept much of what he said. I do not begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I should first like to congratulate Labour Peers who gave up today, their Wednesday debate day, because they believed that this issue deserved an airing. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on having been invited by the Labour Peers to lead them in this debate. This is not a Labour issue but a House issue.

Having listened carefully to the debate over the past three or four hours, it is clear that there is much common ground across the Floor of the House on which we can build. I was surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is not now in his place, repeated a question which he has asked on many other comparable occasions: why change something that works perfectly well? Perhaps the present situation suits the circumstances of the noble Earl. Whatever his circumstances, the present arrangements suit the manner in which he has been brought up and has performed. However, I can assure the noble Earl that that is not my experience. I speak as chairman of the Labour Peers Group.

In the debate I have been struck by two matters: first, the influx of new Members in the past few years; secondly, the depressing fact that we continue to do our duty, not just to our party but to the House and the country, in such an abominable way. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to those occasions when he and I, acting as Whips, were here until two or three o'clock in the morning. As have many colleagues, I have been here until three or four o'clock in the morning; and it is mad. It is daft. Who imposes that situation? We impose it on ourselves; but we can change it.

I served on the Government and Opposition Benches in another place, as I have in this Chamber. There was always the feeling that any change would benefit the government of the day. I would say, "Oh ye of little faith. One day you may be the government". So if some issue appears to create a benefit, why not be big about it? Why not recognise that if, while in opposition, one digs one's toes in all along the line, one overlooks the fact that in this country history shows that governments change on a fairly regular basis? Therefore why not do something while in opposition that one would like to achieve in government? The sad fact is that many of those who resist measures while in opposition put them into effect when in government; and the government of the day then oppose those measures.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is not now present. I was impressed not only by his parliamentary record and service as a Government Chief Whip but also by what he told us to bear in mind: first, that any change will take place only if there is agreement; and, secondly, that one has to be patient. I think he said that after recognition of the need for reform, three or four years had passed before consensus and agreement was reached. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench can gain agreement at least to establish a special commit tee to consider the various issues raised.

We need to pay particular attention to the hours that we impose upon ourselves. When I was Chief Whip three years ago, the average age of Labour Peers was 71. That has come down a little. With the influx of newer, fresher Members, I hope that that average will come down even further. When I went back to my constituency—I still refer to Edmonton as my constituency even though I am no longer an MP—individuals would say, "Ted, are you really telling us that voluntarily the House of Lords decides to sit until three or four in the morning?" I would say, "It's not voluntarily, but that's the way it works". I believe that many people in this House think that because things have always been done in that way, they should always be done in that way.

I was impressed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. She showed an appreciation of the changing circumstances. There are younger and older Members with family responsibilities which need to be taken into account. The public cannot understand why the second Charnber—the House to which, in her gracious Speech, Her Majesty always refers to as the Upper House—acts so differently from another place when considering ourselves. With great respect, I believe that we are too timid. Members of another place examine a problem and solve it; they get round it. We do nothing like that. I look forward to an all-party committee examining seriously how this House can work better in the future.

When people ask me, "Are you telling me that the laws of the land were determined by elderly people at three or four in the morning?", and I say, "Yes", they shake their heads and think that we are mad. I am not mad. I am optimistic that this debate, so ably led by my noble friend Lord Peston will achieve what it should: to move us forward into the next century.

My Lords, let us not forget that Parliament was invented not to provide government but to control government. On many occasions, governments have shown an inclination to want to do without it. On the first occasion, it was brought to an end by the civil war. On the second occasion it was brought to an end by the revolution of 1688. Since then we have not been modified like a machine. We have grown like an organism; and at present we are in a post-operational state, having had, not a modification, but surgery committed on this House to alter its membership. Some will consider it beneficial surgery; others will think it unnecessary.

My purpose is, first, to remind noble Lords that, however we are composed, Parliament exists on behalf of the governed to supervise government. It does not do so on its own behalf but on behalf of whit we have come to talk of as the electorate. But we are the custodians also of those too young, too mad or too wicked to form part of the electorate. We are here on behalf of the whole population of this country. It is natural that the House which is filled with people sent there by the electorate—those who are old enough, sane enough and good enough to be the electorate—should be the most powerful House.

For that reason, and reasons of history, that House now has control of one of the main means of influencing government: the power to grant or deny taxes. That leaves us with the second and third means: the delimitation of the laws that a government want; and public discussion of the policies that they advocate. As regards the second, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, put his finger on the point when he said that far too little from this House is heard by the public. When I came to this House, The Times published a full parliamentary page every day that either House sat. The top part of that page was occupied by reports of your Lordships' doings—and it was usually the larger proportion. That has now changed. So has changed the fact that it was only 4·30 when one began one's speech by saying, "My Lords, at this late hour"—largely because the last train to Oxford left from Paddington at two minutes past six. But I digress.

Those are the functions. As regards our efficiency, the question is: how well do we constrain government? Do we enable government to do what the nation wants it to do; and do we constrain it from doing things that the nation does not want it to do? What role does an unelected Chamber have in that regard'?

In two essentials we differ from another place in a way which adds value to this Chamber's functions. First, unlike them, we are not dependent wholly upon our activities here for our subsistence. We are forced to be engaged in work outside. That is why ask your Lordships to think carefully about the extent to which we make a financial reward for coming here sufficient for people to subsist upon it. Once we become, a professional House, we lose two-thirds of our value.

Secondly, we cannot be removed and we have no general access to office, so that the Government and the Opposition Front Benches have far less control over the activities and words of those sitting behind them. I helped to lead a rebellion against the wish of the right honourable Michael Howard to institute prisons for 12 year-olds. The measure eventually failed at second bid. It would be difficult to do that in another place and expect preferment. But I, and most of your Lordships, expect none.

The third comment is that the means of constraining legislation is by using the time available to amend it. I am not afraid of the idea of reducing the time for doing that, because it increases the efficacy of the weapon. But what would destroy its efficacy would be if government were given the power to restrict the amount of time given to particular business without the agreement of the Opposition of the day. A guillotine in this House would be a disaster for what, oddly enough, I call democracy.

For the benefit of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Brett, whose speeches I heard—I regret that I had to chair a committee out of the Chamber for an hour and I missed others—the idea of having a Speaker to control our proceedings is very attractive at first sight until one looks at the product of such a procedure in the other place. The reason why we are always drawing back from the brink of tumult in this House is that we know that there is nobody else to make us do it and that, if we do not, all business will come to an end. In this House, courtesy is a necessity. With those words, the time says that I must sit down.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Peston on the excellent way in which he introduced his vision of a modern role for a modern second Chamber and emphasised—in parts of the debate it might have been lost—what were the imperatives of that role. It is based not on making life easier for the Government or us, but on holding the Executive to account in the process of making law—one hopes, good law. It may be it does not make life easier for us, but it gives us the opportunity to use our time and energies more efficiently and effectively.

I believe that today's debate has shown us very clearly that there is not only a continuing but a developing concern about a wide range of issues regarding the management of the House. They are not just issues reflected by what has been said by relatively new Members of your Lordships' House, but views expressed right across the spectrum of the House. They are concerned with how we manage our affairs; how our working practices and procedures are modernised; our working conditions; the physical question of offices; resources and the question of allowances. There is the question of staff. Everyone has praised the quality of the staff, but there are serious shortages in numbers if this House is to do many of the things that it is supposed to do on behalf of the people whom we serve.

Today's debate has cautiously encouraged me. My noble friend the Leader of the House made a wide-ranging review of some of the possibilities which exist for change. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seemed to me to be quite impatient to get on with some of the things that Wakeham has said we should be doing without requiring legislation to do them. I believe that many of those issues need to be looked at as a matter of some urgency. Other noble Lords have drawn attention to a wide range of issues that could be easily be changed and improved.

I support the view of many noble Lords who have spoken that the process of change by consensus is imperative. With good will, consensus should be available on a wide range of issues if we agree the necessary mechanisms to consider the agenda. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is unable to be with us. I believe that his speech had great merit, although he made one point with which I disagree. He said that, for example, there was very little filibustering in this House. There is no need for formal filibustering because we have developed a system of institutional filibustering. We have the possibility of making the same speech at Second Reading, in Committee, at Report stage and on Third Reading. We are a House of institutional filibustering and there is no need for it. With that exception, I very much welcomed his speech.

However, what was disappointing and predictable was the reaction of certain noble Lords such as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who conjured up images of Members deserting the Chamber to go to fictional offices and fictional luxury towers. When most Members talk about having facilities, they are not talking about trying to emulate another place. Many Members of this House do not yet have a locker. Many aspire not to a whole desk, but to the opportunity to share one and have somewhere where they can put down their papers and have a telephone. There are even extremely ambitious Members who are looking for a half-share in a filing cabinet. That illustrates many of the circumstances which your Lordships face today. Basic facilities should be accepted as a need and not caricatured as a luxury which might divert us from our duties. Too many Members of this House spend too many hours, particularly late at night, wandering around as though they were of no fixed abode. For the first time in my life, when I arrived here I felt like a gypsy.

Today's debate has shown us some very clear ways ahead. Very few noble Lords appear to be satisfied with the status quo. Very few believe that the Procedure Committee is the right forum to examine the changes that need to take place. Many noble Lords who seek change have emphasised the need to do so by consensus. Most noble Lords agreed on the kind of agenda that is at least capable of being discussed even if there was not agreement on the solution.

There was agreement that we need to improve the mechanisms for the scrutiny of legislation. The Committee stage certainly needs to be looked at. There was clearly a wide expression of view on voting at Committee stage. There was the issue of the repetitiveness of amendments. In addition, there was the question of how to make self-regulation work, because it clearly is not at the present time. If we do not make it work better, we need to consider what are the alternatives.

A wide range of issues were raised by a number of Members concerning facilities, not the creation of fictional luxury offices, but basic facilities available to Members to do their job. There should be some privacy and all Members should have a desk with somewhere to work with an assistant. The staff of the House should be adequate to its needs. There should be adequate provision of fax, computing and e-mail facilities. There should be proper financial resources along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, put to us. When we are challenged by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury on having enough guts in our own House to challenge the Treasury about our needs, that shows how serious is the situation. We should be able to look at the structure of the week and the hours of work in the House.

We should progress these issues by establishing a working group or some committee of the House. I shall be extremely disappointed tonight if I do not hear my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench indicate his thoughts along those lines.

My Lords, I greatly welcome this debate and warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing it. It has been particularly valuable because it deals with the functions, procedures and facilities of your Lordships' House, not with its composition. We have discussed the composition ad nauseam. Its functions are at least as important and have not received nearly as much attention in debate.

I begin by apologising for my absence from your Lordships' House for about an hour in an early part of the debate. Rather topically, that was due to the fact that I attended an important meeting of one of the subcommittees of the European Communities Select Committee.

I believe that nobody in this Chamber has any doubt that a second Chamber of Parliament is needed. All the major democracies in the world have second chambers. A valuable book has recently been published written by Meg Russell, a member of the staff of the Constitution Unit. She has described many of these second chambers. They have a wide variety of powers and functions. In federal nations such as the USA, Australia and Germany, the second chamber usually represents the interests of the constituent member states. In unitary nations, no consistent pattern of functions emerges. The United Kingdom is in a peculiar position; not federal, but no longer quite unitary. Perhaps we should describe ourselves as being a lop-sided semi-federation. Foreign guidance is too diverse to help us much. Therefore, the starting point for any consideration of what we should be doing is to look at what we do now. Should we do things that we do not do? Should we stop doing things that we do? Can we do things better?

Let us look first at the Select Committees. It is plain that the work of the committees is highly regarded. They have expert members and expert staff. Reports of committees such as the Select Committees on the European Union and Science and Technology are widely respected outside your Lordships' House, even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, suggested, not necessarily so widely read. The European Union Select Committee has no rival in any parliament of any other member state in its work of monitoring and reporting on current issues in Europe and possible future developments there.

What we could and should do is to expand our system of Select Committees. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we should not mirror the other place by setting up departmental Select Committees, but I agree with the report of the Wakeham Commission, and with many noble Lords who have spoken today, that we should set up new committees of our own or sub—committees of existing committees. They could report on constitutional issues; there could be a human rights committee with a wider remit than the Joint Committee on human rights which will be set up soon; there could be a committee to report on devolution issues; and a statutory instruments committee to draw the attention of the House to significant statutory instruments.

One committee not mentioned in the Wakeham report, but which would be valuable and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a committee on treaties and international agreements. It would report to your Lordships' House on the impact of treaties prior to ratification. The United Kingdom is one of the few democracies where there is no parliamentary process before the ratification of treaties unless primary legislation is needed to comply with the treaty obligations.

At this stage, I suggest only that there should be a report on treaties and an opportunity to debate that report. There is much to be said for requiring parliamentary consent to treaties, but that goes outside the scope of reform of your Lordships' House.

I return to proceedings in the Chamber, for which purpose I include the Moses Room. Your Lordships' House undoubtedly plays an extremely valuable role as a revising Chamber. Some of us who have sat long into the night during Committee and Report stages may believe that the process is altogether too slow moving. Indeed, a number of noble Lords indicated the same view, particularly those on the Government Benches. Do we really need three stages at which Bills can be amended when the other place makes do with only two? At the Report stage, would it be possible by agreement through the usual channels for important amendments to be listed for debate early in the day, even if that means taking them out of order? What happens now is that amendments are all too often debated at great length in Committee; debated again at the Report stage but not voted on because the debate takes place at 10·30 at night; and then debated again and finally voted on at Third Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, that is institutional filibustering.

Clearly, the facilities for your Lordships' House need improving, as many noble Lords have said. We need more office space. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on that, but I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I have a desk—I am lucky to have a desk at all—in a room with 11 other desks. Originally, I shared it and went in for "hot desking" with one of my noble friends. I am afraid that after a month the desk was so cluttered with my papers that he felt it necessary to find space for himself elsewhere. However, I should like a few feet of shelf space on which to put my files because the papers on my desk are reaching a dangerous height.

I now want to touch on a more controversial question. Should your Lordships' House be more assertive in its dealing with Bills and statutory instruments? My answer is a cautions "yes". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the only noble Lord to raise the issue today, although the noble Lord, Lord Elton, came close: we need greater equivalence between the two Houses. This House should not be frightened of conflict with the other place from time to time.

If we had proportional representation in the other place, my view might be different. However, we still have the first-past-the-post system, which means that for more than 60 years all governments have been elected on a minority vote. But when the government have a working majority, the Executive is virtually in absolute control. The first—past—the—post system gave large majorities to Conservatives between 1979 and 1992 and now to Labour. In every case, it was on less than 45 per cent of the national vote. I say with great regret that there is no more than a remote possibility that we shall move away from the first-past-the-post system in the near to middle future.

However, wherever the Executive has clear control of the other place, your Lordships' House has a potentially vital role in making the Executive think again. That is not by blocking legislation permanently, but by delaying it—and delaying it for long enough to make it worth the Government's while to come to the negotiating table to see whether there is room for a compromise. The power to delay legislation by forcing the Government to use the Parliament Act was exercised only once between 1949 and 1998. The one-sided nature of party balance in your Lordships' House throughout that period made it politically impossible to exercise a power to reject Government legislation. The power to reject secondary legislation was, again, exercised only once before this year.

Your Lordships' House is now slightly more legitimate and therefore more representative because it has a political balance that is more representative of that of the country—though by no means yet entirely so. My only comment on the composition of the House is that only a predominantly elected House would have the real authority to act as a check on an Executive which exceeds its proper powers.

Even so, power to delay primary legislation or to reject secondary legislation should be used sparingly. Over time, we must work out the principles on which it should be used. Broadly, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I agree that we should stick to the Salisbury convention, although there may be exceptions to that, particularly where legislation not affecting Scotland is passed by reason of the votes of Scottish MPs.

The power to delay should be used only where a Bill gives rise to a fundamental objection of principle or conscience and is unacceptable to most or a large section of the public. The classic example of that, in which the power should have been used, was the poll tax. A case in which it was used—and I think used legitimately—was in respect of the age of consent for homosexuals. Although I personally strongly support a reduction to the age of 16, I accept that rejection by your Lordships' House last year was a legitimate use of that power because of the strength of feeling of the opponents of change.

I would also accept that the Parliament Act should apply to Bills starting in your Lordships' House as well as to Bills starting in the other place. The result of the present system is that the Government are understandably reluctant to introduce controversial Bills in this House because, if they lose them, they are unable to bring them back through the Parliament Act procedure. That distorts the timetable for the Session because your Lordships' House does not receive much of the legislation work until late into the Session.

I do not believe that the House of Lords has too many powers, nor, indeed, that it has too few. The real problem is not that your Lordships' House needs more or different powers but that it needs to exercise those it has. I believe that democracy needs a strong, legitimate and assertive second Chamber with powers to make government, whatever its complexion, stop and think again.

My Lords, some time ago the noble Baroness the Leader of the House informed us that this was National Work:Life Balance Week. I must say that this was a new one on me in the great plethora of national weeks and days. However, I was most interested to hear it and I rather wish that the noble Baroness had told me about it earlier in the week—a week in which I believe we sat until midnight on Monday; until 2 a.m. on Tuesday; I dare say until about 11 p.m. tonight, if not later; possibly until 11 p.m. tomorrow and we shall be sitting on Friday.

I do not know how one is supposed to react to these national weeks. I have a brother who makes a point of always smoking on National No Smoking Day. Perhaps when the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip comes to answer, he can advise me how I should react to National Work:Life Balance Week, particularly in terms of my relations with the Government. I shall offer my apologies for the late hours that we have kept them up these past few days.

I start by reasserting the general principles which we on these Benches believe should always govern and guide us in any discussion about the procedures—or what are described in this Motion as the "workings"— of this House. The first and most important one—here I believe that I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and we are in agreement on this—is that, whatever we do, it must be designed to strengthen Parliament, and this House in particular, and not weaken it.

As we all know, both when we have been in government and in opposition, it is always tempting for governments to seek to find ways to make it easier for themselves to get their business through Parliament. Here I also accept the point made by my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Jopling that it is legitimate that the Government should get their business through. We do what we can to assist them in that, although it is, of course, legitimate that we should oppose them as and where appropriate and use all the methods that are available to us. However, whatever changes are made, they must not be made at the cost of greatly diminished parliamentary scrutiny.

