House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I beg to move.

[Lord Trefgarne]

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Trefgarne]

The plain fact is that the Joint Select Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, is considering a government draft Bill. I have been accused of opposing all kinds of House of Lords reform simply because the hereditary Peers will in due course come to the end of their time, but that is not my position. As a matter of fact, I am not opposed in principle to House of Lords reform; indeed, I am not opposed in principle to what is proposed in the government draft Bill being considered by the Joint Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. When and if full reform is achieved, the hereditary Peers will of course come to the end of their time.

This Bill—the part of it that we are now to consider first—includes ending the by-elections. The by-elections which were agreed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble friend, now the Marquess of Salisbury, secured the passage of the 1999 Act. Had those changes not been agreed that Bill would not have been passed—or at least it could have been passed only with the provisions of the Parliament Act, which I do not think that anyone was considering at the time. My noble friend’s Bill therefore seeks to undermine and destroy a clear and categorical undertaking that the by-elections would remain in place until full reform was achieved. This Bill is by no means full reform. Indeed, removing the clauses on the Appointments Commission, as my noble friend now proposes, further removes the Bill from any possibility of being described as House of Lords reform. As one noble Lord said in our previous debate, this was House of Lords improvement. It is hardly that. Above all, it undermines a clear and categorical undertaking given at the time of the passage of the 1999 Act and which has been repeated and agreed by numerous Ministers in almost every Administration since that time.

I therefore ask my noble friend whether he is really determined to take the Bill through—if he can, in the teeth of the opposition of some of us—

[Noble Lords]

Sixteen!

[Lord Trefgarne]

But no doubt with the support of others as well. This is in the context of a major government Lords reform proposition which is now before the Joint Select Committee and which is, I submit to your Lordships, the right way to proceed.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Committees]

And Not Content.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Not Content!

[The Chairman of Committees]

I think the Contents have it.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I said Not Content.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I think, on the voices, that the Contents have it.

Motion agreed.

Clause 10 : Exclusion of hereditary peers

Amendment 118

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, for reasons that will now be self-evident to your Lordships, I do not agree that the clause—or any other clause, for that matter—should remain part of this Bill. This clause is particularly difficult, as several noble Lords have mentioned.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Steel a question that is germane to the way in which he has reordered proceedings. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is looking at the reform of your Lordships' House. We wish that well. When one looks at the Bill that is now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, one can only assume that he has had an indication that House of Lords reform will not happen in this Parliament and that this Bill is a way of achieving partial reform instead. That is enormously disappointing, because those of us who are in favour of House of Lords reform do not want any Government to use this Bill as an excuse for reform not to happen. Will the noble Lord address that issue when he winds up on this clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I will briefly raise a few points. I am very proud to be a Privy Counsellor. However, Clause 10 is not about the abolition of hereditary Peers today, tomorrow or whenever the Bill may be accepted. We are talking about a very gradual diminution in the number of hereditary Peers. Therefore, as a Privy Counsellor, I do not feel that I have any conflict of interest in voting for Clause 10.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Perhaps I could suggest to the noble Baroness that the by-elections were part of the deal agreed between my noble friend—now the Marquess of Salisbury—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Her Government, of whom she was then a distinguished member, signed up to the deal.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I was a very proud member of my Government, but I was not a member of the Government at that time. As to hereditary Peers, I accept what the noble Lord says, but I believe that we are part of an evolutionary process. Today is the anniversary of the introduction of the first four life Peers in 1958. Since that time, the House has evolved, and our debate today is part of that evolution. I see absolutely no conflict between discussion of these issues today and discussion of the Bill before the Joint Committee.

