Procedure Committee

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as the Chairman of Committees will know, the current Government have enunciated a new rule, if you like, that the proportion and number of Members of your Lordships’ House should bear direct comparison with the votes cast at the last general election. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees, if a political party had a catastrophic reduction in the votes cast at the next election, am I right in thinking that we would expect a considerable number of resignations from that party? I am not at liberty to say which party I am thinking about but I assume that we would have to have extra Friday sittings to hear the valedictory speeches.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

I should like to make two points. First, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Steel about financial inducement to retirement. That would be a very bad precedent and I hope that it will not happen. Secondly, what are the detailed arrangements for giving Royal Assent to Bills? Who is supposed to give that assent? Is it the Minister in charge of the Bill or someone else?

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Friday 28th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification. I referred in my remarks to the report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. That has apparently been approved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the shadow Justice Secretary, Mr Sadiq Khan, so presumably it is jolly far down the way of becoming Labour Party policy. Can he also comment on whether the account of those proposals in the paper today is accurate?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the account was in the Daily Telegraph, so noble Lords will have to make their own judgment as to how accurate they think the Daily Telegraph is. As my noble friend Lord Grenfell has already made clear, this is a report by Labour Peers. It received a great deal of support at the meeting of Labour Peers on Wednesday. It is a contribution to the debate. I speak as deputy leader of our party in the House of Lords and I very much welcome the report and the recommendations that it makes. I believe that they are very sensible. They provide a solution to the interim problems that we face. In my view, they do not conflict with more substantive reform, when that comes.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.