Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL]

Viscount Astor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, today’s Second Reading is one of those occasions when we can reflect on the balance between preserving tradition and allowing the sort of gradual evolution that has characterised our constitution. I believe that this House has the opportunity to send a signal about our values as a country, as it did while passing the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which amended the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession.

Succession to the peerage no longer confers automatic rights and privileges. However, for now, succession to a peerage entails the possibility of becoming part of your Lordships’ House and, therefore, part of the legislature of this country—so there remains some constitutional importance about this matter. I am on record as saying that this House is too big, there are too many people here and too many Peers, and the question of the right of hereditary Peers to stand in by-elections should be dealt with—but as part of a larger reform, perhaps including retirement ages, length of service or both.

We must concede that the current succession rules governing peerages and baronetcies are archaic. The Bill seeks to eliminate gender-based discrimination, ensuring that gender is not a path to succession. This legislation could represent a crucial step forward in modernising our system of inheritance of titles, aligning it with the principles of equality and fairness that underpin our society. Our commitment to equality should be reflected not only in our laws but in the institutions that form the bedrock of our society.

However, I have one objection to this Bill. If its aim is to remove gender-based discrimination, Clause 1(4) does not go far enough. It still gives males in the line of succession preference over females. I believe that it falls short in addressing the fundamental issue of gender preference in the order of succession. I do not believe that any Bill seeking to address this issue is credible unless it creates a level playing field. As it stands, it is really a Bill that has as its only objective preservation of peerages and baronetcies that would otherwise fall into abeyance, having no male heir. As such, it is liable to be seen as a self-serving Bill that seeks merely to preserve titles and entrench a so-called elite, which otherwise would slowly reduce in number. It prevents an abeyance rather than promotes equality. Rather, it should be a Bill that brings the peerage into line with the Crown.

It is my firm conviction that there should be no discriminative distinctions based on gender in matters of inheritance. The principal primogenitor should be redefined to prioritise the oldest child, irrespective of their gender. I note that, in the matter of baronetcies, it is more complex and less pressing than it is for peerages, as there is no link between baronetcies and membership of your Lordships’ House. Perhaps this Bill should be dealing with peerages alone for now, and any baronetcy issues should be dealt with in a separate Bill.

I declare an interest, in that my eldest child is a daughter. The change in the rules in this Bill was on the face of it intended to promote equality but it actually does not change the position of the oldest girls. It is the worst of both worlds, because she has two younger brothers. I suggest to your Lordships that we should amend Clause 1(4) to reflect a more egalitarian approach, ensuring that the oldest child inherits the title, regardless of gender. That would enforce our commitment to a just and progressive society, where opportunities and responsibilities are bestowed without prejudice.

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

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have to comment on what has recently taken place. If it is a question of trying to avoid the idea that this House is not—what should I say?—economical in the way it moves, the business of having a vote against the withdrawal is extraordinary. One of the consequences is that the two Tellers who voted for the Motion were doing so against their judgment. In my respectful submission to your Lordships, it does not do any good for the rationality of the processes of this House that that kind of thing should happen. I am here to acknowledge fully that it was not the leadership of the Opposition nor, I think, the Liberal Democrats who did that. It is undesirable and I hope we will now proceed rather smartly. I am entirely in favour of this Bill but I was not very happy with what happened at the beginning of these proceedings. That is the reason that I did not take part in the vote; I did not think that it should have happened.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble and learned friend. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that it was a medieval process. Perhaps I should remind noble Lords opposite that the medieval process he referred to was brought to Parliament by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, when in government. It is not the fault of the hereditary Peers that nothing has happened since; it is the fault of the previous Government and the one before them. At least the coalition Government tried to bring forward some reform but it did not get as far as this place.

