Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, some 35 years ago my father was in the final stages of dying from pancreatic cancer. He knew that he was dying, his family knew, his doctor knew and the nurses in his cottage hospital knew. After passing a night in agony, he said to me that he did not want to pass another such night, and he asked me to arrange it—which of course I could not. I did what I could, by reporting what he had said to his doctor. My father did wake the following morning, but he died a few days later on a day his doctor had predicted. I am in no doubt that his doctor helped him to die. Our family was very grateful to the doctor, and my father would have been profoundly grateful too. But the doctor may have taken a risk. He may have taken that risk because my father was in a local cottage hospital, where the doctor and the nurses knew and trusted each other.

My wife and I have made living wills. They are a form of assisted dying. They give directions about our medical treatment in a range of circumstances and indemnify those in charge of that treatment from any civil liability arising from their actions or omissions—but of course they cannot protect them from criminal liability under the existing law.

I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend. I understand, I think, and sympathise with the motives of those who oppose it, but it is time to have a properly regulated system that prevents suffering and makes it unnecessary for desperate people to resort to Dignitas or to take their own lives in even more distressing ways. I will support the Bill.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention because it allows me to clarify that I think that such doctors should, in addition, be on the general practice or specialist register for the reasons I have just outlined. Indeed, I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for having picked up a point that came in later amendments that I have tabled in relation to the doctors involved.

I shall proceed to speak to the other amendments, however. Clause 2 of the noble and learned Lord’s Bill caters for people who have been told that they have a terminal illness and are expected to die from it in the near future—within six months. Such situations exist; most of us will know of people who have been in this position. However, terminal illness is, I am afraid, a much more complex matter than that. There is a tendency to think that people who are terminally ill are somehow a group distinct from others who are not, but the reality is very different.

Yes, there are people who were apparently healthy but have discovered that they have a malignancy or other condition that seems likely to bring about their death in the not-too-distant future. However, many more people have conditions—for example, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease or heart disease—that are incurable and life-shortening and which, at some point in the future, can be expected to result in their death. All these conditions would fall easily within the definition of terminal illness, as described in the Bill, which is,

“an inevitably progressive condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

But that is not enough. Some conditions are progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment, but the underlying cause may be curable—hence the insertion of “direct”, so the provision would state that as a “direct consequence” of the disease the person is expected to die.

However, there is another aspect to treatment that matters. Some conditions can now be so significantly halted in their progress that the person’s life expectancy lengthens and their quality of life improves dramatically. These are people who at one time appeared to be terminally ill, or even actively dying, but have responded so well to treatment that they no longer fit the definition. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, when he responds, will clarify just how six months will be determined.

The noble and learned Lord will no doubt point out to us that the Bill contains another parameter of terminal illness—namely, that the person seeking assistance with suicide not only has a progressive condition but is reasonably expected to die within six months. It is true that not everyone with a progressive and incurable condition is expected to die in six months, but it is necessary to recognise that the Bill as it stands would bring within its ambit not only people who have been told that they are terminally ill but everyone with moderate-to-severe progressive and chronic illness. After all, how often have noble Lords said, “I would not be surprised if so and so died within the next six months”? Indeed, I regret to say that that has been said within this Chamber about noble Lords at times—and yet, fortunately, they have reappeared on these Benches a long time after those six months. Perhaps they might be described affectionately as a “creaking gate”. It is important to recognise that fact because it has a bearing on the question of prognosis.

Let me illustrate the point with a specific example. A colleague of mine in his late 60s had very brittle type 1 diabetes, episodes of heart failure—the prognosis for which is usually worse than for cancer—and other co-morbidities. All his colleagues thought that he would be dead soon. Over several years, I and others have reasonably expected him to die within a few months. Over 10 years or more, at any point in time, I or another doctor would have stated that he could reasonably be expected to die, but he has not. I have had many patients who I really thought were dying. I have sat the family down and told the patient that I really thought that their life expectancy was in months. However, by our going back and rigorously looking at things again with meticulous attention to detail, they have vastly outlived the prognosis, not only by months, but fortunately often by years, with a good quality of life.

I ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify whether the Bill is designed to include cases where the prognosis might be much longer. In his Second Reading speech, he suggested that the Bill purports not to do that. That is why I have proposed the insertion of the word “direct”: the patient must be expected to die not because he is very old or has multiple co-morbidities but directly from that terminal illness.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Is it not right to remind the House that, if there is a misdiagnosis of that sort and survival continues, people are not obliged to take the final drug? It is just available to them. They can survive.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. If they have been misinformed—it is not the diagnosis of the disease that is wrong but the prognosis—and they then take the lethal drugs, they are not there to outlive the wrong prognosis.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I speak with diffidence as, I think, the ninth lawyer to speak in this debate—albeit from the junior branch of the profession—to add my support to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who is not in his place tonight, would have supported this amendment, were he here. He has made that very clear. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith is right to say that the legislation under which the present situation obtains was imperfect. It is now an opportunity for the House and, I hope, the other place, to correct what was a mistake—forgivable, but nevertheless a mistake. The independence of the judiciary, particularly that of the Supreme Court, must be at the heart of our judicial system. It is timely that we are discussing this amendment tonight, because in the House of Commons today the Justice and Security Bill is being debated. The role of the judiciary in relation to certain proceedings, which we have debated at length in your Lordships’ House, is very much part of those discussions. In addition, there are proposals in the air around judicial review and, again, the role of the judiciary in a particularly important and sensitive area of law.

Perception counts for a good deal in these matters. I entirely endorse the views of all but one of the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, that it is important to reinforce the independence of the judiciary. That independence has not in substance been threatened over the past few years, but there is always a risk that at some point it might be, and that in any event it might be perceived to be an issue on the part of the public. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord will seek to test the opinion of the House if the Minister cannot provide a clear, unequivocal response to the suggestion here. Frankly, I cannot think why it should take any time at all for there to be discussions about the issue, which seems to me perfectly straightforward. If the noble and learned Lord seeks to test the opinion of the House, again, I will invite my colleagues to support him through the Lobbies.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the debate when so many distinguished members of the judiciary have spoken. The fact that I do so is the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Many years ago, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, was about to deliver the lecture to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, encouraged me to speak to the noble and learned Lord and argue the case for the interest of the Treasury in the administration of justice. I had a very interesting debate with the noble and learned Lord, although I made absolutely no impact on him at all.

However, I want to put in a contrary voice because the administration of the courts, including the Supreme Court, is a matter of administration. It takes place at the taxpayer’s expense. It is therefore necessary that the Government have an interest in and a responsibility for it; on these administrative matters and the use of resources it is legitimate for the Government to have a proper interest. I argue that that does not impinge on the independence of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary, which refers to its operation as judges, and here we are talking about an administrative matter. In that case, the arrangement that exists at the moment, which was legislated for and brought into effect by the Constitutional Reform Act, is probably right. However, I realise that, in the light of the views of the members of the judiciary, this is not a popular view.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The noble Lord’s memory is correct. Does he remember that consideration of arguments of the kind he has just given led some of us to say we shall follow Australia and ring-fence the budget of the Supreme Court? That is, we should either ring-fence as they do in Australia, or ensure that the money comes from Parliament and not the Government. Does he remember that those were arguments at the time, counter to his suggestion?

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

Yes, I remember those arguments well. The issue is to what extent the Government—the Executive—should have an interest in this matter. I think that the arrangements that were introduced protect the independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, and I would not want to change them.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I often think how well served we are by the depth and richness of the judicial talent that serves here in the House of Lords. I often think it, but perhaps not tonight.

This has been an interesting debate, full of mea culpas. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, cannot quite remember how he let this through the committee on which he was serving; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, must have nodded when it went through; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that the previous Government did not get it perfectly right. The fact is that this is an Act of Parliament carried by the previous Administration. I was very pleased to find out the intentions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at the last minute, although they did not really surprise me, but it seems strange that we should be discussing this.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. One of the things of which I am most proud in my parliamentary life is the steadfastness with which the Liberal Democrats delivered the votes in this House to carry through the reform that delivered us the Supreme Court. I have been a strong believer in the Supreme Court from that time—I think a little ahead of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, in devotion to the separation of powers—and that should stand in the record about my attitude to this amendment.

Of course it is possible for your Lordships to send strong messages to the other place. Let us remember that very shortly another place will be debating this Bill. However, I urge noble Lords to ponder whether it is the best way to send such a message. The Lord Chancellor can read, and I will make sure that part of his Christmas reading is the Hansard of this debate, but negotiations are going on. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked whether the discussions have run into the ground. No, there has been discussion at official level in the two weeks since this issue was raised, and the letter that was quoted was from the Lord Chancellor to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, pointing out that the Government are still considering this matter.

Let me clarify for the record that the Government do not have any concerns about the accountability of the UK Supreme Court. While there is no doubt that the Executive has a legitimate interest in the effective and efficient administration of all courts—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made very eloquently—the Government fully respect the independence of the judiciary and our duty to uphold that independence.

