House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[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 Cobbold]

My Lords, I was not expecting this brief amendment to come so early in the debate. It explains itself and states that in the future, when hereditary Peers no longer are here by right, they can nevertheless take another responsibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, makes a perfectly reasonable point. I am not sure that the amendment is actually required in the Bill but I am very happy to accept it.

Amendment 118 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I was describing to the House—I could do so at greater length but this is not the place to do it—how Lord Weatherill, as well as the late Earl of Carnarvon and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, proposed what was set out in 1999 after negotiation. I am referring now to the conditions of 1999 that led to the situation that is now before us, and I believe, as I have said, that I am bound in honour by those negotiations.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the Question before the House is that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. If I may, I will reply to the debate. I think my noble friend Lord Caithness—

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am very surprised that we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. What is the Government’s view on this? Do they think that this Bill is of such depth and importance that it constitutes the stage two to which my noble friend Lord True has referred, or do they think that we should be bound by the agreement of 1999? As I said, it is very surprising that we have not heard from our government Front Bench on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Caithness and others made the perfectly reasonable point that there was an agreement in 1999. I understand that. I thought that he was well answered by my noble friend Lord Elton in a very honest speech as a hereditary Peer saying why we should now move on. Frankly, looking back at Hansard, perhaps I may quote one or two phrases from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who was then the Lord Chancellor. He said:

“The transitional House will be of short duration”.—[Official Report, 26/10/99; col. 169.]

He also said:

“The transitional House which will be created as a result of the Bill will be exactly that: transitional and not permanent … The notion that the Government would even contemplate the notion of the Weatherill amendment becoming a permanent settlement, as distinct from a short-term compromise, is fanciful”.—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1092.]

That was 12 years ago. I do not think that anyone in the House at that time, and I was there, ever thought that 12 years later we would still be holding these by-elections. That is the point which Clause 10 seeks to address. We are now further on. We have had many by-elections. No one is suggesting that we get rid of hereditary Peers or that those who came in by by-elections are less worthy than anyone else. They have all made a great contribution to the work of this House.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is correct. By-elections that take place among the whole House for a hereditary Peer just pass muster and in the case of the Conservative Party and the Cross-Benches, less so, but there are some numbers. But, frankly, when a Labour or Lib Dem hereditary Peer dies, the numbers are ridiculous. I do not see that in the 21st century we can possibly stand up and say that people become Members of the British Parliament by heredity and election by three or four people. It is simply nonsense. In order to bring that nonsense to an end, Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Will my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire answer the question that I posed to him. Do the Front Bench, and he as spokesman for the Government, think that this Bill constitutes the necessary reform for the removal of by-elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I understand exactly what the noble Earl is saying. It may well be that some of us are going to relearn the process of wasting time in order to avoid a Bill being passed. As the noble Lord says, that may be the motive behind all these amendments. But I do not consider it right for him to say that this is a wrecking amendment.

How can an amendment to change the name of this House in 2020 possibly be a wrecking amendment? It may not be an amendment that will find favour with many people, but it is certainly not a wrecking amendment. But as far as tactics are concerned, it does this House no good for Members to cast aspersions on the motives of other Members. I am sure that all of us who have views on this Bill have good motives. Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was accused of being discourteous in withdrawing Clauses 1 to 9. He was not being discourteous; he was using the well-known political ploy of keeping your opponents guessing. There is nothing wrong in that. So let us not start chucking motives around.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that he and I are in agreement on one issue. If and when we get to that point in the Government’s own proposals, I will certainly vote to change the name to that of a senate, so I agree with him on that. But it is irrelevant to this Bill. The noble Earl cannot pluck a date out of thin air and say, “Let’s make it 2020”. It depends on when the Government’s proposals come into effect. The amendment is irrelevant to this Bill, and therefore I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

[Viscount Montgomery of Alamein]

My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I was very interested in the suggestion that he makes. Irrelevant of the date, when the royal commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, sat, I made a written proposal. Included in that proposal was a suggestion that the House should in due course change its name, if we were to have an elected House, to precisely that—a senate. That is what other countries have for their upper Chamber, and it seemed a very sensible way. It also has classical connotations. By no means can this constitute a wrecking amendment; it is merely a suggestion, and I think that it is rather a good one. I hope that it will come to pass. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Steel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, this is a small amendment—so small that even my noble friend Lord Jenkin will not be able to accuse me of tabling a wrecking amendment. I say to him that the only time that I ever hear that phrase “wrecking amendment”, one could substitute it with, “This is an amendment that I do not agree with”. We sometimes hear that far too often.