Like my noble friend Lord Howarth, I recognise the grievances expressed by hereditary Peers in the Chamber. Like other noble Lords, I have huge respect and affection for the work of those noble Lords. However, while I respect and very much like the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I have to disagree with her. When people think about this Chamber and its composition, they do not understand why we still have hereditary Peers. I understand about the agreement, and I understand what is happening. I must say to the noble Lady that yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with 20 Chevening scholars from India, the brightest and the best of the Indian subcontinent, and when we talked about the composition of this House, they simply did not understand why we still have hereditary Peers. When we have things such as the Arab spring and we are nurturing the new democracies in the Middle East, to still retain the election of hereditary Peers does not seem logical or proper. For that reason, I certainly wish to support the retention of Clause 10, which I believe to be an important, indeed, essential part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I have been in your Lordships' House for a period of time, and I refer you to Standing Order No. 8. The problem with your Lordships is that you have very little knowledge of Standing Orders or precedents within the House. I am an elected hereditary Peer under an Act of Parliament, as are others. It has been quite convenient for people over a long period of time to drop the word “elected”, but it was an election. That was an agreement binding in honour on Privy Council terms, and should anyone in your Lordships' House wish to know the background, please just send me an e-mail or letter and I will give you a copy of all the submissions I have made over the past 10 or 20 years. We also take precedence according to the ancienty of our degree. Therefore, I can give way to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, because he is slightly more ancient than me in the date of his Letters Patent.

There was an attempt for a long period of time to ignore the fact that there was an election. I do not support the replacement of current people by the proposed system. What I suggested was that all those hereditary Peers who would like to enter the House should have their names submitted to the Appointments Commission for consideration not as a hereditary Peer but as someone who might make a good contribution in future.

I did not really approve of the election process, but I have to admit I was wrong because the quality of the people who have come into this House as a result of those elections is very high. They have a great knowledge, and they make a great contribution. They become what your Lordships will understand to be working Peers although, as I have pointed out in this House on previous occasions, there is no such thing as a working Peer. A Peer sits here not with a job, other than the 10 who are paid, but with a duty and a responsibility. Certain hereditary elements put upon you a greater feeling of duty. Of course I am here because my grandfather was Postmaster-General. It does not matter; that was the way, indirectly, when my father died, but all my family have been in public life. Those of us who have been in public life have a feeling of duty which overwhelms everything else. I do not approve of the Steel Bill. I believe that we should still wait for the government proposals, and I will support all those proposals.

If anyone goes on saying that I am not elected, I am far more legitimate than those people appointed by patronage. At the moment, we have an overwhelming number of people who do not know each other, do not know the rules and do not know what to do. We should be asking what the House of Lords as it is today should be doing in the community and what initiatives it should be taking, instead of squabbling among ourselves about the future. We have a major economic crisis, we have a whole range of problems and within this House we have an amazing collection of people who do not know each other’s abilities. As noble Lords may know, I have a background on every Peer. You could not assemble these 830 or 840 people, but we fail again to understand communication. Half of them do not have PCs, and we are in a world of electronic communication. I believe this debate should go on. I would regard the Steel Bill as a White Paper or a Steel paper. When I first met the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the Council of Europe many years ago, he tried to persuade me to become a Liberal, partly because of my grandfather. I think the noble Lord has done a good job. He is quite a crafty worker, and this is a bit of good craftsmanship, but it is too crafty by half.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I hope I may be allowed to explain shortly but clearly why I disagree that this clause should remain in the Bill. Back in 1999, the House consisted of some 700 hereditary Peers and 560 or thereabouts life Peers plus the Bishops and the Law Lords, so the vast majority were hereditary Peers. When the Government Bill came forward, it was to remove all those hereditary Peers, each and every one, all the 700. Never in history, surely, was there a Government seeking to remove more than half of one of the Chambers of Parliament by legislation, but the hereditary Peers recognised that there was a case to be made and in the end an arrangement was reached between, as we have heard, my noble friend, now the Marquess of Salisbury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The hereditary Peers did not have to be persuaded by that argument, but they were. The result was that that Bill passed.

