Palestine: Recognition
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
That this House takes note of the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13 October 2014 that “this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”, and that this recommendation has also been adopted by the European Parliament, and the Parliaments of Sweden, France, Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, we might now add Spain to the words of the Motion. I am gratified that so many Members wish to take part in the debate, and I am conscious that the House expects to rise at seven o’clock. I join in that expectation, as I am booked on the last plane to Edinburgh, so I will attempt to be brief in my opening remarks.
First, I declare two interests. I was for seven years president of the excellent charity Medical Aid to the Palestinians. I am delighted that the current president, my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, will be taking part in the debate. Secondly, I am a paid-up member of the Friends of Israel, for the very good reason that I think that it is important always to distinguish between the State of Israel and the policies of the present Government of Israel. They are not the same, and too many people equate the two rather sloppily.
When I was leader of the Liberal Party, my Palestinian friends used to say, “It’s all your fault. It was under a Liberal Administration that the Balfour Declaration was first promulgated in 1917”. I am very proud of that, but I also remind people of the second part of that declaration, which states,
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
I am afraid it is that section of the Balfour Declaration which has so often been forgotten.
As a young MP, I went on the parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the UN in 1967. I remember the excitement and enthusiasm of sitting in on the meetings with Lord Caradon, who was then our representative at the UN, when we secured UN Security Council Resolution 242. There was a sense then that this was the start of a really effective peace process, after the war in that area. How sad it is that more than 45 years later, we have to say that that optimism was completely misplaced.
Then in 1980, when I was party leader, I took a delegation of six colleagues around the Middle East to study the situation in detail. We were extremely well received by Heads of Government including President Assad in Syria—the dictatorial father of the current President—President Sarkis in the Lebanon, President Sadat in Egypt and King Hussein in Jordan. The one place where we were not received by the Head of Government was Israel. Why? Because Prime Minister Begin disapproved of the fact that in Damascus, we had had the temerity to have a meeting with Mr Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO. The fact that we had spent time in that meeting trying to argue him out of a section of the PLO covenant and into recognising the State of Israel was beside the point. We had spoken with the unspeakable. It is interesting how history repeats itself: just as it would not speak to the PLO then it will not speak to Hamas now, for exactly the same reasons.
On other occasions, I have visited the border towns in Israel of Sederot and Ashkelon. I therefore fully understand the sense of fear and terror under which they have to live, with the quite unacceptable raining down of rockets from Gaza on to these communities. These are not only disastrous but positively counterproductive for the peace process. The rockets of course inflict casualties on the citizens of Israel, but none of these casualties justifies the reaction of the Government of Israel in their two invasions of the Gaza Strip: in 2009, Operation Cast Lead, and, in 2014, Operation Protective Edge. In the first invasion, some 1,400 Palestinians were killed and in the second some 2,500—500 of them children. I visited Gaza again after Operation Cast Lead and I find it difficult to describe in the House the scale of the devastation that had been inflicted, never mind the deaths. Houses, schools, factories and even hospitals were destroyed in that operation. Indeed, I am surprised that there has not been a stronger reaction among the taxpayers of the European Union and the United States, considering that the airport opened by President Clinton in 1998 was destroyed. That airport cost us $86 million.
In 2002, the Arab Heads of State launched the Arab peace initiative, which promised to fly the Israeli flag in embassies in every Arab capital. It was an amazing breakthrough, repeated in 2007. Last year, some of us had the privilege of meeting upstairs in a committee room a group of Israeli businessmen. I say that they were businessmen because they stressed that they were not politicians. They were launching an Israeli peace initiative in response to the Arab peace initiative, and arguing that the peace process really ought to be conducted at international level by the Heads of Government. That is still a compelling process, given that the Israelis and Palestinians seem unable to reach any kind of peace agreement themselves.
Unfortunately, the present Government of Israel under Mr Netanyahu have consistently rejected those initiatives and continue to build settlements on the West Bank, now occupied by half a million citizens of Israel. They are, of course, totally illegal, as defined by the international court. Mr Netanyahu rejects that court: he even rejects the Israeli Supreme Court when it criticises the route of the security wall. Israel does not like the reference to apartheid, but the separate roads on the West Bank that can be travelled on only by Israeli citizens, and which I saw on recent visits, are strongly reminiscent of what I used to find in South Africa, as is the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel itself. In 2012, the 27 European Foreign Ministers issued a report saying that the attitude of the present Government of Israel threatens,
“to make the two-state solution impossible”.
