House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Dan Byles

Friday 18th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Byles]

That would be right. If there were a Sinn Fein peer who did not wish to attend, they would require a leave of absence; otherwise, under the Bill, they would cease to be a peer. I consider that there is a fundamental difference between those who have been elected to this House and those who, leaving aside the small number of hereditaries, are appointed to the other place. They are appointed to the other place in order to provide a service and a duty to their country, and if they are not doing so, it is perfectly reasonable for the House to decide that they should be removed and replaced with someone who will.

The reason why the current system has failed to meet its objectives is that it is neither binding nor permanent. Such an objective could, however, be achieved by the introduction of the retirement scheme provided for by the Bill, and the introduction of a scheme that would address the problem of non-attendance by certain Members.

Clause 2 provides that a peer who does not attend the House of Lords during a Session will cease to be a Member of the House at the beginning of the next Session. The provision will apply only if the Lord Speaker certifies that the peer did not attend at any time during the specified Session, and that they did not have leave of absence in respect of the Session. The provision will not apply where the Session is less than six months. Receiving a peerage is a great privilege, but it is one that comes with a significant responsibility: that of making an active and constructive contribution to the business of Parliament. Those absentee Members who fail to attend are not fulfilling their duty, and it is apposite and appropriate that they therefore forfeit their right of membership.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend uses the word “forfeit.” Does he anticipate that should a peer, whether it be of his own volition or not, cease to be a Member of the other place, he also ceases to use his title, styles and attributes? Will Lord Smith, on exiting the other place, still be Lord Smith, or will he be the former Lord Smith?

[Dan Byles]

This Bill does not remove the peerage; it simply removes the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

Clause 3 provides that a Member of the House of Lords who is convicted of a serious offence will cease to be a Member. The provision will again apply only if the Lord Speaker certifies that the Member has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment or detention for more than one year. If that person successfully appeals their conviction, the Lord Speaker may revoke the first certificate by issuing another. It has long been the practice of this House that those convicted of offences that carry a sentence of more than one year are expelled, and it is appropriate that the procedures of the House of Lords in that regard be brought into line with the procedures of this House.

Clause 4 outlines the effect of ceasing to be a Member—specifically, that the person will be disqualified from attending proceedings of the House of Lords, and that they shall no longer receive a writ to attend the House. Further, it provides that a peer who ceases to be a Member is no longer disqualified from voting at elections, or being elected to the House of Commons.

Clause 5 makes provision in relation to the certification by the Lord Speaker, and clause 6 makes provision in relation to the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles]

That is a good question. Lord Steel has made five attempts to bring in some degree of reform. His first four Bills were all called the House of Lords Bill. There is also a House of Lords Reform Bill before the other place in the name of Baroness Hayman. We would need to ask Lord Steel why he made the change for his last Bill, but one can speculate about why he felt the House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill might have sounded less contentious. My view is that we are all grown-up and whether the word “reform” is in the title is not really the point. The point is what is in the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

Does my hon. Friend agree that including the word “reform” in the title of his Bill makes it much more attractive to our Liberal Democrat friends?

[Dan Byles]

I am not sure I do, because some Liberal Democrats wish to see wholehearted reform and are concerned that a small amount of reform now might delay wider reform later. That is one reason why I was at pains earlier to make the point that the Bill will not prevent any future reform that we wish to bring in, which would stand or fall on its own merits. The debate about the word “reform” in the title is perhaps a red herring, because we are all grown-ups in this place and the other place. We can read the Bill, and we know what it says.

I am coming to the end of my remarks, so if any more Members wish to intervene with a question or a thought, now is the time for them to do so. If not, I will press on to my final words.

If the Bill is supported, it will deliver essential reforms. I urge Members to ensure its swift passage so that we can deliver to the noble Lords the opportunity to reform themselves that they have long been denied. I commend the Bill to the House.

High Speed 2

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Dan Byles

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

As we do not have much time, I will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this important debate on a topic that is causing a great deal of concern up and down the route. We need to ensure that it causes more concern in the rest of the country, where people do not have the route coming through their back gardens and therefore do not realise how devastating it is going to be to communities and families.

