Scotland Bill

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I think this amendment has been overtaken by events. The Minister has made it clear that the referendum will be administered by the Electoral Commission and, therefore, there is no need for me to labour the point. That is very important. The First Minister of Scotland still has to recognise one thing: as he has a particular objective in mind in holding the referendum, he is not the right person to declare what the question should be. Any member of the public would accept that that proposition is correct. You cannot say, “The people must determine this, but I will tell them how to determine it”. In my Amendment 93 to the noble Lord’s Amendment 91, I have suggested that it should be by agreement and that the Scottish Parliament should be consulted and be party to how the question is drafted.

Equally, I disagree with the noble Lord—although I think a moment ago he almost resiled from certain wording—that we should lay down the question. I missed the earlier debate for which I apologise, but the noble Lord, Lord St John, and I had a longstanding appointment with the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. If you think we have problems in our coalition, you should hear his. I missed the substantive debate on the referendum earlier.

I think it is also important that the people of Scotland are beginning to get scunnered—if I may use a good Scottish word—by the endless argument from politicians, academics and economists about the process and what might or might not happen if Scotland became independent. This cannot go on for another three years. It is ridiculous.

Therefore the part of the amendment that I support is the suggestion that the time should be now. If not immediately, then certainly as soon as possible, we should get this issue out of the way. As soon as we get clear of the independence referendum, we can start, as the Prime Minister has said, serious discussion about how we can add to the devolution package, and that is very sensible.

We have got the Electoral Commission in the frame, so there is no need to press that. Choosing the question should also be a matter for the Electoral Commission, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who has made this point before, that rather than having a yes or no and putting some people in a negative position, there should be two propositions from which people choose either to remain in the United Kingdom or to go independent.

If that is done, and done quickly, then we can get this issue out of the way and the Scottish Government should concentrate on what they were elected to do, which is to deal with the issues affecting Scotland at the moment: bad housing, unemployment, and the need for more investment in industry. These are the things people want. They do not want three years of argument about a referendum. They want to see a Government tackling the issues, both in Scotland by the Scottish Government, and in the United Kingdom by the UK Government. The sooner we get back to that realistic level of politics, the better.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, my Amendment 94E takes what my noble friend Lord Steel said a little bit further, and asks that the Electoral Commission set the question. It is quite clear that nothing the UK Government propose is going to be accepted by the Scottish Government, and nothing that the Scottish Government propose will be accepted by the UK Government.

Why not cut the politicians out? Let us ask the Electoral Commission not only to set the questions but to arrange all the counting, transferring the number of votes into a proper result that is based, exactly the same way the referendums were in 1979 and 1997, on each local authority area, rather than just Scotland. We would know that there would be a clear question—or questions, if we go down the route proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell—but also that each area voted and how they voted, and that it was a fair process.

Taken out of the hands of politicians, it will not only be more acceptable to the people of Scotland, but in view of our earlier discussions, I think it would be more acceptable to the rest of the UK, who would feel that an independent authority is doing this rather than politicians.

House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, where I disagree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth is in our attitude to devolution as a whole. I would sign up for what is called “devo-plus”. I define that as meaning the greatest amount of devolution consistent with common sense. When we come to debate financial issues I will say more about that, in the light of Prime Minister Cameron's recent utterances in Scotland. Given that we are likely to come back to the issue in future legislation, if we take a definition of “consistent with common sense”, I say with great respect to my colleagues who served on the Calman commission that I am not certain that different categories of air guns, different drink-driving limits or different speed limits are consistent with common sense, and we would do better to remove them altogether.