The amendment tabled reflects concerns about the present arrangements concerning the appointment of the chief executive, the staffing arrangements for the court and the ramifications of those arrangements for the independence of the court. This is a matter of great constitutional importance—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I emphasise that it is a matter of great constitutional importance, so when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with the impetuosity of a young solicitor says, “Why can’t this be handled?”, it is because it is a matter of great constitutional importance. It has been raised by a former president of the Supreme Court. It has been raised today by former high office holders—Attorneys-General, Lord Chief Justices and other Supreme Court justices. Nobody is underestimating its importance. However, I most humbly say—I am beginning to learn how lawyers manage to insult each other with the most exquisite politeness—that on a matter of this constitutional importance, where the Lord Chancellor of the day is saying that he is in negotiations and discussions with the president of the Supreme Court, it is not particularly helpful for this House to pass an amendment on the hoof in this way.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, when I read the Government’s White Paper, I was struck by how extraordinarily unbalanced it was. Ninety per cent of the White Paper dealt with the method of election to an elected House, the difference to the Bill if there were not appointed Peers and the period of the transition. There were two sentences only on the role and functions of the House and on its relationship to the other place. These sentences said that the Government see no reason why an elected House should alter or have different functions from the present House, or why its role and relationship should alter. It is on these aspects that noble Lords in this debate have rightly, in my view, cast such scepticism. Indeed, if I may say this with great respect to the Leader of the House, he has not been consistent on this matter. Yesterday, defending himself against the charge that this proposed legislation amounted to abolition of the House of Lords, he concentrated on the fact that the role and relationship would not change; yet previously he had said that he expected that the role would evolve and the relationship would change. I hope that the noble Lord who is summing up the debate tonight will make it clear which of these aspects the Government really believe. When the noble Lord says that the House will evolve but is not being abolished, I remind him that that is what evolution is all about. Evolution does result in extinction. He is just bringing it about rather more quickly than has happened in the past.

When I struggled with these matters on the Wakeham commission, we started with the question: why should we have a second Chamber at all? Surely that is the question from which we ought to start. When we went around the country taking evidence from the public, those members of the public who were sufficiently interested to want to come and give evidence—I accept that that is rather a select sample—were clear about two things. First, a second Chamber is necessary to counterbalance the dominance that the Executive have exerted over the other place. Secondly, however, the elected Chamber must retain its supremacy. Surely those must be the two bases on which we consider the role of the second Chamber. The Bill and the Government’s White Paper refuse to define the role and status of the second Chamber, saying that we should rely on the established conventions. However, the whole point about conventions is that they change. Surely, if the Government are launching this legislation without defining those functions and the relationship in the legislation, it is starting the British constitution on a voyage to a destination that is undefined. That seems to me not good enough. Will the Minister confirm that, despite what the Government said in the White Paper, the role of the second Chamber and its relationship to the other place will be within the purview of the Joint Committee?

I finish by making two other observations. First, the White Paper and the draft Bill talk about a normal term of 15 years, or three terms, non-renewable. However, if you look at the small print, that is not the limit of the term of Members of this House. It is the normal limit, but in abnormal times, if Parliament is dissolved within two years and there is a further election, there would be no further election to this House. Therefore, the maximum period of time for an elected Member of this House is 21 years, which seems to me far too long.

My second observation is on the size of the House. The White Paper and the Bill propose that the House should have 300 Members. In support of that, they say that this House, now amounting to more than 800 Members, has an average attendance of 388 and therefore 300 Members should be sufficient to carry out the normal roles of the House, particularly if they are full-time politicians. It seems to me highly implausible that a House of 300 would be sufficient to carry out the work of this House, particularly when terms are non-renewable so that Members do not have to account to their constituencies and there is no financial advantage in attending particular sessions. It seems very likely that people in that position, or at least some of them, will take their stipend and very rarely be seen here. So the size of the House seems much too small.

There is a very large number of issues which the White Paper and the Bill leave undetermined. There is a huge task for the Joint Committee to perform, and I wish it all possible success.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, once upon a time there was a man called Procrustes. He made a very beautiful bed, and he liked people to come and lie on it. Being a man of very high and strict principle, he insisted that the bed and the people should fit. Unfortunately, he made the bed unalterable, so he had to make the people fit the bed. He either stretched them out a little if they were too small or chopped a little bit off if they were too tall, with painful, serious and sometimes fatal consequences for the people concerned. Quite apart from the consequences for the people concerned, Procrustes found his reputation deeply damaged; great hostility was shown towards him and there were demonstrations in the street.

