General Elections: Peers’ Exclusion from Voting

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the first reference I have to Peers not voting comes from an Act of the reign of King Henry VI, but I regret to say that I have not been up the Tower to check that it is there.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister observed that the Question refers to life Peers? Why did it not include hereditary Peers? Have we no rights in this matter?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, under the 1999 Act, hereditary Peers who are excluded from this House—not including the 92 who are here—are allowed to vote.

Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, that is slightly specious, if I may say so—but it does help me, because I wanted to raise one question with my noble friend. My experience is that there is no regulation relating to the right of a person who is unable to enter a particular polling booth to have the ballot paper brought out to them. I understand that it is open to the particular officer in that place to give that service.

I raise this matter because of the Assembly of Bethel. This is an organisation, rather small in its numbers, that has a particular view about what buildings its members may enter without impurity. It is an unusual view, and not one which I share, but holding it should not deny people the right to vote. In my former constituency I had a member of the Assembly of Bethel, and she was unable to enter the building because on top of it was a cross with a circle round it, and the organisation believes this to refer to the sun god rather than the Son of God. I discovered, in this very curious circumstance, that it is not even for the returning officer to insist that the ballot paper be brought out. He has to rely on the personal decision of the officer in charge of that particular polling station.

I am therefore taking this opportunity to raise what I know is an esoteric example, although it is none the worse for that—I am a believer in a bit of esotericism from time to time. People should have the right to deal with the ballot paper outside for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily just because they are in a wheelchair. Have the Government considered whether it might be an appropriate principle to say that such decisions should be governed by the local returning officer overall, rather than being left to whoever happens to be on duty as an assistant officer in a particular polling station? I do not expect my noble friend to have an immediate answer to the problems of the Assembly of Bethel, but he may be prepared to look again at whether we need to change the regulations in this regard.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, may I, too, raise a small point? I was not in my seat for the whole of the Minister’s speech but I was standing at the other end of the Chamber, so I hope I may be allowed to intervene briefly. My noble friend referred to the voting provisions for blind persons, and the ballot papers that are available for them. Is it not possible to have available in polling stations a small number of voting papers in Braille, which blind persons can have access to, so that they are more fully informed about the choices that they are making?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I first met the noble Lord, Lord Deben, rather a long time ago, but I did not realise until many years later that he was such an expert on esotericism. I shall now always think of him as an esotericist of the highest order. All I can say is that I will take his point back—it is extremely esoteric—and ask the officials to reply.

The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—I think that I did mention this in passing—is that devices are provided in polling stations for the visually impaired, to guide them round the ballot paper. These devices have adhesive elements that stick them in the right place on the back of the ballot paper. I have not actually seen them myself, but that is what I understand to be the case. My understanding—I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—is that what is necessary is provided.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that we all recognise that electoral registration in Britain is a voluntary activity, with mild penalties for those who do not do it. It is not a necessary obligation as part of citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, would like us to have identity cards and registration would be part of that, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would like registration—and, I think, voting too—to be compulsory. But we must recognise that part of the reason why, over the past 20 years, people have not registered—I stress that we have faced this problem for some considerable time—is the fact that they are disengaged from politics. In campaigning over the past few weekends I have found, in some areas more than in others, that we come up against a wall of, “You’re all the same”, “Politics is nothing to do with us”, “There’s no point in voting in this constituency”, and so on. I regret to say that some recent events in Westminster are likely to feed into that.

I repeat that we all, political parties as well as the Government and others, have to work extremely hard to enthuse the electorate. The Government have not yet completed all their efforts. In the week of National Voter Registration Day we managed to register nearly half a million extra people, and we will be continuing to maintain these efforts right up to the last day that people can register for voting. We have provided extra money for a number of agencies, as well as for electoral administrators in the areas of greatest need. As I said in opening the debate, we are not satisfied with the current position but we are maintaining our efforts, and we hope that by 20 April we will have as accurate and as full an electoral register as possible.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is a slightly unfair question in many ways. Britain remains the second largest member of NATO in terms of the amount spent on defence. We are currently deterring Russia through the use of sanctions at least as much as through defence. So when we talk about national security we do not only mean defence in strict terms.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that if by some cruel mischance the Labour Party wins the next general with the assistance of the Scottish nationalists, it will have to find the money to move Trident, not to mention covering all the unemployment in that part of Scotland?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I find it very interesting that the noble Lord should describe the possibility of the SNP taking a very large number of seats in Scotland away from the Labour Party as assisting the Labour Party.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken so far, I support the main thrust of the Bill, but there is a small matter that ought to be taken into account, which was accommodated in the Bill passed earlier this year. It is the case of a noble Lord who is, for example, convicted of, say, spying in a distant country when the charge is brought quite speciously and perhaps for political reasons—or perhaps he was indeed spying, but for us. In those circumstances, there needs to be provision to ensure that he is not removed from this House unnecessarily. I hope that that can be accommodated in the Standing Orders that will be drafted when this Bill, as I hope, becomes law. Indeed, there are provisions in the 2014 Act that allow the Lord Speaker, in certain circumstances, to lift the conviction, so to speak. I hope that these matters can be taken into account, if necessary by amendments in Committee—although perhaps that will not be necessary—or when the Standing Orders are drafted.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