Clause 12 is about:

“Permanent leave of absence by reason of failure to attend the House”.

I support the clause in principle. For noble Lords who are no longer able to attend your Lordships’ House, it seems to be sensible. However, my amendment concerns the clause which says that the House of Lords may,

“by Standing Order make provision for a member to be excluded”,

and then, by application, come back. There are Members of your Lordships’ House who perhaps get appointed to some important government post abroad, or for some reason are doing something so that they may or may not be able to attend. We certainly do not want to lose them.

In the Bill, the reason is deemed to be “sufficient merit” for subsection (1) not to apply. My amendment leaves out “sufficient” and inserts “reasonable”. Your Lordships’ House has always been governed by reason and reasonableness. There should not be arguments in the future as to whether something is or is not of “sufficient merit”. Who is to say, if a Member of your Lordships’ House is appointed an ambassador or a high commissioner abroad, as has happened in the past, whether that country being regarded as important is “sufficient”? If they are sent to be governor of Gibraltar, is that regarded as not “sufficient”? We should have a test that is based on a choice of words with which I would hope your Lordships feel more comfortable. That is why I inserted the word “reasonable”. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor has moved his reasonable amendment in a very reasonable manner. I, being a reasonable man, propose to accept it.

[Viscount Astor]

I am grateful to my noble friend for accepting my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, now that this wonderful reasonable atmosphere has taken over the Committee, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Steel will also accept this amendment. It is a very simple amendment, because there is already a leave of absence. If somebody has genuinely taken a leave of absence under the existing system before the provisions of this Bill come into effect, why should they be subject to them?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I did not envisage this. Even in my better moments, I had not thought that this was going to happen today. I am indeed grateful to my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend will be quite as receptive to this amendment as he was to my last. We now face the problem that we have all been skirting around today, but which we have earlier debated on numerous occasions: the question of the size of this House.

It is hoped that a retirement system will encourage people to leave the House. I do not think that that is going to work at all. I do not see it working under the present system of leave of absence. Not many Peers have now taken it, although I have used a leave of absence when I was in my 20s; I was told that it was appropriate to do so if I was not going to be a regular attender in your Lordships’ House, so I did for three years. However, the procedures that we all followed then have fallen into disrepute, and it is not done to the same extent. There is a retirement scheme at the moment, and I understand that two of your Lordships have taken retirement, but I do not think that what my noble friend proposes in the Bill will work.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have tabled a new clause in Amendment 128, which states:

“A member of the House of Lords shall not be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons after their 75th birthday”.

It is important that the House plays a proper role in the legislative affairs of the nations. It can be debated whether the House is any better now than it was pre-1999; that is an argument into which I will not enter. However, as some of your Lordships may have read in the recent leaders, there has been some pretty unfavourable comment about how the House is behaving and working. Many of your Lordships have complained that there are far too many Peers, so the proposal that my noble friend and I have made is that there should be a retirement age of 75. Yes, we are undoubtedly going to lose some expertise from time to time, but the average age of this House is 69 according to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I do not know of any other institution or corporate body where the average age is 69. I have now been here for 40 years, and I am still below the average age of the House. To me, that is an absolute nonsense. It has worked very well, I have enjoyed it and I am extremely grateful. However, in 2011, it is not a terribly good way. If the average age of the House is 69, it should be made younger.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have therefore tabled the amendment. It refers to the 75th birthday; I am open to arguments for 70 or even perhaps 80. But we should at least have this debate, which is really important because it will reduce the size of the House which has been a cause of concern to so many people. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness is right. I am not going to suggest that we accept the amendment for the simple reason that the clauses that we have now passed put the matter in the hands of the Government. We have given statutory authority in accordance with the recommendation, which I am holding in my hand, from the all-party committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Perhaps I may quote from that. He said:

“On the evidence of our extensive consultations, we are confident that there is a broad consensus in the House in support of a provision to enable members voluntarily to leave the House permanently, in order that the overall size of the House may be reduced as soon as possible. We hope that this broad consensus might now be taken as the starting point for a way forward … we are advised that legislation would, strictly speaking, be necessary to override the entitlement to a Writ of Summons”.

