Queen’s Speech

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, refers to the West Lothian question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that it was a question that was better not asked. In the House of Commons—and it is entirely a matter for them—they are looking at it to see what solutions they can bring. Those are solutions for another place; they are not for us.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

The noble Lord is entertaining the House with a fascinating speech, but could he say whether, were the other place to change its voting on the basis of country of origin of the Member, he would expect this House to continue in the current way? Secondly, I have listened very carefully to many debates. It surprises me that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not seem to recognise that the position on our Benches and around the House has always been a recognition of the primacy of the House of Commons. He maligns Members of the House by implying that the primacy of the House of Commons is a concern only on our Benches. Around the House there is a fear of a constitutional gridlock, not least because many members of the public and the media keep referring to this House as a legislature. It is not—it is a reforming Chamber.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have no problem with the primacy of the House of Commons as it stands and I am very keen to preserve it. What I am trying to find out is what on earth the Labour Party thinks.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

In the spirit of helpfulness, may I make another attempt to suggest a possible solution to the problem of accommodating such a large number of speakers in Monday’s debate, so that we will be able to complete it in social hours? If the Leader of the House is so opposed to carrying the debate over into Tuesday and splitting it between two days, may I suggest that we begin the debate at 11 am on Monday?

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Low, with care every time he speaks. I remind the House that many Members travel a long distance to get here. I fear that the reason for not suggesting that the debate begin on Thursday afternoon was that the noble Lord the Leader of the House knows that it could excite the wrath of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on suddenly being told that Thursday afternoon was the time being suggested. I still have not heard the reason for the noble Lord’s absolutely unusual refusal to listen to the House, except that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, apparently agreed to it. Having heard the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on the future of the House of Lords, perhaps we do not need to debate it at all.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, perhaps I am being naive again but I thought that the whole point of having this debate on Monday was so that we could make the case for a Bill not being included in the Queen’s Speech. My noble friend argues that there will be two more days to debate the Queen’s Speech—by then it will be too late. I thought that the whole purpose of the debate was for the Government to be informed. I have not put my name down to speak because, frankly, I did not fancy hanging around until 2 am. However, if my noble friend were to agree to the additional time, I would be happy to add my thoughts, which I am sure would be very helpful to the Government.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

A final point before the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, leaps to her feet, which I can see she is keen to do, and I say this as a government Minister: I do not think there is any doubt in the Government or anywhere else about what the views of this House are on a potential Bill on reform of this House. I do not think there is any doubt here or in another place. It is utterly clear to me and, indeed, to my noble friend Lord McNally and, for the avoidance of doubt, there is not a cigarette paper of difference between me and my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House misunderstood what was said on the BBC this morning. It was said that the Joint Committee of both Houses is recommending and that the Government accept the recommendation. Given the huge amount of work that the Joint Committee has done, surely it would be logical for the Leader of the House to agree that there should be time to consider the recommendations before the publication of a Bill, which may be amended because of the recommendations, is announced in the Queen’s Speech. That leads inexorably to a view that the report ought to be debated widely prior to Prorogation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, if the report is to be published on 23 April and the Leader of the House tells us that we should have time to read and consider it, can we be assured that the House will meet during the week beginning 30 April for four days, or does the Leader of the House have something else in mind for that week?

Health and Social Care Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, that being so, and referring to the Motion that we are debating at the moment, would it not be for the convenience of everybody concerned with the Health and Social Care Bill if, for every amendment tabled, we knew before we debated it on Report in this House that it was subject to financial privilege? We would then know that we were wasting our time, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. The problem is the lack of knowledge. If we know beforehand and we have a certificate for a money Bill, we know that it is a money Bill. We do not know that with domestic policy Bills. If particular amendments are a cause for concern among the authorities of the other place, that should be signalled before we debate the issue in this House.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, in my experience there are two issues. One is the matter of degree. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that this is not a clear, black and white issue in terms of the individual parts of a Bill that could be declared financial privilege or the range of parts of a Bill that could be declared financial privilege.

