Covid-19

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Sorry, I did have an answer on schools. Our advice for children is very clear: they should have a test only if they have symptoms. Obviously, we are well aware that there is a capacity issue in the system at the moment, which we are trying to address, so there are perhaps longer waits than we would like for tests. However, 64.7% of people who have a test get the results back within 24 hours.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. Please keep questions and answers brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

House of Lords: Allowance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, at its meeting last Thursday, the House of Lords Commission agreed on an updated set of proposals relating to the financial support available to Members to enable them to carry out out their parliamentary duties.

The Lord Speaker, the Senior Deputy Speaker, the leaders of the three main parties and the Cross-Bench Convenor are all members of the commission, as are the chairs of the services and finance committees, two Back-Benchers and two external Members. A summary of the proposals were sent to noble Lords on Friday, and the full details are in the Motion on the Order Paper. In short, if this Motion is agreed to, the current temporary arrangements, which have been in place since May, will, from September, be replaced by a further temporary system that will reflect the expectation and, I think, desire that many more noble Lords will attend and carry out their parliamentary duties here at Westminster, rather than remotely.

In recognition that some noble Lords will be unable or would prefer not to attend in person, but wish to contribute to our proceedings, the proposals maintain the current arrangements for those participating virtually. The commission believes that these proposals also better recognise the work carried out by the Opposition’s Front Benches and our Select Committee chairs. From September, committee chairs and designated opposition Front-Benchers will have access to a limited supplementary daily allowance.

The House authorities are working very hard to ensure that all Members who want to return in September can do so in a way that is compatible with the latest public health guidance, so that Parliament is a safe, Covid-secure working environment. The House authorities will update noble Lords on these plans before we rise for the summer.

This has been an unprecedented period. Although we can be proud that the House has adapted so quickly to significant challenges the current crisis has raised, and that so many noble Lords have been able to participate in our hybrid proceedings, it has certainly not been without its difficulties. In particular, we have had to make difficult decisions in relation to allowances, none of which has been taken lightly by members of the commission. We fully appreciate the concern and impact these have had on Members across the House. On behalf of the Commission, I thank all noble Lords for their forbearance and patience. We believe that the changes which will be brought into effect by this Motion represent a positive and clear step towards the return to normal we all want to see as soon as possible, and I hope noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I have received notice that the following noble Lords wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Shinkwin and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would prefer to hear from the Back Benchers before speaking. I am surprised to be called. Would it be in order for Back Benchers to speak and for me to speak after them?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is fine. In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, every situation can teach us something. The experience of the last few months might have plunged some noble Lords into significant debt, but it is none the less valuable in the lessons that it teaches us as a self-regulating House. I think it is fair to say that the most important lesson is that we must avoid at all costs reinforcing the unfair perception that your Lordships’ House is the exclusive preserve of privilege and wealth. Diversity is our strongest defence against that charge, which is why we need to recognise that some noble Lords will inevitably have neither inherited nor acquired wealth but will have significant outgoings. That is normal and must be taken into account, and I thank the Lords Commission for doing so in its latest decision.

However, apart from the personal consequences of suddenly having very little income, it has been very unsettling to see such decision-making power wielded in secrecy and without any accountability to a parliamentary Chamber that is meant to be self-regulating. I therefore think that, to move forward, we need to get our own House in order by injecting some transparency and accountability into the system. Most importantly, we urgently need to strengthen the legitimacy of the Lords Commission in future by holding an election of its chair and deputy chair by the whole House, by holding open meetings of the Lords Commission, by ensuring advanced publication of Lords Commission papers, and by having a quarterly Lords Commission Question Time with its chair, held in the Chamber, as in the House of Commons.

I will close on this point. Specifically with regard to the position of the Clerk of the Parliaments, I know that I am not alone in being concerned that the postholder wields huge authority without any real accountability to the House. I therefore suggest that the contract for such a hugely important role should not be extended in future without it having been put to and agreed by the House first, and the details of the package, the job description and objectives having been made available in the Library a week before consideration.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I begin with a brief word about Labour’s Amendment 11, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I am disappointed that the party which—with a bit of prodding when in government—introduced the ban on smoking in pubs has in opposition retreated from that bold approach to public health issues, and cannot support Amendment 15. This disappointment is shared by many of Labour’s noble Members. Its own amendment has been trumped by the Government’s amendment, which goes further, and which I will turn to in a moment, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that more action is needed to combat smoking.