The second point that I should like to make was raised also by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and I believe that it should be borne in mind throughout our discussions and in any discussions that take place later. There should be no diminishing of the rights of Back-Benchers. There must be no timetables, no guillotines and no selection of amendments.

As we all know, Back-Benchers in this House have achieved a great deal. As I look around the House at noble Lords on the Government's own Back Benches, I consider what has been achieved over the years in the disability field by, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Manchester and Lord Ashley of Stoke. In looking at the Cross Benches, one has only to consider what was achieved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, with regard to organophosphates. A great many Ministers, both in the previous and in this Government, have answered questions from a wide range of different departments on that subject and great changes have been achieved.

Let us consider what was achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyherg, with regard to war widows. I turn to my own Benches and think of what was achieved by the late Lady Faithful on children's and other social security issues. I was a victim of a great deal of that. I also think of the achievements in agricultural matters of a former Member of this House, my noble kinsman Lord Stanley. I could cite Liberal Peers as well. There are many Back-Benchers, all of whom have achieved great things, and we do not want to see their rights in any way marginalised. It is not only that their campaigns could become less effective if the wrong changes were made; it is that the House as a whole could become less effective.

I want to touch on a number of the points that have been covered, although obviously I—as do we all—await with interest the response of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. However, a number of issues have been raised and many bear a degree of repetition. The first and obviously the greatest concern of a large number of Peers is the length of our sittings, the time that we spend on legislation, and what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal described as "the need for social hours".

I accept that we sit long hours. In the 20 or so years that I have been a member of this House—I go back to just before 1979, the time when, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the great raft of new Conservative legislation came in—the number of hours that we sit has increased greatly. Back in 1979, 1980 and 1981 we certainly did not sit for the number of hours that we do now. Quite obviously, it is in the Government's own hands to reduce the number of hours that we sit. They could introduce less legislation or they could ensure that that legislation is better drafted. I shall come to that point in a moment.

In terms of easing the balance of the work throughout the legislative year, there is no reason why more legislation could not be introduced in this House rather than in another place. However, we all know that the Secretaries of State in another place are so firmly attached to their own legislation—it is their little bit in the history books—that they are desperate to introduce it there. It is very difficult within the appropriate committees of the Cabinet to persuade them that more should be introduced in this House.

As has been mentioned, when we were in government we introduced the Moses Room procedure. As many noble Lords have remembered, we introduced it with the intent to reduce the number of nights on which we would have to sit late or later than 10 p.m. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde quite rightly pointed out, it was designed to ease the pressure on this House. However, what seems to have happened in reality is that it has allowed the Government to introduce more legislation and to palm some off to the Moses Room while still sitting the very long hours, of which this week is a fairly classic example.

I believe that this Session, with, I stress, the agreement of the official Opposition, we have seen a record number of Bills going through the Moses Room. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip could confirm that we have seen more Bills in the Moses Room as a result of our agreement and co—operation than was the case in previous Sessions.

As I said, there have been a number of complaints about the length of our sittings and demands for more social hours. There have been demands that we should sit, say, from nine till five, Monday to Friday. That might be more social and more attractive for those who live in London and never venture beyond there, but that is not necessarily the case for the rest of us. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde mentioned the fact that his children are of pre-school age and that, therefore, he finds it quite family friendly to be able to see them in the mornings. Other noble Lords have referred to their own family responsibilities.

My own children are somewhat older—at least, some of them are a tiny bit older—than those of my noble friend. However, they live not in London but far away in Cumberland. From my point of view, the idea of sitting a nine to five, Monday to Friday, week is distinctly family unfriendly. I believe that most of us who come from Scotland, the north of England, or even the Midlands or the West Country would far prefer the idea of sitting for three or four days a week and getting back to our families at a civilised time. The only alternative—

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House who made the suggestion that the House should sit from Monday to Friday, from nine to five? He majors on that point but I cannot recall it having been made in this debate.

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, suggested that there were a number of different views. She talked about sitting in the mornings and about the need to sit on more occasions on Fridays. I make a simple point. It is irrelevant whether we sit from nine until five every day. However, if one starts early on a Monday and then continues to Friday, life becomes very difficult for those of us—I see noble Lords opposite nodding—who come from outside the M25.

I was simply going on to make the point that for that reason I am somewhat sympathetic to the suggestion—I agree that it is not necessarily popular with all noble Lords on my own Benches—made by a fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, that possibly we should swap Wednesdays for Thursdays. In that case, we could possibly abandon Fridays in their entirety. I do not know what the Chief Whip would think about that. Speaking personally, I have no particular objections to the more family-friendly policy of sitting Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday on legislative business, Thursday mornings on other business, and then we can go home on a Friday. I just float that idea before the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip.

I end on the question of family-friendly matters. The noble Lord should take up the suggestions which have come from both sides of the House that it really would be more family friendly if we could be told when the Recess is going to be, particularly now that the school terms have moved so far away from parliamentary and legal terms. Perhaps we could break up at the beginning of July and come back in September, although I appreciate that that might cause some disruption for those who like to attend party conferences.

The time I have is very limited and I want to deal briefly with one other point; that is, the question of voting in Committee. I understand that many noble Lords opposite do not enjoy—and they made it quite clear that they do not enjoy—voting in Committee. Funnily enough, I seem to remember in the days when I was at the Dispatch Box opposite, when we were in government, that there was no dislike of voting in Committee. Many noble Lords have come to the House since 1997, but I can tell them that their colleagues were particularly enthusiastic about voting in Committee. They voted in Committee on a great many occasions. I am sure that that enthusiasm will reemerge when we are in government in due course and they will greatly enjoy the prospect of voting in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading.

I conclude by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as all other speakers have done, for what I thought was a particularly seductive speech. I say that it was "seductive" because it all sounded very tempting. However, one suspects that there may be some underlying dangers. But it has been a very good debate and a great many interesting ideas have emerged. I hope that in due course we shall allow the Procedure Committee the time to consider all those ideas which are suitable and which are designed to increase the effectiveness of the House and of all its Members, both Front-Bench and Back-Bench, in performing their duties. I hope that such ideas can be considered and, where appropriate, adopted.

My Lords, we have certainly had an interesting and extremely useful debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston, as are all noble Lords, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject which concerns us all so closely. There have been many interesting contributions. Many suggestions have been made and opinions voiced. But one thing seems clear. There is scope to improve the workings and facilities of the House so that the House can perform its functions more efficiently and effectively. Two words which occurred in a number of speeches were "efficiency" and "effectiveness".

In the time available, it will not be possible to deal with all the contributions but your Lordships may be sure that everyone involved with the workings of the House will read Hansard with very great care.

I come to this debate not as Chief Whip but as a committed parliamentarian. I had an interest in the function and mechanisms of Parliament long before I entered this House. That grew during my 10 years on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that it is in all our interests to keep party politics out of this debate. I make this speech today from the standpoint of a parliamentarian who is keen to improve the working of the House for all its Members, even if that improvement is inconvenient for the Government.

It strikes me that the concerns voiced today fall broadly into two groups. First, there is a desire, one way or another, to make it easier for noble Lords to attend the House. The obstacles which make this difficult at present include the hours we sit—the fact that they are unsocial, and also that they are unpredictable—and the general lack of facilities. Those concerns are typical of the concerns of many people working in many different walks of life, and innovative solutions are being found. The new technology we have heard about can help.

As regards facilities, and especially desks, your Lordships will know that until we reach the autumn of this year the problem will not be solved. More accommodation will become available this autumn and next summer. That is when I hope that every Peer who needs a desk can have one.

The second group of concerns relates to ways in which the job we all do here could be done better. We are all keen to find ways in which the quality and efficiency of the House's work can be improved. The advent of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is an excellent example of a way in which we have in recent years improved the quality of the scrutiny we give to secondary legislation. That leads us on to ask what else we could be doing that we are not doing now that would make this House more effective, more rigorous in its scrutiny of the executive, sharper and more innovative. No-one with any knowledge of the House is in any doubt of the quality of the work which this House does; but there is no organisation anywhere which cannot do things better.

There are some steps which the House can take immediately. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, will be glad to hear that earlier this week the Liaison Committee agreed to recommend the appointment of a constitutional committee along the lines recommended by Wakeham. The committee also noted the Government's proposal to establish a Joint Committee on human rights before the Human Rights Act comes into force later this year. Those proposals from the Liaison Committee will come before your Lordships for approval in due course. They are good examples of the way in which we can immediately improve the effectiveness of the work of this House.

Formalised attempts to reach agreement on proposals have been made in the past, with a good degree of success. In 1992, the Committee on the Committee Work of the House, which we all know and remember as the Jellicoe committee, published a report. As a result of that report, we now have a much revised and more effective committee structure in the House. Perhaps the greatest success of the committee's reforms has been the establishment of the universally-acclaimed Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which has done so much to improve the quality and effectiveness of the work which this House does.

Two years later, in 1994, the then Leader, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, set up a Leader's Group, chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham,

"to consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect sittings of the House".

The setting up of that group followed mounting concern that the sitting hours of the House of Lords were growing and growing and had reached a level which was too high. That was in 1994, under a Conservative government. The concerns expressed today are not just those which have arisen under a Labour Government and the arrival of new Labour Peers.

The Rippon group came up with several very useful suggestions for saving the time of the House. Perhaps their most far-reaching proposal was that of Grand Committees in the Moses Room. I am sure that many of your Lordships agree that this has been a very sensible improvement, which has reduced the number of occasions on which a small caucus of Members were kept sitting late into the night going over the fine detail of those Bills. I shall return to that later.

The Rippon group also made some interesting comments on the idea of a carry-over for public Bills. The group believed that, in certain circumstances, the advantages of carry-over would outweigh the disadvantages and recommended that continued attention should be paid to the idea. That point was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Since then, of course, another place has instituted its own carryover procedure. I do not think that since the Rippon group reported the proposal for carry-over of Bills has been seriously considered in the Lords, and I am mindful of the group's injunction that continued attention should be paid to the idea. I should say in passing that it is interesting that the Rippon group suggested that one possible advantage of such a procedure would be that recess dates could be agreed earlier. That might save the Opposition Chief Whip asking me in February for the date of the Summer Recess. Most recently, in March last year, another Leader's Group was set up, this time chaired by my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon. Its remit was,

"to consider how the procedures of the House can be improved within the existing framework of self-regulation: and to make proposals for ensuring that the Lords are better informed of procedure so that self-regulation can work".

The Hilton group made a number of recommendations to improve the working of the House. Marshalled Lists of amendments for Committee and Report stages and draft groupings lists are now produced a day earlier, making it easier for all those involved with Bills to prepare more thoroughly for their task. The practice of subjecting draft Bills to pre-legislative scrutiny has been welcomed, and a number of pre-legislative committees were set up last Session to try to ensure that Bills are introduced into Parliament in a better state and with a better degree of consensus achieved. Perhaps I could point cut that the Jellicoe and Rippon committees were chaired by distinguished Conservative Peers.

Today's debate has produced a number of constructive and interesting suggestions. The more I listened the more I felt that perhaps change is now possible. Noble Lords counselled against making change for the sake of convenience. I agree. Noble Lords insisted that any change should improve our procedures. I agree. Noble Lords commended the fact that the Government do not have a stranglehold in this House. As Chief Whip, I am fully aware of that. I also agree that the House proceeds always by agreement. Noble Lords stressed the importance of safeguarding Back Bench rights. So do I.

I found the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Strathclyde, a shade disappointing. I felt that, like Dr Pangloss, the best in the best of all possible worlds is alive and well and safely ensconced in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that changes should produce more effective scrutiny. I agree. He said that under all governments there is too much legislation. I do not know of a Government Chief Whip anywhere who has ever complained that the programme is too light. He went on to say that the changes must not curtail the important discussion needed for scrutiny but must improve the quality of scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that the change should be "sure-footed, incremental change", which is an excellent phrase. He also made another good point. Understandably, a lot of attention given to the Wakeham report has related to the composition of a reformed House, but as we all know there are also a large number of recommendations in the report that do not require any legislation and that could be applied now to the work of the House. The noble Lord's idea that those recommendations should be considered sets an excellent agenda for any committee that may be set up.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also mentioned the possibility of a House of Lords commission that would be similar to that in the Commons. Already consultants are in the process of being appointed to consider the administration committee structure—not the political committees—of the House and the general administration of the House.

I must emphasise that any changes that we may make to working hours—perhaps with morning sittings—will not help Ministers. They will make life more difficult for them and for the Government. The noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Jopling, repeated, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has outside the Chamber, the right of the government of the day to get their business through. As Chief Whip, I find that encouraging.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that the interests of the House are not the same as the interests of the Government. That is absolutely correct. There should be what I would describe as a dynamic tension between the interests of the House and the interests of the Government. I was much impressed by the selflessness of the noble Viscount in rejecting a luxurious office with excellent facilities. It is a little hard to envisage the noble Viscount in a hair shirt, but there we are! My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton mentioned an extremely important point, although there was some criticism from some noble Lords about the use of the term "family friendly". However, the staff of the House have to be considered. I received a degree of criticism from some noble Lords for allowing a one-day half-term break in February—Thursday through to Sunday. Your Lordships would be surprised by the number of members of staff with young families who thanked me for that innovation. It gave them a chance to spend just a couple of days with their children in the half-term break.

The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and other noble Lords said that the government of the day should not gain a short-term advantage from any changes. When all the new Peers have been introduced, there will be 201 Labour Peers, supporting the Government—not all of them all the time—out of a total House of 687. Changes have to be made by agreement. With those numbers, there is no way that the Government can achieve a change to its short-term advantage.

The noble Lord made a point, as he has done previously, about the imbalance of numbers and the fact that the Government are a minority government with only 27 per cent of the House. There is not time now to deal with that, but in order for his ideas to work—as Chief Whip I certainly sympathise with them—Members would have to withdraw from the House or from the voting Whip after each election to recreate the balance that would be required.

I have not heard a better statement of the case for better facilities than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg.

The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and others referred to improving scrutiny. If we can give more time to detailed scrutiny, the function of holding the executive to account will be made more stringent. That should be the objective. I say that as a parliamentarian and not as Chief Whip. If we make changes in the way we handle Bills in Committee, or to the sitting hours, or whatever, and if that increases the chance for detailed scrutiny, that will be of considerable advantage to the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and others referred to the burden. Many of the arguments in the debate were to make it easier for Back-Benchers to contribute to the work of the House and thereby improve the scrutiny of the executive.

I fully recognise the contribution made by BackBenchers in the House and I would fight to the end to maintain that right. But let us be realists. Let us deal with the myth of the whole House in Committee. On important Bills, we all know that only a handful of Peers are involved as the day and the night wear on. The whole House goes into Committee at the start of the Bill at teatime. Between teatime and dinner the numbers begin to drop and we all know that for the rest of the evening the House is populated by FrontBenchers and a few Back-Benchers. The idea that there are queues of Back-Benchers anxious to get into the House in the late hours to contribute to Committee work is just a myth.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred in curious terms to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons when he said that it has a quasi-sacramental character and that that had been handed down over the centuries. It is nothing of the sort. The House of Commons is elected and the party with the majority forms the government. We are not elected and after the first stage of reform no party or group in the House has a majority.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, produced some interesting ideas regarding the timetabling of Bills. Unlike the Commons—although the other place has started to do this now—we timetable all Bills by agreement as to the number of days that they require. He had some extremely interesting ideas about the timetabling of Bills on the day when they are considered. I shall certainly want to explore those.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others appeared to have a fear of the guillotine. That has never come within my consideration. I have always said to colleagues and to other noble Lords who have suggested it: how can you guillotine business in a revising chamber? It is just not logical. All our business is timetabled by agreement through the usual channels.

The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and others mentioned the possibility of a Wednesday/Thursday swap. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, also remarked on that point. In fact, last year I proposed that in an amendment to a Procedure Committee report and I would be happy to see the matter considered again.

My noble friend Lord Brett said that one room should be wired for "hot-desking". As I understand it, in the Writing Room six desks are wired to allow Peers to plug in their laptops and to "hot-desk", which is an awful phrase.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to the number of government amendments. He is right to say that there are too many. When I came into the House in 1987 the first of the major Bills with which I was involved was the Education Act 1988. I dealt with all the clauses dealing with special education from the Back Benches. As I remember, there were 400 or 500 government amendments on Report in this House. I do not defend that and I do not say that that is right, but I hope that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats will agree that I have tried hard this Session to encourage departments to produce government amendments in good time so that they are tabled at least a week before they are considered. That has not always worked, but I have tried. If noble Lords had seen some of the letters that I have sent to the departments they will understand that I have insisted that amendments are tabled at least a week in advance and that an explanation or a briefing is sent to all those involved on the Front and Back Benches.

Bills taken in the Moses Room have increased. Ten were scheduled during the last three Sessions of the last Parliament. So far 15 have been taken during the first three Sessions of this Parliament. A fair point has been made that the intention behind the shift to the Moses Room was to ease the problem of the sitting hours in the House. However, what we have tended to schedule for the Moses Room have been smaller and less contentious Bills which in fact have not saved all that much time on the Floor of the House. The only way to make a substantial saving of time in this place and thereby make our hours more social would be to send larger Bills to the Moses Room or to another venue. I shall return to that point.

The lesson we can learn from previous initiatives and from today's debate seems clear. Each time a group or committee is set up to improve the workings of the House, progress is duly made. The previous committees and groups have all been ad hoc. They have been tasked to consider one particular aspect of the practices and procedures of the House and they have been closed down once their inquiries were complete. In order to make consistent progress, perhaps what we need is to put in place some form of consistent machinery to drive that process. As a number of noble Lords have suggested, this could mean setting up a permanent committee charged with the brief to consider ways in which to improve the workings of the House. If such a committee were considered to be the best way forward, it would have to be finely balanced, big enough to contain a representative cross-section of the House and yet small enough not to be unwieldy.

My Lords, what is the Procedure Committee if it is not what the noble Lord has just described?

My Lords, the Procedure Committee would not be appropriate. That committee deals with the fine detail of procedure as we go along. I believe that we are here considering a separate brief to improve the general workings of the House. It would deal with legislation, the sittings of the House and many other subjects. Interestingly, the Leader's Groups that were set up, such as the Jellicoe committee, the Rippon committee, the Hilton committee and so forth, were not—

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but does not the fact that we are debating yet again these matters demonstrate that those previous groups were, in fact, not successful? It would be far better to have a permanent, standing committee like the Procedure Committee, which debates these issues on a regular basis during the course of the year.