Well, I thought that was a disgraceful speech, defending law-breaking employers. I have been where the Minister is. If I had sat through the debate I have just heard, I would have said, “Actually, I will take the recommendation back”. I would go to my Secretary of State and say, “I was going to screw this up anyway; the House was against me. We need some better arguments”.

I say to the Minister that the Government need better arguments, and the Red Tape Challenge is not one to use; you cannot rely on it for this. During the Red Tape Challenge, I came across an example where anecdotal comments by two environmental health officers caused the weight of the department and the committee led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to come down on the Food Standards Agency and say, “Keep unsafe kitchens in parks and village halls”. We said, “No, unsafe kitchens kill people”. They said, “But the Red Tape Challenge has actually identified this”. It was two anecdotal comments from environmental health officers on a website. That is the intellectual weight of the Red Tape Challenge. It is nonsense when you actually look at it.

I say to the Minister that he cannot rely on the Red Tape Challenge in this case because I do not recall it being used when we did the committee inquiry upstairs. I say to the Minister what the then Prime Minister said to me: “One last chance”. Would he like to take this away, come back on Report, and have a little think about it with a bit more fresh evidence—fresher than we have at the moment? Does he not think that would be a good idea?

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

No.

[Lord Rooker]

Well, I know that that noble Lord would not want any evidence, but he is not the Minister. I am asking the Minister. Would it not be a good idea to get more up-to-date evidence and take it away to have a little think about it? That is all that I am asking him to do.

Courtesy Titles

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not informed on the subject so I can neither assure nor reassure the noble Lord. I have asked some female colleagues in this House how much their husbands care about not having a title and a number of them have told me robustly that their husbands not only do not care but positively do not wish to have them. I am aware that a number of wives of Members of this House do not use their courtesy titles either.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, given that we changed the law of succession for the sovereign only last year, are there any plans to change the law of succession for hereditary peers rather than the question of courtesy titles?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we spent some time on Fridays on a Private Member’s Bill on this very question. The House was some way from consensus on it the last time we debated it.

Equality (Titles) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission I would like to say a word about the Motion that my noble friend has just moved. I had understood from my conversations with my noble friend that he had intended to table amendments to make significant changes to the Bill. I am not sure whether they appear on the Order Paper at this stage. If it is the case that I have not understood them fully—and no doubt my noble friend will explain them in due course—I am happy that we should proceed as he proposes.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, it may be that my amendments do not come up to the noble Lord’s standards but I hope that he will find that those I have introduced have the effect of giving certainty to the Bill, in that it will happen to everybody in time and allow those Peers who wish to accelerate the process to do so, rather than it being left as an uncertain process for ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 5, 7, 16, 19, 29, 32, 36, 40, 44, 57, 60, 64, 67, 74, 82, 87 and 95. Into that group, I would like to add Amendment 79, which logically goes with the group but is omitted from the suggested grouping of amendments. It covers exactly the same point. With the leave of your Lordships, I will speak also to Amendment 4 because, on further reflection, what I want to say on that amendment ties in very well with Amendment 1; it covers the same points.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, did my noble friend include Amendment 91, which is mine? I hope that he did not, but I did not quite hear.

[The Earl of Caithness]

No, my Lords, because I am not my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, so I could not include it and deliberately omitted it.

I must first apologise to the House and, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Lucas for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I wish that I had been able to be here. I will declare my interest. I do not have any settled estates but I have an elder daughter and a younger son who could be affected by the Bill.

A title is a very complicated document. It is personal property and I therefore agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said at the end of Second Reading: namely, that this is not a matter for Parliament. It is a matter for the Crown. However, this is an extremely useful debate in order to guide advice to Her Majesty, because in my view this is a logical step forward. The situation that we are in now is anomalous, so in principle I have total support for what my noble friend is aiming to do. All that I would say is that it is horrendously complicated.

I declare my interest as not being an expert in this field. From what I read of Second Reading, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the Labour Party for their remarks. All my life as a hereditary Peer I have been persecuted and vilified by the Labour Party, but at Second Reading they did a wonderful U-turn and said, “We support hereditary peerages; we’re going to extend them to females so that the titles will keep on for many generations”. I take that point.