Secondly, the Leader of the House said the week before last in your Lordships’ Chamber, and I hope that I recollect his words accurately, that obviously a wholly or partially elected second Chamber would exercise greater authority and power and have greater legitimacy. Does the Leader of the House believe that people would stand for election were huge chunks of legislation to be declared beyond their competence?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, to avoid repetition, I say that I would still like to hear answers to the questions raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—what is the point against this background? Also, what is the application to the Bill that we are about to get back to, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, where a lot of money is also involved? Are we completely wasting our time?

Energy: Tariffs

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marland]

I am not sure what I should be reassuring the noble Lord about—whether we should or should not carry on with offshore wind. However, we are committed to offshore wind, if that is the answer that he or anyone else wants. Our numeracy is still very much intact, and I am very grateful for his compliment.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I missed the noble Lord explaining who had sent him the cheque and what reason they gave for sending it. I am sure it was not from redundancy money given to people who have been thrown out of work by the Government’s policy.

[Lord Marland]

I think the noble Baroness is being a little trite. It comes from a firm called Solar Fusion. No one has yet been made redundant from the solar panel industry, which is alive and well. We have sought to reduce the amount that the consumer pays to help people in the solar industry. For a panel costing £4,000, you can still generate a £500 feed-in tariff benefit—which is more than 10 per cent and in the current market is very good—and a reduction of £190 on your bill. I do not think that there will be redundancies. I think that more of these things will be sold, and that that is good for jobs.

Public Disorder

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, perhaps we might have as the last Back-Bench speaker the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and then my noble friend will respond.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, the most reverend Primate raised the important issue of what happens in society. I suggest trying to get young people themselves to monitor what is happening in communities. My deep concern is that, nowadays, in most families, both parents work. Churches, community groups and activist groups are struggling like mad to keep going because people do not have the time. There is an urgent need for youth and community workers to be employed to help local groups—be it a church group, a youth group or a sports group—through those patches when it is hard to continue.

If the Government say that they are determined to press ahead, I must warn them that from my observation, listening to the general public, they are saying, “Why weren’t there more police officers?”. The Government are spending £130 million on their pet project—I disagree with it very strongly, but that is irrelevant. The public out there want more trained police officers. Members of your Lordships' House say, “Police officers stood there, looked at a situation and did not move in”. Often it was one police officer facing a group of 20 or 30. We need the right number of officers with the right approach.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions that we have heard today, many of them based on first-hand experience across a whole range of disciplines which are, necessarily, going to be part of the solution to the challenge that clearly faces us all in dealing with the crisis—I use that word deliberately—that we saw on our streets in the past few days. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, began this part of our deliberations by saying, first, that we needed to restore social order and that we must not rush to conclusions. Let me deal with those two things, because they have been picked up by many noble Lords around the Chamber today.

It is quite right that we must in the very short term—and I hope this is already evident—restore social order. We saw, particularly on the streets of London after Monday night but also in other cities around the country, a significant increase not just in the numbers of police but in what has been referred to as robust policing in order to bring law and peace to our city centres. It would be wrong to pretend that we feel that this is over. We still have to be vigilant and to maintain that presence to make sure that we have dealt with the immediate crisis, and I hope noble Lords will feel from today’s Statement that additional measures are being put in place to help to resolve this.

Noble Lords have raised many issues. The pressure of time means that I cannot go into all of them, but there are some things about the way in which certain parts of our communities live that affect particularly young people and their upbringing. The question of education was raised, as was the moral basis both in schools and in homes, which was raised by the most reverend Primate in his initial speech and by others speaking with great experience on these matters.