It is perfectly fair that we should be debating this in Committee. There are some of us who do not agree with the Bill and think it better to wait until the Burns inquiry is considered by the Government, and the Government bring forward legislation which encompasses a proper reform. I think my noble friend Lord Balfe said that we were a House of pensioners and that is a valid point. One thing missing from the reform process that we have talked about is an age limit, because it is quite clear that voluntary retirement is not really working—it is not bringing down the numbers in this House. There really ought to be a limit either on time served in this place or by age. I am reminded that one former Member of the other place, when he was first elected, came to this House and stood at the Bar. He said to me afterwards, “I’ve seen two people who I thought were dead, and with one of them I’m sure I went to his memorial service”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard]

I do not for one minute dispute that. I do not mean to insult my noble friend in any way. I do not believe that he thinks for one minute that I was being insulting. My noble friend knows well that I have great regard for him for the contribution he makes. Indeed, this is one of the very few matters on which I do not share his opinion.

[Viscount Astor]

Perhaps I can help my noble friend. I voted against the Government for the first time as a rather junior Member of this House, and the following week the Prime Minister rang me up and I joined the Government Whips’ Office. It was a form of promotion.

[Viscount Trenchard]

If I may continue with the quotation:

“Mr Blair’s justification is his dislike of the hereditary principle although he sees no contradiction in also parading himself”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly on this group in the hope that I can speed things up, because these amendments are clearly designed to wreck the Bill. The vote should have taken place at Second Reading; the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others decided not to vote against Second Reading. We are now nearly two hours into this debate and we are on the second group of amendments. I conceded the first group entirely to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and said that I would accept his amendment. What is taking place now—I know there have been interventions—is an abuse of this House. To be crystal clear about this, virtually none of the contributions has been about this group of amendments—or very few; there have been one or two exceptions. They have been Second Reading speeches, repeating time after time tired old arguments that are long out of date and have been long refuted.

I very rarely disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay; I can think of no other way in which the House could express its opinion as to the overwhelming majority who support this Bill and are concerned about the reputation of the House and this very small part of our constitution. It is part of our constitution that we have elections in which there are 11 candidates and three people entitled to vote—try to defend that. Do not go into the history books and explain precisely why the original 1999 Act was passed in the way that it was. I could wax lyrical on that—I was working in Downing Street at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others, made it pretty plain—by whatever right they must explain for themselves—that the Labour Government, with our majority of 170-odd and with a precise and unarguable commitment in our manifesto to end the hereditary peerage, would be prevented from doing so. It was made perfectly plain to us that many of the 750 hereditary Peers who were here at the time would not just block the Bill—they were intent on doing that—but wreck the Labour Government’s democratically elected manifesto and programme.

It seems to me that the same thing is happening now, but by different means. A tiny minority in this House are trying to block the overwhelming view of the majority. I greatly respect the procedures of this House. They are terrific in the way that they enable people to make contributions, to table amendments and to speak frequently. It is a great privilege to which we are all party. But to deal with, effectively, just one group in the best part of two hours—after an attempt was made to delay Committee stage—is a clear abuse of this House. If the people who persist in opposing the Bill do not do it by the proper mechanism, which is to vote against Third Reading—Report and Third Reading are to come, quite apart from it going to the Commons thereafter—then their proper course of action is to let the Bill proceed and let it be amended in a way that improves it, not that wrecks it. Then, if they are still not happy—which many of them will not be, I know—it is their right to get rid of it at Third Reading. I think we should expedite this, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will quickly withdraw his amendment and others will not move substantial amendments. I can see that they make the House look ridiculous and, in some cases, make themselves look ridiculous.

[Viscount Astor]

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that, in the previous Parliament, when he was Chief Whip, on the boundary changes Bill, his party kept your Lordships up all night, filibustering with what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches, to frustrate that Bill. He cannot have it both ways.

[Lord Grocott]

May I just remind the House of whether the Bill became law?

[Viscount Astor]

The noble Lord’s party blocked the Bill; that is my point.