Let us look at my own title. The first official document for the Earl of Caithness goes back to 1334. There were Earls of Caithness before that, but 1334 is taken as the first creation. Those noble Lords who are aficionados of Shakespeare will know that the Earl of Caithness appears in the play “Macbeth”—and Macbeth got killed or died in 1057. That Earl of Caithness was Thorfinn, more of a Viking mormær, or Earl, than a Scottish one—it was under Norse law. The person who got the title in 1334, Maol Íosa V, also Earl of Strathearn, was the first creation. He forfeited his titles through treason and the title died out, so that was the end of the earldom of Caithness.

However, because it is the prerogative of the Crown, there was a second grant a few years later, in 1375, to David Stewart, a younger son of Robert II of Scotland, who left his title to his heiress, Euphemia—so the Scots were well ahead in showing that females could inherit a title. That creation died out, too; this is the wonderful thing about having hereditary Peers. There is another gap and then we come to the third creation, Sir George Crichton in 1452—but he surrendered the title in the same year, so the Earl of Caithness came to an end yet again. The fourth creation comes down to me. As one can see, one was able to perpetuate the title but with different families, and now the Labour Party is saying that we can extend that. I feel that after 65 years of persecution, today is a very happy day.

I said at the beginning that the issue was unusually complicated. There will be all sorts of legal problems to be sorted out; in fact, the Bill will become a lawyer’s paradise. For some titles, though not mine, a private Act of Parliament will be necessary in order to effect the Bill. The settlement of the Shrewsbury family had to be done by a private Act of Parliament, for example, so in order to break that, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury would have to have a further private Act of Parliament. That is just one of the many areas that the lawyers are going to be rubbing their hands over.

[The Earl of Caithness]

Indeed, my Lords—if the end result is done by an Act of Parliament. Following the logic of my noble friend Lord Wallace, though, if this is a matter that the Crown decides because our titles are granted by the Monarch, it would not be an Act of Parliament. Therein lies one of the many complications.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, may I just intervene? There is a problem with the course of action proposed by my noble friend Lord Jopling, and that is the Long Title of the Bill. If we were to seek to amend the Bill to include my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, for example, we would have to ensure that the Long Title provided for that. I am afraid that on my first reading of it, the mere three lines would not do.

[Lord Jopling]

I think we have to understand that the Bill as it stands does not have a hope in hell of getting on to the statute book. I say that as one who, down at the other end of the building, killed more Bills than most people you will ever meet. It would need fresh legislation. We are embarked on a discussion of the issue, but those of us who are realists realise that the Bill will not go through.

[Lord Trefgarne]

If a Bill were to come forward simply to deal with my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury—or to deal among other things with my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury—it would be a hybrid Bill. Does my noble friend recall the difficulties of getting hybrid—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps it might help to bring the Committee to a degree of order if we allow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to move his amendment before we get into detailed discussion. I do not think he has yet moved it.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am speaking to it and have a lot more to say. I know it is Friday afternoon and my noble friend on the Front Bench wishes to go home, but I have been working on this Bill for a couple of weeks, and I am not going to miss my opportunity.

Amendment 1 and my subsequent amendments are about the definition of hereditary titles. The Bill is quite clear that baronetcies include Irish baronetcies, but Clause 1 relates to the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom only. In fact, this is already a hybrid Bill because it incorporates the baronetcies of Ireland but not the peerages of Ireland. That is the effect of Amendment 4. It is particularly relevant for my noble friend Lord Clancarty. He is the Earl of Clancarty as well Baron Kilconnel and Viscount Dunlo—but they are separate titles in the peerage of Ireland. So there is a complication in excluding Ireland.

Amendment 4 shows that Amendment 1 is very relevant, because you need to define a hereditary title. If you do not define it, you face a gamut of things. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has an amendment—I have similar amendments—that tries to include some hereditary titles from the Crown or state. That is a separate argument, and we will come to it.

The huge complication of the Bill as it stands is the definition of “hereditary title”. I wish to simplify that. I wish to include peerages, including Irish peerages, and baronetcies and leave it at that. I beg to move.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I have some doubts about the proposal being brought forward by my noble friend. I am anxious, of course, that the peerages and baronetcies of Ireland should all be treated fairly and equally if we possibly can, but the fact is, as my noble friend said, that these matters are of extraordinary complexity. We have already dealt with the problems being faced by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. My noble friend Lord Caithness described the problems being faced by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. What are we to do about this? At the very least, if we agree some of these amendments, we risk making the Bill a hybrid Bill. Noble Lords smile at that, but the fact is that a hybrid Bill is a very different animal from the one we are considering today. It needs Select Committees, learned counsel and all sorts of distinguished things that take a great deal of time and, no doubt, a great deal of money. My noble friend’s amendment takes us along that rather dangerous path, and I invite him to reconsider it.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, although I am no expert on the hereditary peerage, I entered into a correspondence with the Ministry of Justice—in fact with the Crown Office—on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, told the House at the end of Second Reading that my specific point about husbands—and, indeed, the whole Bill—is a matter for the royal prerogative. According to the Crown Office’s letter, hereditary peerages are a matter of property.

