---

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, this is a small amendment—so small that even my noble friend Lord Jenkin will not be able to accuse me of tabling a wrecking amendment. I say to him that the only time that I ever hear that phrase ““wrecking amendment””, one could substitute it with, ““This is an amendment that I do not agree with””. We sometimes hear that far too often. Clause 12 is about: "““Permanent leave of absence by reason of failure to attend the House””." I support the clause in principle. For noble Lords who are no longer able to attend your Lordships’ House, it seems to be sensible. However, my amendment concerns the clause which says that the House of Lords may, "““by Standing Order make provision for a member to be excluded””," and then, by application, come back. There are Members of your Lordships’ House who perhaps get appointed to some important government post abroad, or for some reason are doing something so that they may or may not be able to attend. We certainly do not want to lose them. In the Bill, the reason is deemed to be ““sufficient merit”” for subsection (1) not to apply. My amendment leaves out ““sufficient”” and inserts ““reasonable””. Your Lordships’ House has always been governed by reason and reasonableness. There should not be arguments in the future as to whether something is or is not of ““sufficient merit””. Who is to say, if a Member of your Lordships’ House is appointed an ambassador or a high commissioner abroad, as has happened in the past, whether that country being regarded as important is ““sufficient””? If they are sent to be governor of Gibraltar, is that regarded as not ““sufficient””? We should have a test that is based on a choice of words with which I would hope your Lordships feel more comfortable. That is why I inserted the word ““reasonable””. I beg to move.