I am with my noble friend in his intent, but it is not right to try to prescribe today, in the course of a Committee stage, what the age should be. We should leave that to the Government and the consensus which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested exists. If the Bill goes through, we will have given the Government the statutory authority. It will then be up to the Government by statutory instrument to come back to the House and produce a scheme which will enable the numbers in the House to be reduced. We should not do it in this arbitrary manner now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to all of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. Let me start with my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who has just sat down; I hope that he will bring forward an amendment on his proposals.

I absolutely take the point about losing a lot of wisdom from people over 75. It was a concern of mine when we tabled this amendment but it was right to have had this important debate. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said, quite rightly, that we must differentiate between active and passive Peers. I would only say to him that he should have supported me when it came to the abolition of hereditaries in 1999 because all that Bill did, in fact, was to get rid of about 90 active hereditary Peers. The majority of the hereditary Peers who were excommunicated from this House were not active Members and although the House appeared large in number, if we ever got a vote of 300 in those days it was indeed a large vote, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will remember. That argument should have applied to hereditary Peers but it was of course an inconvenient argument for the Government to accept. It will be a convenient argument for them to accept this time but it was inconvenient 12 years ago.

That brings me to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that I have an amendment to limit the House to 300 people, which indeed I have, and that we could not staff the existing committees. To follow up on what I have just been saying, pre-1999 we did not have the number of committees. It is only because we have grown like Topsy that we have increased the number of committees, and we will go on increasing them. There is no end to the demand that we must have a committee for this and a committee for that and, as the numbers increase—which they undoubtedly will until we get a proper reform of this House—we will keep on increasing the number of committees. I think that one should get to a number and then ask, “Right, what is the best way for those people to make themselves work in an efficient way?”, and if that means getting rid of some committees, so be it.

The debate we have had brings me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made on, I think, 4 June —maybe he will correct me—when he wrote this, which your Lordships can find on the Guardian blog:

“The old guard are already lining up to defend the status quo”.

That is clear from the debate that we have had. There is always something wrong with the amendment that is put forward. There must be other amendments and a different way of doing things. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that we must find another mechanism. I have put forward a mechanism and it has not received any great support but there is not another mechanism. We are therefore going to be faced with this continual problem of an increase in the size of the House, and of the active House.

I will, again, be referring in due course to some leaders that have been written in the papers recently about how this House works. I have increasingly come to the conclusion that in their writings my noble friends Lord Steel and Lord Tyler are both right, for what is this House designed to do? We have not discussed that. We are talking about reforming a system that is creaking at the seams without looking ahead to ask, “What should a second Chamber do?”. It would not be this House of Lords but having got what a second Chamber should be doing, you then work out how it is composed. I see my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth nodding. It is very unusual that we agree on reform of the House of Lords but this is one of those rare moments that one cherishes.

