House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 3. I will not press Amendment 1; I will seek leave to withdraw it in favour of Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and Amendment 3.

In the original Bill, we agreed on Report to adopt an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, exempting members of the Armed Forces from the new rules on compulsory expulsion from the House after six months’ non-attendance. He has since tabled another amendment to add the Diplomatic Service to that. It was my view that moving Amendment 3 and inserting into the Bill,

“, for example undertaking other public service”,

would cover both military and diplomatic service, and that the two amendments were therefore unnecessary. However, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne feels strongly that they should be included and one of my late missions in life is to keep him happy. Therefore, although I am happy not to press Amendment 1, I beg to move.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Steel has just said and will speak to Amendment 2. I hope that is the right procedure. May I explain, in just a few seconds, why I am anxious that service both in the Armed Forces and in the Diplomatic Service should be exempt from the provisions on compulsory leave of absence? In both services, service overseas is part of the conditions of service. If you are in the Army and you are told to go to Afghanistan, you go. If you are in the Diplomatic Service and you are told to serve in Afghanistan, off you go, or you will lose your job. You have no choice. In other public service appointments, that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, these two services should be specially provided for. I will move Amendment 2 in a moment.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I am happy to accept Amendment 2. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am afraid that I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The question of the validity of the Writ of Summons was tested at some length when the 1999 Bill was being considered by your Lordships, and the matter went before the Committee of Privileges on that occasion. It was the Association of Conservative Peers that took the matter to the committee—at some considerably expense, I might add. The answer was less than straightforward. I hope that my noble friend Lord Steel will agree that it is right to think further on this matter and perhaps to remove this provision, which may not be as sound as it should be, and wait for another legislative opportunity.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, on the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I entirely agree that the phrase:

“A person expelled under this section … shall have a right of appeal against their expulsion”,

has to be read in the context of subsection (1) of the amendment, which is about the standing orders. There are two “mays” here. It is stated:

“Standing orders of the House of Lords may make provision under which the House of Lords may by resolution expel a member”.

There are two safeguards built into the wording, and I should have thought that no standing order would be agreed that tried to make this matter external to the House; it must remain within the rights of the House. I entirely agree with the noble Lord on that and it is fairly clear from the wording of the proposed new clause.

As to whether the clause should be there at all, I have to say that I was simply responding to the debates in Committee and on Report. It is not something that has just come up at Third Reading. I was genuinely trying to give effect to what other Members said during those proceedings. I am in the hands of the House. I would prefer to keep this in because the safeguard is there. The House of Lords authorities might decide to do nothing about it, but it is as well to give them the statutory authority to do it. On balance, I prefer to keep this proposed new clause in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for his constructive response to some of the points that we have sought to make at various points during the passage of the Bill. On Report, he referred in some detail to his consultation with various unnamed Ministers about the possibility of financial encouragement for noble Lords who might wish to retire from your Lordships' House. When my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister came before the Joint Select Committee earlier this week, he was not wholly briefed on these matters—to put it mildly—and I wonder whether my noble friend has anything further he could say about government policy in this area.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The answer to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is that I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister after Report, but it was obvious when he appeared before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that he had not seen the letter. I am afraid that it disappeared into the bureaucracy—I have had that confirmed today—so he has yet to consider the points that I was making to him in much greater detail. So my noble friend must stop teasing me and just accept that these matters have yet to be decided and discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