Then four good, independent people came along and suggested a simple mechanism whereby some of the strain could be relieved. It was closely restricted; it could be used only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons of an extraordinarily compelling nature. It was a simple mechanism whereby, in these very exceptional cases, the bed could be stretched or shortened by a very small amount. The number of cases would be few but there would be cases in which the variety of human nature was recognised and allowed for and the painful consequences to which I have referred were avoided.

There were many arguments about the principle; it was thought to be very proper, good and strictly maintained. I am sorry to say that Procrustes grumbled greatly about the idea that there should be any stretching or changing of the bed. But in the end he accepted that there had been one or two cases which he agreed should be allowed past and the exceptions and exceptionally compelling reasons were such that the further breaches of the principle which would ensue would not be very serious or great. Therefore, grumbling, he accepted—to the relief of those few people whose lives and bodies were spared and, in the end, to the contentment of Procrustes himself, who accepted that this small degree of flexibility had enabled the bed to survive and the principle to be broadly maintained.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, this amendment allows the Boundary Commission, in very exceptional circumstances, to exercise its discretion within a range of 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made the point that this would give people who wished for one reason or another to delay the operation of the reforms greater scope to introduce litigation. Of course, even within the 10 per cent provided in the Bill, the Boundary Commission is exercising discretion. It is not clear to me why, in these very exceptional circumstances, there would be more scope for challenging under the 15 per cent variation than under the 10 per cent. If people, for reasons of their own, wish to obstruct this process, is there not exactly the same power to do that under the 10 per cent provision? The advantage of having 15 per cent is that without giving much greater scope—or, indeed, any greater scope—for challenge, the Boundary Commission can reach reasonable recommendations in cases where it is necessary.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, my point about the prospects for potential legal challenges is not relevant to the 5 per cent or 10 per cent consideration. It is purely about the existing Boundary Commission criteria as in the five previous general reviews undertaken by the Boundary Commissions.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Butler of Brockwell Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Leader of the House for this debate and in thanking him and the Leader of the Opposition for the positive and open-minded way in which they introduced it.

As has been mentioned, following the Lord Speaker’s speech to the Hansard Society on strengthening Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and I agreed to lead three cross-party groups in which we divided up various aspects of the working processes of your Lordships’ House. I did not involve myself in that work as a critical or—certainly not—as a disgruntled Member of your Lordships’ House. On the contrary, I hugely admire the work that this House does and my purpose in taking part in it was to contribute to suggesting ways in which we could do it even more effectively.

As other noble Lords have said, we ought to start this debate by asking: what is our role? I believe in strengthening Parliament because I believe that an effective Parliament is not the enemy of the Executive but is essential to their success. Having spent my career in the Executive, I think I am in a position to say that a strong Parliament is essential to keeping the Executive up to the mark because absolute power does corrupt, and the Executive becomes weak and inefficient if there is not a strong Parliament to call it to account. In that belief, I am encouraged to find that I am now in good company. The Prime Minister, the Leader of another place, the Deputy Leader of another place, the Speakers of both Houses and the Front-Bench spokesmen in this House have all expressed themselves similarly. That was a theme of the Better Government initiative, in which I served on the executive committee and of the report Good Government, which it produced. That report has frequently been quoted in this House and elsewhere. It is very welcome that the reforms proposed in another place by the Select Committee chaired by Dr Tony Wright are being very largely implemented, so things are moving in an encouraging direction.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the other Members who served on our groups would agree that the ideas in our various papers are not intended to be a comprehensive or even, perhaps, a coherent prescription for further changes. They are an à la carte menu of ideas which the participants thought worth bringing to the attention of your Lordships, and I hope they will be worth considering by the Leader’s Group that the Leader of the House announced today.

In my remarks, I shall concentrate on some of the ideas in the group that I chaired on the non-legislative aspects of the House’s procedure but, first, I shall comment on the suggestion made by the group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on which I also served, and say how striking it is how many speakers today have picked up this idea. The noble Lords, Lord Luce, Lord Kakkar, Lord Maclennan and Lord Norton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady McIntosh, have all referred to the idea of a committee similar to the Merits Committee, which looks at statutory instruments, that would look at the merits of legislation brought before Parliament. Since other speakers have so eloquently dealt with it, I shall not go into the details, but shall say just two things about it.

