House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

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

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

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

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

I was going to put the Question in any case. The Question is that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I would like to make two, I hope, perfectly sensible points. In previous discussions, the main reason given for removing hereditary Peers at this point was that the public thought that it was an anachronism, that it looked silly and they did not understand what it was about, and all that sort of stuff. If it is about public image, I recommend that we should change the name of our upper House to senate, which is universally understood globally and is taught in politics lessons. That would be the perfectly logical thing to do to pair with getting rid of hereditary Peers. What amuses me is that those who are very keen to get rid of hereditary Peers because it taints this House are also very keen to hang on to the title. I really do not understand that; it is just not consistent and logical.

The other point that I would make is that in all my points that I am arguing, I am arguing against my continued presence in this House much more effectively than if we put this Bill through, whereby I would roll on until I died, with luck—whereas actually I am trying to force an earlier departure by getting a proper democratic assembly. When we go democratic, it will be easier to understand if it is called a senate. Whatever happens, renaming it as a senate would be much clearer and would give a much better image of the House to the public.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I wish it to be on record that many of us who believe that there should be a change of name in future, at the appropriate stage, be it an all-appointed or all-elected House, cannot support the noble Earl’s amendment because it is inappropriate at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. So casting aspersions about people wanting to hang on to titles is out of place, with that explanation about the reasoning behind our choices.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Everyone would retain their title, because it is an honour given to them. The change of name affects the place—this House—and I think that it would be much clearer if we started just being a senate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

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

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

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

[Lord Cormack]

If we took the advice of my noble friend Lord Shutt and deferred everything remaining until Report, that would be the other way to do it. The least satisfactory way is to end untidily today, not having completed Committee and therefore having Report at some indeterminate time in the future, with another Committee day having to intervene. Either we go through with automatic not moving, as it were, or, if that is not considered appropriate by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—I would fully understand it if that were his view—can we not do what was done with the Localism Bill: defer the other issues to Report, when at least it will all be done tidily?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I intervene because I have had experience of this: it happened during wash-up. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does not understand that some of our procedures here, although they look the same, are slightly different from those in the other place. The rules for Committee and Report and what you can do at Third Reading matter. If you introduce an amendment for the first time on Report, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, you can speak to it only once. That does not cause too much trouble: you can get round it with clever interventions. The problem comes if there is something of fairly major consequence that you wish to approach in a different way, because you may not be able to introduce your amendment at Third Reading. There are rules about the similarity of amendments at Report stage. It is far more flexible in Committee and on Report. Our procedures are designed that way. Third Reading is supposed to be only a tidying up operation to address a few little drafting mistakes, although the Government have tended to extend the definition for their own purposes in the past. For us, certainly on a Private Member's Bill, I am quite sure that that latitude would not be permitted by the procedures of the House, so it is very dangerous to postpone to Report stage.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it is my understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved without debate Amendment 2. Surely we could move to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, why can we not have another Committee day and finish the Committee that way?

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Question on Amendment 2 be now put.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Amendment 3.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Oh, Amendment 3. It says Amendment 2 on the annunciator.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to.

[Lord Trefgarne]

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

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be the most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of business in the House. Further, if a Lord who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. The Question is that the Question be now put.