House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 29th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, I intend to be very brief. I support the Bill proposed today by my noble friend Lord Steel. This is the fifth or sixth time that he has introduced a Bill along these lines but the one before us today is, in my judgment, considerably the best of them all. I therefore hope and believe that it will go swiftly through your Lordships’ House, on to the other place and perhaps on to the statute book in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise for being slow to rise, but I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to speak next. I note that he is not doing so.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I have already done so.

[Lord Tyler]

I do apologise to your Lordships. I was making notes of all the points made but I failed to make a note of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am so hurt.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I say that, in view of the speed with which the Bill has been changing, with parts going in and out, the Government do not have a formal position on where we now are. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am not aware of any discussions on the financial implications of leave of absence. However, the Government will look at what emerges from the Report stage today. I am conscious that a number of noble Lords have trains to take, in not the easiest of weather, to other parts of the United Kingdom later today, so we are determined to finish by three o’clock. The Government will take note of what the House decides and see what further progress can be made. If there is a general feeling that common sense is breaking out in this modest step on House of Lords reform, let us hope that common sense breaks out on all Benches in the House in the future.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I have a few second-order issues to raise during the discussions on the sections which will remain part of the Bill. I do not expect that the Report stage will need to be delayed beyond today.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

235: Clause 12, page 5, line 31, at end insert “or leave of absence for such shorter period of not less than one year as the body provided for in subsection (2) shall determine.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

The purpose of the amendment is self-explanatory and I do not intend to detain your Lordships on it. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I apologise to the Speaker but it would be helpful to have the view of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the amendment before we move to a vote on it.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I think it is perfectly reasonable, but my noble friend said that he was not moving it.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I did move it but I do not propose to precipitate a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

237: Clause 12, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any member serving in the armed forces, either regular or reserve.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am keen on Amendment 237. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

239: Clause 12, page 5, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Lord Trefgarne]

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should explain to the House the consequences of changing “shall” to “may”. It may be of some significance. The House is owed an explanation.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, as I am ordered to explain, it is simply for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I know that we are on Report but that will not do. The noble Lord’s Bill is very clear on when the House may deem that a Member has taken permanent leave of absence. If we substitute “shall” for “may”, surely that leads to a rather confusing picture. I rather resist this.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not wish to delay your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 239 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

300: Clause 18, leave out Clause 18

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, this is a matter of some importance and principle. For centuries it has been the case that Members of your Lordships’ House may not vote in parliamentary elections to the other place, and this provision in the Bill reverses that ancient principle. That is a mistake. We should retain the arrangement whereby we in this House do not vote for Members of the House of Commons, and I hope that your Lordships agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs]

I am rather disappointed with this amendment, as we considered the provision in some detail in Committee and agreed to it. When the House makes a decision in Committee, I am not sure how appropriate it is simply to reverse it on Report. I am not even sure whether it is in accord with the way we normally do things to reverse a Committee decision just because you do not like it.

On the point of principle, I hate having to go over an argument which we used in Committee, but, as the noble Lord has used a counterargument, let me put it this way. It seems wrong in principle that we are virtually the only people in the country who are not allowed to vote in general elections to influence what is to be the future Government of our country. That is a clear statement, and to reverse it would be a retrograde step. I cannot think of any argument in principle—beyond the fact that we have always done it this way—that justifies our not being able to vote in parliamentary elections. We can vote in European elections, local elections and referenda. After quite a long discussion, the House decided quite properly that that was a good move forward. I very much hope that the House will not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

305: Leave out Clause 19

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Having removed from the Bill the Appointments Commission and the section on hereditary by-elections, we do not actually need Clause 19 at all. Therefore, I suggest that we accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selsdon]

Yes, I was moving an amendment but I was asking for clarification. I apologise for that. Can anyone in the House give me some clarification?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, goes some way to give the clarification which he requires. If he is still confused—some of us may be—let us talk about it at Third Reading.

[Lord Selsdon]

It is the simple matter that if the Long Title is wrong, it is wrong. Is it wrong or is it right?

[Lord Trefgarne]

It is right now.

[Lord Selsdon]

It is right. That is all I need to know. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.