House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 3. I will not press Amendment 1; I will seek leave to withdraw it in favour of Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and Amendment 3.
In the original Bill, we agreed on Report to adopt an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, exempting members of the Armed Forces from the new rules on compulsory expulsion from the House after six months’ non-attendance. He has since tabled another amendment to add the Diplomatic Service to that. It was my view that moving Amendment 3 and inserting into the Bill,
“, for example undertaking other public service”,
would cover both military and diplomatic service, and that the two amendments were therefore unnecessary. However, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne feels strongly that they should be included and one of my late missions in life is to keep him happy. Therefore, although I am happy not to press Amendment 1, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Steel has just said and will speak to Amendment 2. I hope that is the right procedure. May I explain, in just a few seconds, why I am anxious that service both in the Armed Forces and in the Diplomatic Service should be exempt from the provisions on compulsory leave of absence? In both services, service overseas is part of the conditions of service. If you are in the Army and you are told to go to Afghanistan, you go. If you are in the Diplomatic Service and you are told to serve in Afghanistan, off you go, or you will lose your job. You have no choice. In other public service appointments, that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, these two services should be specially provided for. I will move Amendment 2 in a moment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am happy to accept Amendment 2. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Trefgarne
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 9, which are grouped together, are drafting amendments as a result of the discussions on Report. I do not think that they are of any great significance. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
“(2) If the provisions of this section are met by virtue of a sentence or order given or made outside the United Kingdom, the effect is reversed if the House of Lords resolves that the person found guilty is to be treated as not having been the subject of the sentence or order.
(3) A reversal under subsection (2) has effect from the day after which the resolution is passed.”
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, Amendment 7 was tabled following the discussion we had on Report—notably the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who was concerned that persons sitting as Members of this House could be subject to sentences in other countries which we did not recognise as being proper sentences. I think that the example of Zimbabwe was given in this context. Therefore, I propose this amendment to make it clear that sentences imposed outside the United Kingdom should not result in automatic expulsion from this House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment. I also raised this point. It is perhaps auspicious that we are dealing with the House of Lords (Amendment) Bill in the name of my noble friend on St David’s Day.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
“Expulsion
(1) Standing orders of the House of Lords may make provision under which the House of Lords may by resolution expel a member of the House of Lords.
(2) A person expelled under this section—
(a) ceases to be a member of the House of Lords, and(b) shall have a right of appeal against their expulsion.(3) This section shall not apply to any conduct which occurred prior to this Act entering into force.”
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, this amendment deals with the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Dobbs many weeks ago, and, on Report, by the noble Lord, Lord True. It concerns persons who are Members of this House who are not sentenced in the courts to a year’s imprisonment but who otherwise transgress the rules of this House or bring it into disrepute. The amendment, if accepted, would bring us into line with practice in the House of Commons. There is a widespread feeling in the House that this situation should be catered for. Therefore, this new clause has been drafted to enable the House of Lords authorities to draw up a Standing Order which in specific cases would require a resolution of the House before it could take effect. The measure would give the House the flexibility that we do not have at present to expel Members if we feel that they have brought the House into disrepute. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I have told my noble friend that I am concerned about this matter, although not about the principle of the amendment. However, it was brought to my attention today—I should perhaps have notified my noble friend of this—that we had a big debate on this matter in the 2008-09 Session. The Committee for Privileges looked at the question of expulsion under the present regime. There was at that time a substantial difference of opinion between the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as to exactly what the powers of the House are in this regard. I am concerned that the amendment would allow the House to expel Members through the use of Standing Orders. To expel a Member of the House would exclude that person from receiving from the Crown a Writ of Summons and the Letters Patent to attend, sit and vote in Parliament. That is a substantial change. I repeat that I am not against the amendment in principle, but given that this is such a big issue, I wonder whether this is the right way forward.
I had a quick talk to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern earlier this afternoon. He looked at this measure and said that the House can override the Writ of Summons, if it wants to. He noted that the proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment contains a right of appeal, but asked to whom the right of appeal could be made. There needs to be much more detail. I wonder whether that detail should be left to Standing Orders or whether my noble friend will consider withdrawing the amendment so that we can discuss the matter when the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Richard—I am glad to see him in his place—and his committee are looking at comes forward in the next Session, so that we can get the wording right.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said. It is a difficult question. First, we have had some very complicated debates over the past few years as to power of the House to expel or suspend. I am not sure whether it is right to, in effect, give this House the power to expel a Member by a provision inserted at Third Reading of a Private Member’s Bill. Perhaps that is not the way we ought to do it. The principle that the House should have the power to expel may be right. It may even be right that the way to do it is by standing order. I am not sure about that.
