House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

235: Clause 12, page 5, line 31, at end insert “or leave of absence for such shorter period of not less than one year as the body provided for in subsection (2) shall determine.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

The purpose of the amendment is self-explanatory and I do not intend to detain your Lordships on it. I beg to move.

[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.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

237: Clause 12, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any member serving in the armed forces, either regular or reserve.”

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am keen on Amendment 237. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I am happy to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

239: Clause 12, page 5, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Lord Trefgarne]

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should explain to the House the consequences of changing “shall” to “may”. It may be of some significance. The House is owed an explanation.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, as I am ordered to explain, it is simply for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I know that we are on Report but that will not do. The noble Lord’s Bill is very clear on when the House may deem that a Member has taken permanent leave of absence. If we substitute “shall” for “may”, surely that leads to a rather confusing picture. I rather resist this.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not wish to delay your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 239 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

300: Clause 18, leave out Clause 18

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, this is a matter of some importance and principle. For centuries it has been the case that Members of your Lordships’ House may not vote in parliamentary elections to the other place, and this provision in the Bill reverses that ancient principle. That is a mistake. We should retain the arrangement whereby we in this House do not vote for Members of the House of Commons, and I hope that your Lordships agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs]

I am rather disappointed with this amendment, as we considered the provision in some detail in Committee and agreed to it. When the House makes a decision in Committee, I am not sure how appropriate it is simply to reverse it on Report. I am not even sure whether it is in accord with the way we normally do things to reverse a Committee decision just because you do not like it.

On the point of principle, I hate having to go over an argument which we used in Committee, but, as the noble Lord has used a counterargument, let me put it this way. It seems wrong in principle that we are virtually the only people in the country who are not allowed to vote in general elections to influence what is to be the future Government of our country. That is a clear statement, and to reverse it would be a retrograde step. I cannot think of any argument in principle—beyond the fact that we have always done it this way—that justifies our not being able to vote in parliamentary elections. We can vote in European elections, local elections and referenda. After quite a long discussion, the House decided quite properly that that was a good move forward. I very much hope that the House will not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

305: Leave out Clause 19

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

Having removed from the Bill the Appointments Commission and the section on hereditary by-elections, we do not actually need Clause 19 at all. Therefore, I suggest that we accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selsdon]

Yes, I was moving an amendment but I was asking for clarification. I apologise for that. Can anyone in the House give me some clarification?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, goes some way to give the clarification which he requires. If he is still confused—some of us may be—let us talk about it at Third Reading.

[Lord Selsdon]

It is the simple matter that if the Long Title is wrong, it is wrong. Is it wrong or is it right?

[Lord Trefgarne]

It is right now.

[Lord Selsdon]

It is right. That is all I need to know. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.