It therefore seems to me to be very simple. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, we may not discriminate on grounds of property. Article 14 says that there shall be no discrimination on, inter alia, grounds of status; it is absolutely straightforward. If hereditary titles are property, we simply cannot discriminate. Under own Equality Acts—we have not yet got to those amendments—we cannot attach conditions to women that we do not attach to men, and vice versa.

The whole Bill therefore boils down to the fact that where there is a title, which is property, there must be equality—no “ifs” or “buts”, no petitions, no waiting for this, no waiting for that. Where people have a title which attaches only to one sex and not to the other, it is against our equality law.

Our only hope of getting this legislation through the House of Commons is to have a straightforward, simple Bill that applies the principles, which we cannot avoid, of the European Convention on Human Rights and our own equality law. We should strip away all the carbuncles and just get down to what has to be done under our law.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, there is a problem with the noble Baroness’s proposition that a hereditary title is property. There is more than one respectable view on that, as I understand it, so it may or may not be property. Another way forward, of course, would be to seek some sort of derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to hereditary Peerages. The Spanish Government are faced with the same problem. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister has some information about how the Spanish Government are responding to this difficulty. They recently created a new hereditary marquis in Spain who turned out to be the coach of the football team. However, they then lost so he may be stripped of it after all.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. We will come to the main discussion on this a little later. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for enabling us again to discuss gender equality in the peerage, and I congratulate the noble Lord on pushing the Bill further forward.

On these particular amendments I will be brief. I am not sure that at this stage we should be overtightening the Bill and prescribing so precisely what it contains in the title. In the way that it stands at present it contains peerages and baronetcies. In the next group we will be discussing other Crown offices and rights, so I do not think that we should yet be jumping to any conclusions about what necessarily will be covered in toto in the Bill.

It is probably no surprise to the House that I support Amendment 4. Irish peerages are an identifiable group under the current jurisdiction of the Crown and stem from a time before the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which of course excludes the Republic of Ireland. “Great Britain” therefore is a term which has a certain ambiguity attached to it. My own peerage, the Earldom of Clancarty, is Irish, though I sit in this House by virtue of a viscountcy which is an English title. It would be wise to include the reference to Ireland, just as England and Scotland have already been included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I recognise her legal expertise in this area. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I have not entirely followed the Spanish Government’s debates, and I am sure he could also inform us on the Dutch, Belgian, Italian and Swedish debates on what happens on titles. I can recall a most wonderful evening in Rome, talking to Italian liberals—a nearly endangered species—hosted by a wonderful woman called La Contesssa Machiavelli. This was not at all the content I had in my mind at all. If we are going to make comparisons on titles, there are a lot more: I am not sure whether Andorra—

[Lord Trefgarne]

My intervention is on the Spanish example. They are the only recent Government to have created a new hereditary peerage. It was a new hereditary marquisate conferred upon the coach of a football team.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My noble friend will remember that Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, created two hereditary peerages: the late Lord Tonypandy and our late noble friend Viscount Whitelaw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am informed that this is not a matter for the Government. It certainly seems that if the object is to extend equality, the provision should apply to all those peerages created by the current and all previous monarchs of England and the United Kingdom, and therefore include the peerage of Ireland.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am bound to say that some of us in this House have a little experience—somewhat distant experience now, I must say—of hybrid Bills and what the implications are. It is a serious matter. I believe that there is a procedure for referring a Bill to a Select Committee to consider whether it is or is not hybrid and to decide how to proceed. There are people called examiners, I seem to recall. It is probably one of our distinguished clerks, I imagine, who sits on a committee to examine all these matters. I do not wish to suggest that we unduly delay this Bill by such a process, but others may take a different view.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I do not want to delay the Bill because it is going in the right direction, but it raises a huge point. If I had been present at Second Reading, I would have raised the question of hybridity. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to comment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Speaker]

Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

[Lord Trefgarne]

No.

[The Lord Speaker]

Does the noble Lord wish to test the opinion of the House?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness the Lord Speaker to put the Question.

[The Lord Speaker]

The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say content, the contrary not-content.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Not-content.