The truth is that, under the present Administration, Israel has been losing friends. The one stroke of comfort we can take is that current opinion polls indicate that the Government may lose office in the coming election and be replaced by something a good deal better.
Why should we now echo what the House of Commons has already done? I use the words of our consul-general in Jerusalem, Sir Vincent Fean:
“The voices of moderation on both sides need encouragement. Those Palestinians who eschew violence and practise security cooperation with Israel need something to show for their pains—to prove that their peaceful efforts, not indiscriminate Hamas violence, will lead to two states”.
We are sending a signal from this House that we welcome and echo what the elected House has already done.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I respectfully remind your Lordships that we have suggested an advisory time of four minutes to enable the House to rise at its customary time of 7 pm. It would be very much appreciated if your Lordships could keep to that advisory time.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. It has been a very serious and sombre debate, and a very constructive one. I noticed two threads on both sides of the argument where we are in agreement. First, I think that everybody who has spoken spoke in favour of a two-state solution. That is quite important because so many commentators outside have rather given up on that. I thought that was a common thread in this debate, which was significant. Secondly, everybody agreed that we must reach the peaceful situation that we want to see through negotiation. That is not a quarrel between us and I quite agree that we have to get into negotiations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, reminded us at the beginning that the recognition of the state of Israel came into being when it was not really in a fit state, so the same would be true of the state of Palestine. However, my mind goes back to the meetings in 1980, to which I referred. Although we did not meet with the Government of Israel, we met with the official opposition, which was then led by Shimon Peres, for whom I have always had a very good regard.
I will end by quoting something that was said by Abba Eban, who was Israel’s first representative at the UN and its Foreign Minister. He said this about the 1967 aftermath:
“The Jewish people fail to understand that there was something contractual in our entry into the world. We promised to share the territory. The present position (that is occupation of the Palestinian territories) is a deviation from our birth. I never knew of a country that could successfully throw its birth certificate away”.
I just hope that in the coming elections in Israel, we will find other statesmen of that calibre to replace the present promoters of government in that country.
House of Lords: Membership
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Higgins has done the House a great service in tabling this debate and I thank him warmly for it. I want to limit my remarks directly to the paper which has been tabled by the Clerk, but of course it originated in the report of the Leader’s Group entitled Members Leaving the House, which was published way back in January 2011. The group was chaired by the other Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Paragraph 47 states:
“We recommend that a reduction in the number of members of the House should result in an overall saving to the taxpayer. We recommend that the possibility of offering a modest pension, or payment on retirement, to those who have played an active part in the work of the House over a number of years, should be investigated in detail, though on condition that this should come from within the existing budget for the House and should incur no additional public expenditure”.
I think we all agree on that, but we do not want to see ourselves pilloried in print for increasing public expenditure. The object of this exercise is to reduce it, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made clear.
The Hunt committee went on to say, in paragraph 67:
“Whilst we cannot recommend that there should be a moratorium on new appointments to the House … we do urge that restraint should be exercised by all concerned in the recommendation of new appointments to the House, until such time as debate over the size of membership is conclusively determined”.
That, of course, has been cheerfully ignored. As we know, not only are the numbers going up but the cost to the public purse is going up. That will continue until we deal with the issue that the Clerk has very kindly put forward in the paper that has been put in the Library.
A couple of weeks ago, the Bill already passed by this House was taken up by Mr Dan Byles in the Commons. It got its Second Reading, and a pedantic Motion to put the Bill on the Floor of the House was defeated, so it has, properly, gone into Committee. We must hope that we will get that Bill back here. As we have already approved it, it should not be a problem to put it through the House. The important point is that the Bill simply confers the statutory authority that the Hunt committee said that it believed was necessary for the House to decide on what sort of retirement scheme should come into effect. The present so-called retirement scheme is nothing of the kind—it is simply an extended leave of absence. All those who think that they have retired from the House will find that, after the next election, they still get the Writ of Summons, because there is no capacity to create a retirement scheme at the moment. That is why we need the statutory provision and why I hope that the Byles Bill will succeed.