You could scratch out the names.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Very well, but I trust the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I will happily send him a copy.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I beg to move.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend really is concerned to proceed with the Bill, and to move the House into Committee at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, this is a serious amendment of a probing nature. My recollection is that some past legislation excluded convictions under the Road Traffic Acts from the penalties that would otherwise apply. Perhaps that would be appropriate in the case of this legislation. I would need guidance on whether it is possible to sentence people under the Road Traffic Acts for the longer sentences that we are anticipating—longer than those that normally apply in magistrates’ courts. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench—or even my noble friend Lord Steel—can offer me some guidance on that. Occasionally, people commit serious as opposed to minor offences under the Road Traffic Acts. I would be interested to know whether that situation would apply to this legislation.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, my noble friend behind me asked me earlier why there was a reference to a conviction for a serious criminal offence, and how that was defined. It is defined by the courts, not by Parliament. As I understand it, the current position in the Commons is that any offence for which a year's sentence is given must by definition be serious. I am not familiar with the details of the Road Traffic Acts, but my guess is that if somebody were not convicted in a magistrate’s court, because, as we have just heard from the Front Bench, sentences there are limited to six months, then it must be a very serious offence. It might be dangerous or reckless driving. I do not know. I am not an expert on that. I do not see why we should exempt one particular kind of serious offence just because we are rather partial to the Road Traffic Acts.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am not trying to establish a precedent in this matter. My recollection is that the Road Traffic Acts are excluded from the provisions of some other legislation and, of course, it is open to somebody charged under a Road Traffic Act to elect to be tried before the county court rather than the magistrate’s court, so there is rather more to this than may immediately appear. It needs further investigation, and I hope my noble friend will allow me to do that.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Since I have already undertaken to discuss the other matters with the Ministry of Justice, I am certainly willing to take this one on board as well if my noble friend would be kind enough to withdraw the amendment. If we need to come back to it on Report, we could.

[Lord Swinfen]

My Lords, I am not an expert on the Road Traffic Acts, but surely someone who drives unlicensed, uninsured or under the influence of drink or drugs or who does a very serious amount of damage to other people’s property, possibly killing or maiming them at the same time, would get a very severe sentence and is not the sort of person whom one would want as a Member of this House in any case. I think the noble Lord needs to think on that side of it before pressing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, the amendment is of course adopting the arguments that have been deployed quite effectively in the previous amendment but is, I suggest, the more modest proposal, which your Lordships might find more attractive.

It would appear that a referendum has not found favour with your Lordships, in respect of this Bill at least, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that it might well be a good thing to include it in the House of Lords reform Bill being considered by the joint Select Committee. That is for the committee to decide and recommend, and for the future, not for the present.

Simply delaying the introduction of the Bill until after a general election has a similar but rather less profound effect on public consideration of the merits of the proposal, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has said. Following the earlier discussion, the Bill will see the beginning of the end for the hereditary Peers. That may not find favour with the Opposition—I cannot say that for sure—but let us give them the opportunity to say. Accordingly, I propose that the Bill should not come into force until after the first general election following its passage. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on this. The most important part of the Bill that we have been discussing all day, as far as this House is concerned, is getting the numbers down. If we postpone this until after the election, we will sit here with this overcrowded House until after 2015. That is not the will of the House, and I therefore reject the amendment.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I cannot be persuaded by that at all. I agree with my noble friend that the size of the House and the need to reduce the numbers are important matters. However, the view that we came to in earlier discussions was that what is proposed in the Bill goes a very short way in that direction. We need much more significant proposals for reducing the numbers if that is what we wish to do. My noble friend rejected the idea of an age limit; that did not find favour with him or many others of your Lordships. I suggest that the numbers can be dealt with through something other than the provisions of the Bill, which are not particularly effective in that regard. It is not therefore right to say that we are unreasonably delaying the reduction in numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Perhaps I may make one further clarification. I would have hoped that we would withdraw all these clauses. I will discuss with my noble friends things that they may wish to put back in. I will not move Amendment 163, so it will remain in the Long Title. Noble Lords might wish to put something in on Report on the appointments commission. They might want, for example, to bring it into line with the Government’s proposals. I have no idea. But that option is still open to them. It is not true that we cannot debate it. If we leave the Long Title as it is, it will be. As I have said, I will not move Amendment 163 when we get to it. I suggest that we withdraw those clauses and have Not-Content to the clause stand part.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I should like to suggest a different procedure but in the same spirit as that suggested by my noble friend. Leave the clauses in but at the same time not move the amendments so that the clauses, unamended, remain in the Bill. Then we can discuss again the amendments when we get to the next stage.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I accept that.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Friday 3rd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I begin my remarks by saying how much I welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Lothian, who spoke to us a few moments ago. I had the privilege of serving with the noble Marquess in the Administration of the then Mrs Thatcher. I also had the privilege of serving in your Lordships’ House when his father was a Member here a number of years ago, and I very much welcome his arrival here now.