The Government have adopted the “hard cop, soft cop” approach on this issue. Last week, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh was cast as the hard cop and was obliged to read out an uncompromising speech asserting that our amendment would lead to pub closures and job losses. Why pubs that have survived all the problems that have confronted industries so far should decide to close when given the opportunity to extend their non-smoking premises to include the pavements outside was never explained. He also said that imposing a condition to prohibit outdoor smoking would not be proportionate. Yet outdoor smoking is already banned in open-air stadiums and at open-air railway stations, because they are places where people congregate and therefore there is the health risk and the annoyance of passive smoking. It would be the same with pavement smoking.

However, it would be churlish to complain too much, because in the meantime the hard cop was replaced by the soft cop, my noble friend Lord Howe, emollient and with an impeccable public health record. He has tabled an amendment which goes a long way towards what we were arguing for, and wrote a helpful letter to noble Lords today. I pay tribute to his role in listening to last week’s debate and moving government policy forward on this issue. I know that my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who made a personal commitment to the anti-smoking campaign in the debate last week, has also played a role.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the government amendment does not go as far as I would like, but before turning to that, I will make one point about the guidance referred to in the noble Earl’s amendment. Given that many pubs have already made provision for smokers on their own premises—usually canopies with patio heaters—I hope the guidance will say that where this is the case, any extension to the pavement should be smoke-free, since there is already somewhere for the smokers to go.

The Government’s amendment does not go as far as I would like, and I will not repeat the arguments in favour of Amendment 15 so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords, last week. While none of the arguments against it have convinced me that they would be the right way forward, I recognise that given the position of the Labour Party, the cross-party alliance so skilfully constructed by the noble Baroness has gone as far as it can, and therefore I am prepared to settle for and support the government amendment. I hope that others who share my view will feel able to do the same.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, yesterday’s press release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated:

“People using pubs, restaurants and cafés will soon have greater freedom to choose non-smoking outdoor areas”,


a laudable objective that is consistent with the cross-party Amendment 15, which I have signed, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and which is identical to the one we debated in Committee last week. Some of your Lordships may take the view that had we not raised the issue of smoking in areas covered by pavement licences, the other amendments in this group might never have seen the light of day today. Indeed, if it had not been for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raising the subject at Second Reading, that would probably be the case.

As I indicated in Committee last week, our amendment enjoys strong cross-party support from the Local Government Association, which represents local councils in England and has asked the Government to make pavements smoke-free. Birmingham Labour councillor Paulette Hamilton, vice-chair of the LGA’s community well-being board, is urging your Lordships to give councils the power to extend smoke-free areas to include pavements, so that

“this alfresco summer can be enjoyed by everyone.”

She added:

“Councils have worked hard to help hospitality businesses reopen, including relaxing requirements and making changes to roads and pavements to enable pubs, cafés and bars to operate outside safely with more outdoor seating. Pavement licensing should not be a catalyst to increase smoking in public places, putting people at greater risk of ingesting second-hand smoke when they are enjoying a drink or a meal.”


This view is shared by the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Ian Hudspeth, whom I quoted in the debate last Monday, and who has set the laudable target of a smoke-free Oxfordshire by 2025.

On 15 July, the Welsh Government committed to bringing in new laws to ban smoking in hospital grounds and schools under the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, to

“protect the public from second-hand smoke and de-normalise smoking in the eyes of young people.”

They are on course to bring in a smoking ban for the outdoor seating areas of restaurants and cafés, which is supported by nearly two-thirds of adults in Wales, according to a survey by ASH Wales.

My final point arises from my supplementary question to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, earlier this afternoon. Noble Lords may recall that I asked him whether today’s proposed guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs and restaurants would be agreed with the DHSC, published before the House rises and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Rather to my surprise, he did not answer any of these rather important questions, and later in the session, when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked them again in the same form, she did not get a reply either. What is going on? Have the Government not yet made up their mind, or does the MHCLG refuse to acknowledge that this is a public health issue, let alone that it has anything to do with the Government’s aim to make England smoke-free by 2030? I still think that our amendment is the best of the three on offer, and I will be disappointed if the House does not agree to it this afternoon.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 15, to which I have added my name, seems to be the best way to avoid the Government throwing away the hard-won gains in public health that smoking reduction strategies have achieved to date. There is now clear evidence of the benefits from our legislation, which has banned smoking in public places. The benefits of ending passive smoking are to the heart, the vascular system and the lungs. The strongest evidence of the health benefits of making places smoke-free is in those working in pubs. The Smoke-free Premises and Vehicles (Wales) Regulations 2020 will extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas of hospital grounds, school grounds and local authority playgrounds.