In an appendix to the Clerk’s paper, the finance director estimates that even if a voluntary retirement option was taken up by only 50% of those eligible in year 1, although it would cost £4.7 million, it would save £5.2 million. If the scheme kicked off at age 80, it would cost £3.9 million in year 1 and save £4.4 million. Whichever way you look at it, and however low or high the take-up, there would be a saving to public expenditure. We must, as a group, commend the Clerk’s report to the House as a whole and thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for bringing it to our attention.
Human Rights: Burma
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Alton is a courteous man, and will know that my noble friend Lady Berridge has been trying to get in, and indeed has started her question on four occasions. I am sure that the House might give my noble friend Lady Berridge a chance.
EU: Scottish Independence
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be quite a tall order for an independent Scotland to seek to negotiate opt-outs of both the eurozone and the Schengen agreement? While I am always very keen to see employment in the Scottish Borders, border posts were not something I ever had in mind.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It opens up all sorts of questions about the future of Gretna Green. There would also be a number of questions about Scotland having to negotiate for fishery quotas and for the financial contributions that Scotland would wish to make. Those who argue that it is Scotland’s oil would recognise, perhaps, that it would also be Scotland’s financial contribution.
House of Lords: Appointments
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I would welcome proposals from noble Lords as to how we achieve that. I have mentioned already the voluntary retirement scheme. Let us discuss off the Floor of the House the possible acceptability of a maximum age.
House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [HL]
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I am conscious that we have two other important Bills to deal with today and I am hopeful that we shall have a short and effective debate. The Bill contains precisely the same three provisions already approved by your Lordships in the previous Session in the Bill that we sent to the other place, where, in the words of the Leader of the House, it languished for some weeks. I hope that that will not happen again. I am reasonably assured that it will not and we therefore wish to send the Bill to the other place as soon as possible—I hope without any Committee or Report stage, given that we have discussed the provisions in detail on many occasions.
The Bill is neither in opposition to nor complementary to the government Bill that was published this week. The Government are dealing with fundamental changes to the House up to the year 2025. This Bill deals with changes to the House that are needed, and could be implemented, in this Session. That is a big difference. In any case, my view is—and I hope that I will not be misunderstood—that the least said about the other Bill during this debate the better.
This Bill has undergone some professional redrafting, including the change to the Short Title, which makes it clear that it has no ambition to be described as a reform Bill. It deals specifically with cessation of membership of the House. It introduces a fundamental change because, until now, all of us in this Chamber, whether we are here created as life Peers under the 1958 Act or as hereditary Peers under the 1999 Act, remain Members of this House for life, and there is nothing we can do about it. The Bill changes that in three important ways. Before I start describing the details, I am conscious that I am in danger of being guilty of tedious repetition, given that I have described the Bill on many occasions. However, let me briefly outline the three provisions.
First, it proposes that Members may cease to be Members of this House on a voluntary basis if they choose to retire. The Bill simply gives statutory effect to the recommendations of the all-party committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral that were published nearly two years ago. The committee recommended a voluntary retirement scheme that would reduce the numbers in this place and save the taxpayer money. There is of course no money provision in the Bill. It would be a matter for the House authorities, as recommended by the committee, to work up a scheme and, at the end of the day, for the House to approve any scheme. It would probably contain not a golden handshake, or even a silver handshake, but perhaps a bronze handshake as a token of recognition of service to the House. However, that is a matter for the House to decide in the future. What is required, as the committee told us, is a statutory authority, which is provided for in the Bill.
The second provision is for compulsory retirement for those who fail to attend in one Session. It may surprise Members to read, as I did the other day, that in the previous Session some 72 Members of the House failed to turn up; but, of course, they still receive papers and the Writ of Summons, and some of them occupy desks. Therefore, a provision that would reduce our numbers by some 10% would save money and administration, and is a sensible measure that every local authority in the land already implements.
The third provision is simply to bring us into line with the other Chamber by removing from Membership of the House those who are guilty of criminal offences and sentenced to a year or more in prison.
Those are the three provisions that we have discussed many times. I hope that we have a short debate and that the Bill will have a quick passage to the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Wills
My Lords, the political classes are once again whipping themselves into a frenzy over the Government’s comprehensive reform Bill. As the comfortably familiar arguments from all sides roll out once again, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, continues on his quiet and indefatigable quest to reform your Lordships’ House piece by piece. Here is the latest instalment.
In my view this is a practical and sensible Bill. It makes provisions for membership of your Lordships’ House that are long overdue. The only conceivable reason for opposing it is that it will soon become unnecessary when the Government’s proposals for comprehensive reform for the House of Lords are passed into law. That might—I stress “might”—be a problem for the Bill. Why should precious legislative time be spent on a Bill that will soon become redundant?