We are, again, putting the cart before the horse. Clearly, age is a non-runner. I accept that but it has been extremely worth while because at least my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have put forward a proposal to be discussed. I hope that other noble Lords will put forward different proposals, because there is no doubt that something needs to be done.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My point is that the all-party committee of the House under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has already come to a firm conclusion and published a report. By the clauses that we have just passed, we are saying to the Government, “Take this report up. Get on with it and let’s reduce the numbers”. That is the right way to do it.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I absolutely take my noble friend's point. As I said to him earlier, that is not going to work because the only way you are going to get retirement from this House is to have a financial inducement, and I do not think that that will ever be acceptable, particularly in the present financial circumstances. For a House comprising Peers who are not paid but merely receive expenses, to be paid to leave is not acceptable. It was not acceptable for the hereditary Peers and it is not acceptable for the life Peers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Steel, a question? As far as I am aware, only two Members have taken advantage of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Initially it does not seem to have been that effective.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I can answer that. In fact, what has been done internally in the House is not at all what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recommended. He recommended a statutory provision and a payment. The answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is that the Hunt committee said that this should be done without adding to the budget of the House of Lords, so that it would save public expenditure. The committee argued it very carefully. What has been implemented in the mean time is simply voluntary resignation, of which only two Members have taken advantage. The recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has not been implemented and it ought to be implemented, or at least considered now in some depth.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I agree with that but I just do not think that it will work. I cannot see a rush of Peers to take it up, so I am trying to get beyond that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, we now come to Part 4 of the Bill, which is headed:

“Conviction of serious criminal offence”.

I have stated before that I do not like this clause and I do not like it for two reasons. One argument advanced in favour of the clause is that the provision is the same as that which applies in another place. However, I do not think that we should necessarily follow the provisions of another place. We are a different House and we are composed differently. It is right that we should make different rules, if necessary.

I have previously mentioned my second reason for disliking the clause. When a person has served a sentence they should no longer be penalised for having committed the offence in question. When I was Minister for Prisons the principle was clear. The courts meted out sentences but, when they had been served, that was the end of it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is not in his place but I hope that there are some lawyers present who will support my remarks. Therefore, in principle I have serious concerns about Part 4. I completely understand what my noble friend is trying to do but I consider that the provision goes against the principles of British justice.

The term “more than one year” in the Bill is too short a timescale and would catch too many trivial offences. Therefore, my Amendment 130 suggests a timescale of five years rather than one year. There is a certain benefit to be had from permitting Peers who have been convicted and sentenced to prison to come back to the House after they have served their sentence. Lord Kagan used to sit on the Labour Benches, having spent a little time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He came back and gave useful insights into that experience which assisted our consideration of criminal justice Bills. My amendment seeks to improve the Bill and explore the justification of my noble friend Lord Steel for the one-year period. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness is very simple: I do not think that there is any magic in the one-year period. I am simply bringing this House into line with the other House. It has long been the practice in the elected House that anyone sentenced to a year’s imprisonment is automatically expelled. It seems to me that that should apply across Parliament as a whole. That is the only rationale for the measure. My noble friend has tabled two later starred amendments. I am minded to consider these very carefully because I think that he has a point there which we could carry forward to Report stage, if we get to it. However, we should resist Amendments 130 and 131 as they would make the provisions for this House different from those of the other place, and I do not see any case for that.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has mentioned my amendment, which is not grouped with this one. However, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to it at the same time. I think that three noble Lords who attend this House have served time during Her Majesty’s pleasure and that two are either in prison or have been there recently. There are a few over the years who perhaps should have been there. There are quite a few I would have liked to have sent there but could not find a decent enough reason. Be that as it may, the point of my amendment is to make the situation rather similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, says applies to the House of Commons. I absolutely agree that if you are in prison you should not attend your Lordships' House. If you are in prison I do not see how you can attend your Lordships' House unless there is some day-release policy of which I am not aware.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Either I misheard or there was a lack of communication. I know that my noble friend Lord Steel has a number of questions to answer.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

The principle behind Part 4 is simply that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers. That is the principle at the other end of the building, and it is one that I think we should sustain. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend not to press Amendment 130, because it would make this House different from the other one. My noble friend Lord Astor makes a strong liberal appeal for rehabilitation. If noble Lords would be kind enough not to move Amendments 131 to 133, I will certainly talk to both the Ministry of Justice and the authorities in the other place about those matters. I take the point just made by the noble Lord about sentences in other countries. We must take that into account. If we need to amend the Bill further at Report, I will be very willing to do so.