Had that agreement not been reached, the Bill would almost certainly not have passed. Indeed, there were a good many life Peers who were not in favour of it. I believe it would not have passed although it could, no doubt, have been forced through with the Parliament Act. However, there is room for more than one respectable view about whether that was possible. The deal that was then done, the arrangements that were agreed between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord were to the effect that 90 hereditary Peers would remain, re-elected as necessary as they passed on, and two hereditary Peers—the two great officers of state—would come ex officio, so to speak. That was the arrangement, and the arrangement was to remain in place until House of Lords reform was complete. By no stretch of the imagination does this Bill represent complete House of Lords reform. Therefore, in accordance with the undertaking then reached, this clause ought not to be included, and I hope my noble friend Lord Steel will not insist upon it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. If it is any consolation to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, having to attend a medical appointment is not only a function of what age you are. I apologise to your Lordships that I, too, was attending one this morning.

I trespass on your Lordships’ indulgence simply because when those discussions were taking place in 1999 I was there as a humble agent of the discussions and perhaps I can make some comments from the standpoint of one who was actively involved in some of the official negotiations which were supporting negotiations taking place.

I offer no advice to any noble Lords on the decision that they may or may not want to take on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. There has been comment about the statement made from the Dispatch Box by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the agreement, which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has described quite accurately as being binding in honour. Honour is a very personal matter, and I do not think it is for anyone to say to other people how they should interpret what being bound in honour actually means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

I may well be wrong, because my Latin is rather out of date now, but I think that the root of the word is the same as that for “senex”, which means an old man. That is very appropriate to this House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will reflect on the word “shenanigans”, which he used a few moments ago. I take some exception to that description. We described at some length—and I will not repeat what I said then—why we objected to Clause 10 stand part. That was not shenanigans; it was responsible and respectable and a decent argument. I take exception to the words used by my noble friend, and I hope that he will withdraw them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

122: Before Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Termination of membership of House of Lords
(1) Members of the House of Lords shall, subject to subsection (2), cease to be members after the end of the session of Parliament during which they have completed 15 years of membership.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the period of time prior to the date on which this Act received the Royal Assent shall be treated as half its actual time.
(3) This section does not apply to any period of membership as a Lord Spiritual.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is not going to move the amendment, I shall do so, as is I believe in accordance with procedure.

This amendment results, if I may say so, from the shenanigans of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in changing around the order of consideration. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, declines to move, which I now move on his behalf, relates to the earlier part of the Bill. We are now not considering that amendment because we have, apparently, deferred consideration of the earlier part of the Bill. That points to the difficulties created by what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, decided to do late last night in tabling his amendment, reordering consideration of the clauses. I do not intend to pursue the matter further, but I suggest to your Lordships that the reordering that your Lordships agreed to earlier today was not perhaps as straightforward as many noble Lords may have imagined. I beg to move.

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I wonder if I could ask a question of those constitutional experts, and I am sure there are many sitting in your Lordships' House today. We heard earlier that Clauses 1 to 9 will be debated after Clauses 10 to 19. If that is the case, will any noble Lord who has amendments listed in the Marshalled List, as this amendment is, be able to move any amendments to those clauses when we have already passed through the list of amendments that is before us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, it will be important when we get to Amendment 123 to recall that the other amendments in the group—Amendments 4, 6, 58 and so on—will be highly relevant to that debate because they are consequential on Amendment 123. They will presumably be debated. Your Lordships will need to look at the earlier part of the Bill when considering Amendment 123 —as presumably noble Lords will.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, it would not be appropriate to pursue the matter further at this point but have we not identified the confusion that has now been caused by my noble friend reordering consideration of the Bill?

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am sorry to intervene again but the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, ought not to repeatedly turn his back when addressing the House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Again I apologise to the noble Lord. As I was saying—I will say it again quickly—we are now dealing with the confusion caused by my noble friend Lord Steel insisting upon reordering the consideration of these clauses. I will not pursue the consideration of the amendment, which I shall withdraw.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Could we have an answer to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Astor? That is quite relevant to our future discussions. Can we come back to this amendment or to my consequential amendment—which we are about to come to—when we debate the original amendment from which these consequential ones flow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