The cynical may see this as an attempt to tackle an obvious problem with the way your Lordships’ House operates in order to weaken the case for more general reform. That might dispose those who favour making the House of Lords more accountable through the election of its Members—I am such a person—to oppose the Bill. However, that would be a mistake. The mishandling by the Government of their House of Lords Reform Bill has almost certainly doomed it. I regret that. I fear that the Government’s revised proposals—this is not the time to discuss them in detail—still fail adequately to address the Bill’s two fundamental flaws. One is a failure to provide an adequate mechanism governing the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. The second is the length of term of the elected Members of the House, and the fact that they will not have to stand for re-election. I fear that the Government have botched the legislation so severely that it is too late for the Bill to make any serious progress in either House in this Parliament.
If this gloomy analysis is correct, it follows that the House must reform itself piecemeal—while at least some of us wait for a general election and perhaps another attempt at more comprehensive reform. This Bill contains some necessary reforms. Many noble Lords have long argued that there should be provision to retire. It is absurd that a Member of the House should be forced to remain a Member if they no longer wish to be one. It is a hangover from the days when membership was entirely hereditary, and it has no place in a modern Chamber. Nor can it be acceptable for anyone to enjoy the status and privileges of membership of the House when they cannot be bothered to turn up. Again, the Bill makes sensible, proportionate provision for that.
It is also clear that there must be an ability to expel Members of the House who have been convicted of a criminal offence. The current position, which is that no matter how grave their offence, a convicted criminal can remain a Member of the House, demeans Parliament. However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain in a little more detail how he decided on his criteria for expulsion. I understand from the Library that they differ from those that apply in the other place. There it remains a matter of judgment for the House whether a conviction merits expulsion. In contrast, the Bill seeks to set down objective and immutable criteria. I understand the advantages of removing subjective judgments from the process. There is always a risk that Members of either House will be more sympathetic to those they know and may have been friendly with for many years than the cold facts of the case would merit and the public would consider fair. However, there is also a risk that rigid criteria might in certain circumstances lead to expulsion in cases where such a punishment may not be justified. I find it hard to imagine what those circumstances might be, but there must be at least a possibility that they could occur.
For example, let us consider the case of a Member of your Lordships’ House who takes part in a political demonstration for a cause in which they and many others passionately believe—not all passion is spent in your Lordships’ House, as we see in debates for example on this issue—and is found guilty of violent disorder. The offence often results in a sentence that would, under the terms of the Bill, lead to expulsion from the House. Such a sentence could be imposed for the offence of throwing a flimsy wooden placard in the direction of the police but not hitting anybody, in the heat of the moment. Would that really merit expulsion from the House when someone convicted in a magistrates’ court of head-butting a nurse while drunk in an accident and emergency department would receive a sentence that would allow him or her to remain a Member of the House?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The answer to the noble Lord’s question lies in Clause 3(5), which states:
“The Lord Speaker shall not issue a certificate under subsection (2) in respect of a conviction … if the House of Lords resolves that subsection (1) should not apply to the conviction by means of special circumstances”.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the noble Lord but, with respect, the “special circumstances” do not take us much further. I would be grateful if he would say why he has not allowed the latitude that the other place allows but has set down specific requirements—for which I well understand the need—while then allowing the get-out clause that refers to “special circumstances”. I would be grateful if he would spell out what special circumstances are in his mind. I have given an example from my point of view and would be grateful if at some point—not necessarily today—he would spell that out. With that proviso—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have given way a great many times, and I think that I ought to draw what I hoped would be my brief remarks to a close. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is an extremely modest and incremental proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, has already given notice that he intends to table amendments in Committee, but I trust that the Bill will pass relatively quickly through this House and will be perhaps an indication that there are at least some ways in which this House is willing to move on reform. On that basis, I hand back the wind-up to the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. I particularly liked the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, at the beginning to not mentioning the war. It was inevitable, of course, that the two Front-Benchers, when winding up on my Bill, would talk of nothing else except the war. As for my noble friend Lord Fowler, he did not just mention the war—he positively conducted it single-handedly. I cannot possibly associate myself with his remarks of support. In the brief moment that he referred to my Bill, he made one point to which I would like to respond. He thought that I had been too generous in the drafting in saying that non-attendance should apply to a whole Session. I remind the House that I rather agree with that and, in the original Bill, the time of non-attendance was six months. But I was giving way to the feeling in the Committee stage on that Bill, which is why it ended up as a whole Session. So I do not think that we can keep going back and revisiting this issue; we discussed it at great length under the previous Bill, which is why we are where we are now. I hope that my noble friend accepts that.