My Lords, I certainly agree that there should be a permanent, standing committee. However, I am not sure that the Procedure Committee, as presently constituted, is the right committee for the task. This is a point that should be discussed through the usual channels.

In the meantime, there are plenty of strategies that already exist and are set down in the Companion which we could use if we so wished. If we choose to do so, we can already make use of Grand Committees, Public Bill committees, special Public Bill committees and Select Committees on Bills after Second Reading. I should be more than happy to experiment further during the course of this Session to see whet her the use of those committees can improve our ways of working. The 10 Peers who worked here until twenty minutes to two this morning might feel particularly disposed to support that proposal.

Again, if the House wishes, I shall be happy to reinvigorate discussions with the usual channels on this subject to see whether there is a will to make more use of procedures already available to us which would not need any further investigation before being brought into use.

It is something of a paradox that this House is justly proud of the expertise and experience that noble Lords bring to its deliberations. But our ways of working may in fact make it more difficult for noble Lords to carry on the outside activities that provide the basis for that expertise and experience. My noble friend Lord Peston has performed a signal service to the House by initiating this debate. We must ensure that we do not miss this opportunity for sensible, balanced and agreed change.

My Lords, remaining in statesmanlike mode, facing my noble friend Lord Barnett, and expressing extreme gratitude to my noble friend Lord Longford for referring to me as a "younger Peer" because I still have a full head of hair, my main task now is to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and have made such excellent speeches. Incidentally, it goes to show that even with a time limit of six minutes it is still possible to make a very good speech indeed.

One thing I hate is talk and no action. As I understand from the remarks of my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal and the Chief Whip, the Government are disposed to do something. I hope I correctly interpreted the Liberal Democrats as saying that they, too, would co-operate in moves for change. I was a little worried by the Opposition Chief Whip when he expressed a desire not to be seduced by my sweet reasonableness. I have heard rejection of my sweet reasonableness on previous occasions, but I hope that in principle the Opposition would also co-operate with an attempt to move forward practically so that our House can do its job better. That, I hope, was something on which we all agreed.

I thank all noble Lords and beg to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

rose to move to resolve, That the House asserts its responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs and that the sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges should investigate the effectiveness of the House of Lords' Register of Interests.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not addressing this matter as an ordinary piece of day-to-day business, but as a question of the constitutional sovereignty of this House. It has much wider significance than the immediate issue of the Neill committee or the Register of Interests. I am glad to see that the first part of my Motion, which reasserts the responsibility of this House for handling its own affairs, is effectively reaffirmed in the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.

This principle is important not only to us, but to the other place as well. It is also essential to the independence of the judiciary, which reaches its summit in the Lords of Appeal. The Scottish Parliament was, I think, a sovereign body down to 1707. It is now a statutory, subordinate legislature. I think that they, too, will soon be claiming back the status that we already enjoy.

Tonight we have the opportunity to renew precedents which were considered by Lord Coleridge in 1884 in the famous constitutional case of Bradlaugh v. Gossett. Lord Coleridge, a great Lord Chief Justice who had been Gladstone's Attorney-General, summed up the constitutional doctrine:

"The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own numbers, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive".

Earlier cases trace that doctrine back to the earliest days of the British Parliament. It has always been regarded as an inherent part of parliamentary sovereignty.

Why is this so important? It protects both Houses of Parliament from arbitrary acts by the executive; paradoxically it also protects the other place from us. If each House of Parliament does not have its own absolute responsibility for its own discipline, then its disciplinary decisions can be taken to the courts. On ultimate appeal they would come to the House of Lords. In 1884 Lord Coleridge was protecting the other place from a potential appeal on a point of law to your Lordships' House.

Some people think that 1884 is a long time ago, but precedents can weaken through disuse. My Motion tonight, even if it should be amended, will put the matter beyond doubt for this new century.

That is the less contentious but more important part of my Motion. The more contentious part is that we should do the job to reform ourselves through our own committee structures and that we do not need to call in the Neill committee to do it for us. I should like to express my admiration for my noble friend Lord Neill of Bladen. This is not a criticism of him; I simply believe that we do not need his committee to do a job we ought to do for ourselves.

I am a self-reformer, on four grounds. First, I believe that we know the needs and circumstances of this House better than any outsiders can. Secondly, I believe that we undermine our independence if we bring in an outside body to do our job for us. Thirdly, the Neill—or previously the Nolan—committee, has been a constitutional anomaly from its first creation. Fourthly, the independence of this House is the eggshell which defends the infinitely valuable yolk of the independence of the judiciary. Before the executive can lean on the judges, as happens in many countries even today, it has to lean on us.

I remind the House that the Nolan committee was not established as a statutory body, as it could have been; nor has it ever been the subject of an affirmative resolution by either House, let alone both. It was established in October 1994 by the mere statement of a previous Prime Minister and has implicitly been maintained by the present one. It is an independent and cross-party committee, but it was set up by a Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. It is paid for out of public funds. If it has any constitutional basis, it comes from an act of pure prerogative on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Of course, the prerogative power of the executive can establish a committee, just as it can send an army abroad. But the executive has no more right to tell us what to do in this House than King Charles I had the right to search the Palace of Westminster for the six Members. The executive has no more right to send a committee here without our consent than to do what Cromwell did, and send an army here. Our independence and the independence of the judiciary always need to be guarded against the presumption of the executive, just as in the United States the independence of the Senate and Supreme Court need to be protected from the power of the President.

It is the fourth point—the independence of the Judiciary—which matters most. After the Griffiths committee, a committee of this House, had recommended the creation of a voluntary register (which has, in fact, so far led to no complaints) the Lords of Appeal decided that the independence and different situation of the judiciary required that they should none of them register an interest on that register. Now the Neill committee, an outside body which has great legal but not judicial experience, may be called in; it may recommend a compulsory register.

Probably the rules covering the whole judiciary should be reviewed, but the Lords of Appeal must be involved in the process, not merely consulted. The declaration of interest appropriate for a Peer speaking in a debate and a judge trying a case are not necessarily the same. The judges should make their own rules.

We are on the edge of having a de facto Supreme Court to consider human rights claims. It would be quite wrong to ask a committee established by the executive, with no judicial membership, to lay down the rules for the new judiciary. We should be moving towards a clearer separation of constitutional powers, not away from it.

This evening's earlier and excellent debate—for which I join my thanks with those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—showed how many Members are concerned about the future development of this House. I fully share that feeling. I am a reformer, but I am a self-reformer. It is consistent with our historic independence and our historic responsibility that we should do the job ourselves, subject only to statute. In the case of the Neill committee there is no statutory basis whatever.

There will be great further changes in the composition and perhaps in the functions of your Lordships' House in the coming years. Perhaps the Law Lords, whom we so greatly value, will become a separate body; a free-standing Supreme Court. Some people regard that as inevitable. We ourselves have elected Members. But whatever happens, we should not compromise the independence or the sovereignty of this House, or our exclusive right and duty to reform our own disciplines. That would betray the future, whatever it may prove to be.

I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That the House asserts its responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs and that the sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges should investigate the effectiveness of the House of Lords' Register of Interests.—(LordRees-Mogg.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from "House" to the end and insert "welcomes the enquiry into Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords by the Committee of Standards in Public: Life, and asserts the House's ultimate responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, moved his Motion in a typically moderate and constructive way. He has helped to define what lies between us and I believe that he has enabled me to discard the habits of a lifetime and to make my contribution a relatively brief one.

It may assist your Lordships, and perhaps reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, if I begin by attempting to clarify what is not in issue in this debate. The major premise of the argument which the noble Lord has just deployed is common ground. Indeed, it is expressly included, as he said, in my amendment. One of the privileges of Parliament is the right of each House to regulate its own affairs— what is usually referred to as the privilege of exclusive cognisance. That is not in question. As the noble Lord reminded us, it was reiterated in 1884—I emphasise "reiterated"—rather than established, in the case of Bradlaugh v. Gossett. But it goes back much further than that. If it will assist the noble Lord, it was established in relation to your Lordships' House in 1677 in the case of Lord Shaftsbury (reported in Volume 1 of the Modern Reports).

I was There!

My noble friend says he was there; some of us came a little later!

Simply in order not to be accused of misleading your Lordships, perhaps I may add by way of footnote and not by way of argument, that the privilege is sometimes easier to state in principle than to define:.n practice. Those noble Lords who would like to pursue the subject will find a discussion of it in the report last year of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was chaired with great distinction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, and on which I was privileged—in a quite different sense of that word—to serve.

But none of that is part of this debate. The right of your Lordships' House to make decisions relating to its own affairs is common ground. Where the noble Lord and I see the matter differently is over the question whether the right to take a decision is exercised more effectively by taking an informed decision, or by declining to take advantage of the information and reflections which are available.

As I understand it, no one is proposing that your Lordships' House should abdicate the right to take decisions or deliver that right into the hands of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. What is proposed is that that committee should be invited to offer us the benefit of its deliberations and expertise—a formidable expertise it undoubtedly is—and that then, with that advantage, your Lordships' House should proceed to take the decisions which arise. Your Lordships may then decide to reject every observation and recommendation of the committee. But our decisions are likely to be better informed than if we close our eyes and minds to that resource. That would not in any way diminish the right of the House to take exclusive cognisance of its own affairs. Indeed, it is normal for the two Houses of Parliament to seek the best information and advice before making any decisions. As I understand it, that is the purpose of our having a Printed Paper Office.

The committee has invited us individually to submit comments and evidence. Any noble Lord or noble Baroness is entitled to decide the extent to which he or she will respond. It would be surprising—perhaps I may anticipate what the committee may decide—if the committee failed to take account of the differences between the two Houses that were mentioned in the previous debate, particularly that Members of your Lordships' House act in a voluntary capacity and, of course, are more likely than Members of the other place to have outside interests from which arises a valuable source of expertise. If, amazingly, the committee were to overlook those differences, the remedy would lie in your Lordships' hands when assessing its report.

The difference between the noble Lord, Lord ReesMogg, and myself, as I perceive it, is whether the House should wait until the report of the committee is available to us, or whether it should proceed to take decisions without even reading what the committee has to say. Of course, sometimes it is simpler to reach a conclusion without being confused by the facts, but usually they improve the quality of the conclusions.

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that one aspect of what he said rather puzzled me. A visitor listening to his speech and to what he said in The Times on 10th April, might have assumed that the proposal that the committee should look at our practices burst like a thunderbolt on a previously unsuspecting world. When the committee originally chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, was established in 1994 under the previous administration, it was always contemplated that after considering the other place it would turn its attention to your Lordships' House. Indeed, that was confirmed in another place by the then Prime Minister in answer to a parliamentary Question on 31st October 1994 (at col. 913 of Commons Hansard). In fact, his answer had been anticipated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in your Lordships' House on 25th October (at col. 471 of Lords Hansard).

Even a superficial glance at the debate on the 5th report of the Select Committee on Procedure—usually referred to as the Griffiths report—would reveal not only that it was generally accepted that that was in the terms of reference of the Nolan committee, but also that no one suggested at that time that it was improper or that the proposal should be resisted. The only element that was not predicted at that time was how long it would be before the committee felt able to proceed to that step. The assumption in that debate was that it would happen quite quickly.

Perhaps I may move to a more pragmatic consideration. I beg to doubt whether the reputation and dignity of your Lordships' House would be best served if it were to appear that we do not want our affairs to be investigated objectively. Of course, it should go without saying that we all recognise that that is not the motivation of the noble Lord; but we live in a world where, contrary to Plato's teaching, perceptions are often more real than reality.

The contemporary discourse of our generation emphasises two key words—"accountability" and "transparency". We may approve or disapprove of that, but our disapproval will not set back the clock of history. If it were to appear that we resented any inquiry into our affairs, the public reaction at the very best would be that we alone, of all the estates and conditions of people in the realm, claim to be above and beyond public scrutiny. At the worst, the reaction would be, "What have they to hide?" That would not be conducive to either the reputation or the dignity of this House.

I do not believe that there would transpire to be any evidence of impropriety in this House. Would it not be wholly beneficial if that were to be made manifest? I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from "House" to the end and insert "welcomes the enquiry into Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords by the Committee of Standards in Public Life, and asserts the House's ultimate responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs".—(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)

My Lords, the whole House ought to be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for the Motion that he proposed so elegantly—indeed, if I may say so, predictably elegantly—this evening. With the greatest respect, I should also like to say to the Leader of the House that I am sorry that we had to wait for the noble Lord to introduce this matter rather than the noble Baroness coming to this House and telling us frankly what was in the wind, thereby giving us an opportunity to debate it in government time. No matter what view your Lordships may take individually of what we are discussing, this matter, for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, made so abundantly clear, seems to me to be one of very great importance.

I shall turn to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said in a few moments, but perhaps I could remind noble Lords that about five years ago, and largely prompted by me when I was Leader of the House—though this may be the glow of glorious recollection—your Lordships asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, to chair a subcommittee of the Procedure Committee to examine the question of Members' interests. I believe that your Lordships were wise to ask the noble and learned Lord to do so, for a number of reasons.

Noble Lords will remember that there was more than a little public unease about the probity of some Members of another place at the time. It was clearly important that this House should show that it placed the highest possible premium on probity. As the noble and learned Lord recalled a few moments ago, I acknowledged to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on 25th October 1994, that this House clearly came within the scope of the remit of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Indeed, that was something that I confirmed at the time. I believe that I am also right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was then the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who was then the chairman of the new committee, and a number of other noble Lords fully expected the committee to turn its attention to your Lordships' House as its second inquiry.

I hope that your Lordships will allow me to explain why I thought then, and do so now, that the attention that all noble Lords expected to be turned by the committee on to our affairs was a bad and a dangerous idea. The Committee on Standards in Public Life was established on the authority of my then boss and the previous Prime Minister, my right honourable friend M r Major. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, so ably demonstrated, it was, therefore, ultimately established—if it was established under any authority—under the authority of the Royal Prerogative.

As the noble Lord also pointed out, the history of this Parliament has, to a very large extent, been the history of its struggle to establish its independence of the Crown—something that we have always particularly valued in this House. I suggest that part of that independence has been its unfettered right to regulate its own affairs—a right which both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord emphasised tonight. However, I believe that we should also consider the practicalities as well as the theory in these matters. After all, the practicalities very often lead to a change in the theory. It is that to which I wish to address the burden of my remarks this evening.

It is perhaps a measure—and I say this with very great sorrow—of how feeble another place has become, as well as of the climate prevalent in 1994, that it so readily accepted my right honourable friend's suggestion that it should be investigated by a committee whose authority ultimately came from the Crown.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has argued that it is open to both Houses of Parliament to accept and reject the committee's recommendation. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, deployed the same argument with his usual elegance a moment ago. In theory, of course, that is true. However, I think that all noble Lords will agree that to a substantial extent in the present climate it is not as true as we would like it to be. That is so first because we have developed what I think is an increasingly unfortunate habit in this country of relying on the judgment of the great and good rather than on the judgment of Parliament. No one respects the great and good more than I do but I hope that noble Lords will agree that however great and good they may be, ultimately Parliament is greater and better.

Immediately there are consequences of that increasing dependence, which is in itself perhaps the sign of the crisis of self-confidence that afflicts Parliament, notably another place. Immediately this means that Parliament dares not disagree with the judgments of the great and good, even though in my experience—I say this with the greatest of respect to them—they are wrong at least as often as Parliament is. It has a further consequence. In the longer term it means that it has become increasingly difficult for the great and good to become parliamentarians themselves, and Parliament increasingly loses its authority as a result.

Secondly, in practice we cannot oppose the recommendations that may come from this committee of the great and good because we shall, to put it crudely, be frightened of being accused by the Government and the press—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, made clear—of wishing to cover up all kinds of wrongdoing, however innocent of wrongdoing we might be. Noble Lords know at least as well as I—after all, the Government of today practise this device perhaps more effectively and more worryingly than almost any of their predecessors—that the two questions, "When did you last see your father?" and "When did you stop beating your wife?". have always been virtually impossible questions for the weak to answer, particularly when they have been posed by the strong. This is not a matter, I suggest, the practicalities of which have been addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in his remarks a moment ago, despite his valiant efforts to do so.

It therefore seems to me that the authority under which any inquiry into Members' interests in your Lordships' House is conducted is a practical and important matter rather than merely a theoretical and abstruse debating point of the kind that it has been characterised as being by some commentators, and, I am sure, will be characterised as being from certain quarters during the remainder of this debate. This is particularly important as neither House of Parliament has had a chance to examine the qualifications and prejudices of the committee's staff of advisers, which I understand is considerable. Before we are investigated in practical terms it would be extremely useful to know who they are, where they come from, what their existing opinions are and whether they are as balanced as we would hope.

I think that it would be a good idea to review our present arrangements with regard to Members' interests. It is, after all, about five years since we introduced them. As noble Lords are wont to observe, the composition and nature of this House have changed pretty radically of late. I believe that the public would expect that any review that we conducted should be seen to be well conducted, thorough and, to use the word of the noble and learned Lord, Lo rd Archer, "transparent". I hope that the public would also want to be satisfied that the Government were n of using such a review as a way of emasculating your Lordships' House. If I were the public, I would be worried at the way the Government so clearly resent our independence. It would be all too easy for the Government to use a review by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and a review of our procedures, to emasculate us, to their great convenience and to the disadvantage, ultimately, of the electorate.

Therefore it seems to me that there may be an obvious way to get out of what I think is not just a theoretical but a practical difficulty. Perhaps it would be sensible for the House to reconvene a subcommittee of the Procedure Committee. Perhaps we should ask the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who has the great advantage—that is also to our advantage—of being a Member of your Lordships' House, to chair it. Perhaps that committee should be instructed to conduct as much of its proceedings in public as possible.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. He is invoking our independence. Does he remember an occasion on 7th May 1996 when this House, by carrying the amendment to the then Defamation Bill which allowed Mr Neil Hamilton his day in court, incorporated our privilege in statute and therefore, for the first time in our history, made it subject to the scrutiny of another place? Will the noble Viscount, who is now straining at a gnat, explain to us why he then swallowed a camel?