Electoral Registration

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, since I last took part in a debate on this issue in March 2001, there has been modest progress. The Electoral Registration Act, introduced last year, extended the timetable for postal votes from 15 to 25 days. This a small change but helpful as, at the last general election, many postal votes arrived too late to be counted. However, the Government’s record of increasing voting by those who live abroad is still pretty dismal. As we know, just over 30,000 voted at the last election, out of a possible turnout of somewhere between 3 million and 5 million. We know that 40,000 downloaded registration forms but a third of these were unable to complete them or vote. The form was too complicated and difficult.

It is a sad record. For example, if all the British citizens who live in Belgium had voted it would have doubled the number of overseas voters. They can register online, which is an improvement, but it is not easy and most living abroad still do not know how to do it. What is the Foreign Office doing to help promote voting? It seems unfair to expect the Electoral Commission to undertake this role when the Foreign Office has the best contacts and best system for getting in touch with possible voters who live overseas.

I welcome the report of the group chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, but one issue which it does not cover is voting and the armed services. The most disappointing thing at the last general election was the inability of our Armed Forces to register and vote when serving overseas. Many, if not most, of those serving abroad were unable to get their ballot papers back in time. The extension to 25 days will obviously help at the next election. However, it was particularly ironic that those who were fighting in Afghanistan to improve democracy were themselves denied their own democratic right to vote. What is being done to rectify this problem? At the next election, we hope there will be rather fewer serving abroad but they will be spread around the world in smaller numbers and in odd places. This will present a greater logistical problem than it did last time.

I agree with the conclusions of my noble friend Lord Norton’s report and hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope that after the next election, the Conservative Government, unfettered by a coalition, will look again at the 15-year rule, introduced by the last Labour Government. It is unfair because those who live abroad have contributed to Britain. Many have always paid their taxes and still do. It is unfair and discriminatory. Even the EU Justice Commissioner thinks the law should be changed. Every other country in the European Union has a better system and most can vote at their consulate or embassy, something that is denied to our citizens. Let us have no more excuses about voting by proxy: it does not work. Voters want to cast their own individual ballot. They do not trust even their very best friend to tick the right box on the ballot paper.

The challenge is to get the word across the globe that it should be easier to register and vote and that everybody should vote. Unfortunately, as the report points out, they cannot yet do so electronically. Because electronic voting will perhaps come in after the next general election, the question in the short term is: who will lead the campaign to increase voter registration? This issue has often fallen down the gap between departments. As is also recommended in the report, which department and which Minister will be held accountable for improving voter registration?

Perhaps I should end by saying that I have never voted. I took my seat in this House 41 years ago, aged 21, so I have never been able to vote. There have been various attempts by various political parties to give me the chance, but they have all been thwarted, either here or in another place. I am not sure whether I should be looking forward to the day when I can vote. Only time will tell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I was about to say that there are some fundamental differences between the way we approach and citizenship and the way that other countries, including France, do so. The attitude to those who are overseas is very different there. The assumption is that the French state wants them to remain French citizens closely allied to France. That means that consulates and embassies are staffed more generously where there are strong communities of citizens and French schools are subsidised. Those are not things which this country has done. This country has not had such a strong sense of the state and of the need for the state to hold on to its citizens overseas. It is a national duty, in a sense, for a French citizen to take part in democratic life. We have not thought that the local basis for political engagement was quite the same, so we are talking about some quite wide changes in our attitude to government. I wonder whether we would see ourselves having candidates campaigning in Dubai or Hong Kong to appeal to their overseas voters in the way that French presidential candidates now campaign in London because London is a significant base for French citizens abroad.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked about the need to consider special constituencies. That would be a large departure and again would require some philosophical thinking about the nature of British citizenship. At present, the Government have not begun to think about the possibility of overseas constituencies because the basis of our system is the single-member constituency, local voting and local registration. That is also part of the reason for the 15-year limit because after 15 years someone who lives overseas will have begun to lose a sense of identification with the place in which they last lived and the local representative for whom they would be voting. We are beginning to get into a quite large discussion about the nature of representation and citizenship within the United Kingdom if we go as far down the road as some are suggesting.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that British citizens go abroad to work. I agree that is true for some. Some go abroad to retire. Some go abroad to avoid tax. The five largest countries for British citizens living abroad are Australia, Spain, the USA, Canada and France. They are quite different. In Spain and France, a quite substantial number have gone there to retire. In the USA and Canada, I suspect—particularly in Canada—a number of people have gone there thinking that they are leaving the UK behind and emigrating to live, as in New Zealand and Australia. In other places such as the UAE, where we have now 160,000 citizens, very clearly people have gone there to work.