In relation to the general war, let me say that this Bill is required even if the Bill as drafted by the Government were to sail through both Houses and come into full effect in 2025. We would still need this measure up till then. So regardless of any views that Members may have on the Government’s proposals, I think that this Bill should be proceeded with as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, all made reference to there being no appeal procedure for those expelled for reasons of criminal conviction. Initially the intention of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and me was to bring the rule in this House entirely into line with that in the House of Commons. If in the course of the redrafting we have somehow lost that, I will certainly look at it very carefully before Committee, in the light of the comments that noble Lords have made, and be in touch with them about it in the hope of trying to avoid amendments—but we may have to have amendments in Committee. It is a reasonable point. I assure Members that the intention was to make the rule in this House exactly the same as in the House of Commons.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, about retrospection, I assure noble Lords that I took very careful account of this, because I was concerned that it should not be retrospective. All the legal advice that I had was that it is not retrospective. In fact, no law is retrospective, unless it says so otherwise. So I was advised that it was not necessary to put a provision in saying that it was not retrospective because it manifestly is not. That is what I have been told and, therefore, Members can be assured that it is not retrospective in any shape or form.
My noble friend Lord Tyler was kind enough to refer to my excellent article in the Independent last week. That is not so much mentioning the war as, certainly, mentioning guerrilla tactics, so to speak. We certainly should not be trying to debate that now, but I disagree with his comments on my excellent article because the suggestions that I put forward for an elected House avoided a lot of the dangers which are present in the government legislation. However, that would be taking me away from the purpose of the Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, is a modest, effective measure. I hope that it will proceed.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 10 to 20, Clauses 1 to 9.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, during these short recesses my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said to me that there has been an outbreak of common sense in your Lordships’ House this morning, and I hope that will turn out to be true. Before I turn to the Motion, I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and his colleagues for their brevity on the previous Bill. I have to admit that when I first saw that the subterranean Bill had been tabled before mine, I had suspicions that it had more to do with undermining my Bill than anything else but, on listening to the debate and being educated on the subject—I have to admit that I am not familiar with subterranean matters in the Ettrick Valley—it has made me even more glad that I do not live in London. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who was as good as his word because he is known in this House to be—how can I put it politely?—highly articulate, but he kept his remarks very short.
I hope that I can crave the indulgence of the House if I use this opportunity to make the only speech I intend to make during the time left to us today in order to describe what has happened since the Committee stage taken in October. The reason for the Order of Consideration Motion is that I wish to remove the part of the Bill proposing a statutory Appointments Commission. I shall explain briefly why I wish to do so. The truth is that since the Bill was given a Second Reading a long time ago, the Government have come forward with their own plans for a statutory Appointments Commission in the course of their promised Bill, which will come to us in the next Session. It seemed to me to be a waste of time to attempt in a Private Member’s Bill to do what the Government are planning to do anyway in a very different way later on.
The other reason I wanted to remove it was that when I looked at the original Order Paper, some 25 amendments had been tabled of which three related to the other matters and all the rest concerned the Appointments Commission, so there was also a practical reason for taking it out of the Bill. By putting those amendments at the end, once we have dealt with the other three issues, we can take these clauses out of the Bill one by one. That will enable us to proceed in an orderly manner.
The most important part of the Bill that we are now considering is, I would submit, the retirement section. Here again major progress has been made since October. The House will recall that the all-party committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, recommended that the House should take statutory powers to introduce a retirement scheme. While I shall not quote the report in detail, the committee also said that that should be done without expense to the public purse and within the budget of your Lordships’ House. Since then, I have had discussions with four Members of the Cabinet. I am not going to name them, but I will say that one was a Liberal Democrat and the other three were Conservatives. We talked about what sort of scheme might be introduced if we give the House the necessary statutory authority.