Amendment 1 negatived.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

Amendment 3 should be dealt with separately within the Bill because there are complications around it. My wife, Isabelle Astell, is English and is armigerous. She is the heir to the Astell place and to the Astell arms. As far as I know, she still bears her own arms and I hope she will pass them to one of our sons. It happens to be that way round but, given that she inherited them, they could presumably be passed to a daughter. This issue needs looking at and thinking about but the point is well taken. At a later stage of the Bill, perhaps something could be inserted to cover just arms, leaving it separate from peerages and baronetcies—things that have come from the Crown directly.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I presume I am right in thinking that we are considering the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and not that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I merely wish to say that we are in the process of discovering the sheer complexity of what we are discussing. The Government’s objective is to ensure equality before the law. Therefore, the provisions should appropriately be applied broadly but we are beginning to discover just how complex the slightly different laws of England and Scotland are on this matter. I recall that when I was nominated to this House, the Lord Lyon King of Arms wanted to make absolutely sure that my title did not entrench upon anything to do with the Wallaces in Scotland. It was a very interesting overlap. I shall google St Moluag this afternoon just to check exactly who he was. I intend to use it in the next pub quiz I take part in as a test question.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, it is not quite as simple as the noble Earl has just said, because he has not put his name to Amendment 20, in my name, which covers exactly the same point. I think I am right in saying that it is Amendments 8, 15, 18, not 20; 28, 31, 35, 39, 43, not 47; 48, 49, 50, not 52; 53, not 54; 56, 59, 63, 66 and 73—I do not know about Amendment 77; I need advice on that, it is not my amendment—78, not 80; 81, 86, 91, 92 and 93. I hope that is helpful. I will therefore speak to my Amendments 20, 47, 52, 54 and 80 separately.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am afraid that this amendment seems to suffer from some of the difficulties that we have been discussing; namely, the possibility that there is a hybrid element within it. There seem to be a number of possible areas of hybridity in this Bill, which makes the whole Bill very difficult to proceed with. The proper way to proceed with a Bill that might or might not be hybrid is for it to be referred to the Examiners. I hope that if the Bill proceeds further after today, that will happen—it will have to happen; it will not be up to me alone, of course.

Has the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, considered this question? It is an important one, which will have to be raised time and again if it cannot be clarified.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Is that the question of hybridity? I do not think I am qualified to speak on hybridity, which I seem to remember is the question of whether a Public Bill affects the rights of a subset of people differently from the general class of people. I do not think my amendment does that because I have spoken just in terms of general classes: hereditary peerage, baronetcy and officers of the Crown and state. Those are generic classes, with no special definitions, unlike the House of Lords Bill, which discriminated in favour of only English hereditary great offices of state and not Scottish ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I will not extend this discussion too long but the problem is if you have a category that you describe as “hereditary titles” but some hereditary titles are not included, by definition you have a hybrid Bill.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I think the answer is that this is about English. For the purposes of the Bill, one might restrict the term “hereditary titles”; for instance, a description of “the incumbent” does not mean to say the incumbent of every parish or the incumbent of everything. Some of these are generic words in English. The wording “hereditary titles” is used merely within the Bill: a restricted class of hereditary titles is used in the Bill and called “hereditary titles”. That does not mean we are trying to affect the terminology of hereditary titles for the English language as a whole outside.

I have to admit that I had hoped the first amendment would not have been negatived and therefore we would have taken all these away and sat down and got them logical as a whole in the Bill, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, that has not happened. Perhaps we can just clean it up on Report if necessary, but certainly Amendment 6 is needed in order to make sense of Amendment 2, so I suggest that we accept that one and if we then miss some of the other ones later, to make it logical we bring it back on Report and do a massive amount of tidying-up.

Certainly, Amendments 6, 28, 31—off the top of my head—35, 39 and 43 are all the same. You can work through them: they are the amendments in my name only. I had added my name to the alternative amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, because I wanted to show that I also supported those and that it was a question of which of them we should tidy up. However, now that that has been negated, I think that we have to drive forwards with mine for the moment and tidy it up on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The question is that Amendment 9 be agreed to.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Can we not debate this amendment?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My understanding is that it has already been debated, but I may be wrong about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, I must apologise to the House that I was not able to take part at Second Reading. I was keen to be here but it was impossible. I warmly support the general purpose of the Bill, principally because I feel very strongly that the law which covers the Crown should have close parallel with those laws which cover the peerage. Now that the eldest female child of the Crown can inherit the Crown, I believe that we should move in the same way so far as the peerage is concerned. That is why I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on aiming to do this. As he told us a few minutes ago, I approach this issue purely because of gender equality rather than because of all these quirks of the law about titles in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Those are mysteries to me; I am concerned with the gender equality aspects.

