For the State Opening of Parliament.

Before reading the text say what you know about the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Queen's speech at the opening of Parliament is usually heard in silence. This year, however, something unprecedented happened. When the Queen announced that the government would soon legislate to deprive hereditary aristocrats of their right to vote in the House of Lords, there were sounds of approval from the MPs at the back, and growls of anger from the Lords at the front.

Tony Blair wants to end the absurd anachronism that gives the peers voting rights. He is planning to get rid of the hereditaries but he does not say what will be put in the place of the current House of Lords.

Long ago the Constitution Unit, an independent think-tank, gave warning that abolishing the voting rights of hereditaties before a concrete plan for a reformed House of Lords was made will do no good. It will make the reform process more partisan. It is less likely to lead to a stable solution. The Constitution Unit insists that a 'sunset' clause should be set up, requiring the House of Lords' abolishion and replacement after a set period, perhaps seven years, preferably on the basis of a referendum.

An explicitly transitional arrangement looks necessary, since so many other elements in Britain's constitutional arrangements are in flux - Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments', possible electoral reform, elected mayors, possible regional assemblies for England. Many things may change during the transitional period.

Instead of a definite scheme for a new second chamber. Labour is setting up a royal commission to decide on the next stage of reform.

The Government says that it will announce its transitional proposals in a white paper, but they will include the establishment of an independent commission to nominate and vet new life peers. The important issue will be the relationship between the commission and the prime minister: the more members that he continues to appoint (or 'nominate'), the stronger will be the accusation that Mr. Blair 's aim is to create a new 'House of Cronies'. It would be far heller if this commission could be genuinely independent, perhaps even with commissioners elected in some way, or if it were a commission of the House of Lords itself. Better still if it were to make its nomination according to some openly published rules. And what might a longer-term arrangement look like? That depends on what has happened in the meantime.