At present, those Peers who attend regularly, by which I mean almost every day, can take home in allowances over the course of a year something over £40,000. In my discussions with Ministers, who agreed that this is a sensible proposal, a scheme could be devised which has two caps on it. The Government are keen on capping payments and I suspect that capping any kind of terminal allowance would be quite popular. These details are not in the Bill, but I shall give noble Lords an indication of the kind of discussions that have been going on. If a cap were set at £30,000, that would be the same as the tax-free allowance on redundancy payments made in the outside world and so would be quite acceptable and in line with other occupations.
We suggested that the other cap would be that the maximum amount any Member could claim would be no more than they claimed in the last Session of Parliament. That would prevent Members who come only occasionally suddenly deciding to claim a large lump sum. With that in place, I think that the scheme would be financially neutral. The taxpayer would benefit after one year because no more payments would be made to those who leave. I also suggest that there should be a minimum payment of something like £5,000 to deal with those Members who no longer attend for reasons of frailty, but who have given great service to the House and may wish to take advantage of this proposal.
The point of passing today the statutory provision is that we could possibly then see, in short order, the number of Members of the House being reduced to below that of Members of the House of Commons; in other words, from some 800 who will shortly receive the Writ of Summons for the new Session down to below 650. That would be very desirable and is, as I say, the most important part of the Bill.
The second part, which would remain in the Bill if we passed this Motion, is the power to expel, in line with the rule in the House of Commons, those who are guilty of major breaches of the law. This has become rather more topical following the removal of a knighthood from a member of the banking fraternity. Many people have asked why in the House of Lords we have no means of expelling those who commit serious offences. I am conscious that I have not dealt with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dobbs in his speech a few weeks ago that we could, if necessary, add to that part of the Bill at Third Reading, but at the moment it would simply bring the rule in this House into line with the rule in the other place.
The third part is the controversial one, which is to end the hereditary by-elections. It is that part which has met with strong objection from a number of our colleagues in the House. I have not changed my view that the hereditary by-elections, particularly in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, are really quite farcical. In the 21st century to have elections to Parliament by heredity by three votes to one is simply absurd. On the other hand, other Members of the House feel strongly about the principle that undertakings were given back in 1999 that the numbers would continue to be topped up until major reforms were made. That has been the issue between us and what has caused the sudden appearance of some 300 amendments, which is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary tactic in order to scupper the Bill. However, there have been congenial discussions between us and we have agreed that, provided I take Clause 10 out of the Bill, these amendments will not be moved. The result would be that today we would end up securing voluntary retirement and compulsory expulsion, both of which would be useful reforms.
I ought to make clear that, if we now agree this Motion, the first point of substance is to take out Clause 10. I have learned—and this may come as a shock to other Members—that because we had a vote in Committee to keep Clause 10 in, it will require unanimity on Report to take it out. In other words, when I to move to delete Clause 10, it will take only one Member of your Lordships’ House to shout “Not content” for us to fail in the endeavour. If we fail in that endeavour, the prospect of legislating at all today will be lost. I appeal to Members to watch carefully and to accept the guidance of the Lord Speaker, who has been extremely helpful in this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will my noble friend tell the House what the future progress of his Bill is likely to be were we to get through today?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I was not going to be grateful to my noble friend, but I am. I should have pointed out that I have been promised that if we get through the Report stage today, a day will be given for Third Reading. After that, the Bill can go to the other place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for his helpful explanation. Can he confirm that the point he made about allowances is, as I think he put it, in formal discussions? Can he say whether that was a commitment entered into by the Government? Can he further confirm that the Bill does not deal with the issue of allowances?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I said that. There is absolutely no undertaking from the Government as to what kind of scheme they would introduce. However, as the committee of the other noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made clear, we need a statutory provision in order that a scheme can be introduced. My discussions have simply been speculative about what kind of scheme might be introduced. It will be for the Government to come forward with a scheme, which the House can then approve, disapprove or amend in due course.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Steel, accept the gratitude of someone who served on the Leader’s Group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which looked at the issue of retirement? There are—
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.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it might be helpful if I say that, in view of the speed with which the Bill has been changing, with parts going in and out, the Government do not have a formal position on where we now are. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am not aware of any discussions on the financial implications of leave of absence. However, the Government will look at what emerges from the Report stage today. I am conscious that a number of noble Lords have trains to take, in not the easiest of weather, to other parts of the United Kingdom later today, so we are determined to finish by three o’clock. The Government will take note of what the House decides and see what further progress can be made. If there is a general feeling that common sense is breaking out in this modest step on House of Lords reform, let us hope that common sense breaks out on all Benches in the House in the future.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
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 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.