I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that just before the House rose for the summer I wrote to my colleague at the Department for Education to ask specifically about the policy on excluded children. They have been a problem for a very long time—to themselves as well as to the wider community—and we must have sustainable policies on children whom we have identified as being likely to cause problems and become criminals. However, what we have seen in the past few days has involved children not just from deprived backgrounds or children who have suffered brutality in childhood that has affected them later but people, as we have seen from the court cases, who are holding down jobs, many of them responsible jobs. One cannot but conclude that the moral compass has been abandoned, and restoring that moral compass across those communities is part of the challenge that we must all—the church, Parliament, society and the law—work together on.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not respond fully to them, but as they will know there is a meeting at 3 pm in Room G. I am very happy to go into further details on that. The most reverend Primate asked us to look at what the next generation will inherit. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, also picked up on this, as have others. While we deal with the current generation—and it is important that we do—we have to get right not just the policies but the whole change in culture for the next generation. I am reminded of the generation that went before me. My father spent five years of his youth in a prisoner of war camp. He and those of his generation who survived came home to make sure that this country had a set of values and a moral compass, and that children were brought up to respect the law and received a good education. There is too much detail to go into today, but we all understand the diversity and the range of issues that we are going to have to grasp, and grasp them we must.

I was reminded of this on Monday night when I did not sleep, not because I live in London—I live miles away—but because one of my children does and had been forced to barricade himself into his house because of what was going on in the road outside. He had to do so again the next day, just in case. That fear runs among people well beyond those who have been directly affected, and the public out there expect us collectively—across this Chamber, the next Chamber and in all our statutory services—to work together to bring law and order so that we can live in peace and security. All that needs to be harnessed and to come together, because it is broken.

Questions have been asked about policing. I am very happy to answer those questions, but I suggest to the House that what happened in London on Monday night happened not because there are insufficient police on the payroll but because decisions were taken that we will have to examine in some detail. It was quite obvious that once the policing numbers were increased the next night, and once the strategy changed, the whole scenario changed in London—so, yes, there will need to be inquiries.

In the very short term, we will need to look at gangland culture, particularly in our inner cities. These problems involve people from across the range—children as well as adults. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others of their experiences and we should look to the Strathclyde experience to try to learn from it. We have to deal with this. Yesterday, the police identified members of known gangs who had orchestrated much of what had gone on during the nights before and I am pleased to say that they were able to make arrests on the basis of that information.

We see a challenge before this country. Not only do we have to come together but we have to get it right. We have in the short term to restore confidence among the wider public—not just those who were affected but people across the country as a whole. Even those people in safe areas who were watching this on their televisions now feel that their security is undermined. People never expected to see this on the streets of this country in their lifetime. It is not just shocking and it is not just something about which we must have a few discussions; we must tackle it, drawing on and harnessing the experience across the community. I take the point that was made about going into local communities. I am already booked—this was done before what has happened—to go next month to Manchester to see what a community has done on a very troublesome housing estate. We can learn a lot from the people who have tackled this problem at the grass-roots level. They have taken that responsibility, with help, and have got results. We must all learn from that. I hope that many Members of your Lordships’ House will feel that they can attend the perhaps more detailed debate on each of these points at 3 pm this afternoon.

I conclude by paying tribute, as many in this House have done—and I hope that the message will go out from this House—to the police, including those police officers who were injured during the nights when this was happening, and to the emergency services, including the ambulance service and the fire brigade, who we saw showing great heroism on our television screens. I also pay tribute to the voluntary services and community leaders, who have clearly, as we have heard in our discussions today, played a big part not just in assisting practically but in holding communities together. That has been extremely important, as has been mentioned several times. We should remember in particular the humbling words of Mr Tariq Jahan, who stood out as a beacon in his hour of grief as somebody who, even then, put his wider community first. We all need to put the wider community first. I thank noble Lords for their contributions today.

Public Confidence in the Media and the Police

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I wish to ask him two questions. First, the Prime Minister has said that the public want us to work together to sort out this problem. In that respect, will he look at the review of the Press Complaints Commission and ensure that before the powers and functions of the new commission are determined there is adequate public consultation so that the public’s point of view is taken into account?