My Lords, the memory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is something I should always beware of. I remember as vividly as he does—and, I am sure, as vividly as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does—that particular debate on the matter of Section 9 of the Bill of Rights. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have conducted various conversations on that subject. He will remember that at that time I was as anxious about that matter as the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is perhaps indiscreet of me to say so, but the noble Earl may know that, perhaps in rather an unorthodox way, I alerted the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to what I thought were the inherent dangers of that piece of legislation.

I return to the conclusion of what I was about to say. I apologise that I have spoken for even longer than the first two speakers. Transparency could be achieved by holding hearings in public. It seems to me that this formula meets all the real objections put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to this way of proceeding rather than following the Neill committee's formula. I have heard it said that the fellow commissioners and staff of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, would object to such a matter. That is a serious difficulty but noble Lords may legitimately ask, in view of the issues at stake, which is the lesser of two evils.

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life whose activities have given rise to this debate. It is a remunerated position on a part-time basis. The remuneration is a matter of public record.

I consider the function of my speech to lay certain facts before noble Lords in an objective manner. I wish to stress the history of this matter in a little more detail than noble Lords have heard before. I wish also to identify certain factors that I should like noble Lords to have in mind, some of them being factors which animate the approach of the committee.

My desire is to be non-contentious. I am a CrossBencher. The only thing I regret so far in the whole of this matter is some injection of party spirit or animus into what should be a debate rather like the previous one initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that he said that it should not matter where one sits in the House or what one says; the debate should be completely non-political. I should have thought the subject matter of what we are discussing this evening fell into that category. I shall not, of course, vote either on the Motion or on the amendment as I do not think that that would be proper.

It is an historical fact that in October 1994 the then Prime Minister created a committee to be called the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He did that with the assent of the other parties in another place. Whether he did that pursuant to prerogative powers is not a matter which I propose to enter into. I think he did it on the basis that any Minister of the Crown can appoint a working party, a committee or any similar body to assist in public functions. That matter is much simpler than people make out.

Very quickly the question arose, "Does the remit of this committee extend to the House of Lords?" The first answer to that question was given in this House by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who said "Yes", and added words to the effect of "and a good thing, too"—because he would not want a situation where your Lordships' House was outside the remit and another House was within it. The Prime Minister gave the same reply in a Written Answer (Official Report, Commons, 31/11/94; WA 913). So there is no question but that the man who conceived the origin of the committee thought that it should have jurisdiction, if that is the right term—or certainly a remit—to go into all public bodies, including both Houses of Parliament.

As the House has heard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, became the first chairman. He set out, very briskly, the following month, in November, on a wide-ranging inquiry which he certainly intended to cover both Houses of Parliament. He wrote to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on 23rd November 1994, stating:

"At the second meeting of this committee we considered whether our remit covers matters affecting the House of Lords. Our conclusion was that it does. I am therefore writing to make preliminary contact to let you know that we shall be considering matters affecting the House of Lords and to give you some idea of how we expect to proceed".

He then referred to an issue of a questions paper that was then in contemplation. He continued:

"During our first six months we shall he concentrating on three main areas"—

the first of which was—

"issues affecting MPs and Peers"

One may note that there, rightly or wrongly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, did not say, "I seek your consent" or "your blessing"; he simply said that the decision had been taken and that he was proceeding with that inquiry.

The noble Viscount replied and referred to the fact that it was in contemplation that a sub-committee to the Procedure Committee would be set up. That happened very rapidly and by the month of December 1994 the Griffiths sub-committee of the Procedure Committee was in existence. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who had a very large remit and a number of other matters to cover, decided that he would stand back, if that is the right phrase, and wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, on 13th February 1995, stating:

"I understand that your committee is not likely to have completed its work by the time we need to complete our first report. I propose therefore that this committee"—

that is the Nolan committee—

"defer consideration of issues relating to the House of Lords until your committee has completed its work. Once your committee has reported we shall then he able to take its conclusions into account before submitting any recommendations which we may make in this and related areas for the consideration of the House".

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, replied:

"The members of the sub-committee are in unanimous agreement with the course that you suggest".

So a perfectly clear procedure was thereupon agreed: the Nolan committee would not look at the House of Lords and the Griffiths committee would carry on with its work. But in fact the reports came out in the reverse order. The first report was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan—it came out in May—and the Griffiths sub-committee reported in July.

There was then a debate in this House on 1st November, the issue being whether that report should be adopted by the House. Your Lordships will know that that is indeed what happened. The report of the Griffiths committee was adopted here but it was said—I informed your Lordships about this in a letter that I wrote to every Member of the House—that it was plainly contemplated that Nolan would be returning to this problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, wrote:

"Your Lordships will be aware that the Committee on Standards and Conduct in Public Life is proposing to consider matters relating to this House in the near future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has indicated that it would not cause his committee any difficulty if the House were to accept the recommendations of the sub-committee in whole or in part in advance of that consideration".

It could not be clearer on the record but that the Nolan committee was standing ready, in due course, to look at the recommendations made in the Griffiths report.

In fact, the Nolan committee was put to work on other topics that were thought to be more pressing: local public spending bodies was one; serious problems in local government was another. That completed the three-year term of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. I was then appointed as chairman.

My Lords, simply for the avoidance of doubt, when I said that the Nolan committee did not proceed to look at your Lordships' House as quickly as had been expected, I did not imply any criticism of any kind. I just wanted to make that clear.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I did not understand him to be expressing a criticism. I expressed myself badly if I used words which implied that.

In the autumn of 1997, I succeeded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, as chairman of the committee. On that occasion we were given a remit to look into the funding of political parties. Your Lordships will he aware that a Bill on that topic, which followed the report of the committee, is now in front of your Lordships' House.

Last year we produced another report in which we looked again at the House of Commons, which had been discussed in great detail in our first report.

At the end of last year the committee decided that the time was right to look at this House. Many changes had taken place which had altered the composition of the House and we thought, as a committee, that this is what we should do next, having declared our intention to do it about four years ago.

We so informed the Government. Those who say that we are poodles, lap dogs or whatever other form of beast they might like to suggest, are mistaken. This was our proposal; it was what we were intending to do and it was at our initiative.

I then followed precisely the precedent set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and wrote to the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I informed her of what we were doing in embarking on this inquiry and I sought her guidance. I wrote:

"I am anxious that we should proceed in a manner which is procedurally correct and also courteous to the House".

I was very anxious that we should do that.

The noble Baroness replied on 6th March that she welcomed our decision. She said:

"I welcome your decision to take forward this long-standing commitment".

She said that the best way of handling the matter would be by a Written Question and Answer, which she would arrange. That came out very quickly because there was going to be a leak in the press, which we knew about, and it was published a t high speed.

The noble Baroness also said that the right thing to do was to write to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; and to the Convertor of the Cross Benches, which I duly did. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:

"I hope that you will let me know how you think I can best assist your work".

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, thanked me for letting him know of the inquiry, and said:

"In due course we will be deciding whether we wish to present any evidence to you on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords".

I had a letter from the Convenor stating that he had informed the Cross-Benchers of what was in train.

There was no suggestion at any of those points that something deplorable was taking place that threatened the sovereignty of this House. May I make it crystal clear—as I did in a letter that I addressed to your Lordships and in a letter that I addressed to The Times—that when our report comes to be written, it can be approved, amended or rejected and thrown into the River Thames, which is adjacent. All that lies within your Lordships' power. I do not, with respect, accept the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that somehow the pressures will be so great that this House will slavishly have to adopt what we have written.

That is not what happened in the Commons with the first Nolan report. Although the spirit of Nolan was accepted, many of the detailed recommendations were revised, reviewed, and some of them were jettisoned. So there was complete consideration by the House of Commons. But I fully accept that the Nolan report was very influential on what happened.

As to future procedure, all our hearings will be in public. They will take place in the months of June and July. We shall be inviting witnesses to come and speak to their special interests. Our hope is that many Members of this House will be willing to give evidence. I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, as the chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, is going to put in a written submission, and it is correct that he should be on the list of witnesses whom we shall invite.

The points I should like to make—I know that I have trespassed long on your Lordships' time——are as follows: this inquiry is not based on any allegation of impropriety, misconduct or—to use a modern word—"sleaze". This is not a sleaze witch-hunt. The papers are not full of allegations about misconduct in the House of Lords. Such allegations are entirely absent. No such remarks are made in the public press. We are not proceeding on that basis. The principle which animates us is, as I have endeavoured to formulate in the press release, that the public rightly expects that holders of public office should set for themselves the highest possible standards of conduct. Nowhere is this more true than in connection with members of the legislature. So our inquiry will be to see whether this House is setting for itself the highest possible standards. We hope to hear evidence directly from Members of the House who think the answer to that very question is "yes".

My committee is absolutely independent. It was set up, it is true, by the Prime Minister, but what we write and what advice we give is completely independent of the Government. The next major fact is that we have no major power whatsoever. We cannot even summon a witness. If someone does not wish to come and give evidence to the committee, we have no way of compelling that person. The powers of this House will remain completely unaffected by anything we write or recommend. Nothing that we will be doing will contravene the judgment of Lord Coleridge in Bradlaugh v. Gossett or in any other of the revered constitutional cases which could be cited. Regarding the differences between the two Houses, of course we shall take account of those. We would be mad if we did not. Of course, it is a critical fact that Members of this House are not remunerated. The impact of that is something that requires mature and careful consideration.

The committee will bring an open mind to this problem. Any noble Lord who has read the six reports which have so far been promulgated by the committee could hardly fail to recognise the quality of independence. Your Lordships may not agree with the reports, but they are certainly independent.

Perhaps I may finally say that my wish or hope is, as I have said before, that your Lordships will assist the committee in its work. If we have asked questions which are misconceived, say so. If the answers to some questions are completely obvious, please tell us. The better the quality of the evidence, the better the report will be. When that report comes in, of course your Lordships will be free to do with it what you will.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask one question. Does the noble Lord accept that the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—as I understand it, the question was this: does the noble Lord agree that it is for this House to invite the committee to conduct its investigation into our affairs?—could, if the answer is "yes", be a contempt of this House: to investigate without our consent?

My Lords, I do not want to equivocate on the matter of language. The word that I like is the word in the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this House "welcomes" the inquiry. I do not think that we should be in the position of being invited to do it because I believe we are an independent committee.

Oh!

My Lords, noble Lords express surprise. They could not have been following the drift of my earlier argument because I stressed that part of the letter of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in which he informed the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that an inquiry was going to be conducted. It was not saying, "May we have leave to do so?" I think that it would be a completely false position for the committee, of which I currently have the honour to be chairman, to seek the permission of, or to request an invitation from, the proposing body.

My Lords, with respect, with the leave of the House, does not the noble Lord accept that it is not for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as Leader of the Opposition; it is for the House as a whole to resolve the position?

My Lords, I welcome the decision of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to hold an inquiry into the rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures. I have been most disappointed by the reactions of some of the Members of this House. Regarding the idea that this is a government plot, let me remind the House that the original terms of reference were set down by the right honourable John Major, Prime Minister in 1994, and covered Members of both Houses. The only reason the original Nolan committee did not look at this House was that the Committee of the Upper House, under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, was already looking at the issue. The Nolan, now the Neill, committee has shown its value, in particular on the difficult issue of party political funding. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is to be dealt with by this House in Committee tomorrow and will give transparency to party political funding. The majority of the Bill is based on the report of the Nolan committee of 1995.

Let us remind ourselves of the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The Neill committee is the correct body to look at this House. The role of this House has changed. The majority of us are here by choice and have outside interests. None of us has anything to fear from transparency. I have submitted my views to the Committee. I believe that the register of Members' interests should be compulsory and should include income and all hospitality and gifts over f140, and should specify if one is a chair or president of a voluntary body.

My Lords, I think it is important to emphasise that our debate today is about the mechanics of any inquiry, not the principles. Back in 1994 when the Committee on Standards in Public Life was first set up under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, your Lordships swiftly, and in my view rightly, moved to set up a Select Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, to look into the questions being addressed by Lord Nolan. I believe that that was entirely right and I regret very much that we have not followed a similar course now. Indeed, I took the liberty several weeks ago of writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the Leader of the House, suggesting that course. I am sorry that she does not agree. But let me emphasise again that I have no difficulty with the idea of an inquiry. Indeed, I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who now chairs the committee—he confirmed it again this evening—that I shall be asked to give evidence. I look forward to that. I am my Back Bench colleagues will be submitting in the near future a detailed response to the noble Lord's consultative paper.

None the less, I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and my noble friend Lord Cranborne that it really would have been much better for this inquiry' to have been conducted by a committee of the House rather than a wholly external body appointed for the purpose by the Prime Minister, although of course I recognise the independence of the body, which the noble Lord, Lord Neill, emphasised.

The noble Lord has said on several occasions that his committee is a purely advisory one and that it is open to the House to accept, modify or reject any proposals that he may make. But the plain fact is that, once the committee reports, given the eminence of its members and the high respect which it rightly enjoys, the House will find it difficult to do other than for the most part go along with the recommendations, whatever they may be. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has been at pains to emphasise that his colleagues have as yet reached no conclusions on the answers to the various questions posed in the consultative paper. But I do have to say to the noble Lord that the fact that he has chosen to pose some questions at least, to which the answer to anyone with the slightest knowledge of your Lordships' House is perfectly obviou, had led some to fear that the noble Lord and his colleagues may have already formed some preliminary views on those matters. I, of course, accept that that is not so, but others who know the noble Lord less well may take a different view.

I want at this point to make it absolutely clear that I have the highest possible regard for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, himself. I would go further. I have reason to be personally most grateful to the noble Lord for assistance that he gave me on a past occasion. It is therefore with great personal regret that I find myself not wholly at one with the noble Lord on this matter. But our differences are ones of mechanics, not principle.

It was, of course, well known that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, had intended to conduct a further study into the affairs of your Lordships' House. He made this clear at the time when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, began his work five years ago. The noble and learned Lord felt that other matters were more pressing in the interim and it has therefore fallen to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, toward the end of his term of office, to conduct this inquiry. When the noble Lord leaves his post later this year, as I gather he intends to do, there will still be some tasks undone. For example, it would seem that the noble Lord will not have time in his term of office to inquire into the affairs of the Members of the European Parliament, nor for that matter the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

Despite the evidently satisfactory nature of the Griffiths arrangements and the lack of public concern—which the noble Lord repeated—regarding your Lordships' affairs, the noble Lord none the less decided to complete the work begun by the noble and learned lord, Lord Nolan. I am slightly surprised that he did so, but so be it. That is entirely a matter for him. I am not aware of any noble Lord with anything to hide and I hope that many noble Lords will submit their views to the committee.

It is entirely necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, well recognises, for him to come to his task from a completely apolitical standpoint and for his committee to be completely above reproach in that regard. There are, however, two points which I feel obliged to make. First, I must refer to the passage in his consultative paper which raises questions about the interests of Opposition spokesmen in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has explained that these questions were inserted following one letter from a Labour Member of Parliament. I wonder how wise it was to include questions instigated by just one government Back-Bencher. The noble Lord has said that he anticipates that the evidence on this matter will be "all in one direction". I daresay it will.

My second point relates to composition of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, is a distinguished Cross-Bencher; the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is a distinguished member of the Labour Party; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is a distinguished member of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in your Lordships' House. But the other bodies in your Lordships' House are singularly absent. I refer not only to the Conservative Party, which is the largest single group: the noble and learned Lords are not represented; nor are the right reverend Prelates, the Bishops. Of course, I recognise that my right honourable friend John MacGregor is a member of the committee, and a very distinguished man he is too, but he is not a Member of your Lordships' House. Is it too late to ask the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to look again at the membership of his committee in this regard? He will no doubt say that this is a matter for the Prime Minister, as indeed it is.

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? It is a matter for the party leaders. To clarify the point, the three political appointments—Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour—are nominated by the parties.

My Lords, I accept that. However, were the noble Lord to think that he needed additional representation on his committee, I dare say the Prime Minister would move to meet his wishes.

I say again that I have absolutely no problem with an inquiry five years on into the arrangements established following the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. I regret that the inquiry is being conducted by a body outside the House; however, I take comfort from the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that he will have full regard to the evidence that he receives. I hope that every noble Lord who has views to express will send them in as the noble Lord has asked.

I also acknowledge the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that his committee is a wholly advisory one. Although technically he reports to the Prime Minister, his recommendations when they come are purely a matter for the House and not for the Prime Minister or the Government. I imagine, therefore, that in due course the recommendations will be subject to careful scrutiny by your Lordships—perhaps by a Select Committee established for the purpose.

I repeat that it would have been much better had the inquiry been conducted by a committee of the House. Such a committee could have been chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill; it could have included the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Goodhart, and doubtless there would have been others. I repeat that I know of no noble Lord who has anything to hide, and I and my colleagues will, therefore, co-operate fully with the noble Lord's committee.

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Like the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, I must declare a direct pecuniary interest. I shall be paid for any day on which I sit as a member of the committee during the hearings on this matter. For that reason, if the matter comes to a vote, as I very much hope it will not, I shall not vote.

I believe that this issue has been blown up seriously out of proportion. I have a relatively short series of numbered points to make. First, the inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, explained, is not proposed on the basis of any allegations of dishonourable conduct by any person in relation to the business of the House. Individual Members of the House have in the past acted dishonestly in matters of business or in their private life. Some, indeed, have gone to prison. No doubt that will happen again in the future. But there is no suggestion here of any institutional sleaze.

Secondly, it is absolutely clear that we are not acting on behalf of the Government or at the instigation of the Government. The member of the Labour Party who is its nominee on the Neill committee is the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. I think it fair to say that, if anything, the noble Lord is rather more hostile to new Labour and the present Government than I am. Frankly, I resented the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about the political views of our staff. I believe it was offensive to the staff to imply that they were unable to act in accordance with the traditions of political impartiality in the Civil Service. I believe that it is offensive also to members of the committee to suggest that we are liable to be hoodwinked by politically motivated staff.

Thirdly, there has been a change in the composition of this House which makes this an appropriate time to return to a review of the disclosure rules. All Members of the House are now here by choice—either by virtue of having accepted a nomination to a life peerage, or by virtue of having chosen to stand for election as a representative hereditary Peer. That raises the question: are the very wide distinctions between the disclosure rules of this House and those of another place justified, assuming that they were justified previously?

Fourthly, all members of the Neill committee are aware of the significant differences that still exist between this House and the other place. It is known to all of us that Members of this House are not paid a salary, and that younger Members—"younger" in this context is a relative term!—need to earn a living and can only attend part-time. Those factors are plainly relevant to any question of divestiture of interests by Front Bench spokesmen as well as to disclosure of interests.

