House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lord Trefgarne

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I am disappointed to hear that the noble Lord seeks to withdraw Part 1 of the Bill. One of the great discussions we need on the reform of your Lordships’ House is not on the matter of election—we will leave that aside for the moment—but on how an appointment to the House can be made. An attempt was made with the so-called people’s Peers to establish a commission to decide which people, other than politicians, might be elected to this House. It is not for me to judge whether or not that is a success. The suggestion is that a number of people—appointed by who?—should have the final decision on who should be appointed to this House. Is it another super-quango?

All these issues have to be discussed and it is not good enough, I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, to go this far with the Bill—and it has been in gestation far longer than the four years he has mentioned—and then say, “Well we can just abandon Part 1”. It is a real mistake. We need to debate the issue thoroughly in every aspect if we are to proceed properly.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I do not agree with the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Steel for different reasons. My first reason is that he tabled the Motion to re-order the consideration of the amendments only last night. We have not, therefore, had a chance to consider the implications of what he proposes. If we were to remove Clauses 1 to 9 of the Bill, as he proposes, there will be consequential amendments to the rest of the Bill which have not been considered, much less tabled, today.

The noble Lord referred also to a number of the merits of the remaining parts of the Bill. I do not want to go into detail arguing about that now—my views, for example, on the by-elections are well known. However, if I may say so to my noble friend, it is on the verge of discourtesy to table this Motion so late in the proceedings of the Bill and then invite your Lordships to agree to it straightaway.

My noble friend also said that the Bill has been under consideration for a long time. He did not explain the position clearly. The fact is that this Bill has been rejected three times in the past—or at least has not secured passage through Parliament.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord has to say. Unfortunately, when he turned his back to speak to his noble friend, none of us could hear him.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I agree that I did that and I will try not to do so again.

My noble friend Lord Steel referred to the history of this matter. He said that this Bill had been under consideration since 2007. That is not quite correct. Different versions, slightly different versions or even identical versions of the Bill have indeed been considered but have not secured parliamentary approval. We are considering a new Bill in this Session, which I hope will end up in the same way as the previous ones.

My principal objection to the Motion is that it was tabled so late and that we therefore have a Marshalled List which is back to front. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not persist with his Motion.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hughes of Woodside and Lord Trefgarne

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, it would not be appropriate to pursue the matter further at this point but have we not identified the confusion that has now been caused by my noble friend reordering consideration of the Bill?

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am sorry to intervene again but the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, ought not to repeatedly turn his back when addressing the House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Again I apologise to the noble Lord. As I was saying—I will say it again quickly—we are now dealing with the confusion caused by my noble friend Lord Steel insisting upon reordering the consideration of these clauses. I will not pursue the consideration of the amendment, which I shall withdraw.