The second point about which I am concerned is that, whereas the first part of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry has to report within 12 months, there is no timescale attached to the investigation to be carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. As someone who has supervised a similar investigation with the former police complaints commission, I know that the timescale involved is considerable. You are talking about at least 12 months to supervise an investigation of this nature, following which criminal charges are likely to be laid. If that is the case, we are talking of a process which may go on for about two or three years. The impact of that is very serious because none of the other inquiries that have been set up can carry out their work adequately unless this investigation has been finalised. Will my noble friend look at this aspect to see whether a particular timescale is appropriate in this investigation?

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House please remind Members to make very brief questions or comments?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The whole House will have heard what the noble Baroness has just said.

My noble friend Lord Dholakia is right: the Prime Minister thinks that we should all work together. I think that reflects the public’s mood as well. Today we published the terms of reference for the review of the press and press ethics. I am not sure that there was much public consultation but there certainly was consultation with the devolved authorities, Select Committees in another place and, of course, with Lord Justice Leveson.

As regards my noble friend’s second point, time limits are not a straightforward issue. We have asked the Leveson inquiry to report back on the first part within 12 months—we hope that it will do that—but as regards the second part, we have to leave it to the members of the inquiry to determine to what extent they can operate without affecting the police inquiry and subsequent court process, if that occurs. However, I can confirm to my noble friend that HMIC should report before the end of the autumn.

House of Lords: Reform

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, the road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions translated into sloppily drafted, ill prepared, insensitive legislation. We have had a plethora of it over the past year. The White Paper and Bill do not even have the redeeming feature of good intentions. Perhaps the most scandalous revelation we have had in this debate was that by the Leader of the Opposition, when she told us how the members of the Joint Committee set up to produce the proposals were treated. They met only seven times—the last time six months before publication—and neither saw nor approved the draft White Paper or the Bill. I am amazed that they did not resign in indignation at that treatment.

I shall focus on just two points. The first is the practical constitutional one, which we have talked about, which is the balance of power between the Legislature and the Executive. Secondly, I shall suggest how to reduce the size of the House of Lords in a way that is voluntary, democratic, compassionate and cost-effective.

It was in his 1976 Dimbleby lecture that Lord Hailsham described Britain as an “elective dictatorship”. “Parliament”, he said,

“is now largely in the hands of the Government machine, so that the executive controls the legislature and not vice versa”.

He went on:

“Owing to the operation of the guillotine and other regulations designed to curtail debate, much of the programme is often not discussed at all”.

Although at that time the House of Lords had a massive built-in Tory majority, the constitutional conventions inhibited its use. In 1997, this situation took a serious turn for the worse. The Blair Government decided to use the guillotine routinely on all legislation so as to maximise the flow of legislation, with little regard to the consequences.

I was for 16 years in the Lobby. Indeed, I must confess that, apart from a few years as a party fonctionnaire, I cannot claim to be a proper politician at all. I was a mere observer of and commentator on the political scene, and I suppose that that is all I remain. However, I remember clearly that when there was an important Bill that was running into real difficulties, we used to speculate that the Government might be forced to introduce a guillotine. In those days, that had real political significance.

I had hoped, and indeed was confident, that one of the first things the coalition would do would be to end the automatic use of the guillotine on legislation. To my disappointment and to Mr Cameron's shame, there is no sign of that happening, so our people remain ever more reliant on the House of Lords to subject legislation to proper scrutiny untrammelled by timetables. Since the 1999 reform, this House has had growing confidence in doing so.

Who can doubt that if Mr Clegg's dreams were enacted it would not be long before that opportunity for scrutiny would be emasculated? All Governments are ruthless when they can be, and a regular guillotine would arrive with the senate. That, incidentally, is why the Opposition should never repeat the disgraceful filibuster tactics that they used here last year—although I admit that they had much provocation.