This is the fourth time—is it?—that my noble friend Lord Steel has introduced a Bill along these lines, but I am sorry to say that his Bill is no more timely now than it was on the previous occasions. That said, I do not necessarily quarrel profoundly with some of its provisions, although I have some detailed points to make. I am not against reform of your Lordships’ House per se and I am looking forward to the government Bill coming forward in draft, as we now hear that it will next year. However, why are some of your Lordships, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, so opposed to the concept of an elected House? While I recognise the potential difficulties, which have been described, they seem to me to have been overcome with considerable success in the United States, for example. I will not dwell on the differences now, but that model is one which I must confess that I am attracted to.

I shall now refer briefly to some of the provisions in my noble friend’s Bill which may need further clarification, amplification or even revision. The noble Lord refers to a new Appointments Commission; of course we already have an informal Appointments Commission appointing the so-called people’s Peers. It seems to have worked comparatively well. It leaves the Prime Minister able to make his own appointments, if he so chooses, while allowing the appointment of people whom we very much welcome in your Lordships’ House: for example, the retired Chief of the Defence Staff, who generally comes here as a matter of course. That is not part of any formal commission, which I suppose would be the case if these provisions became law.

I shall also refer to the question of the hereditary Peer by-elections, as your Lordships would no doubt expect. I need to remind your Lordships that the 1999 Act was passed with the concurrence of the then hereditary Peers in this House, who had a majority and who could have opposed the Bill and prevented it from passing at that time. No doubt it could then have been passed by the Parliament Act, had that been thought necessary, but it was definitely thought that that was too difficult and that a deal therefore had to be struck. A deal was struck that allowed the 92 hereditary Peers to remain, including the by-elections, until House of Lords reform was complete. I am happy to accept that undertaking, which was given at the time and which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on at least one occasion and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.

I put it to your Lordships that the by-elections should remain as part of the deal—the undertaking that was given to secure the passage of the 1999 Act—and that when House of Lords reform is complete, the by-elections will cease. That is well understood. Incidentally, I am looking forward to hearing about the grandfather arrangements that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has referred to. However, I dare say that they will not include by-elections and I shall not be insisting that they do. Sooner or later, the hereditary Peers will, I fear, be on their way but not, I suggest, under the provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.

The noble Lord proposes in his Bill some statutory arrangements for leave of absence. I am not in favour of those but I would not oppose some more rigorous arrangements of an informal kind for leave of absence. For example, Peers could automatically be considered to have taken leave of absence if they did not appear for an extended period of, perhaps, six months or a year, or it may be that the Clerk should write to them at the end of the year, asking, “You have not been for a whole year. Would you like leave of absence?” or something of that nature. However, I am not in favour of statutory arrangements.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The problem with what my noble friend proposes is that, if he reads the report of our noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, he will see at the back that there is a memo from the Clerk of the Parliaments indicating that that cannot be done. It requires a statutory provision, I am afraid.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I understand what my noble friend is saying. I am thinking—I confess that I need to apply more thought to it—of some more informal arrangement where Peers could be persuaded to take leave of absence as a matter of course if they did not appear for an extended period.

I did have a problem with one aspect to which the noble Lord referred. I think that he mentioned some silver handshake arrangements. That will cause me very considerable difficulty because, in 1999, there were no silver handshakes and 600 Members of your Lordships’ House went without as much as a penny. It would therefore be very difficult to introduce a new silver handshake arrangement if that was what was now proposed. The noble Lord also referred to arrangements for Peers to be removed or disqualified for serious misbehaviour. It is very difficult for anybody to quarrel with such arrangements or provisions although I point out that recently, when there were some serious allegations against certain noble Lords, the matter was dealt with very effectively without any new legislation. I hope that that, too, can be borne in mind.