The letter from Mr Kemp is not the only reason why this is an appropriate matter for investigation. Your Lordships may remember that at the beginning of February Mr Archie Norman, on his appointment as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman in the House of Commons, was required as a result of public pressure to resign from his directorships of Railtrack and Asda. This matter is not based simply on the issues raised by Mr Kemp.

Fifthly, the members of the Neill committee are also fully aware of the value of the expertise of Members of your Lordships' House in business, agriculture, science, medicine, law, the armed services and many other fields. It is clear, and accepted, that no rules should prevent those who know most about a subject from speaking on it.

I believe that the sixth point is an important one. All organisations benefit from being studied and reported on by an independent and objective external body. That is why we have Royal Commissions and inspectors of schools and prisons, although far be it from me to suggest that your Lordships' House has anything in common with either a school or prison. Internal reviews are not valueless, but undoubtedly external ones are much more useful. I do not believe that your Lordships' House should take a high and mighty line and say that any external audit of its rules is inappropriate.

Seventhly, the Neill committee is advisory only, as pointed out by both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Neill, himself. If we recommend changes it is entirely up to your Lordships' House whether to adopt, reject or amend them. In this context Bradlaugh v. Gossett is entirely irrelevant.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that your Lordships' House would be unable in practical terms to reject the advice of the Neill committee once it was given. That has not happened in the other place and I am not sure why it should happen here. It is illogical to say that your Lordships' House can reject the whole of this inquiry but cannot reject any one recommendation which results from it.

Eighthly, I do not believe that it is in the interests of your Lordships' House to refuse co-operation with the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We are, after all, one of the Houses of Parliament and are legislators. Our rules of conduct are a matter of legitimate public interest. We simply cannot say that they are a matter for us and no one else. I do not believe we can, or should, say that we shall not allow any outsiders to look at the rules and comment on them. If this Motion is passed unamended, people will say, perhaps rightly, that your Lordships' House is stuck in a time warp. As someone who greatly respects the work of your Lordships' House and enjoys the enormous privilege of taking part in its work, I do not wish to see its reputation damaged in any way. I believe that that would be the result if this Motion were passed without amendment.

As a member of both your Lordships' House and the Neill committee I shall not support any proposal that I believe damages the role of this Chamber as one of the Houses of Parliament. I believe that all my colleagues on the Neill committee share that view. We are an independent and objective body in so far as any group of human beings can be objective.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord as a member of the Neill committee whether he agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that the committee is neither a statutory nor prerogative body? If so, can he tell the House what he thinks the Neill committee is?

My Lords, we are not a statutory body. That fact is well known. However, the costs are paid out of the Consolidated Fund and we are operating, it seems to me therefore, by virtue of a prerogative. But that does not mean that we are acting on behalf of the Government.

The proposed report is not, and I believe cannot be, a threat in any way to the independence of your Lordships' House or of the judiciary.

My Lords, I am one of those who believes that the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has rendered a considerable service by raising this issue and by the important speech he made tonight. The noble Lord made clear that there are two issues, which should be kept separate. The first concerns the kind of regime we should have to control our conduct; the second is the constitutional issue which he described.

We have heard how, in 1994, the Prime Minister of the day, John Major, on his own initiative responded to a crisis created by a handful of individuals by setting up the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In the circumstances that prevailed at the time, it is not surprising that Parliament went along with the Prime Minister's decision. What is perhaps a little more surprising is that five and a half years later even those who feel deeply anxious that Parliament's control and scrutiny of the executive are so often feeble and ineffective should feel content that the committee should still be in existence and continually extending, its activities, despite its lack of statutory authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has made a strong case. In his article in The Times he quoted William Blackstone in the 18th century, Lord Ellenborough in 1811 and Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in 1884 in support of the proposition that we have an absolute and exclusive right to impose discipline within these walls. He referred again to those precedents in his speech today.

In a letter to The Times on 12th April, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen—unwisely in my view—dismissed the article by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, as "eccentric and essentially misguided" but failed to address effectively the central part of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, justifies the activities of his committee—he did so tonight—by referring to the terms of reference of the committee when it was set up in 1994. Those terms were established by the Prime Minister but not by Parliament. The fact that the other place, in the circumstances in which it found itself in 1994, accepted what the Prime Minister had decided does not provide a sound argument for this House casually to surrender its exclusive right to initiate procedures and impose discipline within these walls I am not a lawyer and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, is a very distinguished lawyer, but as a parliamentarian I find it strange—dare I say even eccentric—that he should think it whimsical for the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, to have cited what William Blackstone wrote in 1765,

"that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed and adjusted in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere".

Neither the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, nor anyone else could argue that there should be a ban on any public discussion of matters concerning either House of Parliament. There is, however, all the difference in the world between general public discussion about our affairs and the launching of a formal inquiry by this committee as a result of which we are to be questioned and proposals to be made about how we should conduct ourselves. It may be that the other place has, by the manner in which it reacted to John Major's initiative, given its consent for the committee to pursue its activities in that House; but this House has not given that consent. Instead, in 1994 it set up its own committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, to produce recommendations which it subsequently debated and substantially accepted.

It has been suggested tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that once the committee has functioned we would be able to choose what to do with the report. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, volunteered that we might be able to throw it into the Thames if we wished. That comment ignores the constitutional point that if we are to maintain control of our own affairs it should be this House and not any outside committee that decides whether a procedure should begin and the manner in which it should be conducted. It also ignores the reality referred to by my noble friend Lord Cranborne that our freedom to reject the committee's proposals would be severely circumscribed simply because the committee has a grand name and is believed to have a great authority, whatever its origins and however misguided we might later judge some of its recommendations to be. These things have a momentum of their own and once launched are hard to check.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, argued that it was right to be better informed. That would be fine if we had initiated the actions which sought the wisdom and advice that he suggests we should have. But I do not see that it is necessarily a good thing that we should have to accept what is given to us uninvited.

In his letter to The Times, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, having put on one side Blackstone, Coleridge, Ellenborough and a good deal of our constitutional history, was then rash enough to turn his attention to the Cecils and quoted words by my noble friend Lord Cranborne as giving proof of the authority his committee possessed. It seemed to me that my noble friend knocked that argument on its head pretty effectively in his letter to The Times on 13th April and indeed by his intervention in the House again tonight confirming that from the outset he had,

"thought it outrageous that either House of Parliament should meekly accept that it should be investigated by a committee set up under the Royal Prerogative",

which is precisely why he made arrangements for the Griffiths committee of this House to be set up.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, described the history in some detail tonight. I fully accept his account. The issue is not what has happened, but whether it should have happened. I do not believe that it should have happened in this way. What ought to happen now is that this House should decide itself to review the Griffiths arrangements and should set up an appropriate committee. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, if passed, would give the Neill committee some limited authority without dealing with the essential criticisms that have been made. Because those criticisms have such constitutional significance—because as the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, himself said, he is anxious that it ought not to be a party matter—I hope that the rumours I have heard that there is effectively, if not in terms of black lines on a piece of paper, a Whip on the other side and that Members of the executive are being marshalled to vote are untrue. It would be very unfortunate. I believe that this is an issue that should not be pushed through by the executive. If ever there was an issue that should be left to individual Members of this House, this is it. I hope that we shall hear from the Front Bench opposite before the end of this debate that my suspicions and the rumours I have heard are totally without foundation.

I turn now to the kind of regime that we might have. I believe that we need to learn some lessons from what has happened in the other place. I fear that, to an extent that has not yet been sufficiently recognised, any good that the committee has achieved as a consequence of its recommendations may have been exceeded by the harm that it has generated in accelerating a move towards a House in which knowledge and experience derived from outside occupations are in increasingly short supply.

I have served for about 30 years in Parliament and was for a time a Member of the Select Committee on Members' interests in the other place. During most of my time as an MP there were large numbers of Members who had occupations outside Parliament and whose contributions were all the more effective because of the experience that they brought to debates. I fear that the regime that is now in place discourages such membership and inhibits such contributions. Furthermore, it seems to me that niggling supervision by an appointed official, and the demand that details of the minutiae of fees for articles, lectures and invitations to sporting and other events should be all recorded, adds little to the integrity of the House, but detracts from its dignity and effectiveness. We need to avoid going down that road.

Even the Griffiths recommendations have thrown up some pretty strange anomalies. ]Et seems odd that for 11 years, as a director of ABP, I was able to declare an interest and contribute to debates. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was kind enough generously to praise one of those speeches. But now, because I have a modest consultancy so that I can continue to give advice to the company on a range of issues, I could not make the speeches that I have made in the past. Oddly, the rule in the other place is less restrictive and would give me greater freedom.

I make the point only as an illustration of the difficulties that we are likely to get into if our proceedings are controlled with a legalistic framework. I am absolutely clear that by far the best way to proceed is on the basis that we declare interests and leave it to our colleagues to judge the value of our contribution in the light of that declaration. On the whole, this House is excessively punctilious about declaring interests, but that is a fault on the right side.

Whatever may have been true in the past, it cannot now be asserted that wealth, business interests and influence exerted through professional elites are confined to these Benches, a fact brilliantly brought out in the Channel 4 programme last Sunday.

I have no desire to probe the precise details of the earnings and business affairs of the rich and very successful noble Lords I see on the Benches opposite me. I am confident that they will declare interests when they are relevant and then I shall listen with even greater respect, reassured that they actually know what they are talking about.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life was set up for a particular purpose in the wake of a particular scandal at a particular moment in time. Like Frankenstein's monster, it has grown. It is now time seriously to consider whether it should be allowed to continue its activities. I say, "Halt", and let us rely on those well-tested conventions that have served us well in the past.

My Lords, the resolution which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, reflects the piece that he wrote in The Times on 10th April. I want to refer to that article in the course of my remarks.

There are two limbs to the resolution. The primary limb is to the effect that the House asserts its responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs. This is an uncontroversial proposition. Indeed, it is a statement of the obvious. I do not believe that any Member of this House could possibly disagree with It. Nor do I believe that one needs recourse to Messrs Blackstone or Bradlaugh for that very basic proposition.

The second limb of the resolution deals with that part of the noble Lord's Times article which raised the question:

"whether the House of Lords needs to reconsider its present, relatively mild, system of registering interests in the light of changes made elsewhere".

I do not believe that it is appropriate to debate the merits or otherwise of the present system this evening. All that I would say is that the duties in respect of self-discipline which are currently imposed on members of the smallest parish council in Britain are more onerous than those which currently prevail in this House.

There is an explicit concession in the second limb that the time has come for the matter to be looked, at. Again, I suspect that many noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree with that. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, certainly agreed with it earlier, although I gained the impression from the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that he would have no inquiry of any kind whatever.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. On the contrary, I suggested that I thought it was time to follow up on the Griffiths committee and that we should set up a committee to do just that.

My Lords, I certainly gained the impression from the noble Lord's closing remarks that he took the view that the matter should be entirely between his conscience and the views of other Members of the House.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I said. If he comes to read my speech, he will see that I was quite specific on the point. What I questioned was whether we should allow this outside committee to continue in the present way. I suggested that, indeed, there were strong reasons for reviewing the conclusions of the Griffiths committee and pointed to a personal example as to why they should be reviewed.

My Lords, I shall read the observations with care tomorrow. I was commenting upon the closing remarks just before the noble Lord sat down. I believe that there is no point in irritation in these matters.

In his piece in The Times, the noble Lord. Lord Rees-Mogg, went on to say:

"The question to be decided now is a simple one: should:he House of Lords refer the future of its discipline to an outside committee or to the procedure committee?".

I agree that that is a simple enough question. However, in my submission, it reveals a flaw in the article because it is obviously the wrong question. Framed in that way, the question assumes that the future of the discipline of this House may be delegated or transferred from this House to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. If that were even a possibility, it would certainly offend against the fundamental principle that the House must retain full power to regulate itself. And so I put aside the Aunt Sally question.

The real question, I suggest, is which committee, in the first instance, should examine the matter. My own view is that it should be the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. That committee has developed a good understanding of the issues. It has also developed considerable expertise in what has become a rather complicated subject. I suggest that the House should make full use of those talents. Any proposals or recommendations would, in due course, be the subject of full debate and a decision by this House as to which, if any, of the suggestions the House will adopt.

I also believe that there is a real risk that, if we were to adopt the suggested resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, it would seem to the outside world that we were trying to sweep under the carpet something which is of considerable public importance and interest. I do not believe that we should run the risk of giving that impression. I suggest that the whole question should be dealt with in an open and, as I believe has already been said by a number of noble Lords this evening, transparent fashion.

My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord if he would be kind enough to say what are the relevant constraints under which parish councillors are put but under which Members of your Lordships' House are not put? I declare an interest as the chairman of a parish council.

My Lords, I suspect that, for example, one is not entitled to vote in a matter which affects one's own interest.

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene in this dialogue between the two noble Lords, but I wish to speak only briefly. I shall certainly not detain the House too long. I shall not follow the example of my distinguished predecessor, Chadderton, who was Master of Emmanuel and who preached for three hours from the pulpit, then hesitated and said, "I feel I should stop", whereupon the entire congregation said, "For God's sake, go on". I believe that perhaps it might be testing the tolerance of the House too far if I were to follow that particular precedent.

I wish to congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Rees-Mogg, on introducing this Motion and on what he said. I can assure your Lordships that this is much more than the normal formal courtesies which are used in this House and which make it such an agreeable place in which to be. Those congratulations are genuinely meant because it took his Lordship's detective intelligence and dedication to pursue the point and to bring it to the Floor of this House. I congratulate him too on the quality of mind that he displayed in his speech as he does in his articles, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, subjected to a certain amount of exegesis.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord ReesMogg, for what he writes in The Times. I frequently do not know what to think before I have read what he has said. I sometimes feel that I regret my celibate status. I wish I had a wife to break it to me at breakfast before I took it neat, like a glass of whisky. One feels in a similar way when one reads his distinguished colleague, Dr Stuttaford. I do not know what is wrong with me until I read his articles.

So the noble Lord is more than a journalist; he is less than an intellectual. I should describe him as a sage and a sage who has used his sagacity to bring this Motion before us and to argue so eloquently for it. I wish that I could refer to him as the Sage of Printing House Square but that would be an anachronism. If I refer to him as the Sage of Canary Wharf, it would sound as though he were some sort of exotic inhabitant of an aviary. But the whole House is indebted to him for his actions.

The noble Lord does not stand alone. He speaks and writes in a great tradition; namely, the great Victorian line of literary prophets—Ruskin, Carlyle, both the Arnolds, the people we thought were totally extinct, with no successors. But, unlike them, he does not carp; nor does he nag.

However, what his speech and this debate have done this evening is to provide an antidote to the contemporary scourge of the soundbite, which is the enemy of scholarship and true debate. What can we think of a society which dismisses those who attempt to sit and make conclusions from the ideas and actions that are current in society as the "chattering classes", when in any other society, there would be gratitude to them for their efforts?

I shall not follow the noble Lord on his general grounds of principle nor on his legal use of precedent, save to say that I agree with him. It would be a dreadful state of affairs if anybody made it a matter of reproach to quote the jurist Blackstone either in this House or outside it.

But I want to look at the broader aspects of the Motion. Mr Disraeli, at the Crystal Palace—and, if your Lordships want to know what is wrong with the Dome, look at a picture of the Crystal Palace—said that the political duty was to preserve our institutions. Alas, we now have only three independent institutions—the Crown, the Church and your Lordships' House and all three are under attack. We shall only defend this institution if Members have confidence in themselves. To maintain that, we should discuss and order our own affairs. That is the significance of this Motion and that is the point of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.

We are suffering from a disease which I would call "commissionitis": take no responsibility for ourselves but shove it off on to some commission. That is dangerous for two reasons. First, not all commissioners are of the quality of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. He was a Warden of All Souls and a former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, but in that respect he is a comet without an appropriate tail. The pal h that we are following is one of a government of the appointed, appointed by the appointed, which is what "government by commission" means, and we are heading for the worst of all worlds. I reflect that at least the Prime Minister is elected. That is more than one can say of any of these commissions.

The people to investigate this House are the members of this House itself. Your Lordships understand what the House is about. The strengths and the weaknesses of the House are known by your Lordships in a way in which they are known by no one else. That is what Bagehot meant when he said that to be in Parliament was to have the advantage of knowing the characters directly involved and experiencing matters for oneself rather than reading about them or looking at plates and descriptions.

Your Lordships should investigate what is needed because it is not good enough to say that this House exercises ultimate responsibility but can abandon interim responsibility altogether. To abandon interim responsibility is to abandon something that is just as important as power—namely, influence. That is the difference between the two noble Lords this evening. We should conduct the diagnosis as well as the cure and to do otherwise would be not a trahison des clercs, but, worse, a trahison des seigneurs.

The full purpose and justification of the law of privilege is to ensure that parliamentarians discharge their responsibilities free of interference from outside. The Motion reminds us of that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in a most eloquent speech, seemed to be hypnotised by the current state of our society. He said that it was a society in which perceptions are regarded as important as realities. My reaction to that is not to bow down before that illusion, not to offer incense to idols, but to expose the falsity of that society. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has done that in his Motion and speech. For that reason, he deserves our congratulations and our gratitude.

If he decides to divide the House, I shall be happy to follow him. I do not say that I would go on a tiger shoot with him because I would not go on a tiger shoot with anybody—I like tigers, although I would be rather nervous of them—but, if one is to be found in a minority division lobby, I would rather find myself with the noble Lord than with anyone else. If he chooses not to divide the House, I shall abide by that choice. However, I congratulate him on succeeding in launching a debate as well-informed and as responsible as any to which I have had the privilege of listening in this House.

My Lords, I too acknowledge the debt that we owe to my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg. It seems to me that his constitutional argument has been completely accepted now. The only difference is as to its application.

Perhaps I can deal with one or two constitutional points, with direct reference to the Motion before your Lordships. First, it is now clear that we did not devote anything like the attention that we should have to the constitutional implications of the Nolan committee in relation to the Houses of Parliament.

But that is now in the past. Unfortunately, a great deal has happened since then and we must take the situation as it is today with, as one noble Lord said, passions inflamed on this matter and stronger views taken than perhaps the differences can justify.