Strictly speaking: yes, but that will of course depend on the amendment being put in the first place.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, before I withdraw the amendment—as I will do in a moment—is it not clear, following the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Steel this morning and agreed by your Lordships, that we are now in a considerable state of disarray as far as these clauses and amendments are concerned? I am not particularly bright or talented but I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships’ House for nearly 50 years. I cannot remember how many committees I have take part in or even led from the Dispatch Box. I have never found myself in this disarray before. Plainly, I think that noble Lords took the decision to reorder consideration of these clauses without the benefit of adequate advice. Did we not understand that the confusion now reigning would take place? I suspect that there is not much that we can do about it now unless we decided to adjourn for a moment to allow the clerks to reorder the Marshalled List. If that is not to happen—I do not suppose that it is—I shall beg leave, for now, to withdraw the amendment, unless, that is, my noble friend has some more to say.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

It may be helpful to read out paragraph 8.65 in the Companion:

“Each amendment on the marshalled list and each manuscript amendment is called in turn by the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, subject only to pre-emption. An amendment which has been tabled need not be moved, but if none of the members named as supporters of the amendment moves it any other member may do so”.

That is quite clear on what can happen. Noble Lords will have noticed with care that, although I have been sat here for quite a time, I have not spoken. That is because this is private business. It is not government business and the House decided what to do. It was in the hands of the House and the House decided—there was a vote—that noble Lords would take the back half of the Bill first and then come to the front half. That was decided earlier today.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I of course accept that the House decided to agree to my noble friend Lord Steel’s Motion earlier today and that is that. I suggest that it might have been better had the Minister offered some advice on the result of agreeing that Motion while your Lordships discussed it. Be that as it may, he did not do so and we are now somewhat confused. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment that I moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, says that he does not want to do anything in an arbitrary manner. That may well be right as far as this proposal is concerned—although, frankly, I do not think that it is—but that is not the view that he has taken on other aspects of his Bill, when he has made it quite clear that he was not in the least bit interested in waiting for whatever the Government proposed, even though a Bill has been brought forward for consideration by the Joint Select Committee.

Confining my remarks precisely to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name, I think that the age of 75 is about right. At present, most judicial appointments—I think virtually all of them, including magistrates—have to retire at age 70. I do not think that there is any proposal that that younger age would be acceptable as far as your Lordships are concerned. Indeed, in answer to a question from me the other day, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the Minister for Justice, said that this matter might be reconsidered in legislation next year. I happen to think that 75 would be a good age for magistrates, for judges of all the different courts and Members of your Lordships' House to retire. The amendment has some merit and some force and I hope that your Lordships will agree to it.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with that. We have to be very careful in setting a limit. I declare an interest, being over 75, as one could say, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?” On the other hand, it is worth remembering that a respected demographer has recently told us that the person who is going to live to 150 has already been born. We have to take into account the fact that the pensionable age is now much higher than it was and that there is still a lot of life left in a lot of people who are aged 75. I agree that we need to reduce the numbers in the House, but this is not the way to go about it. There are other avenues to pursue to reduce the size of the House. I would be very wary of depriving it of the benefit of having some great experts. Under the proposal, when they had passed 75, they would not be invited to return in the subsequent Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I sometimes make the point that teaching students makes me realise that I am not that young but being in the House of Lords makes me realise that I am not that old.

My noble friend Lord Astor made an appropriate point when he referred to the problem of the size of the House. However, he then went on to refer to Members who sit, as if the two things were the same. I would distinguish between the two. There is a problem with numbers, but I do not think we should focus on those who sit—that is, those who turn up and contribute to the work of the House. We are trying to deal with it at the other end rather than through those who make an active contribution.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about leading figures in the House who have been over 75. One could add the names of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale among those who have influenced the House in a number of the decisions that it has taken. Without them, the statute book would have been much the worse. Focusing on age is to come up with the wrong solution to what my noble friend has identified as a real problem.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My noble friend makes an important point about the problem of those who do not attend as well as about those who do. However, there is a problem in both areas. Very often your Lordships’ House is overfull and some of us have to sit below the Bar, and that is quite unusual in my experience. We need to find a way of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House. Whether an age limit is the right way forward is a matter for your Lordships to consider. That, of course, would apply equally to those who do attend and those who do not. There are other ways, too, of dealing with the numbers, as several noble Lords have suggested. For example, you could have a ballot as you do for hereditary Peers, but I guess that that is not now very popular.