If I were in opposition, I do not know whether I would want to exclude those who live in the Cayman Islands and Monaco from the right to vote in Britain because of the issue of whether or not they have gone abroad to avoid the citizen’s duty of paying tax. Noble Lords will be aware of the American attitude to citizens abroad and taxation, which is very different from our own, and, indeed, has attracted some publicity recently with regard to the Mayor of London.

The Government are actively engaged in this and we readily accept that the Electoral Commission’s expanded efforts are partly in response to what the group has done. Turning to the question of the responsible Minister, it is a Cabinet Office responsibility—Greg Clark, Sam Gyimah and, in the Lords, myself. I am very grateful for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that I should shoulder the entire responsibility. I have to say, my wife rather hopes that I might retire over the next six months and then there may not be someone who has this bridging responsibility between the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office.

I will say something about the Foreign Office involvement in all this. Unlike the French, we do not keep records of citizens living abroad, nor do we expect and require citizens to register. After the 30% cut that the Foreign Office took in its budget between 2010 and 2013, we are thinly staffed in a number of countries. We have reduced the number of consulates within the European Union, which is where nearly half our overseas citizens live. It would be a very major and expensive effort to ask embassies to expand into this new area. There are some limited efforts that can be made. Of course, one of the problems of having voting in embassies and consulates-general is that if you are upcountry, so to speak, it is much harder to vote than if you are in the capital. At present, it would require a very substantial shift and expansion of FCO resources to be able to provide the sorts of resources that are required.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, talked about electronic voting. The Government are not yet convinced that electronic voting is secure. The question about electronic registration—downloading the forms and then sending them back, as in New Zealand—is an interesting one, which I will take back and which the Government could certainly consider.

I hope that I have covered most of the questions that I was asked. I return to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with whom, in the course of discussing a number of SIs over the past 18 months, I have had many exchanges. We are still extremely happy with the response to individual electoral registration and with the very high proportion who have registered online. We are not content with the number of people who have registered from abroad. We welcome the efforts the Electoral Commission is undertaking to raise awareness of this and we hope that the numbers will therefore increase. But I say again that this is not for government alone—it is also for private bodies, the media and political parties. I will make one small remark on this. I was recently in Andalucia and looked at the English-language newspaper there. It seemed to me that if one were to have a Spanish constituency of overseas voters, none of the conventional parties would necessarily win, if you understand me. Some citizens who live overseas are discontented with the state of Britain, the European Union and many other things as well.

[Viscount Astor]

My noble friend the Minister has not been able to address the issue of the Armed Forces in time. I ask if he can take that issue back to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence so that we can help those serving abroad to vote.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I apologise for that and I thank the noble Viscount for reminding me. On the question of the Armed Forces, we are exercised with that. It has become easier, partly because the basing structure of our armed forces is changing. It is intended that most major units will stay within one place as their home: Catterick or Aldershot or wherever it may be. This will make future Armed Forces voting easier than it has been. I will take this back and if there is anything more that I can say to the noble Viscount to reassure him, I will write to him.

I will finish by saying that I very much welcome this report. I hope that the group who produced it will continue its efforts. We should all be concerned with maximising, first, registration and, secondly voting from all those entitled to do so. There are some much wider issues about the future of representation in Britain which we should also engage in before and after the election. I look forward to further debates on this broad issue.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Steel and agree that common sense has broken out. I too would like to ask him a question about allowances: was any consideration given to allowances for the hereditary Peers who were removed in 1999?