--- 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 ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I fully support my noble friend in his amendment, which is excellent. However, I look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, because, while this is of the utmost importance, I would not wish it to impede the passage of the Bill in any way. As I said, however, I am fully behind my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, to be honest, I was completely agnostic about this amendment. My initial reaction was that it was another matter outside the scope and intent of my Bill. However, no one has spoken against it, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lea, is correct that the origin of this practice was that Members of the House of Commons could vote in their Chamber and that we had a voice and a position here. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is right that the powers of this House have been diminished over the years, which no longer stands up to scrutiny.

[Lord Cormack]

This is a very important matter that has far-reaching consequences and implications, so could we not return to this matter on Report or at Third Reading? I am not saying that I am against it at all, but I do think that we need to reflect, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said a moment or two ago, on the implications and on the differences between being a permanent Member of this House and not being a Member at all of the other place during the election campaign.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I think my noble friend is correct. I said that I was agnostic about the amendment, but I am actually quite sympathetic to it. I just wonder whether it is right to make such a fundamental change in just a few minutes’ debate. I will take it seriously, and if the noble Lord will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly discuss it, again with the other House authorities and with the Ministry of Justice, with the other things that I am discussing. If there is no objection, I will be happy to bring back the amendment in my own name on Report.

[The Earl of Erroll]

The noble Lord says that he will go off and discuss it, but it has suddenly occurred to me that there is another solution. As we cannot vote on taxation issues, we should not pay taxes.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I promise to pursue that.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, given the widespread support throughout the House, I do not honestly see that there is any significant problem about this. We would simply be on the voting list and could vote as we can in European elections, in Scottish elections if we live there, or in Welsh or in Northern Irish elections. We would just have the right to vote. It would make no difference at all in practice. The local authorities would simply have an easier task when compiling the voting list.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, Members of Parliament might not technically be Members of the Commons when an election is called, but they can vote in a by-election. I very much hope that we can proceed to a decision. Everyone whose opinion I test in the country thinks that this is an anomaly and absurd. The world will not come to an end, but democracy will be enhanced.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, this amendment has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. As regards the argument that some people not here might have a view, I would say “tough”. Let us make a decision now.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Perhaps we could reach a compromise the other way around. I am quite happy to accept the amendment on the understanding that we will have further discussions. If it is found to be objectionable, for some reason which we do not understand now, we could come back to it on Report and take it out again. At the moment, let us keep it in. On that basis, I am happy to accept the amendment.

[Lord Dubs]

I am delighted with what the noble Lord has said. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I do not want to truncate the debate, but I want to reply to the mover of the amendment. I am wholly opposed to Amendments 138 and 141 for the simple reason that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has enumerated. Earlier someone said that this Bill should not be called the House of Lords Reform Bill, but the “House of Lords Improvement Bill”. I could even rename it the “House of Lords Housekeeping Bill”. What we are dealing with are three housekeeping matters internal to the House: the question of the election of hereditary Peers, the question of retirement and the question of removing those who commit serious offences. These are matters within the operation of the House and are not at all suitable for a referendum. So I am totally opposed to these provisions.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that this is not a ground-breaking constitutional Bill. It is, indeed, a housekeeping Bill. But I am delighted that the noble Viscount agrees with the policy of my party, which is that there should be a referendum on any Bill that comes out of the Joint Committee, which will certainly be a profound constitutional change. In that case, I am certainly in favour of a referendum; in relation to the current Bill, I am opposed.

--- 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 ---

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, when I looked just now at the amendment that I had put down, I thought to myself, “Why on earth did I put it down?” Luckily, some inspiration came to me and I remembered.

The amendment would remove Clause 18(1). I put it down because I was unclear as to why Parts 1 and 3 should not come into force for three months. On Part 1, I realise that it would take some time to set up the appointments commission, which I presume is the reason. Therefore, I perhaps should not have included Part 1 in the amendment and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. In any event, he does not wish to proceed with Part 1.

However, it is relevant to ask my noble friend about Part 3. I was unclear on why Part 3, on permanent leave of absence and failure to attend the House, should not come into force at the same time as the rest of the Act. It seemed to me that there was no reason to delay Part 3 being enacted when the Bill is passed. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I think—though I bow to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Norton sitting next to me—that the reason for the provision is to allow the Government to do precisely what the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recommended. In other words, they have three months in which to come forward with a statutory instrument. I would urge us to keep that in, because I am keen to keep up the pressure on the Government to do exactly that.

