House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Earl Attlee

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I consider this amendment quite important and a solution to many of the problems that have been posed by noble Lords on Monday and today; that is, that we may want to change things in the future, but we need to wait for an Act of Parliament to do it—an Act which may never materialise.

Let us suppose for a moment—and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—that we make an amendment to this Bill which succeeds, so that the Act of Parliament may contain provisions that set out a retirement age, a minimum participation requirement or an attendance requirement, or sets up the committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, described in his amendment. After 12 months or two years or longer, when that committee reports, if this House decided that we needed to tweak it and that the retirement age or attendance criteria were not right, we would need primary legislation to change it.

The justification for my Amendment 32 was in fact made, I believe, by noble Lords on Monday night. Noble Lords may recall the debate we had on retirement ages and the amendment on transitional arrangements proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. It was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who said that it

“proposes a simple set of transitional arrangements with two legs that would reduce that organisational shock enormously and allow the House to transition to an age limit of 80 without pain or any loss of our capability and effectiveness … The second leg would give everyone who comes in a minimum of 10 years”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; cols. 560-61.]

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said

“if we are going to have an age limit, we do not have to choose between 80, 85 or 90 for ever. We could begin with an age limit of 85 and then, for the following Parliament, have an age limit of 80: we would get two bites at the process of bringing down the numbers. I support what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull says. I think the transition arrangements for this are just as important as they have been in the whole debate about hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 563.]

Winding up that debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie had a similar argument—to bring the age down to 85 by the end of this Parliament and to 80 by the end of the next Parliament.

What those four speeches have in common is that, at some future point, a further Act of Parliament would be required on House of Lords reform. It is highly unlikely that we will get any new legislation on changes to the House of Lords, even little ones, and it would probably be outside the scope of even the usual Home Office “Christmas tree” Bill—a criminal justice Bill. The Government have had their fingers burnt with this Bill and will not want a rerun of it, even if they worked out ideas on improving

“national and regional balance of the second chamber”,

as they said in their manifesto. Thus, my solution is to have a special regulation-making power in the Act to enable any of the suggestions on retirement ages, term limits or anything else.

As your Lordships will know, all Governments over the last 40 years have ruthlessly extended the delegated powers in Bills to include more inappropriate delegations. I submit that no Government can be trusted with an open-ended regulatory power to change the four Lords rules that I have suggested in my amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about delegated powers: that, in the past few years, they have expanded dramatically, which is not acceptable. The report from our Delegated Powers Committee, when I chaired it, suggested that every Government over the last 40 years had increased their delegated powers.

Therefore, we need a tightly constrained delegated power that the Government could not change or delay. That is why I state in my amendment that the regulation must copy verbatim the wording of the resolution of the House of Lords, and it must be made within 12 months of our House passing such a Motion. We would need to look at it first, just to ensure that there was no accidental wrong wording in the government regulations.

The Committee may think that I am being a bit cynical, but after four years as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can show noble Lords real cynicism in some of the appalling delegated powers that government departments have inserted into Bills. We revealed that in our report, Democracy Denied? The Urgent Need to Rebalance Power between Parliament and the Executive, and I can slip noble Lords a few copies at very little cost.

Let us build in now the power to make changes in the future. It would not commit us to making any of those changes, but it would ensure that, if this House of Lords decided on a retirement age or term limits or participation—or to implement anything that the committee described by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, agreed on—we would not have to wait many years for a new Act of Parliament and for the Government to find time in their legislative programme. Looking at the myriad problems that always affect the country every month and year, I cannot see any Government in the next two or three years finding time for another Bill on House of Lords changes. The regulation-making power that I suggest should be tightly drawn, unlike a Bill, which would be fair game for another 116 amendments as per this Bill.

Before concluding, I must say that I was impressed by the transitional arrangements propositions. If those four noble Lords—the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie—can agree some consensus amendment for Report, I will happily not push ahead with the more blunt instrument of retirement at the ages of 80, 85 or 90. In the meantime, I commend my Amendment 32 to the Committee and beg to move.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. However, I am not convinced that it is a very good idea, not least because it would alter the constitution and enable this House to exclude Members of another place from coming here at some point, without affording them the opportunity to say no or to express their concerns.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Earl Attlee

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd March 2018 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

On the precautionary principle, the problem I have is that we are using precious time to debate things that we do not need to. When I was an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I dealt with affirmative orders while thinking, “Why in God’s name are we debating this?” One day, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, came in with a defence order—a Foreign Office order or something. She made a big speech, and I just smiled at her and then the order went through.

The other point that the noble Baroness raised was about the difference between an affirmative order and a negative one. The ability to debate it and to change it is no different whether the order is affirmative or negative. The only difference is whether it has to be debated or whether it gets debated only if we can flag it up: our ability to amend it is no different. I am going to get killed now.