My noble friend referred to those who live on the border. When I was first elected to the Commons, my constituency boundary was the English/Scottish border. My nearest railway station is across the border. When I come to your Lordships' House by train, which I do from time to time, I have to travel across the border. Let us suppose, although it is unlikely, that the Scottish Government decided to keep the drink-driving limit higher than it is in England, and let us suppose that I repaired to that excellent institution, the Cross Keys Inn in Ettrickbridge, before setting out on my journey. I could then find myself within the law for the first part of my journey and then fall foul of the law for the second part. A much more likely scenario would be that I met my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the train going north and we had a meal and a convivial glass of wine. I could then be perfectly legal on leaving the station and suddenly illegal as I neared my home. This is not consistent with common sense. When we come to a future Scotland Bill, I hope that we might drop these issues and deal with more substantial devolution questions that are of greater interest to the Scottish people.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, as I listened to the debate I wondered whether my noble friends had driven through Europe. The exact problems they explained to the House are those that one gets in Europe. Last week I drove through three countries in about an hour and a half. In each of them there was a different speed limit. This was well signposted at the side of the road and I did not cause immense problems.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, the world is a complex place and rules very rarely work in it because there is always some exception. It is wise to have an avenue of appeal for special circumstances. It would probably never be exercised but it is wise to have it there as a fallback, just in case.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness, no, the provisions in the Bill are definitely not retrospective. They start from the time of Royal Assent, if we ever get to that stage. On the amendment itself, I entirely take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I am not enthusiastic about adding bits to the Bill at this stage, but if the House is minded to do so I would be quite happy for Amendment 280 to be carried.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be better if I withdrew this amendment, talked to my noble friend and came back at Third Reading—I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding—with amendments that were more tightly drawn. I think that everyone understands the point I am making.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Caithness and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the Question before the House is that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. If I may, I will reply to the debate. I think my noble friend Lord Caithness—

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am very surprised that we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. What is the Government’s view on this? Do they think that this Bill is of such depth and importance that it constitutes the stage two to which my noble friend Lord True has referred, or do they think that we should be bound by the agreement of 1999? As I said, it is very surprising that we have not heard from our government Front Bench on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Caithness and others made the perfectly reasonable point that there was an agreement in 1999. I understand that. I thought that he was well answered by my noble friend Lord Elton in a very honest speech as a hereditary Peer saying why we should now move on. Frankly, looking back at Hansard, perhaps I may quote one or two phrases from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who was then the Lord Chancellor. He said:

“The transitional House will be of short duration”.—[Official Report, 26/10/99; col. 169.]

He also said:

“The transitional House which will be created as a result of the Bill will be exactly that: transitional and not permanent … The notion that the Government would even contemplate the notion of the Weatherill amendment becoming a permanent settlement, as distinct from a short-term compromise, is fanciful”.—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1092.]

That was 12 years ago. I do not think that anyone in the House at that time, and I was there, ever thought that 12 years later we would still be holding these by-elections. That is the point which Clause 10 seeks to address. We are now further on. We have had many by-elections. No one is suggesting that we get rid of hereditary Peers or that those who came in by by-elections are less worthy than anyone else. They have all made a great contribution to the work of this House.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is correct. By-elections that take place among the whole House for a hereditary Peer just pass muster and in the case of the Conservative Party and the Cross-Benches, less so, but there are some numbers. But, frankly, when a Labour or Lib Dem hereditary Peer dies, the numbers are ridiculous. I do not see that in the 21st century we can possibly stand up and say that people become Members of the British Parliament by heredity and election by three or four people. It is simply nonsense. In order to bring that nonsense to an end, Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Will my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire answer the question that I posed to him. Do the Front Bench, and he as spokesman for the Government, think that this Bill constitutes the necessary reform for the removal of by-elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, now that this wonderful reasonable atmosphere has taken over the Committee, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Steel will also accept this amendment. It is a very simple amendment, because there is already a leave of absence. If somebody has genuinely taken a leave of absence under the existing system before the provisions of this Bill come into effect, why should they be subject to them?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I did not envisage this. Even in my better moments, I had not thought that this was going to happen today. I am indeed grateful to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend will be quite as receptive to this amendment as he was to my last. We now face the problem that we have all been skirting around today, but which we have earlier debated on numerous occasions: the question of the size of this House.