I make the general point that a Private Member’s Bill—no matter how distinguished the proposal, if I may say so—is not really the way to introduce major reforms of a constitutional kind. I am therefore, as I say, looking forward to the Government’s Bill coming forward. It will, of course, receive our very close attention. We will be moving into a Committee stage soon and I dare say that I shall have some suggestions to make to this Bill when that time comes. In the mean time, I can do no more than say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that this has been a very interesting debate. In fact, I have to say that, of all the debates on my Bill, this has been much the most interesting and constructive, because there has been much more agreement on the need for the measures that it proposes than has been exhibited in the past.

I do not propose to refer to everybody’s speeches, because, for me, it is not a question of when I get home but whether I get home, and I am anxious to make a move as soon as possible. However, it was quite interesting that, out of the 25 speeches, we had only two which were opposed to the Bill. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I have much more sympathy with their arguments than they would suppose, because a perfectly good case can be made out for scrapping the House of Lords as it is and having instead a small senate, on the American pattern, which would then be a complement and a competitor to the House of Commons. But that would mean a rewriting of the conventions on a much larger scale even than we have been contemplating up till now. That circumstance would lead us ever closer towards a written constitution, which I am in favour of, and would mean, I suspect, a resumption of financial powers of that senate, which we do not have at the moment.

However, that is a debate for another day. My Bill does not cut across such an eventuality if that is what were decided. The cheerful thing about this debate is that more and more Members have come round to the view that these provisions are necessary and that we would like to explore them further.

The debate was greatly enhanced by two quite outstanding maiden speeches, from my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Strangely enough, they seemed to dovetail in their approach. My noble friend spoke very wisely about the principles of governance which should direct us, while the noble Lord was very instructive on the history and updating us to what he called a Chamber of “respected revisers”, a very different view from that put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. The question is how we update our composition and procedures to make that more a reality.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am not opposed to my noble friend’s Bill as a matter of principle, except for the passage on the removal of the hereditary Peer by-elections. The other passages have some short-comings, but perhaps they can be improved in Committee.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, along with one or two others, questioned the precise drafting of the statutory commission proposals. I had some sympathy with his view that it should be more open and transparent, perhaps on the lines of the United States. I am very sympathetic to any amendments that may come forward along those lines when we get to Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, raised the whole question of democratic accountability, which again I think is the debate that we are still to address.

I particularly welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because he is a conversion to support for the Bill. He was quite right that we should retain the same sort of occasional club rights that we have for the hereditary Peers who have gone. My Bill does not in any way trespass on that.

The important thing that we have to recognise is that two things will happen, whatever happens to this Bill. There are two pieces of work going on that this Bill does not trespass on and which I would argue it assists. One is the work of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and his committee. They have to continue that work, even under the proposals of my Bill, which would provide the primary legislation that the report recommended, because the House of Lords would still have to come forward with a standing order. The details of that obviously have to be worked out in conjunction with the Government. My Bill does not trespass on that work or on the work of the cross-party committee, to which frequent reference has been made.

I very much welcomed the very honest speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, at the beginning of the debate, when she talked about the time that would be required to bring forward the Bill for prelegislative scrutiny. The combination of what she said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said makes me more and more anxious about how long this is going to take. We now discover that they have not yet decided whether it is to be a wholly or mainly elected House. Well, hang on a minute, that is a pretty fundamental issue. If we have not got past that gate, how long is it going to take? The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who is a member of the committee, underlined my point when she talked about the Bill being introduced in the spring. That is the latest definition that we have had. The spring is an elastic thing; it could be late April, I suppose, but it was to happen before Christmas. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about the number of issues that the committee was still considering and deciding. I do not see the Bill coming forward for prelegislative scrutiny for some considerable time. With the amount of time that it will take for the prelegislative scrutiny to take place and then the actual introduction of the Bill, it will be very long indeed.

On previous occasions, I gave up on this Bill after one Committee stage. That is why I referred to four debates. This is the third Second Reading, but we also had a Committee day. I saw no point in going on with those days because the Bill was being obstructed, but if there is consensus in the House that we need these measures, let us put it into Committee and try and fine-tune it before passing it on to the other place. We can say, “Look, this Chamber is willing to see reforms”. While these more fundamental issues are still being discussed, let us send it down to the other end of the building and see what the House of Commons makes of it. I hope that it will be sympathetic. For that reason, I beg to move.