However, to begin with I should emphasise one point. I shall pick up the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. What we are concerned with here is the sphere of exclusive cognisance or exclusive jurisdiction. That is dealt with clearly in paragraph 13 of the Nicholls report:

"This privilege is also of fundamental importance x2026;of scarcely less importance than the right to freedom of speech. Both right are essential elements in parliamentary independence".

I turn to the word "exclusive". Your Lordships will have to consider that word when we come to consider the actual terms of the amendment. The Nicholls committee, the Joint Select Committee, went on to make it clear in paragraph 113 that it regarded the Register of Members' Interests as falling within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction. Indeed, in recommending that the various phrases in the Bill of Rights should be clarified, it went on to say that it should be made clear that the proceedings in relation to Members' interests are proceedings in Parliament. So we are at the very heart of the Bill of Rights, at the very heart of the rule of exclusivity, in this debate.

My noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg reviewed Ole authorities from Blackstone onwards, or at any rate the important ones. I wish to refer to only one other, a recent case in your Lordships' House taken against British Railways which was decided in 1974. I suppose I must declare that I was a member of the committee. It was of interest because it involved a difference between the Court of Appeal and your Lordships' Appellate Committee. It concerned the question of whether the courts could go into an issue which was raised; namely, that a private Bill in Parliament had been obtained by fraud. The late Lord Denning, in whose chambers I started my career at the Bar, and who was in everything a judicial activist, said that it could be gone into.

He went on to say, "Parliament will be grateful for our looking into the matter and recommending the issue." Of course, that was wildly wrong. Parliament would have been intensely resentful, as indeed your Lordships' Appellate Committee, headed by Lord Reid, a former Lord Advocate, said without question. The proposal of Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal had the further disadvantage in that that Bench might come to a different conclusion to that to which your Lordships' House would come in its own investigation of what had happened before the Select Committee. That raises the question whether there would be embarrassment in invoking the help—indeed, welcoming the help, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—of the committee on standards while at the same time your Lordships' House, as it is now accepted, has to make up its own mind on the matter. I suggest therefore that in addition to all the other authorities—Blackstone and Burdett v. Abbot, Stockdale v. Hansard and Bradlaugh v. Gossett—we have the highly relevant authority of BR v. Pickin.

That takes me to the actual terms of the Motion before us. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, proposes that we should welcome the inquiry. There are two reasons why that seems to me inadvisable. In the first place, it invites an outside interference with what is a matter of your Lordships' exclusive cognisance. Secondly, it tends to exacerbate the impression, which has been illustrated in various places in your Lordships' House, that if your Lordships do not accept that, it will lead to misunderstanding. There is no lack of unfriendly noises where your Lordships' House is concerned, and it is entirely true that we may put ourselves into a position where unfriendly noises may be made by what we are doing.

The other point where, with respect, the amendment is quite unacceptable is that it,

"asserts the House's ultimate responsibility for the conduct of its own affairs".

That is quite wrong. It is a primary responsibility, not an ultimate responsibility; and it is a crucial responsibility. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord, after his constructive and, as always, moderate speech, will see that it is very much in the interests of your Lordships' House that the amendment should not be accepted.

I return to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg. It seems to me that that is unexceptionable constitutionally. On the other hand, after this debate, it seems to me that it would be mostly in the interests of your Lordships' House if both proposals were withdrawn. We had an invitation to go ahead independently by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. If we now wiped the slate clear, we would leave it open to the Procedure Committee—or, indeed, to the noble Baroness as Leader of the House—to request the help of the Neill committee, while still keeping exclusive cognisance of the matter so that the submissions of the Neill committee would be ostensibly, and not merely as a matter of form, a submission to the proper authority of your Lordships' House.

I suggest—and I hope that it will appeal to the noble Baroness—that by far the best thing for this House would be to wipe the slate clear. Her position is not an easy one. She owes a double duty. That often arises in our constitution. It arises constantly with the Law Officers. However, the position of the noble Baroness is more difficult because the present Government have very much an agenda as far as concerns your Lordships' House. It is not easy for the Leader of the House to balance that against her undoubted duty to your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, while recognising the difficulties that the noble Baroness may have, I hope that she, prompted, I trust, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, will think it better to have neither the Motion nor the amendment carried so that the matter can then be properly considered by the House authorities and the proper committee.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to the Motion moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. I do so with some trepidation following the many erudite contributions of so many noble Lords, and particularly as I must confess some confusion at the sound and fury that has been generated by the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill.

I have to declare an interest because, until a few months ago, I was a member of the Neill committee; indeed, I was appointed to the committee when it was set up under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and other speakers made clear, the proposed inquiry was anticipated four years ago. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, pointed this out in the letter that he sent to us with his committee's "Issues and Questions" pamphlet.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has given the background to the establishment of the committee, but it is rather easy to forget the atmosphere in which the Nolan Committee, as it then was, was established. Sleaze was at the top of the media agenda; politicians—all politicians—we were told, were held in the lowest regard. The then Prime Minister had what many regarded as the courage to set up a committee which would investigate and advise on ways in which confidence in Parliament, and in all holders of public office, could be reaffirmed. That is what the Nolan committee did and it is what the Neill committee is doing. It investigates and advises. It has no powers to compel or impose. But its seven principles of public life have clearly helped the House of Commons, and the other public bodies that the committee dealt with, to develop procedures that all commentators said have contributed to restoring public confidence, which was so badly dented at that time.

It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that the Neill committee should turn its attention again to the House of Lords. This House has gone through many changes and, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, the Griffiths arrangements have been in place for four years. The work carried out by the Neill committee in relation to the other place can surely help this House. It can help us to reassure ourselves that we have procedures that command public confidence.

As was said in an earlier debate, your Lordships' House is the second Chamber of the legislature of this nation. Each of us here is a holder of public office. Surely we cannot pull up a drawbridge and say that we do not need to account for ourselves in the way we conduct our affairs.

I was rather startled at the inference which I drew from the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when, he described the other place—as I heard it; I may have been wrong—as feeble. I wondered whether he really meant that we should declare our superiority over that House. That seems a rather novel approach to our constitutional position. However, I am not a constitutional lawyer and I hesitate to comment on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee are providing us with an opportunity to look at the arrangements, for example, for declaration of interests, for paid advocacy and for dealing with any breach of rules relating to conduct. As many noble Lords have said, they have established a considerable degree of expertise on these issues, not just here in the UK but also overseas. As I said at the start, they will investigate and advise. Are we really reluctant to say that their expertise will help us? Are we really unwilling to say that we ought to look at these issues? Are we really prepared to resist the help of a committee which has built up the respect to which the noble Lord, Lord Trelgarne, so rightly referred? I hope not.

If some of the fears expressed arise from changes that have been accepted in the other place, as I inferred from some contributions, it is quite clear from the issues and questions paper that the committee acknowledges the differences between the two Houses. It is clear that it will adopt a sophisticated approach that will take proper account of those differences. It is equally clear that it does not at all threaten self-regulation. It cannot impose any recommendations on your Lordships' House.

I should regret it if this debate in this House degenerates into a party battle. The great strength of the Nolan, and now the Neill committee, has been its ability to attract cross-party support in making recommendations which have produced openness and transparency in parliamentary procedures on conduct in another place. If we in this House are seen to resist an inquiry which could help us to ensure similar openness, I urge noble Lords to consider that that is bound to increase the cynicism into which the public can so easily slip as regards our ability to regulate ourselves. On that point I quote a respected commentator, the journalist Peter Riddell, in his evidence to the Neill committee,

"Parliament is pretty awful at looking at systems, because it cannot detach; it is often divided on partisan grounds. So I think the Committee—

he referred to the Neill committee—

"has shown its value in that respect—not that everything you suggest is right, but you can do it from detachment and you have now built up the case work and experience".

Surely we should not be averse to taking advantage of that detachment and that experience. Surely we want to confirm that the country which we serve can have confidence that we, as holders of public office, act solely in terms of the public interest, as the Neill committee first principle of public life affirms.

My Lords, one of the greatest privileges that one can have is to listen to the first two speakers in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, put his case clearly, impressively, in an understandable fashion, and with enormous erudition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in moving his amendment could have made an aggressive speech. However, it was not at all aggressive; it was a gentle and enormously persuasive speech. It is wonderful to hear two people with totally different views on this subject put their cases in such a gentle and courteous manner.

I have great reservations about the Neill committee looking into the matters we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that we do net have to worry: the Neill committee will make its report and we can accept it, amend it or reject it. If the committee has sat for quite a while and made various suggestions, I do not feel that it will be an option for the House of Lords to say, "We will reject the whole lot. We do not agree with that". I do not think that that will happen. I think that we will be in a position of either accepting or possibly amending the report.

My real fear is that we will find that we have got a tiger by the tail and that we will be taken down alleyways we do not expect to go down. I find it difficult to understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, "welcomes" the inquiry into standards and conduct in the House of Lords. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that, if we "welcome" it, that implies that we welcome outside interference.

We have always been responsible for our own measures and conduct in this House. That in itself is not a bad thing; it is not a derogatory thing; it is not something of which to be ashamed. Always in the past, noble Lords have declared their interests when they have spoken and, on the whole, that has been to the satisfaction of everyone. I do not think there has been a whisper of any kind that your Lordships have been underhand in any way.

One of the most pathetic sights we have seen recently is the establishment of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It has been set up—almost as a headmistress—over and above the Members of another place to investigate whether they have been right or wrong; and, if it is found that they have been wrong, to impose a punishment. The House of Commons was always primus. It is terrible that we have come to that state. I ask whether that is what we want here. Your Lordships may say that we will not get that here, but I am not so sure.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Is he aware that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not impose penalties? She merely reports to the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges whether she finds an allegation proved. It is then for that committee of the House of Commons to decide whether to impose a punishment and, if so, what punishment.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right. But I am quite certain that he will agree that if someone of the standing of the parliamentary commissioner makes a suggestion, it is very unlikely that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will reject it. If it rejected every one that she made, she would not last very long in that position. So whoever holds the position has great power and great sway.

There is a feeling nowadays of the old Victorian parent who said to the nanny, "Go and see what the children are doing and tell them not to". On the whole, your Lordships have conducted yourselves with considerable decorum and trust. There is a real danger that these things can snowball out of control.

All this was caused because certain Members of Parliament were considered to have conducted themselves improperly. As has been said, the Nolan committee was set up by the Prime Minister. It was not a statutory body; it was not a Royal Commission; it was not a committee set up by either House. It was set up by a man—albeit a Prime Minister—who asked an eminent and respected man to look at the issue. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell when he said that he was surprised that the committee still existed.

The House of Commons is paid; it is elected. It was considered, rightly or wrongly, to have been behaving improperly. Your Lordships' House is not a paid House; it is a voluntary House. It is not elected—other than some 90 of us who, to use that awful phrase, have "more legitimacy" than anyone else and therefore are pranus inter pares among your Lordships.

It is not a figleaf; it is fact. One wonders what is going to happen with this ferret? Where does one go? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said that there was openness and transparency in what has been happening in another place. Apparently, it is a fact that in the House of Commons anyone who has any degree of interest is now not allowed to table an amendment on a subject in which he may have an interest and of which he certainly therefore has knowledge. I understand that there is one Member of Parliament whose child has a horrible and long-drawn-out disease. Let us say for the sake of argument that it is something like multiple sclerosis. He knows all about it. Therefore, he is apparently not allowed to table an amendment on this. He is not allowed to take a delegation to see the Minister. It is absolutely absurd. I do not think that we want to have that sort of thing happening here.

If it is true.

My Lords, if it is true, it is not absurd. I was working on the assumption that what I was saying was true. I am quite happy to be told that it is not true. All I am saying is that that is the kind of matter where you get led down alleyways which you do not expect.

The short answer is that I do not think that this particular form of investigation by the Neill committee is necessary. I do not think that there is a call for it. I do not think that there is a need for it. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, said on another occasion that the committee had decided to make the House of Lords its next subject for scrutiny. It did not know what to do next so it thought that it would have a go at your Lordships' House. He wrote to a few party leaders and said, "This is what we propose to do; I do hope you will agree with it". The noble Baroness the Leader of the House shakes her head. I was going to say that she said she agreed, which I thought she did. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that he agreed. It would be quite difficult for anyone to say that they did not agree with that.

So this goes on. The committee will eventually make recommendations on how your Lordships' House should operate. I find it difficult to think that any suggestions which the Neill committee might make would not be acceptable. Can anyone imagine the committee sitting for six months and coming out with its suggestions and then your Lordships rejecting them, even if that was your entitlement? I think that that is taking away from your Lordships the responsibility which your Lordships should have for conducting and scrutinising your own affairs.

On page 20 of the noble Lord's report, question 10 asks:

"Should the rules governing members of either House of Parliament make specific provision in relation to those who are opposition spokesmen and women for the divestment (or otherwise) of financial interests similar to that contained in the Ministerial Code?"

That means that anyone who is an Opposition spokesman would have to divest himself of any directorships or any other money-making affairs in order to make sure that he is clean and above board, as it were. Opposition spokesmen are not paid. Of course, they have to earn an outside interest. If that were to come about, noble Lords on the opposite side may rejoice in the fact that they are in government but one day they will be in opposition again. If this had happened 12 months ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, would not be able to be a non-executive director of Scottish Power; the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would not be allowed to be Mistress of Birkbeck College; the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who was on the Front Bench, could not have been President of Queens' College; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, could not have been Shadow Lord Chancellor because of course he was a barrister.

The lawyers always get away with it. There is the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has the engaging habit of looking at his notes as though he is reading from a score of Handel's "Messiah". He really ought to declare an interest in everything. He says, "My Lords, I am a barrister. I am an advocate specialising in putting forward good points". But, of course, lawyers do not do that. Only if you earn your money as a director of a firm do you have to do it; not if you earn your money as a lawyer.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that the Nolan committee was set up for a specific purpose at a specific time. It has grown out of control. We are being asked to accept that the Neill committee may consider your Lordships' House as it is at the moment but that from there will come all kinds of antennae, such as are happening in another place. That would be undesirable. It would be much better if we organised our own affairs.

My Lords, I cannot imagine that the example given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, of the disabled child whose parent is a Member of Parliament can he correct. The MP would possibly have to declare the interest but I would not imagine that he would have to absent himself.

My starting point is that by being here we are participating in the public life of this country. On the inside front cover of the Neill committee's consultation paper, published last month, is a list of seven principles of public lift. My noble friend Lady Goudie read them out. I agree with every one of them, especially the principles of openness and accountability, mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.

We may be a House of non-political politicians but we are part of the public and political life of this country. We should therefore all be concerned about the alienation mentioned by my noble friend Lady Warwick. People feel alienated from politics and politicians. The suggestion that we should appoint our own committee would contribute to that alienation. By contrast, the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer helps to overcome that alienation by its openness and accountability. He is trying to build bridges between the public and ourselves. That is why I support his amendment.

Of course we have independence and the right to conduct our own affairs. I cannot see any way in which the Neill committee could be a threat to that right. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, confirmed today that his committee is independent and advisory and that it cannot force anyone to do anything. It cannot even require people to give evidence. What is done with his report is entirely a matter for your Lordships' House. As he said, we could throw it into the Thames. So where is the threat? I do not fear the report as pressurising us, as was envisaged by the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Crickhovvell, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrets. I believe that the Committee for Privileges would be better able to investigate the effectiveness of the House of Lords Register of Interests armed with the report of the Neill committee.

Of course we have rights and privileges. I value them. I also value our independence. But this is the 21st century. These are times when you do not protect rights and privileges by asserting legal ownership over them, as other noble Lords are exhorting us to do. No, we protect them by demonstrating that we use those rights and privileges for the benefit of the public. If we do not, it is probable that we will lose them; not necessarily by them being taken away from us. We will lose them by being marginalised. That is what happens in this day and age to institutions which do not have public support. By insisting on our legal rights, we may keep our independence but we will lose our influence—our influence to serve the public.

So I cannot support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, but I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.

My Lords, I strongly support the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that, whatever else happens, we should not divide on this matter tonight. At this hour, on this Motion, there will be no representative vote of the House. If it is the wish of the House to invite or welcome this committee to investigate our affairs, there should be a Motion so to resolve. It should be arranged by the usual channels. There should be a full debate, and the view of the House should be taken. I sincerely assert that as a proposition in the interests of the House. It has nothing to do with the fact that I sit on the Conservative Benches and nothing to do with where any other noble Lord sits. If we are going to hand over to this external body—contrary to the whole constitutional basis on which we operate—-an invitation to inquire into our domestic affairs, let the House so decide on a representative basis, on a fair basis, not on the basis of some amendment proposed in a thin House at this hour.

It would not be possible for me to support the amendment, for the reasons so clearly given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There are other reasons to which I shall turn in a moment, but at this stage I am concerned with the voting. If the amendment were by any chance to be rejected by the House in a Division, then I should be in the position of not being able to support the Motion. Although I wholly accept its constitutional propriety and the principle on which it is put forward, and totally reject that of the amendment, I should wish for an opportunity for some arrangement to be made by the usual channels or by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House which was acceptable to the House and to the Neill committee.

I go along with the suggestions that have been made that the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who is an honourable man and eminently suitable, should be asked to serve with the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Goodhart, on our Select Committee and that the usual channels should be asked to appoint other Members of this House to sit on the committee. But what I cannot accept is that any external body should investigate our affairs, for the reasons that have been given.

Nor is it necessary that it should be done. What I am proposing, with respect to the House—and, I beg the House to accept, in the interests of this House—is not to be seen outside the House as a cover-up. It is nothing of the sort. If the Houses wishes the committee to investigate, so be it; if not, let us consider whether we can put forward the alternative proposal.

One wonders why the committee took the initiative to return to this matter. I am worried that a kind of Trojan horse is being wheeled into the capital by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, with the support of those who are keen to impose statutory regulation on this House. I do not know; I have had no such conversation on the matter, but as a Celt I have a hunch about it. I believe that there is something like that in the air. I am fearful that this matter should be disposed of tonight on the basis of a quick Division. These matters should be inquired into in proper debate.

How this House can welcome, of all things, a preemptive investigation before a Select Committee has been appointed and its report debated wholly defeats me. That this House can welcome an investigation on the basis that there is no time to go into the issues and questions formulated in April 2000 is wholly unacceptable. To give one example, there are no allegations of misconduct, sleaze, want of efficacy or what-have-you, and yet a Question is tabled about whether there should be a code of practice and sanctions for enforcement. How can we welcome that kind of investigation?

