Financial Services Bill

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I can remember when the whole Grand Committee thing started, and the first assurance was that only non-controversial Bills would go to Grand Committee. The whole point was that in the old days—not that they are so very long ago—we used to divide on matters of principle in Committee, which meant that we tidied up on Report, and that was much more efficient. The challenge with Grand Committee is that it delays everything, and then we have a huge argument on Report that goes on interminably.

Then we have the problem with the limited rules on amending at Third Reading. Before, we would divide on principle in Committee and tidy up on Report, with half the length of debate. Then at Third Reading we would discuss things only when there had to be a final little adjustment because a mistake had been made. It was very unusual to put forward amendments at Third Reading, which is why they were so restricted. With the new procedure of going to Grand Committee, you can have wonderful debates but then you have to do it all over again on Report, which causes problems at Third Reading. We must either have yet another reading to tidy up before Third Reading or go back to dividing in Committee. We should remember that not only the person putting forward the amendment in Committee has the option to divide; anyone in the House can call a Division on an amendment that is proposed. So if noble Lords think that someone is wasting time by withdrawing an amendment in Committee to bring the whole thing back on Report, I suggest that someone stands up and calls for a Division.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, having sat next to my much missed friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I wish to set the record straight. I am sure that the Leader of the House did not wish in any way to mislead the House, but having sat next to Lord Williams of Mostyn through all the discussions on the introduction of Grand Committee procedure, I fear that he would be appalled that there was Division in the House over the issue. He was a man committed to sensing the House’s mood, reaching a compromise and avoiding this sort of unseemly debate in your Lordships’ House.

Secondly, it is my understanding—this is not my area of expertise—that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is absolutely right about what happens at the different stages. It is confusing for everyone if some parts of the Bill can be voted on in Committee and others cannot and if rules apply to certain parts of the Bill at Third Reading but not to others. I think that will lead to confusion. It is also my understanding that the Bill tackles a serious problem; if sizeable numbers of people in your Lordships’ House—I am not talking about majorities—feel unable to support the compromise, to use the Leader’s words, surely it would be better to accept the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and work in the way that I know Lord Williams of Mostyn would have wanted.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Erroll and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I would like to make two, I hope, perfectly sensible points. In previous discussions, the main reason given for removing hereditary Peers at this point was that the public thought that it was an anachronism, that it looked silly and they did not understand what it was about, and all that sort of stuff. If it is about public image, I recommend that we should change the name of our upper House to senate, which is universally understood globally and is taught in politics lessons. That would be the perfectly logical thing to do to pair with getting rid of hereditary Peers. What amuses me is that those who are very keen to get rid of hereditary Peers because it taints this House are also very keen to hang on to the title. I really do not understand that; it is just not consistent and logical.

The other point that I would make is that in all my points that I am arguing, I am arguing against my continued presence in this House much more effectively than if we put this Bill through, whereby I would roll on until I died, with luck—whereas actually I am trying to force an earlier departure by getting a proper democratic assembly. When we go democratic, it will be easier to understand if it is called a senate. Whatever happens, renaming it as a senate would be much clearer and would give a much better image of the House to the public.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I wish it to be on record that many of us who believe that there should be a change of name in future, at the appropriate stage, be it an all-appointed or all-elected House, cannot support the noble Earl’s amendment because it is inappropriate at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. So casting aspersions about people wanting to hang on to titles is out of place, with that explanation about the reasoning behind our choices.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Everyone would retain their title, because it is an honour given to them. The change of name affects the place—this House—and I think that it would be much clearer if we started just being a senate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I intervene because I have had experience of this: it happened during wash-up. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does not understand that some of our procedures here, although they look the same, are slightly different from those in the other place. The rules for Committee and Report and what you can do at Third Reading matter. If you introduce an amendment for the first time on Report, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, you can speak to it only once. That does not cause too much trouble: you can get round it with clever interventions. The problem comes if there is something of fairly major consequence that you wish to approach in a different way, because you may not be able to introduce your amendment at Third Reading. There are rules about the similarity of amendments at Report stage. It is far more flexible in Committee and on Report. Our procedures are designed that way. Third Reading is supposed to be only a tidying up operation to address a few little drafting mistakes, although the Government have tended to extend the definition for their own purposes in the past. For us, certainly on a Private Member's Bill, I am quite sure that that latitude would not be permitted by the procedures of the House, so it is very dangerous to postpone to Report stage.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it is my understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved without debate Amendment 2. Surely we could move to that.