House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Thomas Docherty to ask the first question. He is not here.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What her policy is on the use of CCTV cameras.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
21. What her policy is on the use of CCTV cameras.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should also like to answer questions 8, 13 and 21.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is not to know this, but I should point out that question 13 has been withdrawn.
James Brokenshire
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.
The Government recognise the importance of CCTV in preventing and detecting crime, and support its use by communities. The Government also acknowledge that continued use of CCTV requires the support of the public and public confidence that systems are being used appropriately. Accordingly, we intend to introduce a code of practice for surveillance cameras and appoint a surveillance camera commissioner.
John Woodcock
May I respectfully suggest that the Minister should visit the Furness area, so that he can see for himself the impact such cameras make in reducing crime, and then inform the House why 11 pieces of red tape have to be gone through before anyone can even consider installing fresh ones?
James Brokenshire
As I have said, I welcome the use of CCTV. It can be important in preventing and detecting crime, and I am certainly willing to discuss the issue further outside the Chamber and to talk about the impact CCTV is clearly making in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I would also say to him, however, that when his party was in government it published a CCTV strategy that included 44 separate recommendations—including that a body with responsibility for the governance of the use of CCTV in this country should be established—so quite a lot of regulation was put in place by his own Government.
James Brokenshire
It is important that we do not lose confidence in CCTV as a beneficial influence, and thereby lose that valuable tool in the battle against crime and disorder. We must not undermine the real benefits of CCTV. That is why we want to have a measured and proportionate scheme to regulate CCTV better and ensure that appropriate standards are put in place, so that that confidence is maintained.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that CCTV evidence was crucial in eventually bringing Levi Bellfield to justice for the murder of Milly Dowler, and is that not a timely reminder that we should be making it easier, not harder, for the police to use CCTV, and that we need more CCTV, not less?
James Brokenshire
I certainly recognise the value of CCTV, but we must be careful to ensure that there is no loss of trust and confidence in its use among communities throughout the country. We have learned what can happen in such circumstances from the experience in Birmingham, and in light of that, Sara Thornton, chief constable of Thames Valley Police, produced a report that underlined that accountability, consultation and transparency must be core considerations. That is precisely what we are reflecting in our approach.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thought it was a core principle of this Government that we were going to do away with unnecessary red tape, but it appears that we are creating more. What regulations are we doing away with in bringing this one in?
James Brokenshire
Our approach is focused on the points I have identified: ensuring trust, confidence and genuine belief in the use of CCTV moving forward. That is at the core of our proposals, because if that is eroded, it will undermine the very use of this powerful, important tool in protecting our communities from crime.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What recent assessment her Department has made of the relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Select Committee on Home Affairs said in February:
“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”
The Government agree.
Gavin Shuker
A 43% reduction in crime was achieved under the last Government, in part, and not least, because of the 17,000 new police officers that were brought in during that period. Why would the Home Secretary put that at risk by cutting 12,000?
Mrs May
I have answered the point about the relationship between police numbers and levels of crime and we have been absolutely clear that it is not simple. Our view is backed up by the Home Affairs Committee and by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who said last September:
“I don’t think it’s possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction”.
Once again, the Government agree.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
According to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, even when we had a record number of police officers, only 11% were visible and available to the public at any one time. Does that not show that it must be possible, even if the number of officers falls, to protect and perhaps improve the visibility of police on our streets?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and that HMIC report’s importance lay in the fact that it pointed out the issues about the visibility and availability of police officers as well as that more police officers were visible and available on a Monday morning than on a Friday night. That came as news to many people living in town centres, where there are considerable problems on Friday nights. We must ensure that police officers are deployed in the most effective way so that they can fight crime.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
In 15 days’ time, 2,000 police officers will gather in Central hall to voice their opposition to the Government’s plans on their pay and conditions and the reduction in numbers. The Home Secretary is right to quote the Select Committee’s conclusions, but only two weeks ago the Police Federation told us that morale in the police service was at its lowest in a generation. What steps will she take to ensure that the police understand that what she is doing to reshape the landscape of policing, which is her right, is for the benefit of the public and of the police?
Mrs May
We are doing what we are doing with the distinct intention of ensuring that we have a police force that can move forward in the 21st century and provide the policing that is necessary and that people want. That means considering pay, terms and conditions and the flexibility of the work force as well as the bureaucracy that has tied too many of our police officers to their desks and to form filling rather than allowing them to be out on the streets fighting crime. This Government are making a distinct difference to that bureaucracy by slashing it, so that the police can do what people want them to out on the streets.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Opposition consistently refer to 20% cuts in police budgets. Will she confirm that as there will be no cut in the precept funding and as public sector pay is expected to be frozen, the cut in money received by the police will be in the order of 6%, not 20%?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition talk about Government funding, but every police force in this country has funding available from the precept. At the end of the four-year period of the comprehensive spending review, police will have 6% less funding. That is the figure that people should concentrate on, rather than what the Opposition say.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
4. If she will assess the merits of excluding from entry to the UK those people who were involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government remain very concerned by Mr Magnitsky’s death and are disappointed that the official investigation into the case announced by President Medvedev in November 2009 has still not been completed. I am due to meet the hon. Gentleman shortly to discuss this important issue, but the duty of confidentiality means that the Government are unable to discuss the details of individual immigration cases.