Business of the House

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, this Motion will prevent the House having to hold any hereditary Peer by-elections for the time being. I am sorry not to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Without this, one would have to have been held before 26 June, owing to an imminent retirement. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I will ask the question that I am sure he would have asked had he been here. If it is possible to suspend the Standing Order to make this possible now, why is it not possible otherwise, bearing in mind that his Bill had almost unanimous support from your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sure noble Lords agree that this is a very sensible step in the circumstances. No doubt we will debate this matter further when we return to normal circumstances.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, when the Lord Speaker made his personal statement on Thursday last week, he signalled that his team of Deputy Speakers would be further strengthened. This Motion will allow that to happen at the best possible speed and with the minimum of fuss. I thank all those who have taken on this task. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, as one of the Deputy Speakers temporarily standing down, I wish the new Deputy Speakers taking on this very important duty the best of luck. I hope that those of us who are a little older than they are will have the chance to come back some time later this year.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

I have to advise the noble Lord that I have not yet moved the amendment. I am only speaking to it; the Question cannot be put.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Yes, I cannot accept a Motion that the Question be now put if the Motion itself has not been moved. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will move the Motion, we can move to the second one.

[Baroness Noakes]

I will move the amendment when I have finished what I have to say on it.

I return to the issue of prorogation. I thank my noble friend Lord Dobbs for assisting me on that, but I think the people who are getting excited about prorogation are just looking for excuses to get excited about what they do not like, which is that we are leaving the EU. It is no more than a substitute, a smokescreen, for something that, deep down, they do not really like and do not want to get on with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Framlingham]

It is increasingly clear that our Chancellor was in many ways less than helpful; let us put it no more strongly than that. I want to talk about the role of manifestos—

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I respectfully draw the noble Lord’s attention to paragraph 4.43 of the Companion, which says that:

“No Member of the House of Commons should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal, rather than a political, nature”.

[Lord Framlingham]

I am sorry; I had not read that. However, I will not withdraw it, because the House can tell how strongly I feel. If I am not careful, I will make it worse. I will consult the Companion and, if I have erred greatly, I will make sure I do not do it again.

The proposition that promises made in manifestos are not binding strikes at the very heart of our system of government. Manifestos are long and detailed. Few people will read and understand every single detail, but they are the only way that the electorate can know what any party or candidate proposes to do and bring them to account after the election. They are also crucial as a point of reference when controversial issues arise in government and are frequently referred to and quoted. Minor issues may perhaps be overlooked, or not carried out quite as they ought to be, but for something as vital as leaving the European Union, there could be no room for doubt or misunderstanding.

In its 2017 election manifesto, the Labour Party did not say that it would leave the EU only on terms agreed by a second referendum. At that stage in our proceedings, it was understood that both parties were prepared to leave the European Union. The truth is that all these shenanigans are designed simply to hide the fact that the Labour Party does not know which way to turn. It is still prepared to inflict significant damage on our House and our constitution, and prevent the Government doing what the vast majority of the people now want. To this end, it is still prepared to deny its manifesto commitments.

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

I have no knowledge of any complaints against other Peers in this House. I make that clear.

I mentioned the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who established a concept of personal honour. That concept is central to this debate. In elaborating on that, he mentioned words such as selflessness, accountability, integrity, openness, objectivity and honesty.

To conclude, we are dealing with two individuals who are both eminent and respected in their fields, as I said previously. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said on 15 November,

“the most severe burden that anyone has to carry is adjudicating upon the conduct of our fellow citizens”.—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 2017.]

I know from Members’ comments to me that they have found this painful and distressing on occasion. The Independent Commissioner for Standards, the sub- committee and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct carried out their difficult task dutifully. The commissioner, an experienced lawyer and investigator, as well as a mental health tribunal judge, carried out her task precisely as laid down by the code and the guide that the House designed and agreed to. Each Member signs up to the code and the guide at the start of each Parliament. We must remember that, unlike the House, the commissioner had the unique advantage of seeing, interviewing and assessing the complainant and Lord Lester.