[Viscount Astor]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but there is presumably no reason why Part 3 cannot be enacted, because the enactment is then followed up by a Standing Order. Therefore, there is no reason why it cannot be enacted immediately, and the Standing Order can follow whenever the Government wish. I do not see that there is any advantage in having the period of three months.

[Lord Cormack]

It would be enacted. There are very many Bills that we enact, and there are provisions within them for certain of the measures which they contain to come into force in three months—it is 12 months in some cases. There is nothing constitutionally inaccurate or peculiar in that; it is perfectly normal.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I do not wish to be offensive to my noble friend Lord Astor, but the amendment would be incompetent, because if you left subsection (2) on its own, it would not make any sense.

[Viscount Astor]

I did realise that, and I apologise to the noble Lord for not getting my amendment exactly right, but my purpose was to ask why Part 3 did not come into force straightaway. My noble friend has given me somewhat of an answer which clarifies the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 142 very quickly because I need to apologise to the House. When I introduced Amendment 138 in regard to the referendum, I said that there were consequential amendments to it which we had not discussed. I am afraid I was technically wrong because the point I made on that amendment actually refers to this amendment. Your Lordships will see that there are amendments to my amendment for a statutory appointments commission and Amendment 142 is a schedule to something that we have not already discussed. I do not intend to speak any more to this amendment. I wanted to get on the record what I had to say and, in order to do so, I had to move the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, we have had a very good humoured debate throughout the day. It began perhaps a little fractiously in the morning but—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

Before the noble Lord responds, I have to call Amendment 143 as an amendment to Amendment 142.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, in order to allow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to speak, I am not going to move Amendments 143 to Amendments 161 inclusive because they are amendments to Amendment 142 which I am going to withdraw for the reasons I have said. I had to move it to get on the record my apology to the House.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, we have done very useful work today—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I am sorry. Can I say that Amendments 143 to 161 are not moved?

Amendments 143 to 161 (to Amendment 142) not moved.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

For the third time, we have done useful work today. We have carried out the work that we are here to do. We have scrutinised the Bill line by line and we have put through three important housekeeping measures, which I am very keen we should report to the House and then move on to Report stage.

I am well aware that not everyone agrees with the withdrawal of the provisions for the statutory appointments commission. The amendment dealt with that but there are also about 116 amendments dealing with the appointments commission. It is not my wish that we should proceed with those but my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Trefgarne have every right, if they wish to, to start the proceedings on 116 amendments and keep us here until 3 o’clock. I appeal to their sense of the mood of the House and the votes that have already been made and to accept that that will not get us anywhere; it would simply mean that the Bill would be talked out. That would be a tragedy because, as I say, we have done good work today. It has been a good humoured debate and I would appeal to them to allow us to move to delete Clauses 1 to 9 of the Bill and we can all go home early.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, it is a matter of opinion as to whether we have done good work today. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, thinks that we have done good work because we have done what he wanted us to do. However, for those of us who were thoroughly opposed to Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, we have done a day’s really bad work and it might be quite nice to start working on an appointments commission, which we badly need. If we worked on that, we would be doing good work.

[Viscount Astor]

Perhaps I could ask my noble friend Lord Steel a question. He has an amendment coming up, Amendment 163, which changes the Title of the Bill. It removes the provision,

“for the appointment of a Commission to make recommendations to the Crown for the creation of life peerages”.

Surely if that amendment is moved and carried by your Lordships' House, that is the moment when we should decide on whether to proceed with any of the following clauses.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but while that is an outcome devoutly to be wished, unfortunately the rules of the House do not permit it. The Companion says that the determination of the Long Title of the Bill has to come after all other amendments have been considered. That is why we are stuck with this position that unless noble Lords agree to proceed to move, on the clause stand part motions, to remove Clauses 1 to 9 then we are bound to go on and we will not get to the Long Title.