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.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, the world is a complex place and rules very rarely work in it because there is always some exception. It is wise to have an avenue of appeal for special circumstances. It would probably never be exercised but it is wise to have it there as a fallback, just in case.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness, no, the provisions in the Bill are definitely not retrospective. They start from the time of Royal Assent, if we ever get to that stage. On the amendment itself, I entirely take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I am not enthusiastic about adding bits to the Bill at this stage, but if the House is minded to do so I would be quite happy for Amendment 280 to be carried.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be better if I withdrew this amendment, talked to my noble friend and came back at Third Reading—I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding—with amendments that were more tightly drawn. I think that everyone understands the point I am making.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord True
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I make it absolutely clear that I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House. However, there is an important issue here on which I should like to hear some response from the Government, as well as from my noble friend Lord Steel. There is an important point that is very much in the public eye and undoubtedly reflects on the reputation of the House, as it reflects on the reputation of the other place. That matter is the misuse and wrongful claiming of expenses and the consequences that flow from that. I submit that if wrongfully claimed expenses are not repaid—my amendment suggests that up to a year might be given for repayment—for whatever reason, the person concerned should be excluded. Just as a person who commits an offence under the law serves some time, the person who refuses to heed the desire of the House and make restitution for wrongful action should be excluded from this House. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
In its Long Title, the Bill says that it would,
“provide for the expulsion of members of the House of Lords in specified circumstances”.
We have just discussed the circumstances relating to criminal offences. At some point, which may not be in this Bill but in the other monster Bill that we keep hearing about, not only this House but Parliament needs to address the question that would arise in such a case. I am not referring to anyone in particular in making these remarks; it could be any of us down the line. If these circumstances arise, we should ultimately have the power to exclude such a Member.
Currently, the suspension powers have been used by the House with the full support of the House. It is not a matter for inclusion in my noble friend’s Bill, but I think he would agree that it is a matter that needs to be looked at. I do not know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench will comment on whether this is a matter that the Government have under consideration. Maybe my noble friend Lord Steel has something to say. Ultimately, the public will not understand if we do not get to grips with this issue, which is why I took the trouble to put it before noble Lords—not, I hope, too much to their dissatisfaction. I beg to move.
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 Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says. He understands the restrictions under which I must operate. We will take this back and of course consult. This is part of a process that is already under way, as all noble Lords here understand, and that some of us hope will go rather further. This Government are a formal coalition—rather different in shape from the informal and sometimes bad-tempered coalition of our predecessor Government, but we must therefore necessarily discuss this.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Perhaps I may add that I discussed this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister some time ago, and the last time we did so he agreed to look at it again in the new year. Once the Bill has had its Report and Third Reading, we will know exactly what is in it and what is not, and I will propose a further discussion with him. I am well aware of the difficulty of former party leaders telling current party leaders what to do, but I will do my best.
Lord True
My Lords, I suppose that was a reply from my noble friend to the amendment. I made very clear at the start that I did not intend to press it, so I can certainly reassure the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on that—and of course I hear what he and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about the need for room to appeal. Indeed, we have just had that discussion on the criminal offence. I do not believe it is that complicated to bring the two elements into line in the drafting, and although I am perfectly content and recognise the need to make progress, and I always intended to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, we really must grasp this nettle. If that does not happen, however uncomfortable it is and whatever reasons are given in different places, it simply will not be understood.
I am willing to take part in any discussions, as is my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who cannot be with us. I completely disagree with my noble friend Lord Cormack—I do not think that this House has to be in line with the House of Commons, which has rules simply because it has elections every five years. We do not have elections every five years. The problems for us are different and relate to the Writ of Summons, and we are increasingly passing legislation that overrides it. There is a potential House of Lords solution and I would willingly take part in any discussions on those matters. I am encouraged by what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench and, in light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, having listened with great interest to what has been going on this afternoon, perhaps I may add a word as a Cross-Bencher. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has spoken some words of wisdom here. If the Bill is kept extremely simple and anything that has the potential to be contentious in the other House is removed, we have a good chance of getting our own House in better order and that will have further implications at a later stage. I am absolutely certain that this issue needs to come back at some stage, but it could come back in another Bill and it could then be debated in a different way. Personally, I do not really mind whether I vote or not in a general election, although I can see the point of voting, but this may not be the best moment to deal with this matter.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Clause 18 was not in the original Bill; it was added in an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee. I have to confess that we did not have a long debate on it but he was very reasonable in moving the amendment and perhaps I was too reasonable in accepting it at the time. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, makes a fair point. Perhaps we should stop for a second and consider what was referred to earlier as the “monster Bill”—not a phrase that I would dream of using. When that Bill comes forward, it will propose that this should be an elected House. Are we going to say that Members of the other place should not take part in those elections? Therefore, it gives rise to an interesting question. I think that the noble and learned Baroness is correct: it would perhaps be wiser to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, take the clause out now and keep the Bill as simple and as short as possible when it goes to the other place.