I come to the best way of keeping the size of the membership of the House within reasonable limits. I do not buy the idea that it is making the House harder to operate. An overcrowded Question Time is no bad thing. After the House of Commons was bombed, the new Chamber was designed precisely to achieve that. However, our membership is now more than 800, although the daily attendance is 450. I would set a limit of about 500. None of the alternatives in the Leader's Group report on the issue of Members leaving the House, which we will discuss in due course, seems to be acceptable. I believe the proposal for group elections put forward in the excellent speeches by my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Reay involves compulsion, which would have undesirable consequences.

One reason that voluntary retirement on its own would not work is the new daily tax-free allowance of £300. I most warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on his courage in introducing it, because it has ended once and for all the risk of further scandals on expenses—in this House, anyway.

My proposal is that on taking permanent retirement, any Peer should receive a tax-free single-sum gratuity for public service. Each Peer would receive the amount he or she asked for—provided, of course, that no one was prepared to accept a lower sum. One way of operating it would be for the Government to open it for, say, 50 retirements. Anyone could apply and the sums paid out to those who succeeded would of course be published; the unsuccessful bids would not. Bids would be accepted up to a limit of 50 seats or so or until the sum available had run out. The process could be repeated periodically until the number was down to the required total.

That may be an unusual suggestion, but I believe that once it had been thought through by the media and the public it would be seen as being transparent, truly voluntary and, most importantly, cost-effective.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I would be grateful if between now and the report from the committee scrutinising the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, could write for me what he thinks the Sunday Telegraph and the Mail editorials would be on his proposal.

[Lord Marlesford]

I never attempt to write editorials for other papers.

Meanwhile, I support the call for a moratorium on numbers made in April by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others in the UCL House Full report.

Mr Cameron has a problem. In this package, he is offering Mr Clegg a sum of Danegeld that he cannot pay; his cheque will bounce. As has been made clear, there can be no question of whipping this Bill through this House. The simplest solution would be for the House of Commons, where there is, in any case, a growing number of Members opposed to Mr Clegg's best guess, to be offered a free vote at Second Reading, if ever it gets that far, and for the Conservative Whips to indicate that the Prime Minister would not be heartbroken if it were defeated. After all, it is the supremacy of the House of Commons that we are debating.

On the point about us not being representatives, many people in this House have been elected representatives for a long time, but now we are all servants of the people. That is no dishonourable title.

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. The British community has mulled over the question of the reform of this place for over a century. It is now the case that a Committee will be asked to exercise its collective wisdom within the short compass of nine months. It may well be that it can achieve that. If, on the other hand, it comes to the conclusion that it honestly and conscientiously would wish more time, will the Leader of the House confirm that it would be given that time with the blessing of both Houses? Secondly, all noble Lords who have spoken have made the point that the questions of powers and membership of this House are utterly intertwined. Is it not very strange that in 1911 the whole discussion was about powers, as it was in 1949, whereas since then the whole discussion has been about membership? I do not think for a moment that you can discuss one without the other, and I do not think that you can contemplate a reformed, elected House without the question of powers being revisited. Anybody who believes that that can be done is using a monumental self-delusion.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will forgive me for being quite angry about the aspersion that was cast on those of us who share the views expressed about the importance of the primacy of the Commons, about the conventions and about the future relationship between both Houses. If those of us who take the view that that must be done first, before membership, are going to be accused of kicking the issue into the long grass as blindfolded escapists on the issue, the tenor of all the debates that take place in your Lordships' House and in Committees will not be of the quality that they ought to be. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will not imply that kicking the issue into the long grass is the only motivation that some of us have. I wish to leave a better system in the Houses of Parliament for my children and, particularly, my grandchildren, but jumping without looking at what is down the hole is not the way to do it.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, I apologise if any aspersion was taken on board, which was not my intention. I did not mention powers or scrutiny. I just hoped that we could move on more rapidly because this already has been covered. I remember the extremely detailed Jenkins committee report, but many Members were not here for that. Perhaps reading that report would give an impression that this matter has been covered a number of times.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am puzzled, even in the context of this place, by the procedure being followed at present. Were we debating the amendment in the normal circumstances that many of us, at least, anticipated on the government side, I would oppose it because, as I said earlier, I support the view that we should have democratic accountability for police forces, although my preference is for elected police authorities. I am very disappointed that we cannot debate that issue as a result of pre-emption. That might have been an intelligent debate on a subject with some empirical evidence on which the House could have offered some wisdom to the Government. Indeed, I was beginning to feel a little like Baldrick, because I thought that I had come up with a cunning plan and, rather like Baldrick, had not anticipated that it might be effective on the odd occasion.