First, since the quality of legislation is of crucial interest to Parliament as a whole, this committee would be most effective if it were a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I agree that it if were a committee of this House only, it ought to look only at legislation being introduced here, but a combined committee would be a way of avoiding duplication and increasing co-operation between the two Houses. Secondly, speaking from my experience in the Executive, if there were ever a prospect that, on the basis of a report by such a committee, a House of Parliament might refuse to give a Second Reading to a Bill and might refer it back to the Executive for better preparation, that would hugely improve the care with which legislation is prepared within the Executive. That might be a nuclear weapon but, as we know, nuclear weapons are there not to be used, and it would be very effective in dealing with some of the problems of excessive and poorly prepared legislation, of which we are all conscious.

As regards the suggestions of the group I chaired on non-legislative procedures, the theme underlying our suggestions is making best use of the time available to the House. We started with the three principles of our procedures to which the Leader of the House referred: the House being committed to self-regulation and the role of that in encouraging a spirit of courteous compromise; the characteristic that any Member of this House can raise and explore amendments to legislation without being prevented by formal timetables or guillotines; and the informal convention that allows all sections of this House to be fairly represented in debate. Our group felt that these were crucial characteristics that we ought to bear in mind in any considerations of our processes in the future.

In that context, let me have my two penny-worth on the role of the Lord Speaker during Question Time, which I know divides opinion in this House. I would not be in favour of the Lord Speaker being given a role calling individual speakers. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Luce, I take the view that it would not be inconsistent if the Lord Speaker took over from those on the government Front Bench the role of indicating which section of the House should have the next question—a role that has become even more controversial since the creation of the coalition. Apart from what I think many of us feel is the unseemliness of present procedures, there is clearly a danger of those on the Front Bench becoming open in this matter to accusations of political partiality.

The rest of my group’s suggestions concentrate on ways of using to best advantage the crucial period between Question Time and the dinner hour when attendance is at its highest and the opinion of the House can most conveniently be tested. We suggest that more Statements and more Committee stages of Bills should be considered in Grand Committee, where any Member can take part in the business. The time available for the very important Statement that we had today on the National Health Service would not be as constrained as it was today, and the business of the House would not be interrupted. This debate today has been interrupted. Perhaps that does not matter, but it matters more when important debates on Bills are interrupted on Report.

We also suggest, and other speakers have referred to, more opportunities for topical debates and Questions—and, yes, we suggest shorter supplementary questions and answers. We suggest that, to increase the transparency of the House’s arrangements, the Leader of the House should submit himself to a weekly Question Time of 20 or 30 minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, had a bit of fun with this, but he has been one of the usual channels in another place. As one or two noble Lords have said, the arrangements by which the House is administered are not as clear to some Members of the House, even those who have been here for a long time, as they are to others. I very much remember intervening in a debate and asking the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, whether he could tell me the difference between the usual channels and the House authorities. With all his ministerial experience, he said in the most charming way that he could not.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I was not joking at all, particularly in my remarks, to which he drew attention, about the prospect of the Leader of the House answering questions. That would not be a positive improvement, and would not achieve the results which the noble Lord’s sub-committee sought.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I was not suggesting that the noble Lord was being frivolous. I, too, seriously suggest that if it is important that the House should be self-governing, which it is, widely giving Members the opportunity to put points of concern to the Leader of the House when they can during the week would increase the sense of involvement and participation and make the House more collegiate.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, while the noble Lord is on this point, am I right that he proposed half an hour for this? Would that not really be rather excessive?

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

This is certainly an open matter for debate. I should have thought that 20 minutes would be perfectly sufficient. Clearly, if the suggestion finds favour, the Leader’s Group and the House could look at it.

We suggest that more publicity should be given to the excellent reports of Select Committees of the House by their chairs being given five minutes for a trailer on the day of publication, and we trail our own coats by suggesting slightly earlier sitting times and the ending of the wearing of medieval robes at times when the public gaze, through television, is most likely to be on us. We want to convince the world of the relevance of our procedures, and it is not helpful that we are most often portrayed in the newspapers and on television in our robes.

Not all these or our other suggestions may find favour with all your Lordships. As I said at the beginning, they are intended as an à la carte menu that we hope may provide food for thought, but I am greatly encouraged by the open-minded way in which they have been received by those on the Front Benches on both sides of the House.

I will make a final point about the timetable. It has been said that it would be useful if the Minister replying to the debate indicated the timetable which the Government have in mind for the Leader’s Group. A report by the end of the year would be helpful so that discussion of these matters is not overtaken by the preoccupation with more controversial matters such as the draft Bill on the future of your Lordships’ House.