This is the redacted material, which every Member was invited to read before the first meeting. No one took up that invitation. We reiterated the invitation and two individuals have taken it up. I know that one Member has contacted the office to say that they would like to take it up on Wednesday. I invite all other Members to come along after this if they wish to see this material, because it is detailed, comprehensive and fair to both parties. That invitation is open.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

I was one of the two Members who asked to see the material. The point that has not been made today is that the material contains the contemporaneous witness accounts of what happened in Lord Lester’s house. I found that evidence absolutely overwhelming and persuasive. I join the noble Lord in inviting other Members to read it as well.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

The noble Lord said that there were six contemporaneous witnesses. We invite Members to read their accounts.

In her own words,

“on the basis of the strong and cogent evidence of the complainant and her witnesses”,

the commissioner found that Jasvinder Sanghera was a victim of sexual harassment and that Lord Lester was guilty of a grave abuse of power. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct reviewed and endorsed this view. We ask the House to do the same. I hope the House will now agree to this report.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. A little unusually, I can happily say that there was nothing in his speech with which I disagreed. Every point he made was absolutely fair. I echo the views of every other noble Lord who has spoken in this debate and express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating it. It might have seemed a bit self-indulgent for a debate like this to happen on our first day back, but it has been such an excellent debate, with so many very interesting and positive points made in it, that it was well worth while. I simply say thank you very much to my noble friend.

I will try to avoid going over the ground that other noble Lords have covered in this debate—which is either one of the advantages or one of the disadvantages of speaking very late. There is no need to go into the basic statistics about the total number of Members of this House, the proportion who attend regularly and the consequences, both practical and reputational, of continuing to add to our membership. On that last point, we should perhaps be a little grateful to the Prime Minister for not following the line laid down in the 2010 coalition agreement which stated that:

“Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.

As Professor Meg Russell pointed out in the House Full report, published by the Constitution Unit in April 2011,

“putting this promise into effect would require a minimum of 269 additional peers to be appointed, taking the size of the chamber to 1062”.

As we have heard, the actual number of new Peers has been 160, which exceeds by a substantial amount the total who have left, whether by death, retirement or resignation. This is the reason why the membership of the House now stands at nearly 800.

However, the really important statistic is the number who are attending regularly, which has crept up to around 500. That compares with, for example, 350 to 450 before the passage of the House of Lords Act in 1999, when the membership of the House was well in excess of 1,000. One reason why more Peers are attending is because the average age of new Members is a lot lower than that of those who have left us. Your Lordships tend to live longer than most members of the population, and the average age of departure—until recently, that has been a euphemism for death—has been 85, whereas the average age for new Members has been 59 in the current Session. Intriguingly, the overall average age of Members, at 70, is almost exactly the same today as it was when I joined the House in 1999. The one difference, I am afraid, is that I am now much closer to the average than I was 15 years ago.

Many Members referred to the innovation of the system of retirement, which I think has been welcomed by all noble Lords. This is, or will be, a means of achieving a reduction in the membership of the House. However, I was a little surprised to discover that it does not apply when one of our 92 hereditary Members retires, because that retirement is then followed by a by-election, something which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke against earlier on. It seems rather strange that we have a by-election for somebody who has taken voluntary retirement under these arrangements.

I am afraid that the issue of the size of the House is bound to grow in significance as the general election approaches, and we must be robust in defending ourselves. It would clearly be absurd if anything approaching the old coalition policy of matching the number of new Members to the share of the vote received at the election were to be put into effect, given the fact that the election may well produce a rather strange set of results, not just in seats but in terms of the percentage share of the vote won by political parties. Are we really saying that if an extremist party were to attract 15% of the vote, that would justify it getting 100 or so Members in your Lordships’ House? Of course, if one follows that line, what would we do about a party that did well in 2010 and was rewarded with 34 new Peers during the life of this Parliament but then found that its vote had fallen to less than 10%? Will its Peers automatically volunteer to leave the House in order to bring that proportion down? I rather suspect not.

One sensible answer is to agree on a moratorium on new creations or at least agree on a one-in, one-out policy so that the total membership gets no larger, the party balances are maintained and the Government continue not to have a majority. But first, of course, there has to be agreement on what the total membership should be. I have not heard any consensual view on that, other than the fact that 400 is thought to be too few and 800 is thought to be too many.