The route will have a potentially devastating impact on my constituency of North Warwickshire. We face the prospect that the line as it runs in to Birmingham from the main line will branch off in my constituency, causing a huge amount of devastation to the villages of Gilson and Water Orton. The main line will continue further north, causing severe impact on the town of Coleshill and the village of Middleton. Potentially even more worrying, if the Y-shaped route happens, we might end up with the junction in my constituency, probably tripling the amount of blight and devastation in North Warwickshire. We do not know exactly where the Y-shaped junction is going to be, but there is a great deal of concern throughout my constituency. If the Y-shaped junction does end up in my constituency, it will probably be the single most affected in the country as a result of the route.

[Christopher Pincher]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to know as quickly as possible where the Y-shaped route is going to diverge, so that residents in our part of the world—I represent Tamworth, just up the road from North Warwickshire—can begin to make dispositions as they see fit?

[Dan Byles]

I entirely agree and thank my hon. Friend. He and I have neighbouring constituencies and we are working closely together on this. We are watching closely, because if the Y-shaped junction is not in my constituency, it is likely to be in or close to his. People need to know about this issue. Knowing one is going to be devastated by something is one thing; believing one might be but not knowing is even worse. There are people on a route that appeared briefly on one map—with a dotted line that disappeared from subsequent maps—who were effectively blighted, but who were unable to take part in the exceptional hardship scheme or any other compensation scheme. They are blighted through uncertainty, not through an actual line on a map. It is important that that topic be addressed as quickly as possible.

However, I am going to be brief so that someone else can say a few words. I want to make two pleas to the Minister. The first concerns the exceptional hardship scheme. I ask her to look in detail at what has happened so far—at those who have been approved and those who have not—and satisfy herself that the current scheme is transparent and working properly. I have had constituents refused under the scheme, and who were given reasons that were not listed as factors on any previous document or in the frequently asked questions relating to the scheme. That suggests that the scheme is not transparent and that to a large degree, the panel is making it up as it goes along. It is fundamentally wrong for people, having looked at the published documentation and believed that they ticked all the boxes, to then be turned down on criteria they did not even know were to be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Byles]

I entirely agree that it is a rule-of-law issue, and it is also a moral point. People understand that Governments need to make difficult decisions such as this, but they have to make them within a framework that is open, transparent and understandable. If it looks as though decisions are being made in a murky way, that completely undermines what the Government are trying to do. By definition, people applying under the exceptional hardship scheme are going through a difficult time. I urge the Minister to look at how it is working and to point out to the panel that it is not there to be a hard-nosed gatekeeper, but to implement a clear and transparent process in a neutral and even-handed way.

[Christopher Pincher]

Of course, there are many people who qualify for the exceptional hardship scheme but whose homes are blighted by the prospect of the railway, and by its actualité if it is built. Does he not think that the cost of that extra blight—which means that homes cannot be sold, so stamp duty is forgone by the Treasury, as is the spending power of the people who cannot sell their homes or who sell at a lower price—should be factored in to the business case?

[Dan Byles]

I entirely agree. Getting the compensation right is every bit as important as getting the details of the route right. In many ways, it would be far cheaper. The sort of figures we are talking about for compensating people are dwarfed by the sums involved in building the railway scheme. I urge the Minister, do not be cheap when it comes to compensation. If we have to do this and blight people’s lives, compensate them adequately. That is really important.

My final plea to the Minister is, will she please bash some heads together at HS 2 Ltd and tell it to stop refusing requests from local councils to come and brief officers and members? The chief executive of the council in my constituency, North Warwickshire borough council, has just written an uncharacteristically strongly worded letter to HS 2 Ltd expressing his deep disappointment that before the general election, it had agreed to come and brief officers and members, but said running into the election that it was then in purdah and could not do it. It is now a long time since the general election and it is still refusing to brief the council. Local borough and county councils need to understand what is happening in their areas. They do not and they are not getting the help they need from HS 2 Ltd. It might be a little over-dominated by engineers; it needs some people who can explain, communicate and listen.

Those are my two pleas to the Minister. Will she please look at the exceptional hardship scheme and compensation, and satisfy herself on those matters, because I do not think the system is working fairly? Secondly, please tell HS 2 Ltd to engage more, particularly with local borough and county councils.