However, there are ways of doing it. Something has to be done and it is a pity that the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel did not begin to address the problem.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords, there has been reference today to the escalation of numbers in this House in the summer. I remind your Lordships that that took place at precisely the time we were asked to vote on the diminution of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, my comments apply to all the amendments to this clause and I will not make them again—although the amendments are not grouped. I entirely agree with all the comments about rehabilitation. That is the whole point. What if someone does something very silly when they are young—they get into a big fight and are locked up—but in their 20s they become very sensible people and pillars of the community? Why are we disbarring them for the rest of their lives? There is no rehabilitation provision in this clause, and that is obnoxious in a civilised and democratic society.

We could also easily fall foul of the EU and the Human Rights Act. There is a big argument at the moment about whether prisoners should be able to vote. Equally, I do not see why ex-prisoners who are rehabilitated should not contribute to the legislative process. They would probably give us insights that we would not otherwise have. Things can go on in certain institutions that we would not otherwise know about. That could be useful experience. I cannot see any reason for being so punitive as to have a lifetime ban. If we do not have an element of rehabilitation, the entire provision should be struck out.

Incidentally, if someone serves a long enough sentence, the term that they serve means that they are resident in the jail, so they will be given permanent leave of absence by reason of failure to attend the House under Clause 12(1). In the light of what we may decide about rehabilitation, that may need to be rewritten for someone who is here already.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not disagree in principle that in certain circumstances noble Lords convicted of an offence should be excluded from your Lordships' House—in serious cases, perhaps even permanently. However, there was a case quite recently when a noble Lord was convicted and sentenced to a rather long sentence which was rapidly reduced on appeal to a much shorter sentence. That noble Lord quickly returned to your Lordships' House. Where sentences change rapidly on appeal, that should act in the favour of the noble Lord concerned. What does my noble friend think about that?

[Lord Northbrook]

I have two problems with the clause. First, the definition of a serious criminal offence could cause a lot of problems. Secondly, if a noble Lord was locked up in Zimbabwe for a trumped up offence, it seems unsatisfactory that he would be excluded from the House for that reason.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

136: Clause 17, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) Nothing in this Part shall apply to a Member who has been convicted of offences under the Road Traffic Acts.”

[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.

[Lord Trefgarne]

With the undertaking from my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 136 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

139: Clause 18, page 6, line 28, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“This Act shall not come into force until after the first General Election held following the passing of this Act.”

[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.

[Lord Tyler]

Does my noble friend recognise that the whole theme of today’s debate—and, I thought, the consensus all around the House—was that we are setting in place urgent but transitional measures? As I pointed out to your Lordships earlier, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister anticipate the first elections for the House taking place in 2015. So what is the point of delaying the implementation of this Bill when, frankly, it is urgent and necessary now and there is a strong consensus to do that?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, we are anticipating that the main Bill, subject to the scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee, will somehow not succeed. I do not agree with that.

[Lord Cormack]