It is hoped that a retirement system will encourage people to leave the House. I do not think that that is going to work at all. I do not see it working under the present system of leave of absence. Not many Peers have now taken it, although I have used a leave of absence when I was in my 20s; I was told that it was appropriate to do so if I was not going to be a regular attender in your Lordships’ House, so I did for three years. However, the procedures that we all followed then have fallen into disrepute, and it is not done to the same extent. There is a retirement scheme at the moment, and I understand that two of your Lordships have taken retirement, but I do not think that what my noble friend proposes in the Bill will work.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have tabled a new clause in Amendment 128, which states:

“A member of the House of Lords shall not be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons after their 75th birthday”.

It is important that the House plays a proper role in the legislative affairs of the nations. It can be debated whether the House is any better now than it was pre-1999; that is an argument into which I will not enter. However, as some of your Lordships may have read in the recent leaders, there has been some pretty unfavourable comment about how the House is behaving and working. Many of your Lordships have complained that there are far too many Peers, so the proposal that my noble friend and I have made is that there should be a retirement age of 75. Yes, we are undoubtedly going to lose some expertise from time to time, but the average age of this House is 69 according to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I do not know of any other institution or corporate body where the average age is 69. I have now been here for 40 years, and I am still below the average age of the House. To me, that is an absolute nonsense. It has worked very well, I have enjoyed it and I am extremely grateful. However, in 2011, it is not a terribly good way. If the average age of the House is 69, it should be made younger.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have therefore tabled the amendment. It refers to the 75th birthday; I am open to arguments for 70 or even perhaps 80. But we should at least have this debate, which is really important because it will reduce the size of the House which has been a cause of concern to so many people. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness is right. I am not going to suggest that we accept the amendment for the simple reason that the clauses that we have now passed put the matter in the hands of the Government. We have given statutory authority in accordance with the recommendation, which I am holding in my hand, from the all-party committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Perhaps I may quote from that. He said:

“On the evidence of our extensive consultations, we are confident that there is a broad consensus in the House in support of a provision to enable members voluntarily to leave the House permanently, in order that the overall size of the House may be reduced as soon as possible. We hope that this broad consensus might now be taken as the starting point for a way forward … we are advised that legislation would, strictly speaking, be necessary to override the entitlement to a Writ of Summons”.

I am with my noble friend in his intent, but it is not right to try to prescribe today, in the course of a Committee stage, what the age should be. We should leave that to the Government and the consensus which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested exists. If the Bill goes through, we will have given the Government the statutory authority. It will then be up to the Government by statutory instrument to come back to the House and produce a scheme which will enable the numbers in the House to be reduced. We should not do it in this arbitrary manner now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to all of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. Let me start with my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who has just sat down; I hope that he will bring forward an amendment on his proposals.

I absolutely take the point about losing a lot of wisdom from people over 75. It was a concern of mine when we tabled this amendment but it was right to have had this important debate. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said, quite rightly, that we must differentiate between active and passive Peers. I would only say to him that he should have supported me when it came to the abolition of hereditaries in 1999 because all that Bill did, in fact, was to get rid of about 90 active hereditary Peers. The majority of the hereditary Peers who were excommunicated from this House were not active Members and although the House appeared large in number, if we ever got a vote of 300 in those days it was indeed a large vote, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will remember. That argument should have applied to hereditary Peers but it was of course an inconvenient argument for the Government to accept. It will be a convenient argument for them to accept this time but it was inconvenient 12 years ago.

That brings me to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that I have an amendment to limit the House to 300 people, which indeed I have, and that we could not staff the existing committees. To follow up on what I have just been saying, pre-1999 we did not have the number of committees. It is only because we have grown like Topsy that we have increased the number of committees, and we will go on increasing them. There is no end to the demand that we must have a committee for this and a committee for that and, as the numbers increase—which they undoubtedly will until we get a proper reform of this House—we will keep on increasing the number of committees. I think that one should get to a number and then ask, “Right, what is the best way for those people to make themselves work in an efficient way?”, and if that means getting rid of some committees, so be it.