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.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I beg to move an amendment to the Short Title of the Bill simply because, having pared the Bill down to just two succinct issues—retirement and expulsion—I think it is rather grandiose to describe it as a House of Lords Reform Bill. It also runs the risk of being confused with the other Bill—I shall not insert an adjective—which is due to come before us. Therefore, I think that “House of Lords (Amendment) Act” is a better title than “House of Lords Reform Act”.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am sure that when other Members of your Lordships’ House who have experience of Fridays in the other place looked at the Marshalled List today, they thought that we were in for a similar sort of experience. I know that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood certainly had that tedious experience all too often of cloak-and-dagger assassins killing off Private Members’ Bills. I hope that that will not become a habit in your Lordships’ House because it is not only tedious but extremely frustrating.
Among the amendments today were a number of contradictory amendments—some from the same author. I thought that the expressions of good will in Committee indicated that we had consensus that the Bill in the form that my noble friend was pursuing had considerable support on all sides of the House. From the changes that have taken place today, in response to the wealth of amendments, it is clear that the Bill we thought we had dealt with in Committee did not have consensus across the House. Some 300 amendments would take out some very important provisions. We have been told on so many occasions in the past two or three years that my noble friend’s Bill would not only enjoy widespread support but would deal with all the major defects in the stature, authority and reputation of your Lordships’ House. The removal of Clause 10, as my noble friend said in his opening speech, emasculates the Bill. It would take out the most important provisions.
As so often at this end of the Building, the compromise that has been reached has been grabbed out of the jaws of chaos. We have to recognise that; it would be silly not to do so. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood would be the first to admit that nobody can be under any illusion that this exercise will result in even a modest step forward towards reform, hence his realistic assessment that this is no longer a House of Lords Reform Bill but simply a House of Lords amendment Bill, and we should recognise that.
The only logical conclusion must be that the sooner the government Bill comes forward—no doubt it will be improved by the very assiduous pre-legislative scrutiny that has been undertaken by the Joint Committee on which I served under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—the better. When that Bill comes before Parliament I hope that we will not have another of these episodes when everyone says that they are in favour of doing something but, when it comes to the opportunity to do so, we have this sort of shambles that we would have faced today had all the amendments been moved. That does no good for the reputation of your Lordships’ House. I hope that, having had this experience today, we will take a lesson for the future. We should have a methodical, careful, meticulous process, but we should draw a very important conclusion from the way in which we might have been faced with a similar experience that Members of the other House have every time there is a Private Member’s Bill on a Friday.
Amendment 306, with Amendment 312A, makes the simple fact absolutely clear—piecemeal is not a way to approach the most important reforms to your Lordships’ House that we will have to consider in the months to come.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, this amendment simply brings the Long Title of the Bill into line with its reduced content. I beg to move.
Lord Selsdon
Perhaps I may ask for clarification as regards the Long Title. One of the amendments I proposed earlier was that those of us who had been elected would be known as “elected hereditary Peers” rather than “excepted hereditary Peers”. I am in a slight muddle about the Long Title and I wonder whether I can have some clarification.
Lord Selsdon
I therefore feel slightly confused by the Long Title as regards where it says “hereditary peerage” and we still have the election process in place. If it is correct, I have no objection.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, this is an important alteration to the Long Title for the following reason. We have talked already about what happens when the Bill goes to the other place. Removing the words “and for connected purposes” means that the Speaker in the other place will find it much easier to rule out vexatious amendments which seek to hold up the legislation. If we leave that in the Long Title, the Bill could become a Christmas tree on which other pieces are hung. Therefore, this is more than just a technical amendment and it is important that those words should be taken out of the Long Title. I beg to move.