I said in an earlier intervention that we have to accept—I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas and everybody else accepts this—that the chances of this Bill coming into law are nil. As the House may know, I had experience in another place as a party manager and a business manager. There is no way that the Bill will move into law and therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, quite correctly said earlier, we ought to regard this as a discussion on this matter rather than a detailed way of passing it into law.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My noble friend referred to his time as a business manager in the other place. As I recall, he came to be known as the lord high executioner. Is he proud of that?

[Lord Jopling]

I am really very proud of having blocked a lot of particularly senseless Bills which came before the other House. I am certainly very proud of that aspect of being an executioner.

I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has recovered from this discussion, he will make representations to the Government that we ought to have a government Bill in the very near future dealing with this whole aspect of the law on titles, so that gender equality can be established.

Having congratulated my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am bound to say that I am extremely unhappy that there should be a discretionary element in the way that an eldest female child can inherit a peerage. When the eldest child is a girl, I believe that her succession to a peerage should be automatic. The Bill as it stands makes it discretionary. Given everything that that implies about attempts to get agreement within a family, I cannot think of a surer way of causing disagreement and resentment within families than by making it discretionary.

I fully support Amendment 10, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. At the same time, I want to make some remarks about Amendment 34 in my name, which is taken with this general grouping. I well recognise that in some families arrangements have already been made, and expectations already exist, about the inheritance of a title. I have no interests to declare—my title makes me a day-boy, if I may call it that, in your Lordships’ House—but it would be very unfortunate if we were to pass laws about the inheritance of titles that took away from living people expectations that they may have and led to the aborting of arrangements that will have been made and that will be almost impossible to take back.

I believe that the Bill should be effected only for children born after the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. By doing that, we would not take away any expectation of succession or arrangements that had been made for living people, and it would mean that from the day when the Bill became law it applied to children born after that date. I hope that the House will accept that amendment, and I am most pleased to be able to support the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in his efforts to achieve a much fairer method of gender equality.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, during the course of our discussion in this Committee stage so far, I have made a number of light-hearted interventions that I dare say have irritated your Lordships, and I apologise for that. May I now make a serious intervention and give a serious response to the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas? Like my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Caithness, I was not able to be here at Second Reading although I was aware of what was happening. Like my noble friend, I read the Hansard and wished that I had been here.

I very much support the principle that the succession of hereditary peerages should go to the eldest child, not the eldest son, and I would support a change in the law that achieved that. Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, though, I also believe that it is something that cannot be arranged to take place immediately because it would upset all sorts of family arrangements of a very complicated and legal kind, which would be highly undesirable. A number of noble Lords—indeed, my hereditary colleagues—have spoken to me about that, although obviously I will not mention their names. They have family trusts that have been arranged to take account of the fact that their second child, for example, is going to succeed to the peerage. Indeed, I do not mind saying that in my own father’s will he made special provision for the peerage and made it clear that certain things in his estate were to go to the holder of it. As it happened, his eldest son was me so that was fine.

I support the principles of what the Bill proposes. However, I fear there are a number of real difficulties, which have been suggested. I genuinely fear that the Bill is hybrid in one way or another, and I regret that very much. Hybrid Bills cause all sorts of difficulties; my noble friend Lord Jopling will remember that only too well from the distant past. Indeed, when the House of Lords Act 1999 came before Parliament all those years ago, it was thought at some point to be hybrid, although we did not in fact press that argument—other considerations were thought to be more relevant. Whether the amendments now being considered improve matters is a matter of open debate, and I look forward to hearing the further views of noble Lords.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, when he says that the chances of this Bill actually reaching the statute book are extremely slim—indeed, virtually non-existent. In that case, this House, if it is going to consider this subject, must consider very carefully what it is trying to achieve. It is very useful that this House said in an almost declamatory way that it favours the eldest child succeeding to the title whether that child be male or female. I am not sure whether this House can go further than that on this issue.

What I would like to see emerge from the attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is a relatively short statement in the form, I suppose, of a draft statute in which we say, first, to which titles the Bill applies and, secondly, the terms of the amendment put down by the noble Lords, Lord Jopling, Lord Pannick and Lord—I have forgotten who was the third noble Lord was. That encapsulates in a very precise and legally sensitive way exactly what the Bill is trying to achieve.

I have been listening to this debate, particularly the debate on the earlier amendments, and I have found them almost incomprehensible. Anybody who has listened to the debate or who tries to read it in Hansard will find it almost impervious. Whether it should apply to people who hold coats of arms seems almost totally irrelevant. Whether it applies to that strange beast which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised, the name of which I cannot remember, but which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will use in pub quizzes in future, again seems totally irrelevant. We all know what we are actually talking about; we are talking about peerages in this House and possibility baronetcies. It should possibly be extended to Ireland—I have no particularly strong views about that. As far as the Scottish peerage is concerned, of course it should be extended to it.