We are anticipating no such thing. Some of us hope that these proposals will come to naught. Others wish them to succeed. At the moment, none of us knows. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I take diametrically opposed views on the composition of a future House, we both recognise that there are certain urgent housekeeping duties that should be put into effect in this present House. That is all that my noble friend Lord Steel is seeking to do. To delay it until after the next general election would be an absolute nonsense. We would either then be having the first elections, or we would have nearly another four years of the imperfections which we are currently seeking to put right.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, everyone agrees that there are some imperfections in certain circumstances, but they are not all of equal importance. I shall not labour the point too much longer. I happen to think that it would be better if this Bill came into force after the next general election, but I do not think that that will find much favour with your Lordships. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 139 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have 40 minutes to decide whether we wish to send this to Report stage or not. Some may be happier to do that than others. I stress that the Government are neutral on this Bill, as noble Lords know. The consensus of the House appears to be that this is a housekeeping Bill. It is not the case that nothing else is happening. The Government have put forward a draft Bill that proposes a much more comprehensive scheme of reform. There is now a Joint Committee sitting on that which has held its first two sessions. That includes the proposal for a statutory appointments committee, so things are moving on a much broader and more comprehensive front. I have carefully noted that a number of the hereditaries who have spoken in this debate have declared their passionate enthusiasm for an 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected House. I look forward to them giving enthusiastic support to the Government’s comprehensive scheme when that comes before us.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Steel, or the House, decides how to proceed, I should say that I take slight issue with my noble friend Lord Cormack referring to this Bill—as did other noble Lords—as a little housekeeping Bill. It does away with the hereditary Peer by-elections. That is not a simple housekeeping matter. Whatever may be noble Lords’ views on it, it is an important issue and, we say, goes to the heart of the undertakings given back in 1999. This is not a small housekeeping Bill—it has important constitutional ramifications—and I hope that it will not be characterised as such.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, let me just try something without being partial, because it is up to the House what it does. There is half an hour. Your Lordships may remember that on 20 July we were debating the Localism Bill, a government Bill. During a wonderful period between about 7.30 pm and 8 pm, everybody agreed to withdraw amendments and leave it until Report. Many different people were involved who were concerned with several different amendments. That decision was taken; it was left to Report, and Report on the Bill has now concluded. That would be a way forward, if that is what the House wishes, but it is in the hands of the House whether it wishes to do something like that or to proceed with several amendments and, perhaps, not get too far today.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My noble friend Lord Caithness and I cannot be asked to agree something on behalf of other noble Lords. It is not just my noble friend and myself who have tabled amendments to Part 1.

[Lord Avebury]

There are 16 of you out of 800.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I heard an interjection from behind me, but I am not sure who it was. It is not just up to us. As my noble friend pointed out, we have given a lot of thought and consideration to these matters. We do not know quite what will happen in future. I am very reluctant to agree to a fast-track procedure, if that is the right term, on Part 1. If I may say so, we are once more reaping the whirlwind of the precipitate action of my noble friend Lord Steel in altering the order of consideration of the Bill in the Motion which we agreed earlier today. I would prefer to go through, as quickly as we can, the remaining clauses of the Bill. That would be the right way to proceed.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it may help the House to know that my noble friend Lord Dubs does not intend to move his amendments this afternoon and will come back to them on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “a Commission (“the Commission”)” and insert “an Appointments Board”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, like my noble friend I am in some confusion and difficulty. We have nine clauses left to consider. There are a number of amendments to all those clauses. Some of them were tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness, some by me and some by other noble Lords. Would it not be better to adjourn the Committee now and find another comparatively short occasion on which we could complete the Committee stage and thereafter proceed to Report stage in the normal manner? I am not trying to squash my noble friend’s Bill. That is not for me to do; that is for your Lordships to decide. I am asking that it be considered in a proper and orderly manner. At the moment we are not doing that. I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it will be considered in an orderly manner on Report and we will have the benefit of having concluded the Committee stage. That is the crucial point before the House. Then we will have proceeded in an orderly, tidy and satisfactory manner. We will have silenced no one, anticipated no one and pre-empted no one, and we will have reflected credit on the House rather than otherwise. I hope that, as his noble friend Lord Caithness has taken the line that he has over Report stage, my noble friend will feel moved to do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I fear that the Deputy Chairman has got it wrong. The noble Baroness has moved that the Question be now put. That is a debatable Motion and there is a Standing Order that has to be read out first.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I believe that the Motion that the Question be now put is not debatable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, there are five minutes left. If every amendment is called, it can be dealt with. That would take a bit of time, but that would be it. If that does not happen, I will have to move that the House do resume.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

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

[Lord Trefgarne]

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

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I accept that.