My noble friend mentioned that no other amendment would be moved. The House knows that I have given him notice that I will move one amendment to seek clarification on what he has discussed with the Government since the Committee stage. In Committee he gave an assurance that he would discuss the matter of those who had been in prison. I shall not press the amendment; it is for elucidation and to get it on the official record

I am grateful, in particular, to my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Steel for working all hours last night and this morning to bring common sense to this legislation.

[Viscount Astor]

If I heard him right, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that he would not be speaking again on the Bill today. I hoped that he was referring to this Motion because, in Committee, I moved a number of amendments to Clauses 12, 15 and 16 and the noble Lord agreed to consider those amendments. I withdrew them and said that I would come back on Report. I hope that when I move them later, the noble Lord will feel able to respond to them.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I hasten to say that I am not suggesting that we can have no discussions and no amendments—that would be too optimistic. However, we have only two and a half hours and I hope that we will deal with the amendments expeditiously.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Astor]

234: Clause 12, page 5, line 30, leave out “three” and insert “six”

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient for your Lordships if I addressed Amendments 234 and 241, as they both relate to Clause 12. I am firmly in favour of the clause in principle and have no objection to it. My amendments in Committee were to seek clarification. I have since tabled Amendment 234, which proposes that a Session should exceed six months rather than three months, which seems fairer to noble Lords who might not be able to turn up.

The important amendment of the two is Amendment 241, which relates to subsection (2), which states that the reason given should be of reasonable merit for subsection (1) not to apply. I am not a lawyer, and I am always grateful for any advice and support from one, but it seemed to me that by putting down “merit” we were opening up a Pandora’s box of discussion, which would not be helpful. The Bill would seem much clearer if it replaced “of reasonable merit” with “reasonable”, so that if anyone had what was regarded as a reasonable reason not to attend, that would be satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said in Committee that he would consider the amendment. I was grateful to him for that and, on that basis, I have brought it back.

I intend to withdraw Amendment 234, but I hope that, if I do so, the noble Lord will consider carefully accepting Amendment 241, taking out “of reasonable merit” and inserting “reasonable”. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 234. I have had other amendments passed over which I am content to have had passed over because I had no intention of pressing them, although in the matters that are dealt with in Amendment 229 the House should proceed with the utmost openness and accountability. However, I do not want to stray out of order. I hope that my noble friend Lord Steel will accept the amendment that would replace three months with six, because, speaking from the standpoint of a local councillor, I know that you can be absent from a local council for six months without having to go through any procedure in order to establish whether you are away bona fide. We do not expect there to be short Sessions of your Lordships' House of three months, but, given the natural age profile of this Chamber, it is quite possible that people may be ill, and six months would probably be a fairer time. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend considered that amendment.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am happy to accept both the amendments.

[Viscount Astor]

I am grateful to my noble friend.

Amendment 234 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Viscount Astor]

241: Clause 12, page 5, line 35, leave out “of reasonable merit” and insert “reasonable”

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I grouped this amendment with Amendment 234. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, indicated that he would accept it.

Amendment 241 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Viscount Astor]

275: Clause 15, page 6, line 17, at end insert “for the duration of their sentence”

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, if it is for the convenience of your Lordships, perhaps I may also say a brief word about Amendment 288. When we discussed Clauses 15 and 16 in Committee, I made the point that I thought that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was the forgiving party: that once anybody had served their time and paid their price to society, they should be encouraged to come back into wherever they left and play their part. I realise that they have different rules in another place, but it seemed to me that in your Lordships' House we have already had two Members who have enjoyed themselves as guests of Her Majesty, and we are likely to have two more at one point.

On that basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, raised the topic of the knighthood in Scotland, it seemed to me that we should have an amendment that peerages should be removed. Of course, when one looked at it one discovered that only life peerages could be removed, not hereditary peerages. That seemed somewhat unfair, because if you removed a hereditary peerage you would have the bizarre thing that a son could benefit from the misbehaviour of the father, which seemed even worse.