In relation to Amendment 13, there is not a word in the Bill about legitimacy. There is a definition of an heir. It says that a title should go to an heir. There may be different definitions of an heir in England and Scotland, but it seems to me that both would come under the terms of the proposal in Amendment 10. Why on earth the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, wants to amend it in that way when all he is in fact doing is declaring what Scottish law already is does not seem to take the argument or the Bill any further.

If we could have a short statement from this House stating clearly to which titles we wish the Bill to apply, and that succession should apply irrespective of the gender of the eldest child, that would be useful. It would not get into law, but it would be a statement by this House about what it wants to see. It might even—who knows?—provoke the Government into trying to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, the trouble with the line being taken by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is that he has not taken into account the dreaded European Convention on Human Rights. If we leave the sort of uncertainties which my noble friend Lord Caithness is trying to resolve, someone or other will be off to Strasbourg to try to get it challenged and changed. That is not what we want.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, that is exactly the point. I declared at the beginning that I am no expert on this. The advice that I have been given is from an eminent writer to Her Majesty’s Signet in Scotland, and he advised me that it needs to be put into a Bill of this nature.

Amendment 34 of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is identical to the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who sadly cannot be here because of the weather conditions in Aberdeenshire; it has exactly the same effect. Both these amendments are consequential on the amendment we are discussing. It would only serve to confuse the Bill if both amendments were automatically passed. Therefore, when the time comes, I hope that we will accept Amendment 34 of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and I will try to remember not to move my Amendment 71.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I reiterate the Government’s support for equality in its broadest sense, and therefore equality in titles of one sort or another is something which we support in principle. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, invited the Government to produce at speed a Bill on this issue. Since I have spent the past six weeks consulting on a Bill which the Government produced last summer, and which a number of outside organisations have said should have been subjected very carefully to pre-legislative scrutiny, et cetera, I would not recommend that the Government be in a hurry to produce a Bill on this complex area.

We have heard over the debates on the first few amendments just how complex this whole area is. If we wish to proceed, the way to do so, I would have thought, would be consultation followed by a committee or commission of some sort to make sure that we fully understand what one might be doing.

I have already referred to the previous Government’s attempt to abolish the Lord Chancellorship in one day, and the subsequent discovery that the antiquity of the Lord Chancellorship meant that it had accumulated a great many of the carbuncles to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred. Therefore, if we are to proceed further on this, we should take our time, look very carefully at the implications—the difference between the English, Scottish, Irish and other dimensions of this—and then perhaps consider further.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, if the Minister is proposing a Royal Commission on this matter, that is an admirable proposal and a number of us here would be happy to volunteer to be chairman.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, to come back to Amendment 11, given what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, which is contra to the advice I was given, it would be wise for me to withdraw my amendment at this stage. However, it is something which, in the discussions and consultation which I am sure the Government will be keen to continue, needs to be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, since there is nobody else wishing to speak, I might as well speak to my Amendment 85, which is grouped with this lot. It seeks to leave out lines 13 and 14 on page 4. These say:

“Future holders of a hereditary peerage or hereditary title may not apply for a special remainder under this section”.

I wondered why we were blocking change for the future; is this just to be a one-off change and then it does not change again? Given the complexity of it all, I can see some families taking a while to get their heads around the whole thing and finding it difficult to work out. It may be that the incumbents are very old or do not want to talk about it, so I could not quite see why it had to be a one generation hit only. I may be reading the whole thing wrongly, but it struck me as I was reading it through. I will probably be told that it does not apply to any section that is useful, but I do not know. That is why I put down Amendment 85: to tease out why we are limiting it to the current generation.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. As my noble friend Lord Jopling mentioned a little while ago, all of this started last year when we changed the law with regard to the succession to the Crown. I remember saying at the end of the proceedings on that Bill that the Government had started the hare running as far as the hereditary peerage was concerned. I subsequently learned that a group of young ladies desirous of inheriting titles had formed themselves into a group called the Hares and had lunches every week. With a bit of luck, they will invite me to one of them shortly.

Be that as it may, this is a hugely complicated matter; surely the debates this afternoon have shown that, if nothing else. This amendment is par excellence a huge example of the complications to which I have referred.

