---

House of Lords Bill [HL]

I am grateful for that, as it comes as close to being a yes as the Minister can give without saying so. Unless he wants to contradict me, I take it that this Bill is not a stage 2 in the eyes of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who withdrew his amendment, was absolutely right: he did not like my amendment, because my new clause would pre-empt the White Paper. However, this Bill pre-empts the White Paper—that is what is so utterly wrong. I would not have an amendment if we did not have the Bill. I therefore understand his amendment and rather support it. The nub of our debate is the point of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He did not like Amendment No. 1, because the composition of the House was being challenged, which broke the spirit of the Cranborne deal. A lot has been said about the Cranborne deal. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, supported by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, said that the election for hereditary Peers was not part of the original deal. In the very short time since he said that, I have tried to do some research. I happen to have with me a Library Note on the Weatherill amendment. It quotes Viscount Cranborne—now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—who said that, "““if events prevented stage two from coming about, at least the noble Lord’s amendment would have made stage one a marginally better change than the Government’s original proposal. In that context, I have to say that the outside chance—I hope that it is only a very outside chance—that stage one may last rather longer than the noble and learned Lord and I would like means that by-elections after the next general election would be an extremely helpful reassurance for those of us who would like the Government to get on with stage two””.—[Official Report, 30/3/99; cols. 221-22.]" It was therefore clear that he saw the by-elections as binding. In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that, "““if, as we fear, the effect of the amendment is simply to give further entrenchment to the Conservative peerage, then we see little reason to be sympathetic to it””.—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 417.]" That underlines one of the main planks of the noble Lord’s Bill: he does not like the elections, whether or not they are binding, which I believe they clearly are. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is absolutely right. However, my amendment would not challenge the composition of the House; it is the Bill that challenges the binding agreement, reaffirmed by the Minister today, that there would be no alteration to elections of hereditaries until stage 2 came about.