We could adopt a rule that is followed in local government; that is, members who fail to attend a meeting in a six-month period without a good reason are deemed to have resigned their membership. We could look at more draconian measures, such as limiting membership to those who attend more than a minimum number of sittings. Your Lordships may be interested to know that if we set the figure at 25% of our sittings in the current Session, we would be saying goodbye to around 137 Members who have not attended at least 19 of the 78 sittings that have taken place.

A further change that I do not think anybody else has suggested but I would be interested to have my noble friend’s view on is that we could in future consider what we might call “ministerial peerages” which come to an end when the individual concerned ceases to be a Minister. There is nothing wrong with Prime Ministers choosing individuals as Ministers and putting them in the House of Lords. Indeed, that can enhance our effectiveness and enable us to hold the Government better to account if we can question them here. But if some of those Ministers decide that they want little to do with this place after they leave office, as was the case with a number of Ministers in the previous Government, they should be encouraged to resign from the House at the same time as they step down as Ministers.

I am not going to follow my noble friend Lord Maxton in having a go at the Bishops’ Bench, particularly as it is currently empty. But I cannot resist the temptation to ask the Leader of the House, whose speech I am looking forward to in a moment, whether the Government have plans to introduce legislation imminently to ensure that the first woman Bishop is appointed here before the end of this Parliament. I do not think anybody has mentioned that.

Your Lordships all understand that getting the number of Members of the House down without reducing the number of active Members will not do anything about reducing the cost of this House. Undoubtedly, we have to explain this better to the public and the media, who assume that just by getting rid of the old Members somehow the cost of the House of Lords will come down—it will not. What is important is that we do not compromise the quality of our debates or compromise on what we are able to do in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. That has been the theme of many speeches in this debate. The fact that that message is coming through so clearly is a very good reason for having this debate.

My noble friend Lord Williams has set the ball rolling. I hope now that the Procedure Committee will take it up and run with it and look at these issues properly in the weeks ahead.

Peers

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That was certainly the view in the 1950s when the term was first introduced. I do not think that it is necessary to use the phrase “working Peer” any more. It is certainly not one that I will use from now on and I shall encourage others not to use it either. I do not think that Peers should encourage being described either as working or non-working Peers.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Could I ask the Leader of the House about working Ministers? Is he satisfied that a significant number of his Front-Bench colleagues are not in receipt of a ministerial salary? Is that not an undesirable trend, which was started by the previous Administration and continued by this one? I declare an interest as someone who was for a considerable time unpaid and latterly was paid.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord deserved exactly what he got. The noble Lord tempts me. This is slightly beyond the scope of the Question. There is a statutory limit to the number of Ministers. I regret that there are Ministers who are unpaid in your Lordships' House but they are all volunteers. They all signed up and knew what they were getting when they started. It is a great honour and a privilege to serve Her Majesty's Government in this House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McDonagh]

My Lords, my amendment would change the wording in the Bill, which asks:

“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?”,

to:

“Which electoral system would you prefer to use for electing your MP to the House of Commons? Either—

(a) the first past the post system; or (b) the alternative vote system?”.

The reason for this, as any psychologist will tell you, is that yes/no is not neutral. Yes/no has values: yes being good, no being bad. It can also cause confusion depending on whether you ask the question in a positive or a negative way.

A second unintended consequence of the wording is that it gets the voter to fixate on one system which, in the way the sentence is constructed, forces them to focus on the alternative vote system. I believe we are not asking them to choose for or against the alternative vote. In the Bill and in the referendum, we are asking them to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the first past the post system as against the alternative vote system and then make a choice. For these reasons I think it is much more straightforward if we pose the question in the way it is in the amendment and get people to actually choose the system they would prefer. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 21 to 27 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. I understand exactly the point she is trying to make—aiming to ensure that the best possible referendum question is posed to the public. I hope to reassure her that an options form of the question was considered and tested by the Electoral Commission when it carried out its assessment of the original question on the Bill. The commission’s report concluded that there are potential drawbacks to using the options style in this particular case. It went on to discuss it and concluded that, in the circumstances, it could not recommend the use of an options question in place of the more traditional yes/no question that meets our criteria for assessing a referendum question.

The commission’s report also noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of referendum campaigning as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The question in the Bill as it stands therefore reflects the recommendations of the Electoral Commission which tested the question through focus groups and interviews with members of the public, as well as input from language experts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Is the noble Lord moving an amendment?