My reason for moving this is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Steel, a question about Clause 16 because should this Bill become an Act, as far as I can read it, a Member of your Lordships’ House who committed an offence and spent time as a guest of Her Majesty for more than one year would cease to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. However, if we then look at Clause 16 we see that there is nothing stopping them from standing for election to the House of Commons. It seemed bizarre that someone should keep their title and stand for election to the House of Commons. If someone should be forced to renounce their peerage and did so, as indeed hereditary Peers used to do when they inherited so that they could stand for the House of Commons, it would be slightly bizarre—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Is the noble Viscount certain that the phrase in Clause 16,

“unless otherwise disqualified by another enactment”,

does not catch the case he refers to?

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I do not have a clue because luckily I am not a lawyer. As it seems that we have rather a long time available to us, and as I suspect that we will be very short on the remaining amendments, I am briefly moving my amendment to get some elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and indeed anybody who is more qualified than I in the legal world. I have no qualifications at all to explain whether I am right in this concern. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will resist any sense of moving away from Clause 15, which is absolutely right and makes it clear that a,

“person found guilty of one or more offences”,

and who is sentenced to imprisonment,

“for more than one year, shall cease to be a member of the House of Lords”.

That is a very important point of principle on which I know almost all noble Lords agree, and it is very important that this goes forward. Surely, on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it is a different issue in relation to elections to the other place. Obviously, there are disqualification provisions in relation to Members of Parliament. In fact, I believe that Clause 15 essentially follows the provisions in relation to Members of Parliament who may be sentenced to prison. However, if a person has served a prison sentence and then puts themselves forward for election, surely that is a matter for the electorate to decide—certainly not this House.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I undertook in Committee to look at this matter and discuss it with the Ministry of Justice. I have in my hand four pages of brief from the Cabinet Office. I do not propose to weary the House with it but its essential conclusion is that the Bill merely brings the House into line with the rules in the House of Commons. The suggestion is therefore that we should resist the noble Viscount’s amendment, but if he is still anxious about it we can have a discussion outside the Chamber and he could raise it again at Third Reading. But, at the moment, I think we should resist the amendment.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I am grateful for the response from the noble Lord, Lord Steel. As I said, my amendment was put down purely to get some elucidation and clarity on the clauses. It would be helpful if the noble Lord felt able to put the response that he has had from the Ministry of Justice in the Library for those of us who have some interest in this to look at. I am grateful for his assurance that he will do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 275 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I referred to this matter in my speech. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Dobbs raised some weeks ago. I am very sympathetic to the amendment that the noble Lord has moved but I am not sure that it is entirely watertight. It suggests that the House would not have the power to expel someone right away if it was felt that they had behaved extremely badly. I wonder whether I could persuade my noble friend not to press his amendment today, subject to what will be said from the Front Benches. However, we should certainly come back to this on Third Reading.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, when the Minister responds to this amendment, perhaps he could tell us what the rules are in another place. My noble friend’s amendment seems very much to follow what happens in another place, which I think would have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Steel.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, the House is in a mood to reach as much agreement as possible on Report. We are not far from the end of the parliamentary Session; we all know that. I appeal to those who have been involved in the exchanges: could as many of these difficulties as possible be resolved quickly, so that when we come to Third Reading only amendments to which everyone can agree will be tabled? That will make it much easier for the Deputy Chief Whips present, as well as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It will then be much easier for the usual channels to schedule this Bill very quickly, knowing that it will not take very long.