[Lord Blencathra]

I will try smiling at my noble friend to see if he may back down slightly. I admit that there are times when my committee says, “The negative procedure here is wholly unacceptable and this should be affirmative”—but not in this report. Here, we say, “The Government don’t know, the Explanatory Memorandum doesn’t know and we don’t know how many regulations there will be, which ones will be important and which will be less important”. They might all end up being negative or they might all be so crucial that they are affirmative, but I trust my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to make a sensible judgment on this—

[Lord Blencathra]

I know some Members of this Committee will be reassured by that.

All we are saying is: let the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee look at the proposed regulations, as we suggest for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Let the committee sift them and conclude, as I think it probably would, that 80% of the regulations in the main will be suitable for the negative procedure and the remaining 20% should be affirmative, and then it can recommend that to the House. That does not stop the House, the Opposition or others ensuring that other negative regulations are prayed against, but suggesting a sifting mechanism is not a demand that everything be made affirmative. On this occasion I am not banging on that everything should be affirmative; I am banging on about giving the sifting committee a chance to make a decision that the House can accept or reject.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is the expert. When I made observations about procedure and so on, was I incorrect in any respect?

[Lord Blencathra]

Sorry, I do not follow my noble friend.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I suggested that the only difference between a negative order and an affirmative one was our ability to flag it up for debate. We cannot actually change a negative order or an affirmative one; we just accept or reject them. My point is that we are actually no better off in holding the Government to account whether an order is affirmative or negative. If the industry flags it up as a problem, we have all the tools that we need to hold the Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

In my time as Chief Whip in the other place, I tried to model myself on Lord Dixon, whose style I rather liked as Chief Whip of the Labour Party.

I think what my noble friend means by “flag it up”—I stand to be corrected because I am not an expert on procedure—would require praying against it, and that would take some time. The sifting procedure that we propose is a 10-day system where, when the statutory instruments went before the sifting committee, the SSLC, they would be flagged up within 10 days to go to the affirmative procedure. That satisfies the Government’s requirements that it be done expeditiously.

We accept that next year we will possibly have hundreds of regulations coming through. I know that we want to get some though in advance—we may get many through—but we could have a period next year where we have a huge batch of regulations to get through because we are leaving the EU. Some may need to be done by 29 March while others may be done later, but we will not be able to have a 40-day praying period: we cannot take all that time to decide whether a regulation being passed by the negative procedure might need to go up to the affirmative procedure. The sifting procedure we have proposed is not like the super-affirmative procedure, which is far too slow. The special procedure we have proposed in this amendment, as well as in the EU withdrawal Bill, will allow for a rapid sifting so that recommendations can be made for a regulation to be upgraded to the affirmative procedure.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is very helpful. I cannot conceive how any regulation under this Bill would need the affirmative procedure, but we will see what the Minister says.

Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Earl Attlee

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank the noble Baroness. Our report does say:

“The Bill is wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”.


It goes on to say in paragraph 4 that:

“We appreciate that the position remains unclear for a variety of reasons”,


which explains why we think the Bill is skeletal. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us a few examples of the sort of regulations that may be necessary.

On Amendments 6 and 11, the Government’s helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that:

“The power has been left to delegated legislation rather than included in the Bill because the terms of international road transport agreements are as yet unknown. The provisions put in place, if any provisions are needed at all, will reflect the terms agreed between the UK and the EU or other countries for the carriage of goods”.


The wording in the Explanatory Memorandum is almost identical on Clauses 1 and 3, to which these amendments relate. That is why we simply say in our committee’s report:

“Given that regulations under clause 1”—


and Clause 3—

“might prove to be unnecessary, we recommend that the Bill should contain a sunset provision, extendable if necessary, to remove the regulation-making power in clause 1 if it does in fact prove to be unnecessary”.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on tabling that amendment on behalf of my committee. I had been a bit negligent in putting it down myself, so I am grateful to him and I would be grateful if the Minister, in due course, could respond to the points made.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not think we should tie the hands of government. If we set something in stone in primary legislation, it will be to our disadvantage and our opponents’ advantage. However, I very much hope that the negotiations will result in the absolute minimum of friction, for the reasons so well explained by all noble Lords who have spoken so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observed that there are no draft regulations in sight and that this is a framework Bill. That is not surprising, because we do not know what the negotiated agreement will look like. However, the Committee will be aware that if the Bill is passed, it will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raises an important point in his Amendment 7. I would like to see no restrictions on permits—more or less free issue—with one exception, which I am sure he will agree with. Is there any scope for denying permits to non-compliant operators if they are in trouble with the traffic commissioners or the Vehicle Inspectorate? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend the Minister this afternoon but perhaps she could write to me in due course. As I say, I am for no quantity restrictions but I do not think we should put this into the Bill because it would tie the hands of Ministers when they are negotiating Brexit.