The debate we have had brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made on, I think, 4 June —maybe he will correct me—when he wrote this, which your Lordships can find on the Guardian blog:

“The old guard are already lining up to defend the status quo”.

That is clear from the debate that we have had. There is always something wrong with the amendment that is put forward. There must be other amendments and a different way of doing things. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that we must find another mechanism. I have put forward a mechanism and it has not received any great support but there is not another mechanism. We are therefore going to be faced with this continual problem of an increase in the size of the House, and of the active House.

I will, again, be referring in due course to some leaders that have been written in the papers recently about how this House works. I have increasingly come to the conclusion that in their writings my noble friends Lord Steel and Lord Tyler are both right, for what is this House designed to do? We have not discussed that. We are talking about reforming a system that is creaking at the seams without looking ahead to ask, “What should a second Chamber do?”. It would not be this House of Lords but having got what a second Chamber should be doing, you then work out how it is composed. I see my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth nodding. It is very unusual that we agree on reform of the House of Lords but this is one of those rare moments that one cherishes.

We are, again, putting the cart before the horse. Clearly, age is a non-runner. I accept that but it has been extremely worth while because at least my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have put forward a proposal to be discussed. I hope that other noble Lords will put forward different proposals, because there is no doubt that something needs to be done.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My point is that the all-party committee of the House under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has already come to a firm conclusion and published a report. By the clauses that we have just passed, we are saying to the Government, “Take this report up. Get on with it and let’s reduce the numbers”. That is the right way to do it.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I absolutely take my noble friend's point. As I said to him earlier, that is not going to work because the only way you are going to get retirement from this House is to have a financial inducement, and I do not think that that will ever be acceptable, particularly in the present financial circumstances. For a House comprising Peers who are not paid but merely receive expenses, to be paid to leave is not acceptable. It was not acceptable for the hereditary Peers and it is not acceptable for the life Peers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Steel, a question? As far as I am aware, only two Members have taken advantage of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Initially it does not seem to have been that effective.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I can answer that. In fact, what has been done internally in the House is not at all what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recommended. He recommended a statutory provision and a payment. The answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is that the Hunt committee said that this should be done without adding to the budget of the House of Lords, so that it would save public expenditure. The committee argued it very carefully. What has been implemented in the mean time is simply voluntary resignation, of which only two Members have taken advantage. The recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has not been implemented and it ought to be implemented, or at least considered now in some depth.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I agree with that but I just do not think that it will work. I cannot see a rush of Peers to take it up, so I am trying to get beyond that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, we now come to Part 4 of the Bill, which is headed:

“Conviction of serious criminal offence”.

I have stated before that I do not like this clause and I do not like it for two reasons. One argument advanced in favour of the clause is that the provision is the same as that which applies in another place. However, I do not think that we should necessarily follow the provisions of another place. We are a different House and we are composed differently. It is right that we should make different rules, if necessary.

I have previously mentioned my second reason for disliking the clause. When a person has served a sentence they should no longer be penalised for having committed the offence in question. When I was Minister for Prisons the principle was clear. The courts meted out sentences but, when they had been served, that was the end of it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is not in his place but I hope that there are some lawyers present who will support my remarks. Therefore, in principle I have serious concerns about Part 4. I completely understand what my noble friend is trying to do but I consider that the provision goes against the principles of British justice.