Although the Bill is certainly not perfect in anyone’s judgment, I hope that we can get it to the Commons between now and the end of the Session while there is still parliamentary time in which to deal with it. I think that we can take the Third Reading within three working days. I appeal to the usual channels—they are present—as well as to everyone else to get cracking on Monday and get the Bill scheduled for further discussion—at the very latest, immediately after we come back from the short Recess. We would then demonstrate to the Commons, at least, and I hope to a wider audience, that on key issues that need reform we have reformed ourselves. It will then be up to the Commons to approve the Bill—we hope. One must live life as an optimist.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Viscount Astor]

The House debated the matter. It did not make any binding decision, therefore it is perfectly open to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to move his amendment. All I have to say is that I took my seat in your Lordships' House shortly after my 21st birthday, so I have never voted in a general election, but it seems to me perfectly fair that in order to sit here, I should be disbarred from doing so. I am perfectly happy with the arrangements as they are.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I disagree with the amendment. Although I do not think that a few votes will make much difference in the general election, it is a matter of principle: no taxation without representation, on which a famous tea party was held by the Americans a long time ago. We may not vote on anything to do with financial issues. That has risen to the top recently with a whole lot of amendments by your Lordships on the matter of financial privilege, which is just stated to be such in another place. With the growing awareness of the split whereby we are not allowed any vote over financial and taxation policy, and with the increasing power of the Executive because it has so many members also sitting in another place, it makes it more and more logical to revisit the ancient principle.

When things were more balanced, it did not matter. I begin to wonder whether we should look at how the balance of power works. Perhaps this is a small move in the right direction, to give us some rights.

Electoral Registration

Viscount Astor Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I would like to concentrate on postal voting, particularly postal voting from overseas, and on the comparisons between the previous general election and the AV referendum. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. I should declare again that never in my life have I been able to vote in a general election, although I have been able to vote in other elections, so I have no interest to declare in that way.

In the 2010 general election, 6.9 million people—15 per cent of the electorate—were issued with postal votes, and 83 per cent of those issued with a postal vote returned it. That compared with six out of 10 people registered to vote at a polling station exercising their vote. Almost one in five votes at the count was a postal vote, so it is an interesting statistic which shows how successful postal voting is. In the recent referendum, there was an increase in the number of people voting by post to 7.2 million, which is around 16 per cent of the electorate, and 72 per cent of those returned their postal vote. That compared with fewer than four in 10 registered at a polling station actually turning up to vote. We can see that postal voting is increasing in this country and is likely to grow even more. Merely 11 months ago we had a debate on this issue and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who answered for the Government, said that they would consider the issues of postal voting with urgency. I think that 11 months just about qualifies as “urgency” for any government.

One of the issues we discussed then was the depressing fact that in the 2010 general election, only about 500 soldiers out of 10,000 who were serving abroad, mainly in Afghanistan, actually managed to return a postal vote. The Minister gave assurances to your Lordships that he would try to improve on that before the AV referendum. I wonder whether the Minister who is to respond to the debate has any statistics to show whether he was successful or not. It was bizarre that there we were in Afghanistan trying to encourage the introduction of an electoral system into that country while our brave soldiers serving over there were unable to join in the electoral system in this country. I would be interested to know what the statistics are. The Minister also agreed that we should take a radical look at voting for overseas residents, and I wonder whether the Government have any statistics on how many people resident overseas voted by postal ballot in the AV referendum compared with the previous general election.

The Government have made a welcome proposal to extend the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 working days from the dissolution of Parliament to polling day, with a longer period between the close of nominations and polling day. However, I am concerned that the full benefits of this extended timetable will not be available to all postal voters. The Government have not indicated that they intend to amend the relevant rules which specify that ballot packs cannot be dispatched until 5 pm on the 11th working day before polling day. We are concerned that they may not arrive in time. Perhaps I may quote a counting officer at the last election who said, “The timescale is too tight to allow sufficient time for overseas electors to complete and return their ballot papers. They are basically being disfranchised every time an election is held. One overseas elector called on polling day as he had just received his postal vote, despite an early turnaround and issue by airmail”.

That is the problem, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden said, there were only just over 30,000 overseas voters on the register at the last election out of 5 million British citizens who live abroad, of whom at least 3.5 million are probably eligible to vote. We ought to do something in this country to encourage them to take part in the electoral system. Many people go abroad or work abroad, but that does not mean to say that they have lost interest in this country. They read English newspapers on the internet every morning, and indeed many of them want to return to this country at some point in the future. They should be able to take part in our electoral system.