As was put by Mr Peter Riddell in today's Times, and asserted by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, this is not a mere matter of accountability and openness but of fundamental constitutional importance which involves the very independence of this House. I urge your Lordships and the noble and learned Lord in the interests of this Chamber to refrain from dividing the House tonight.

My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, put his finger on it when he quoted Plato in saying that perception was more real than reality. The problem that this country faces at present is that there has grown up a dangerous and pernicious culture of contempt for our national institutions: the monarchy, the Churches, the judiciary, the police and, not least, Parliament. In part this contempt is caused by the unwise behaviour of some members of those institutions. I was for many years a journalist with The Economist, observing Parliament. In part the contempt has been caused by the media who have exaggerated, misrepresented and, in many cases, misinformed the public about matters connected with those institutions. I believe that this culture of contempt is very dangerous. I believe that the events we saw in London on 1st May are a product of that. Once there is a national culture of contempt, there is no respect for democracy; and once there is a lack of respect for democracy the door to anarchy opens.

It is important that we do not add to that culture. Media expectations will be aroused by the setting up of this inquiry. Of course, we take at face value what the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, says: that there is no prima facie reason to suggest we are doing something wrong. But that is not how the matter will be perceived. The committee, by its very existence, will be expected to produce for the tabloids a story of misdoings. That is what people will be looking for. Let us hope at least that the report does not provide it.

I do not think our situation is helped by someone as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, saying that Members in this House are under less constraints than the smallest parish council. In fact, the Companion makes perfectly clear that we are not expected to vote on a matter in which we have a personal pecuniary interest. However, as the noble Lord well knows, when a parish council fixes the rate—there may be disagreement; and each member of the parish council will have an interest in it—the members will vote on what the rate should be. Frankly, it is not helpful for the noble Lord to talk in a manner which, with great respect, is somewhat below the standards of debate we expect in this Chamber.

One matter particularly concerns me about the terms of reference for the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, said that the procedure would be transparent and in public. I was delighted to hear that. However, paragraph 1.33 of the terms of reference states:

"Any respondents who would prefer their submissions to be treated as confidential should state this clearly and their wishes will be respected".

I can see no conceivable reason why that should be so. That is the route to anonymous denunciations, aspersions and other pressures. I hope that the committee's first meeting will decide that it will not keep confidential any representations made to it.

This has been an extremely useful debate. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I do not believe that it is a matter we can resolve by a vote today, but we must hope that the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, will come to conclusions which will diminish rather than increase the culture of contempt in this country.

My Lords, I have always cherished a remark made some years ago by a noble Lord at a late night debate in this House to the effect that everything which needed to be said on the subject had already been said but not everyone had yet said it. I must crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House at this late hour because I believe that there is still something to be said on this issue.

When I first heard that my noble friend Lord Neill was to turn his attention and that of his committee to this House I was somewhat concerned on the simple ground that during 35 years' attendance in this House I had always assumed that standards of behaviour in your Lordships' House were a matter for the House and not for an outside body, as we heard argued powerfully this evening. When my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg told me that he had decided to table a Motion, I decided to listen to the debate before responding to the request of my noble friend Lord Neill for comments on the work of his committee.

I have listened to every single word of this debate so ably initiated by my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg and I have to confess that I still have some serious concerns, am far from convinced about the need for this initiative. In the previous debate, there was a good deal of talk about change for its own sake. Not for the first time, I am reminded of a remark made by Lord Falkland in 1641. Noble Lords will remember that that was the time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has said, Parliament was under siege first by Charles I and then by Oliver Cromwell. Lucius Cary, Lord Falkland, who was a colleague of Cromwell's, made a remark which has echoed down the centuries and it has certainly always echoed in my mind. He said,

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".

I see no necessity whatsoever for change here.

As other noble Lords have said, there has been no public demand for an inquiry of this kind. Indeed, so far as I know, there has been no demand from anyone at all. There have been no allegations about Members of this House as there were in 1994 when certain Members of the other place were accused of corruption. As my noble friend Lord Neill has said, it was he who approached the Leader of the House to seek her views on such an inquiry. My noble friend could not have had much doubt about what her response would be.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord did not seek my views. He wrote to say that this was his intention.

I imagine that if he wrote to the noble Baroness to say something he was expecting her views on it.

My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give way? I made it very clear that I wanted her advice on how, most courteously, we could inform the House to proceed. I did say that the committee had reached a decision.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He sought her advice as the noble Baroness has just said. I cannot imagine that her advice would have been, "No, Lord Neill, leave it alone. The House of Lords is perfectly capable of regulating its own affairs".

In any case, there is no real authority for this comrnittee to investigate the standards of the House of Lords at all. That argument has been made many times tonight and I shall not repeat it in any great detail. It seems to me that if the inquiry was needed at all, the more proper approach would have been for a subcommittee of our own Procedure Committee to have examined the matter first. After all, according to Standing Orders, the business of the Procedure Committee is,

"to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of the House which might arise from time to time and whether Standing Orders require to be altered to effect such alterations".

Although the syntax of that paragraph may be a little shaky, I believe that the sense is very clear. It is for this House to consider these matters and no one else. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, has made very clear, this is not just a matter of territorial imperative, exclusivity or accountability, it is a matter of great constitutional importance.

Although my noble friend Lord Neill has an impressively regal appearance, I do not seek to compare him with Charles I and certainly not with Oliver Cromwell, if only because Oliver Cromwell is known to have a sharp and untunable voice, which the noble Lord certainly does not. However, I believe that we are getting perilously close to surrendering an important principle of the independence of your Lordships' House. It is all very well to argue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, did in his extremely powerful and persuasive speech, that my noble friend's committee can only make recommendations and that your Lordships will have the final say on whether to accept them or not. But that will be a little late in the day.

As other noble Lords have said, by then the recommendations will be public knowledge. They will be in the press and subject to comment by the press. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said, there will be heavy pressure from many quarters, from the Government, the press and elsewhere, for those recommendations to be accepted. If my noble friend Lord Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, really believe that that pressure will be easy to resist, then they live in a different world to the one in which I live.

Two other arguments have been put forward in the course of this debate which need a little close examination. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and others have suggested that it would be wrong for your Lordships' House to regulate its own affairs in this way. The word "internalise", which is an extremely ugly new invention, has been used in this context. It has been suggested that, if this House objects to the proposal of my noble friend Lord. Neill that his committee should investigate our affairs, that in some strange way would be sending a wrong message, whatever that means. It would be showing that we had something to hide.

The logical conclusion to that, if one puts it on a broader footing, is that, if someone came to me, say, as chairman of a company and said, "I am an independent body and I wish to examine the standards which are prevalent in your organisation", and I told him that I did not intend to allow him to do so, that would mean that I had something to hide. It would really only mean, "Mind your own business". The suggestion that—

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He will recollect that I said that it might well be perceived that we had something to hide. I was talking about perception.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating his comment on perceptions and reality. I am saying that here the perception will matter more than the reality. I want to avoid the perception that we have something to hide. We have nothing to hide in this House and I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord nodding in agreement.

The other argument that is totally without substance is that which suggests—and it has been suggested several times tonight—that there is something intrinsically admirable about having an inquiry into standards of conduct in your Lordships' House conducted by what is called an "independent body". My noble friend Lord Neill repeated tonight that his commission is totally independent. That is the principal argument against it. For centuries, it has been accepted that matters concerning either House of Parliament should be dealt with in the House to which they relate, not by any outside body however distinguished or independent. Independence is a total irrelevance to this argument.

It may he old fashioned nowadays to quote the Companion to Standing Orders, but I am sure that your Lordships need no reminding that it is a long-standing custom of the House of Lords that Peers speak always on their personal honour. That implies that they act also on their personal honour. In an ideal world, there should therefore be no need for any other prescribed standard of conduct, register of interests or any other bureaucratic meddling nonsense. But that pass has already been sold. In 1995, the Committee for Privileges agreed to the setting up of a register of interests. But that was after a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, had made certain recommendations which had been debated and accepted in your Lordships' House. No outside body was involved.

As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, that is what should happen now. If my noble friend Lord Neill wants desperately to inquire into our standards of conduct, there is no reason why he should not do so, possibly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, as chairman of a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee, a role which he would fulfil most admirably. The sub-committee could then make its recommendations to the House.

In conclusion, I ask noble Lords to reflect on an analogy from the military sphere. Students of military history may know that today is the anniversary of the day on which the great Confederate general, Stonewall Jackson, was killed. He fell on the battlefield of wounds from friendly fire. I have a feeling that we are in danger of suffering a similar fate and I should much regret it. Having listened carefully to the debate. I am still of the opinion that my noble friend Lord ReesMogg was right to table the Motion. I congratulate him on doing so with such lucidity and skill. Arguments have been put forward that amendments should be withdrawn, that no amendments should be debated and that the House should have no Divisions. I have no view on that except one, which is that, if there are Divisions in the House tonight, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg.

My Lords, in an earlier debate on this very long afternoon we discussed various issues about how the House should conduct itself in future. In the process of that debate, we gave thought to the relative power and relationships of the Crown or the executive on the one hand and Parliament on the other. We return to that issue with this debate.

When my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister, John Major, set up the Nolan committee, he was acting as the chief executive of the Crown. Therefore, the committee is a creature of the Crown and, as it happens, in the pay of the Crown. I do not say that in a derogatory sense. I do not mean that in receipt of that money they are in some way suborned or that their judgment is perverted, but it is a constitutional fact that they arise from the sole motive of the chief executive of the Crown.

When my right honourable friend's successor confirmed the policy of my right honourable friend, he was acting in the same role. When my noble friend Lord Cranborne acceded to that process, he did so as a member of the executive. When my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition agreed to that process, he was acting of his own motive and had no right. None of those people at any stage said anything which preempted noble Lords' privilege to express their view, if necessary by vote, as to how we should conduct our affairs. That is so because the freedom of this country from before the Civil War has depended on the independence of Parliament.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, whom I greatly respect, sought to reassure your Lordships in his speech that it was unnecessary to address the sovereign independence of Parliament and, in particular, of this House because precedents already existed to say that that was so. However, I forget who it was who rightly said that the British constitution broadens from precedent to precedent. Of course, this debate and the decision that we take tonight will he a precedent. It is in that light that I look at it. It seems to me that that is immensely more important than the question of whether or not we should now subject our fiduciary conduct to consideration. As it happens, I believe that we should. I disagree with noble Lords who have said that the time is not right.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider withdrawing the word "subject". The committee has no authority over this House. It will take no decisions. It will comment. In the light of that, is his argument a little like that which used to be advanced against any discussion of parliamentary affairs outside this House? I believe that we abandoned that when we allowed the publication of parliamentary debates.

My Lords, we subject ourselves to scrutiny in the same way as an actor subjects himself to the spotlight. "Subject" is definitely the word. That calls to mind the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Neil]. Again, there is nothing whatever personal in anything that I say about him or about any member of the committee, all of whom I hold in high regard. What is at issue is not their personality but their position.

When it was suggested that an amendment would be appropriate—that is, to say that his committee was "invited" instead of "welcome"—I recall that he rather vigorously rejected that as being a change to the status quo, not welcome and, indeed, not agreeable to the situation as he saw it.

Therefore, the central issue concerns not your Lordships' probity, which may be above reproach, but the fact that it should, from time to time, be subject to scrutiny. The question is whence that scrutiny comes. I do sympathise with the noble Baroness. My back has been giving me torture too. My cushion is at her service since I have had a little time on my feet. I have completely lost the thread that I was following. The question of probity needs investigation but the question is: who should do it? We are dealing with constitutional precedent and any decision we take this evening is a precedent for future decisions.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, invites us to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Neill; but it is not just him. What he is welcoming in the guise of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his eminent committee is an agent of the chief executive of the Crown disposing of the prerogative of the Crown. That is something about which wars have been fought. It is fundamental to the structure of Parliament. It is not irrelevant; it is not intellectual; it is not abstract; it is the substance of politics. The noble and learned Lord said how he thought it was appropriate to have a completely nonpolitical debate. In that case, the Civil War was not political and there is no Whip on the government Members this evening. I am reassured to hear that there is not. That is at least one step in the right direction.

My Lords, does the noble Lord think that this House would have been asked to approve the activities of the Royal Commission on the future of the House of Lords, whose impact on this House seems to me potentially to be far greater than that of the Neill committee?

My Lords, there is a long-established position relating to the role of Royal Commissions and I do not believe that there is any analogy whatever.

The tragic point is that this debate would be unnecessary, and could still be unnecessary, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a most luminous and luminary speech, has made clear, were the Government, even at this stage, to say that if the Motion and the amendment were both withdrawn, they would give government time for the passage of a Motion which many of my colleagues and I would undertake to support—and I expect that my Front Bench might do the same—inviting the noble Lord to come to the House.

But it is one thing to have somebody subjecting you to scrutiny at your invitation and it is quite another to be beaming and opening the door to an emissary sent from a power outside. I repeat to your Lordships that we are discussing the balance between the Crown and Parliament. If we must have a Division or Divisions, I am in the camp of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. But I very much hope that by that simple manoeuvre, all that can be made unnecessary.

My Lords, I welcome the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Rees-Mogg, although I cannot support it. I welcome it because I hope that it has cleared the air and removed some misunderstandings because with hindsight—I emphasise "with hindsight"—think there might have been a better way of introducing the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to the House; in other words, enabling the House to take account, a t an earlier stage, of the fact that he had embarked on h is inquiry.

When I first heard about the inquiry and received formal notice from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on 8th March, it did not come as a surprise. It was—I use the expression used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—not a "thunderbolt". It did not occur to me that any noble Lord would take exception to it. In that, I was clearly wrong. I looked at it as a Member of your Lordships' House who had served as a member of the Griffiths committee. Indeed, I spoke from these Benches when its report was discussed and approved on 1st November 1995. It seemed to me that as almost five years had since elapsed, there was an adequate case for another look at those matters. I noted that the House had been significantly reformed. One consequence of the changes is that now there are nearly 200 new Members who were not in the House at the time of the Griffiths committee report. All those reasons seem to be good ones for not being surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, should embark on his inquiry.

In addition, it seemed to me that public opinion was even more concerned about standards in public life than it had been five years ago. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, we cannot ignore public perceptions about how we conduct our business if we are expected to recognise and to exercise the privileges, rights, and obligations of one of the two Houses of Parliament.

That is why I took it for granted that the inquiry of the Neill committee would cause no great surprise. However, I always took the view that the Griffiths committee, on which I served with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, among others, was too limited in its scope and experience and even rather unprofessional. I do not believe that the House should pass responsibility to the great and the good, but, in my view, the new committee is better equipped to do the job. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, said that it had the expertise needed for an inquiry. I am sure that she is right.

I concluded that it was perfectly reasonable that the Neill committee should conduct the inquiry. It did not seem to me that it was a cause for controversy. In that respect, I certainly misjudged the mood of some Members of the House. It seemed to me that the five reasons that led me to be "unsurprised"—if I may put it that way—by the arrival of the Neill committee are points that stand now. They are all relevant to the decisions we are called on to make.

Five years have elapsed since the Griffiths committee. The House has been significantly reformed. There are nearly 200 new Members. Public opinion and perceptions of this place are important, and the Griffiths committee or a successor committee of this House would not be fully equipped for the job. It seems to me that all those are very good reasons for why we should welcome the Neill committee and speed it on its way in the task that it has to do. However, with hindsight, it may have been better to approach the matter in a different way. It may have been better to report to the House the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to undertake the inquiry and to ask formally for its co-operation. It may have been better for the Procedure Committee to have considered the request and to have been the agent by which the House made its decision. But that is in the past. That is the way in which we may view it with hindsight.

If mistakes were made, today we are picking up the pieces. For that reason, I welcome this debate, but that is not sufficient reason for failing to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I cannot support the Motion. I hope that on all sides of the House this will be a free vote. Certainly on these Benches it will be a free vote, although I recommend my noble friends to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, if it comes to a vote.

All sides have said that the House itself will finally decide. There is no dispute about that. In relation to self-regulation, again the House will regulate itself. It will either support the report of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, or amend it, or reject it. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Neill, may recommend, I believe that the House has the will and the strength to decide what is right for it in future. I have no anxiety on that account at all. I have more faith in your Lordships' House than some Members of the House appear to have.

The Neill committee will recommend. It cannot lay down rules. It will not infringe the constitutional sovereignty of the House. None of these matters is at stake. That is why we can and should support the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill.

My Lords, perhaps I may put a point to the noble Lord before he sits down. If he agrees that it was a mistake not to issue an invitation, why will he not support me in my request to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal to set the mistake right by offering that invitation on behalf of the House as a result of a Motion of the House on the withdrawal of these two Motions?

My Lords, I do not think that that is a serious and adult way of approaching this matter. Common sense should prevail. We have had a four-hour debate during which we have all had an opportunity to express our views. All noble Lords who wished to take part could have done so. Why should we cover the ground again if a decision can be reached today? I think that we should come to a decision. It would be simply playing games to postpone the matter on procedural grounds.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. How much better things could have been handled on this study than they have been. We should not be debating this important issue on a Back Bench/Cross Bench Motion late in the evening or even, dare I say, in the comment and letters pages of The Times. Nevertheless, I think that we should express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, for giving us this opportunity. I am grateful to him for having aired the issue.

He is right about the constitutional substance of the issue that he has raised. However, how much better it would have been to have debated this in prime time on a Motion introduced by the Leader of the House. How much better it would have been to have had an oral Statement when it was first announced. Furthermore, looking at the rather full Benches opposite, I dare say that many Members agree with me. Noble Lords will appreciate the irony of having listened to the debate earlier today about family friendly hours. Yet here they all are, unbidden by the Chief Whip. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, should become the Chief Whip because they have all come to their places voluntarily.

I should like to make three points very clearly. First, I intend to co-operate with this study if it goes ahead.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, heaven knows, the people who scripted the issues and questions paper have a great deal to learn about Parliament and the House of Lords. We shall be doing them and, more importantly, the House, a disservice if we do not give evidence. I did write to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to say that arguably this House lay outside the terms of reference of his committee, but I also told him that none the less I would give evidence on behalf of the Conservative Party. I shall do that not least because my spokesmen on the Front Bench are specifically targeted by sections 3.29 and 3.33 of the issues paper.