Secondly, I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had to say about the right of appeal. I should have thought that the one thing we would wish to do in a situation in which the House decided to expel someone was to keep the courts out of the decision. A situation in which there is an appeal to the courts or in which the courts can be appealed to, even if there is not a formal right of appea, would be dangerous. These are essentially parliamentary matters; they should be treated as such and the division of responsibility is in our constitution. It leaves the courts looking after judicial matters and Parliament looking after parliamentary matters. I do not want those two to be mixed.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am afraid that I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The question of the validity of the Writ of Summons was tested at some length when the 1999 Bill was being considered by your Lordships, and the matter went before the Committee of Privileges on that occasion. It was the Association of Conservative Peers that took the matter to the committee—at some considerably expense, I might add. The answer was less than straightforward. I hope that my noble friend Lord Steel will agree that it is right to think further on this matter and perhaps to remove this provision, which may not be as sound as it should be, and wait for another legislative opportunity.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, on the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I entirely agree that the phrase:
“A person expelled under this section … shall have a right of appeal against their expulsion”,
has to be read in the context of subsection (1) of the amendment, which is about the standing orders. There are two “mays” here. It is stated:
“Standing orders of the House of Lords may make provision under which the House of Lords may by resolution expel a member”.
There are two safeguards built into the wording, and I should have thought that no standing order would be agreed that tried to make this matter external to the House; it must remain within the rights of the House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord on that and it is fairly clear from the wording of the proposed new clause.
As to whether the clause should be there at all, I have to say that I was simply responding to the debates in Committee and on Report. It is not something that has just come up at Third Reading. I was genuinely trying to give effect to what other Members said during those proceedings. I am in the hands of the House. I would prefer to keep this in because the safeguard is there. The House of Lords authorities might decide to do nothing about it, but it is as well to give them the statutory authority to do it. On balance, I prefer to keep this proposed new clause in.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am glad to say that this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I am conscious that, at the bottom of today’s notices, it states, optimistically, that the House is expected to rise at 7 pm. Therefore, I shall not detain the House for more than one minute. Believe it or not, the Bill first saw the light of day in March 2007. It has been five years in gestation. Two major issues have been dropped from it: one was turning the Appointments Commission into a statutory body; the other was the ending of hereditary by-elections. I have no doubt that we will return to those two issues when we get the report from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the subsequent legislation.
We are left with two issues in the Bill. One is to benefit the reputation of this House and bring it into line with the other House in dealing with offenders; the other—and, in my view, more important—is the retirement provision which would, for the first time, enable us, if the House authorities move quickly, to get the numbers in this House down from about 800 to below the level of the House of Commons at 650, something which is greatly to be desired. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in his place, because it was his committee that recommended that some time ago.
It is very important that, when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, the Government move forward quickly with those plans, because they are both intended to improve our internal workings in the House. They purely concern this House, so I hope that the House of Commons will give the Bill a fair wind. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
Having been associated with my noble friend and others in another place from the very beginning on the Bill, I briefly express my thanks—I am sure that I speak for many in all parts of the House—to my noble friend for his persistence, assiduity, willingness to seek consensus and infinite patience over a long period. The whole House is in his debt. He has set a real example for others who may have to deal with a more controversial Bill in future. I very much hope that, as this Bill will go without Division to another place, that other place will expedite its progress so that this modest housekeeping measure can go on the statute book.
Lord Trefgarne
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for his constructive response to some of the points that we have sought to make at various points during the passage of the Bill. On Report, he referred in some detail to his consultation with various unnamed Ministers about the possibility of financial encouragement for noble Lords who might wish to retire from your Lordships' House. When my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister came before the Joint Select Committee earlier this week, he was not wholly briefed on these matters—to put it mildly—and I wonder whether my noble friend has anything further he could say about government policy in this area.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The answer to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is that I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister after Report, but it was obvious when he appeared before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that he had not seen the letter. I am afraid that it disappeared into the bureaucracy—I have had that confirmed today—so he has yet to consider the points that I was making to him in much greater detail. So my noble friend must stop teasing me and just accept that these matters have yet to be decided and discussed.
Lord Richard
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Steel, wrote to Mr Clegg, would he be kind enough to send me a copy of the letter?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am happy to send it privately, but, as I mentioned the names of the Ministers concerned, it is not for circulation. I made it quite clear that these were informal conversations; they are not in any way a government commitment. But I put forward the same suggestions as I did in Committee.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Very well, but I trust the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I will happily send him a copy.
Lord Richard
I take that as a yes—that I will get the letter. I thank the noble Lord.