House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I start by recognising that there is of course room for more than one perspective and view on this matter, particularly against the background of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about which we have just heard.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

As a great friend of the Companion, would the noble Lord like to declare his interest under section 11(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct? Irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about his possible demise, there is a much wider interest.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am not aware of the interest that the noble Lord wishes me to declare, but I have been here a long time. That said, the problem which the Bill addresses relates to the number of Members in the House, which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been working on. On a single day back in 1999, 700 hereditary Peers had to leave the House. Since then, their numbers have remained firmly fixed. Meanwhile, the number of life Peers has significantly increased.

Be that as it may, the essence of the case against this Bill relates to the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, then the Lord Chancellor, who gave a clear undertaking that the position of the 92 hereditary Peers provided for in the 1999 Act would remain untouched until, in his words, House of Lords reform was complete. No time limit was given to that undertaking. In 2012, as we have already heard, the coalition Government introduced in the other place a comprehensive House of Lords reform Bill creating a mostly elected House of Lords, which sadly never emerged. I would not have opposed that Bill in principle, although there were a few questions relating, for example, to the number of Bishops who ought to remain.

I have referred to the present number of life Peers. I would not in principle oppose legislation as described by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, to provide for a statutory independent committee to select new life Peers rather than leaving it in the hands of the Prime Minister as at present. I could of course be persuaded that the hereditary Peers should then leave. In the meantime, I believe that the present arrangement should remain in place and I therefore hope that this Bill will not reach the statute book.

On one detailed point, the Bill as now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not include provision for the two statutory hereditary Peers, namely the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal, to which he has previously agreed, as I recall. I hope that that can be corrected if the Bill is to proceed.

I remain opposed to piecemeal reform and therefore to this Bill. I hope that comprehensive reform can come to the House in due course, which I shall not oppose. In the meantime, let us leave the hereditary Peers as they are.

Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill Committee

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a couple of questions, of which I have not given him any notice whatever—for which I apologise, but I have only just realised that this was on the Order Paper today.

The first question is this. Was this matter considered by the Liaison Committee, of which I am a member? I should know if it was, and I cannot remember it being considered by that committee. I understood that the setting up of all committees and Joint Committees of this House came through the Liaison Committee. It would be useful to know that.

The second question is rather more important. The Motion states that,

“the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 10 May 2019”.

This is the second year of a Parliament which was extended to two years in order to consider Brexit and its implications. By 10 May, we will have been sitting for two years, and there is no sign or intimation of the Prorogation of Parliament and a date for the next Queen’s Speech. No Motion has been tabled to extend Parliament for another year—which would be unprecedented. I tabled a question about prorogation, which the Leader of the House was unable to answer, last week. I do not blame her—it is beyond her control—but it would be helpful to know.

This Parliament is getting into a mess because of Brexit. We do not know what is happening—we do not even know whether there will be a vote in the other place this week that is meaningful, deliberative and decisive—and this could go on and on. To ask this committee to report by 10 May 2019 begs the question as to whether Parliament will be prorogued, how long this Parliament will last and how long this Brexit debacle will continue. I do not blame the Senior Deputy Speaker for any of the trouble—absolutely not—but, sadly, he is the poor man who has got to answer this. If he cannot answer it I will find another opportunity to raise it.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

I want to raise a small technical point. I do not oppose this Motion but I notice that a quorum for this committee is only two. Is it considered that just two noble Lords, or one noble Lord and one honourable or right honourable Member of another place, is sufficient for the committee to function?

Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I was unable to attend the Grand Committee. Will the Minister confirm whether this is yet another of the many hundreds of statutory instruments which we are having to consider in this House in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union, which 17.4 million people did not vote for—because there was never any suggestion of there being a no-deal exit when that referendum took place? I hope the Minister will correct his statement on the previous regulations. This is something which is taking up a lot of our time in Grand Committee, and a lot of civil servants’ time, which could be used in more profitable activities.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would like to refer to the reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has considered all these measures. The answers to his questions are in those reports.

Procedure of the House

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I will be brief and may no doubt be very easily persuaded to withdraw my amendment. I accept the principal conclusion of the Procedure Committee, which is that there should not be, in present circumstances in any event, an appeal against the decisions of the Lord Speaker. However, it is important that it is understood—I have to confess it was not well understood by me—that representations can be made to the Lord Speaker when permission to ask the Question is sought and should normally be made in writing. It would be nice if the Lord Speaker was willing, in principle if not in detail, to receive verbal representations for this matter because, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has said, time is often very short and it simply might not be possible to write a suitable letter in the short time available. If he was able say that in principle the Lord Speaker would be willing to receive verbal representations, provided her diary was suitably free, that would be of great assistance to me. I beg to move.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I hope that this House will not pass this without substantial discussion. It really is quite an outrageous series of suggestions. I go from time to time to schools, under the guidance of the Lord Speaker and her predecessor, as part of the Peers in Schools programme to talk about this House and how effective it is in scrutinising legislation, challenging the Government and in debates. Over the past year in particular, I have begun to doubt whether I am actually telling them the truth when I say that. We are cutting down the time in which we can debate and challenge.

To give one or two examples before I touch on the precise issues of this report, the Leader of the House gave us an extra week of Easter Recess without any consultation, when we were not able to discuss, challenge, raise Questions or take up Statements that were made in the other place. We will be proroguing a lot earlier than ever: tomorrow, as I understand it. Important debates on membership of the European Union and nuclear energy were held the day before yesterday in Grand Committee. In a major debate on nuclear energy, Members were told that they had three minutes to talk. This is ridiculous. We are not debating things properly. Those two debates in the Grand Committee should have been on the Floor of the House and there should have been time to discuss them properly.

My friend the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and I have raised the issue of PNQs on the Floor of the House. There is 10 minutes for supplementary questions when Urgent Questions are repeated here. This is not just a question of the Front Bench. Both the Minister and the Opposition took up minute after minute, but then other Members spoke at length so there was insufficient time to ask questions. All that the committee is suggesting is that we remind Members of what is in the Companion. We can do that until we are blue, or red, in the face; we will still not get the message over to people. Why do we have to limit it to 10 minutes? Do people want to rush home at five o’clock for their tea? I just do not understand. We should be here to ask questions, to challenge, to discuss and debate. That is what we are here for. To limit it to 10 minutes seems totally arbitrary and ridiculous.

The Chairman of Committees said that the committee looked at but rejected giving Oral Questions 40 minutes instead of 30 to allow more time, which would have let more people come in. They say instead that they should limit such Questions to seven per Member in a year. Why limit it arbitrarily to seven? That seems totally gratuitous. Then, in order to persuade us, the Chairman of Committees says that it does not matter very much because it affects only seven Members, and the maximum number of Questions they ask is 10. If that is the number of Members and Questions, it will make no substantial difference. It is an unnecessary restriction.

I am afraid that this is typical of what comes from the Procedure Committee. It does not want debate and discussion. It does not want the Executive and their control challenged. We know that it is controlled by the Leader of the House and the government Chief Whip. It is about time that people admitted this and said so: that they control what is happening. They do not want the Government to be questioned and challenged. After the next election we will be changing sides. We will be the Government. I ask the people opposite to think of that.