The term “more than one year” in the Bill is too short a timescale and would catch too many trivial offences. Therefore, my Amendment 130 suggests a timescale of five years rather than one year. There is a certain benefit to be had from permitting Peers who have been convicted and sentenced to prison to come back to the House after they have served their sentence. Lord Kagan used to sit on the Labour Benches, having spent a little time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He came back and gave useful insights into that experience which assisted our consideration of criminal justice Bills. My amendment seeks to improve the Bill and explore the justification of my noble friend Lord Steel for the one-year period. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness is very simple: I do not think that there is any magic in the one-year period. I am simply bringing this House into line with the other House. It has long been the practice in the elected House that anyone sentenced to a year’s imprisonment is automatically expelled. It seems to me that that should apply across Parliament as a whole. That is the only rationale for the measure. My noble friend has tabled two later starred amendments. I am minded to consider these very carefully because I think that he has a point there which we could carry forward to Report stage, if we get to it. However, we should resist Amendments 130 and 131 as they would make the provisions for this House different from those of the other place, and I do not see any case for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Either I misheard or there was a lack of communication. I know that my noble friend Lord Steel has a number of questions to answer.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The principle behind Part 4 is simply that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers. That is the principle at the other end of the building, and it is one that I think we should sustain. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend not to press Amendment 130, because it would make this House different from the other one. My noble friend Lord Astor makes a strong liberal appeal for rehabilitation. If noble Lords would be kind enough not to move Amendments 131 to 133, I will certainly talk to both the Ministry of Justice and the authorities in the other place about those matters. I take the point just made by the noble Lord about sentences in other countries. We must take that into account. If we need to amend the Bill further at Report, I will be very willing to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, this amendment has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. As regards the argument that some people not here might have a view, I would say “tough”. Let us make a decision now.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Perhaps we could reach a compromise the other way around. I am quite happy to accept the amendment on the understanding that we will have further discussions. If it is found to be objectionable, for some reason which we do not understand now, we could come back to it on Report and take it out again. At the moment, let us keep it in. On that basis, I am happy to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 142 very quickly because I need to apologise to the House. When I introduced Amendment 138 in regard to the referendum, I said that there were consequential amendments to it which we had not discussed. I am afraid I was technically wrong because the point I made on that amendment actually refers to this amendment. Your Lordships will see that there are amendments to my amendment for a statutory appointments commission and Amendment 142 is a schedule to something that we have not already discussed. I do not intend to speak any more to this amendment. I wanted to get on the record what I had to say and, in order to do so, I had to move the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, we have had a very good humoured debate throughout the day. It began perhaps a little fractiously in the morning but—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

Before the noble Lord responds, I have to call Amendment 143 as an amendment to Amendment 142.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, in order to allow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to speak, I am not going to move Amendments 143 to Amendments 161 inclusive because they are amendments to Amendment 142 which I am going to withdraw for the reasons I have said. I had to move it to get on the record my apology to the House.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, we have done very useful work today—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

No, my Lords, with respect to the Chairman, we are debating Amendment 142 at the moment and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is on his feet. I have yet to speak on it again.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I simply want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If I heard him correctly, he was asking me for an undertaking that if and when we get to Report I will not bring forward any major changes to the Bill. Was that what he was asking for?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I have suddenly realised that the difficulty with that is that if we go to Report stage, one can speak only once, whereas in Committee one can come back and ask questions for elucidation. That was done today in the happy progress that we made. Will my noble friend Lord Steel recommit to Committee Parts 1 to 9 of the Bill?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

No.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Now I understand exactly what noble Lords are after, and I do not like it: it gets worse and worse. We should recommit to Committee the parts that we have not discussed. There are bound to be questions and times when one wishes to speak a second time, and it would be unfair if one were deprived of that. I leave it to other noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to say what they think. But I think that that way is devious. It is not in the spirit of what we are trying to do to help the noble Lord, Lord Steel, with the part of the Bill that we have agreed so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

In that case, the amendment is still in play and I would like to speak to it in the dying minutes of this day. The position is this. A small minority of Members in the House have the capacity to nullify all the work that we have done today. They also have the right to do that; that is not in dispute. I make one final appeal to those noble Lords. I am willing to discuss with them which parts of the Bill they feel strongly about should come forward at Report stage. We can then move to Report stage. It is not in my gift to command a second Committee day. We know that this Session ends next April. We have done good work today. I do not want to see it viciated, and I hope in that spirit that the minority of Members in the House who feel strongly about this will agree to discussions, and allow this Bill to complete its Committee stage and go to Report.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I would add merely that it was quite wrong for that Division to be called when every effort was being made to get a sensible solution.