However, in my view this question is not a matter for the parties but for the House. Taken together, the issues we discussed in our debate earlier today—the 1999 Act and tighter controls on political parties—may well radically change the nature of our House. That is not something that should happen by accident or as a side effect; it should be addressed directly and openly. So I hope that as many Peers as wish to do so will make their views known.

My second point is one that I touched on earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is right to say that no one appointed by the Prime Minister and acting on the Royal Prerogative has the authority to bind or constrain this House of Parliament. It would have been far preferable if, after consultation, we had followed the same course as we did in 1994–95 and set up a committee of this House to look into the workings of the register. Then there would have been no question about the constitutional position. I must bear some responsibility for not suggesting it when I first received the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill.

However—this is my third point—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that we are where we are: in a fine old, wholly avoidable mess. We shall have to make the best of it. We must emerge with the answer that best suits the House, certainly not the Government or even the Opposition.

It may be, of course, that the Griffiths system—the current system—is not working. If so, let us change it. It may be that there is a raging crisis of public confidence in standards of conduct in this House. But where is the evidence that Griffiths is not working? Does the Committee on Standards in Public Life have evidence that it is not? If so, what is it? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that there is none. Yet anyone reading the paper could only conclude that there is something rotten in this House.

We do Parliament no good if we judge it guilty and require it to prove its innocence. That is not a test that would be applied in any court in the land. Should not your Lordships know the charges and who made them so that we have a fair chance to defend ourselves? Even the humblest accused has the right to know that.

Another point of fundamental importance arises. I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Goodhart, recognised it. I am glad also that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agreed with me last Thursday that, as she put it,

"membership of the House of Lords is very different from that of the other place".—[Official Report, 4/5/00; col;. 1125.]

But the issues paper says,

"irrespective of the outcome of the debate on our approach, we believe that developments in the House of Commons are relevant. We have therefore adopted a common format in respect of the issues raised".

I do not agree with that. There can be absolutely no assumption that rules can simply be extrapolated from another place to your Lordships' House. There are clear differences between the other place and this House in their roles, functions and composition; in the non-representative role of the Lords; in the fact that Peers are unpaid, part-time and sit for life; in that we have very little power over finance; in that no Peer may hold the highest office in the land, nor that of Chancellor of the Exchequer and, in practice, many others in the Cabinet; in that this House cannot bring down a government; and in our self-regulating procedures which are much admired. Indeed, the Griffiths committee was part of the self-regulation of the House. Those differences are of substance and are much valued. They cannot be ignored and I hope that they will be recognised by those conducting the study.

I should like to make one final point. Regrettably, we should be aware that there are those who are seeking, quite wrongly, to exploit this inquiry for political ends. Like my noble friends, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Ferrers, I was surprised, in cornmon no doubt with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, to find that my Front Bench spokesmen, without any prior warning, were being singled out for investigation on the question of whether they should be forced to divest their financial interests. Who imagines that there would be a stream of people prepared to take on the onerous, unpaid duty of being a Liberal Democrat or Conservative spokesman, or indeed a Labour spokesman in opposition, if they were also forced to divest their interests?

I read, as I am sure other noble Lords did too, in the words of the issues paper, of,

"an issue which has recently been drawn to the attention'",

of the committee. I inquired of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, who had raised the matter. I was told just one person: a Mr Fraser Kemp MP. I do not have the privilege of knowing who Mr Kemp is, so I looked him up in Dod's. This is what I found.

He was a full-time Labour Party organiser in Leicester from 1981 to 1984; he was the Assistant Labour Regional Organiser for the East Midlands. 1984 to 1986; he was a Labour Party regional secretary for the West Midlands from 1986 to 1994—and this is where it really gets better—he was Labour's National General Election Co-ordinator in 1994 to 1996 before becoming Secretary for Labour's National General Election Planning Group in 1994 to [996. Is that a dispassionate authority on opposition spokesmen? In whose party interests is it to have Liberal Democrats and Conservatives targeted in that way in the run-up to a general election? And why did the committee allow itself to be hijacked in such a way?

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a few minutes ago defended the political neutrality of the committee. How can he possibly have allowed this matter to go through? If it is to do with Archie Norman, why is it buried in an investigation of the House of Lords? Whatever else happens, I hope that this House will manage to keep separate in the months ahead the issues of how it runs itself and the private, political agenda of the Labour or any other party.

I repeat, this should not be a party political matter. It is a House matter. For that reason, I hope that there will not be a vote at the end of this debate. I hope that both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord will withdraw their Motions. If a Division is sought, I shall not vote. I entirely agreed with the very persuasive speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Why? I did so because we have seen the grubby words of Mr Kemp about your Lordships having their "snouts in the trough".

We can see that there is a political agenda afoot and we should not play that game. It would be sad for a vote on a high and important constitutional principle, which most Members of this House have affirmed to be right tonight, to be twisted by Mr Kemp and his friends among Labour's professional election coordinators for tawdry political ends; namely, that,

"they have something to hide".

To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I say that it will not be the perception: that is what they will say. We have nothing to hide.

Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by putting a few questions to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who is to reply to the debate shortly. We need a clear view of where we go from here. We need to hear from the noble Baroness now how this study will be handled. What will happen when the noble Lord, Lord Neill, reports? Will his report be presented to this House, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, suggested in his opening speech, will it be presented to the Prime Minister? If it is to be presented to the Prime Minister, will there be a Cabinet discussion on it before it comes to this House? Will Mr Alistair Campbell be made aware of its contents before your Lordships? Will it be presented to the House with a statement of government policy, or will it be put to the Procedure Committee? I give way.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree with me that these are really questions for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and not for my noble friend the Leader of the House?

No!

Forgive me, my Lords, if I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that I believe this must be a House matter. The noble Baroness is the Leader of the House and, therefore, she must have a view. I hope that she will tell us what that view is when she responds in a few minutes—

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I shall tell him now. I repeat exactly what I said in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, when he put this to me during oral Questions last week. Of course it will be a matter for the House to decide what it wishes to do with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and how it wishes to handle it.

My Lords, I am glad to hear that. However, when the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will also tell me whether the report will be presented to the House or to the Prime Minister. If it is to be presented to the House, can she tell us in what form it will be presented? Will it go to a committee of this House? Will it be given to the Chairman of Committees? Will it be given to the noble Baroness; will it be debated by the whole House? Will it go to the Procedure Committee or perhaps the Privileges Committee for consideration before it is submitted to the House?

I shall conclude my speech in about 30 seconds, but it strikes me that the noble Baroness must have put some thought into the matter. She has, perhaps, taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments. However, if she has not, perhaps she will do so and write to me, as well as putting a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. The noble Baroness should let us know what she thinks. I hope that she will not let tonight's debate pass without explaining in the clearest terms how she intends to handle these matters.

As our Leader, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will uphold the authority and involve the opinions of this, I believe, still honourable House.

My Lords, this has been a very instructive debate in every way. It has sometimes been erudite. I personally should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, for his uniquely authoritative overview. I hope that he and his other distinguished colleagues in public service, both those who serve with him and those like my noble friend Lady Warwick who have served with him before, have not been dismayed by the suggestions that were again made in the last concluding speech by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that they are politically influenced; that they are politically swayed; and, indeed, that they have not been dismayed by being described disparagingly as "the great and the good". That is rather a strange and singular criticism to come from your Lordships' House! We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, a repetition of the old American political cliche' that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I feel very much in that position tonight. However, it is appropriate to mention the two key issues that have been discussed, my view on them and the view on which I have consulted with my Front Bench. The two legitimate issues that have been discussed tonight are: does the Committee on Standards in Public Life have the authority to hold an inquiry into the conduct of Members of this House? And, if so, should this House now seek to prevent such an inquiry taking place, or should it wait for the results, and then, if appropriate, act properly to regulate itself?

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked a stream of questions about business management. As I said in earlier replies to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, these issues are a matter for the usual channels, as every bit of organisation in your Lordships' House always is.

I turn to the first question: does the committee have the authority to hold an inquiry? We have heard a number of conflicting views tonight. I have been convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen—as I was by his written explanation— with regard to the background of the committee of inquiry. I was grateful for the further explanation of that matter given by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.

There is little I can add but I think that it is relevant to quote briefly from a Hansard extract of the previous discussions. As has been said many times this evening, until the Griffiths sub-committee of this House was set up, it was widely assumed that the first inquiry of the Nolan committee, as it then was, would include your Lordships' House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, explained, consideration of the issues involving this House was postponed. I emphasise that it was postponed, not cancelled.

I was not sure from the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—who gave a somewhat revisionist view of his role at that time—when the dates of his revisionism began or ended. However, I remind him of what he said during the debate on the report of the Griffiths sub-committee. I emphasise that this occurred after the internal committee of your Lordships' House had done its work. The noble Viscount said:

"Of course, in due time it may be that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will wish to consider the arrangements which prevail in your Lordships' House, and it will be … quite within its remit for it to do so".

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I have never for a moment denied that it was within its remit to do so. I said that when repeating the Statement on the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in October 1994 and I repeated that in the words that the noble Baroness has already quoted. However, that does not mean to say that because it was within its remit I thought it was desirable that this House should go along with it.

My Lords, my non-legal brain is probably not sufficiently acute to follow that line of argument. However, as I understood the noble Viscount's contribution this evening he said that he had revised his view and his view was that the internal organisation committee—as expressed originally by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and perhaps replaced by a similar committee—at this present moment was the most satisfactory way to proceed.

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House longer than is absolutely necessary. However, it seems to me that it is perfectly compatible to say that within the remit as given by my right honourable friend Mr John Major to the original committee came responsibility for your Lordships' House. But because that was given under the royal prerogative it did not necessarily mean to say—I have emphasised this during the course of the debate—that it was necessarily right that your Lordships should accept that. It was for that reason that it seemed to me sensible to propose to your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, should pre-empt the matter in hand, which is indeed what happened.

My Lords. I merely draw the attention of the House to the remarks I have quoted, which were made after the Griffiths report. The noble Viscount is right. There is no point in detaining the House with the history.

In my view, to say that the committee has the authority to hold an inquiry does nothing to undermine the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as several speakers have emphasised. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, has told your Lordships' House, it is an advisory committee. It does not attempt to take power away from Parliament; it has no power to compel witnesses or to force compliance with its recommendations. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it will "comment" on procedures in its recommendations to this House.

Again, as has been said several times, the committee will produce a report at the end of its inquiry. Judging by past practice, that may well contain a number of conclusions and recommendations. The recommendations directed to your Lordships will be entirely for your Lordships' House to consider, and to accept or reject as your Lordships see fit. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that process of rejecting or accepting will be for the usual channels in the normal way.

Let me emphasise once again that the committee's inquiry will have no effect on the right of this House to regulate its own affairs. That is a separate matter, I agree, but it is a fundamental one. It is one that is not at issue here. It would be quite wrong to try to portray the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his colleagues as enemies of the independence of this House. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in reflecting with some concern on the disparaging remarks made about the credibility and integrity of the noble Lord's professional colleagues and Civil Service advisers.

So having established, at least to my satisfaction—and, indeed, on the learned advice that I was enjoined to take—that the committee has the authority to examine standards of conduct in your Lordships' House, the second question, the one which has taken some time today, is whether the committee merits our co-operation or our disdain. I believe—and it is the view of the Government Front Bench and the view of those colleagues on these Benches I have consulted—that we have nothing to fear from this inquiry. To cooperate with the inquiry does not imply that anyone believes that there are any specific concerns or allegations of misconduct to be investigated, indeed, quite the reverse. Not to fear this inquiry signals our confidence that high standards of conduct are observed by noble Lords.

On the other hand—this, too, has been pointed out before; I simply re-emphasise it—the converse is true. If we seek to prevent the committee's inquiry, or to replace its scrutiny with an in-house committee, we will be thought to be trying to hide from the spotlight of open scrutiny. We would be judged—this may, as we have discussed, be a question of perception rather than reality; but, as we have also discussed, perception is formidable—to be extraordinarily arrogant in suggesting that what is right for MPs, civil servants and local councillors is somehow beneath this House and that we can only order our affairs by internal review. Distinguished though the Members of this House are, I do not believe that we would wish to suggest that only noble Lords themselves can have good ideas about ways of improving this aspect of the functioning of this House of Parliament.

Let us not forget that that is what this place is—a working House of Parliament, a matter we have spent the whole day discussing. As we identified in our earlier discussions, it is not a private club. We are parliamentarians; we have influence over matters of national and international importance. It is right that we should be open about those matters which might affect or, it is true, be thought to affect the way in which we conduct ourselves. "Transparency" was how my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell rightly described it.

That is why Ministers in this House and in this Government already declare their interests far beyond the current requirements of this House. That is why the evidence of the Labour Peers Group to the Griffiths inquiry called for compulsory registration. That is why I welcomed the inquiry when the noble Lord, Lord Neill, informed me of his committee's intention. I was glad to be joined in this welcome by the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. But I repeat that while all the party leaders welcome the inquiry, we all acknowledge that it in no sense undermines the responsibility of the House to conduct its own affairs. The amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to the original Motion puts that position succinctly and accurately and I entirely support it.

My Lords, I should like first of all to thank all Members of the House who have taken part in this debate. It is quite right that it is somewhat unusual that this debate should have taken place on a Cross-Bench, Back-Bench Motion. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had a point there. Of course, we are all Back-Benchers on the Cross Benches, just as we are all equal in this House. Perhaps it was no bad thing, even though the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought it odd that this Motion, on what is really a very important matter to this House, should have been raised by someone as humble as myself.

I should like to thank one or two noble Lords who have spoken, because it would be discourteous not to. First, and particularly, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. I thought that the way in which he moved the amendment, which was done with clarity and courtesy, was an example to all of us. I am most grateful for that. I am also grateful for his reference to the case of Lord Shaftesbury in 1677. I share with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the fact that members of our family came to a fatal end as a result of associating with Lord Shaftesbury. Nevertheless, he was the founder of the party which became the Liberal Democrat Party, so I am glad to have his case brought in on our side.

I should like to thank also the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I found that I agreed with him, so naturally I should wish to thank him. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, who spoke in flattering terms about myself at a quite inordinate length. I was most grateful for that. He made one point which I believe to be absolutely true: a self-confident institution believes in reforming itself, and an institution which has lost its self-confidence believes in going outside to get itself reformed. I think that this is one of the key arguments in favour of my side of the debate.

I have had my greatest difficulty with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I hope the whole House will remember that I am an innocent Cross-Bencher, not accustomed to these great political matters and who does not approach matters, certainly this evening, from a political point of view. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave the advice that, having considered various defects, as he saw them, of my version on the one hand, and of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Archer, on the other, the right procedure would be for both of us to withdraw our provisions. That advice has been given by some other Members of this House. But there is an almost mathematical difficulty here: I cannot understand the procedure. We always have difficulty in this House when there is a Motion with an amendment. The debate, as we all know, is supposed to take place on the amendment. The debate, as we all know, usually takes place on the Motion rather than the amendment, as, largely speaking, it did this evening. So most of us were out of order much of the time.

However, the amendment has the Floor. If at this stage I asked the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion, that would necessarily kill the amendment.

My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. He is correct that the Question before the House is the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. If the noble Lord had wanted a general debate on this issue, he should have put down a Motion to draw attention. He has put down a Motion to resolve, which means a vote. Therefore, he was seeking the opinion of the House. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer, with his amendment, is seeking the opinion of the House on his amendment, which the House is entitled to take. If my noble and learned friend loses on his amendment, the noble Lord can then decide what to do with his Motion. The noble Lord put down a Motion to resolve—that is the important point—and not a Motion to draw attention.

My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. It appears, therefore, that I cannot ask at this stage for the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion, even though I might agree with the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.

I have some difficulties here. I am speaking quite openly to the House and consulting. I am not advising or trying to persuade noble Lords of anything. There is a very even balance between the two arguments. I do not wholly object to the amendment. It has two advantages from my point of view—the point of view of a strict constitutionalist. The first advantage is that it reaffirms—even though, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out, the word "ultimately" is somewhat ambiguous—the traditional doctrine about the duty of this House. It has another advantage. Although the Leader of the House would not agree to invite the Neill committee into the House—she seems to have a view that that would be wrong because she thinks that it can come in anyway—the amendment does at least welcome it. It therefore gives some colour of decency to the Neill committee coming into the House. It does not come in as an outsider or burglar; it comes in as a welcome guest. Therefore, I do not find the amendment wholly without merit. I do not see it as destructive of the constitutional position that I would adopt.

My position is that, if the House would like me to withdraw my Motion subsequent to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, may choose to say, I should be only too happy to do that. If the House would rather pass the Motion as amended—there is no doubt where the votes are—I should be perfectly content with that. I am in the hands of the House.

My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, it is a pleasure doing business with him.

It is conventional at this point in a debate to say that it has been a good debate. This has been a good debate. It has been an informative and instructive debate, as my noble friend said, and the two cases have been very effectively deployed. The two issues have been addressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House and I doubt whether anything which she said would benefit from repetition by me. In an earlier debate today a great deal of reference was made to the late hours which we sit. I do not think that I would improve my position in the popularity stakes if I were to contribute to that now. Perhaps I may make just one comment.

Just one!

My Lords, as my noble friend said "just one", and he can count if he wishes. Only the very boldest spirits in the debate—two or three of the boldest spirits—have suggested that we do not need a review of how the register is working. The issue is whether that review would be better carried out by the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, or by a committee of this House. Some noble Lords have used the word "interference" of the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. I do not think that that was a happy word. There are better words—words like "assistance" and "information". The advantage of the Neill committee is precisely that it is not a committee of your Lordships' House. By welcoming that, we can demonstrate that we are not investigating ourselves. We have a right to reject that course of action. But this is an opportunity to demonstrate that we are not proposing to incarcerate ourselves in our ivory tower.

The question therefore arises: what course ought I now to take? It is always with the greatest regret that I resist the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, particularly as he is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Elton. But I am bound to say that I found the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, more persuasive.

There are real differences between us. I believe that it is in the interests of everyone that they should, be resolved. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, said in his opening remarks that it was a pity that the House lead not had an opportunity to express a view on the subject. The debate has been on a Motion that has been on the Order Paper for a substantial time. All the issues have been well ventilated and this appears to be an opportunity to resolve them. I seek to test the opinion of the House.