[Viscount Astor]

I quite understand my noble friend but I would just point out to him that in the Marshalled List, which is prepared by the Clerks, Amendment 163 is there. It is then followed by the amendment of Clause 19 and it then goes on to Amendments 1, 2 and 3. Is the noble Lord saying that we will have to postpone dealing with Amendment 163 until the end of the session today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, may I move that the House resolves to proceed by the most expeditious and efficacious procedure, as advised by the Clerk, to consider Amendment 163?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, for reasons that have already been explained, the Companion states that we cannot do that. We have to deal with all the other amendments before we get to Amendment 163. That is not my wish; it is actually in the Companion.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

We can do it if—

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

We can do it. If Members would stop talking, we could get on.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, with respect, I wanted to suggest that we follow precisely the correct procedure of which the Clerk has advised us; that is, to go as briskly as we can through all the earlier amendments and clauses and arrive at Amendment 163 as rapidly as we can.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords—

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

If I can just interject, we are on Amendment 142. It is possible, and there is time, to deal with Amendment 142. If noble Lords do not want to tarry on other amendments, there is time to conclude.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I agree—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Is Amendment 142 not moved?

[The Earl of Caithness]

No, my Lords, with respect to the Chairman, we are debating Amendment 142 at the moment and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is on his feet. I have yet to speak on it again.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I simply want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If I heard him correctly, he was asking me for an undertaking that if and when we get to Report I will not bring forward any major changes to the Bill. Was that what he was asking for?

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

It was indeed, and that we would not be faced with the prospect that we faced this morning when we turned up to find out that a large part of the Bill had again been jettisoned.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. The only changes that I foresee at Report would be those matters on which I have already given undertakings to colleagues, particularly as regards the clauses on sentencing, which I will discuss further with the House authorities at the other end and with the Ministry of Justice, because we must make sure that we get that right. That is my undertaking to colleagues who have moved amendments. With that exception, the Bill as we have now agreed it may now proceed as suggested and will come forward for Report as it is.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, perhaps I may again suggest what I suggested previously. The easiest way to do this is that when the noble Lord has spoken to and withdrawn Amendment 142, the subsequent amendments on the Order Paper—other than Amendment 163—should not be moved. We will then vote on Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and then on Amendment 163. We will then proceed quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Let me make it clear in response to the noble Earl that I will not move Amendment 163.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Can we hear the advice of the Government Chief Whip and proceed accordingly?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I have suddenly realised that the difficulty with that is that if we go to Report stage, one can speak only once, whereas in Committee one can come back and ask questions for elucidation. That was done today in the happy progress that we made. Will my noble friend Lord Steel recommit to Committee Parts 1 to 9 of the Bill?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

No.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Now I understand exactly what noble Lords are after, and I do not like it: it gets worse and worse. We should recommit to Committee the parts that we have not discussed. There are bound to be questions and times when one wishes to speak a second time, and it would be unfair if one were deprived of that. I leave it to other noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to say what they think. But I think that that way is devious. It is not in the spirit of what we are trying to do to help the noble Lord, Lord Steel, with the part of the Bill that we have agreed so far.

--- Later in debate ---

Division called on whether the Question be put. Tellers for the Contents were not appointed, so the Division could not proceed.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

In that case, the amendment is still in play and I would like to speak to it in the dying minutes of this day. The position is this. A small minority of Members in the House have the capacity to nullify all the work that we have done today. They also have the right to do that; that is not in dispute. I make one final appeal to those noble Lords. I am willing to discuss with them which parts of the Bill they feel strongly about should come forward at Report stage. We can then move to Report stage. It is not in my gift to command a second Committee day. We know that this Session ends next April. We have done good work today. I do not want to see it viciated, and I hope in that spirit that the minority of Members in the House who feel strongly about this will agree to discussions, and allow this Bill to complete its Committee stage and go to Report.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I would add merely that it was quite wrong for that Division to be called when every effort was being made to get a sensible solution.

--- Later in debate ---

Division called on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Division called off.

[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.

Clause 1 agreed.