Amendment 13 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jopling]

The noble Baroness may recall that I was heavily involved in the 1990 Act following a constituency case, which I mentioned earlier. The law was changed so that in the case of a surrogacy the genetic mother could get an order from the High Court that she be deemed to be the full mother, not the surrogate mother. In this case, no doubt, the same procedure would have to be followed, as in the High Court ruling. At that stage, the genetic mother would be fully the mother.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am far from an expert in these matters but, as I understand them, these things can be determined by analysis these days. It is therefore perfectly straightforward to satisfy or solve a dispute as to who was the mother or father. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Jopling goes the right way and I support it.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend’s amendment. It would have been very useful to the Lord Bengwill of his day—in 1745 he was on the wrong side, or perhaps the right side, and his title was extinguished for a while before being reignited in Victorian times—if he had been able to save a few frozen Stuart embryos, which the society for the restoration of the Stuarts could pop out into this world at regular intervals as proven children of that line. It might cause some confusion. Perhaps things are not quite as simple, particularly for succession to privileges and powers, as they are in ordinary human reproduction, so we ought to take a little care.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

15: Clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “hereditary peerage or”

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Erroll, who has had to do something else, I wish to move the amendment. It is, as the Deputy Chairman of Committees says, consequential on Amendment 6. I beg to move.

Amendment 15 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Trefgarne]

18: Clause 2, page 1, line 15, leave out “hereditary peerage or”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

I succeeded at the age of 16 and was fully entitled to do so but I could not sit in the House of Lords. I took my seat when I was 21, so I have been here for 44 years and my age is still below the average for the House. No other job in the world could ever put one in that position. I think that that is why my noble friend is wrong. The minority in England is 18; in Scotland it is 16. Shall we just drop the “21”?

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I had a similar experience to that of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I was 19 when I succeeded to the title. I then had to prove who I was. As I recall, I had to produce my birth certificate and parents’ marriage certificate. I then got a letter from the then Lord Chancellor saying that he would have authorised me to be issued with a Writ of Summons had I reached my majority. I think that those were the words that he used. I did that a couple of years later and duly took my seat in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 21 agreed.

Church of England: Appointment of Bishops

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Church of England about the procedure for the appointment of bishops in the Church of England.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the current procedure for the appointment of bishops to the Church of England was agreed by the previous Government in 2008 after consultation with the church and the publication of a White Paper, The Governance of Britain. There have been no further discussions between the Government and the church on this issue since 2008 and the Government see no need to initiate any such discussions.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is it not the case that bishops are retiring faster than they are being appointed? In a little while, there will be none at all. If the most reverend Primate’s diary is so congested that he cannot find time for additional meetings of the Crown Nominations Commission, would it not be a good idea to reappoint the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who chaired that committee so effectively when it came to choosing the most reverend Primate?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am informed that there are currently four vacancies for diocesan bishops and two forthcoming retirements. There is also the issue of the new combined diocese of Leeds. I accept that the Church of England has a rather lengthy consultation procedure before new bishops are appointed. I spoke to the joint secretaries of the Crown Nominations Commission last week, who were in Hereford consulting members of the diocese on the nature and needs of the diocese and thus the characteristics they wanted in a new bishop. That seems entirely desirable. I understand that in the diocese of Guildford, with which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be concerned, the bishop is due to retire at the end of November. It is likely that his successor, after this consultation, will be agreed in June or July next year.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government are not yet convinced that we need to take legislative action, but we are thoroughly in favour of all pressure possible to encourage large corporations to pay their small contractors as fast as possible. There is indeed a new booklet produced by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Experian, the Forum of Private Business and the Institute of Credit Management which is a guide on how to ensure prompt payment and has been produced in co-operation with the Government. I must say that a number of newspapers, including in particular the Telegraph, have been very helpful in exposing the tendency of some large corporations deliberately to delay payment to their subcontractors. We all know that transparency and reputational damage are things which multinational companies are well aware of, supermarkets included.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprises which tender for and secure government business, will he have a look at the complexity of government tendering processes which tend to put off smaller companies from competing in those competitions?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are also well aware of that. My right honourable friend Francis Maude and others have been looking in particular at the complexity of the pre-qualification questionnaires. We are doing our best to get rid of those for all contracts below £100,000 per year and to simplify the pre-qualification questionnaires for all others.

House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [HL]

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 29th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, I intend to be very brief. I support the Bill proposed today by my noble friend Lord Steel. This is the fifth or sixth time that he has introduced a Bill along these lines but the one before us today is, in my judgment, considerably the best of them all. I therefore hope and believe that it will go swiftly through your Lordships’ House, on to the other place and perhaps on to the statute book in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I apologise for being slow to rise, but I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to speak next. I note that he is not doing so.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I have already done so.

[Lord Tyler]

I do apologise to your Lordships. I was making notes of all the points made but I failed to make a note of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am so hurt.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!