This debate reminds me of the childhood poem that starts, “I met a man upon the stair”. The man is the elected police commissioner but he is not there because, in reality, he has just been removed from the Bill by the vote. To put it another way, it is like the Mad Hatter’s tea party without either the Mad Hatter or the tea. I urge my noble friend Lady Hamwee to draw stumps in some way on this group of amendments so that we can in due course have a proper debate on the proper predicate. The predicate for the whole series of amendments that follows is that Clause 1(1) has been agreed.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

The noble Lord will remember that the final line of the poem is, “I wish that man would go away”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the target is a sort of rough target in order to help the House. From other discussions that have taken place, I understand that the Opposition are fully briefed up to Amendment 18, but I do not know whether that is true. I would rather dispose of Amendment 13, which is the amendment that we are on, and see where we get to. It is nearly 20 minutes to 10.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader give an assurance that he will give the Government’s position in relation to the earlier decision of your Lordships’ House on anything that we discuss from now? We need to know what the Government are arguing in the light of the earlier decision. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, was asking that question. As the Government have suffered a defeat and the Bill has now changed, an amendment that we discuss ought to be discussed in the light of the Government’s position now. Therefore, we need the Government’s position to be spelled out even before we debate amendments.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Government’s Minister will respond to the questions posed by those who propose amendments. That is what happens when we deal with Bills at Committee stage. Nothing has changed. Let us get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I hesitate to say it but the House did hear from me some time ago, and I had actually got to the point when I had moved the amendment. However, as it is Committee stage, perhaps I can say another word about it, although it will be by way of repetition and the House is rather fuller than when I was last speaking.

I am not embarrassed at moving the amendment. I understand that there are difficulties relating to many other amendments, but clearly we know what we would be transitioning from—if “transitioning” is a word. What we are transitioning to appears at the moment to be a model that was not the model in our minds at the start of this afternoon as the likely outcome—

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Would the noble Baroness care to pose the question that the Leader of the House said could only be asked by her? What do the Government now believe we are transitioning to?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, if I was not interrupted in the middle of the sentence, I would have tried to get to the end. As I said to the House about an hour ago, Amendment 31, which was in the group of amendments with Amendment 1 agreed by the House earlier, provides for a model of a police commission consisting of a commissioner and a panel. Amendment 31 is not my amendment, but I am reading what it says. Whatever model there is a transition to, it is perfectly proper and indeed required that there should be robust arrangements to ensure that the new model comes into being in a way that works. The point that I was making was that Schedule 15 provides for transition arrangements, but I suspect that although many of the implications of the transition will have been anticipated, it is unlikely that every single one will have been anticipated. That is not intended to be pejorative about the Government or the Home Office, as I would say it of any organisation dealing with a change of this kind. I take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is saying that he agrees that some sort of transition period is not a bad idea.

That is all that I am suggesting that the House should consider. I have now said it twice, so I beg the House’s indulgence on that. The brief point is that we know the point and that, whatever the end game, it is not going to be that straightforward, so let us put in arrangements that we have learnt are needed from local authority experience, and use that experience to make that transition more smoothly than I believe the Bill provides for.