Chris Bryant
I am going to try to talk about individual cases anyway, I am afraid. There is no point in merely being disappointed. Sergei Magnitsky was working for a British organisation in Russia when he discovered a vast network of corruption. He was illegally arrested and murdered while in police custody. Many other countries are considering a ban: the United States of America, Poland, Canada, Holland, Germany, Estonia and the Czech Republic. Why cannot we ensure that those corrupt murderers do not come into this country?
Damian Green
The Government continue to raise our concerns and the hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the case. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both discussed the case with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov when he last visited the UK in February 2011. I understand that the official Russian investigation is due to report in August. As I have said, we are disappointed that it has taken so long but no doubt the hon. Gentleman and I can discuss more of the details when we have our meeting in a few days’ time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does not the Minister understand that this man, who was a lawyer, was killed in jail by the Russian authorities? The case is similar to that of someone who was poisoned in this country, we believe, by someone who was subsequently elected as a Member of the Russian Parliament. Russia must understand that if it wants to be accepted as a modern state in the 21st century, this sort of gangsterism and state-murder will not be tolerated.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend expresses himself with great power and passion. It is important that all states around the world observe proper and civilised standards of behaviour and the British Government will certainly continue to impress that on Governments all around the world.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
5. What estimate she has made of the potential additional time available for police officers arising from planned reductions in administrative burdens.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
7. What estimate she has made of the potential additional time available for police officers arising from planned reductions in administrative burdens.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
11. What estimate she has made of the potential additional time available for police officers arising from planned reductions in administrative burdens.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
19. What estimate she has made of the potential additional time available for police officers arising from planned reductions in administrative burdens.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
The police should be focusing on police work, not paperwork. That is why, last month, the Government announced a package of new measures to cut red tape, saving up to 2.5 million police hours a year.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the Minister for that response and I am sure that my constituents will welcome measures that will cut the time that our police officers have to spend on paperwork and administration. I wonder whether the Minister would kindly update the House on what steps are being taken to improve the accountability of the police.
Nick Herbert
We want to improve the accountability of the police and the whole criminal justice system to the public and we are proceeding with our plan to introduce directly elected police and crime commissioners to do that—those measures are currently under discussion in the Lords—and measures such as the introduction of street level crime mapping. The police.uk website has received more than 420 million hits since its launch.
Andrew Jones
How will the introduction of police and crime commissioners help further to reduce the admin burden?
Nick Herbert
I believe that elected police and crime commissioners will have a very strong focus on reducing the burden of bureaucracy and administration in their forces precisely because they will feel pressure from their electorate to ensure that resources are directed to the front line. We are also placing police and crime commissioners under a duty to collaborate and I am sure that they will work together to drive out unnecessary costs from their forces.
Nadhim Zahawi
Warwickshire police in my constituency are pushing forward with innovative changes to its policing model to allow more police to be out on the streets doing what they are supposed to be doing. It is also implementing new technology to allow officers to file paperwork without having to return to their desks. Could the Home Secretary or the Minister tell us what progress has been made in implementing similar changes in other—
Nick Herbert
I welcome the steps being taken by Warwickshire police in this area and I would happily visit the force to look at what it is doing. We want to make sure that new technology is used in that way by police forces. We have inherited the problem that there is still multiple keying of data into different systems by police officers, as I heard this morning for myself, which is wasting their time. We still have 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 forces, which we have to converge and we have a programme to achieve that.
Alec Shelbrooke
What action has my right hon. Friend taken to reduce the bureaucracy that has historically inhibited the neighbourhood policing team in my constituency town of Garforth from moving on illegal Traveller encampments?
Nick Herbert
I would like to have a further discussion with my hon. Friend about what obstacles there are to that. We certainly want to ensure that the police are able to exercise their existing powers to move on Travellers who are in illegal occupation of sites, which is totally unacceptable and antisocial. We believe that the powers are there; if there are impediments or if the force is encountering some difficulty, I would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend about that.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Why are the Government increasing the administrative burden on the police by making them apply to a magistrates court to retain the DNA of those suspected of serious criminal offences? Surely, the retention of that DNA should be automatic. Is the Minister going to rethink this in time for the Bill’s Report stage?
Nick Herbert
We have to strike the right balance between civil liberties and the effectiveness of these crime-fighting tools, but it would simply be wrong to characterise the Government’s approach as increasing the burden on police. We are returning charging decisions to the police and our aim is that 70% of all decisions will now be made by police without having to go to the Crown Prosecution Service, so we are giving more discretion and control to the police and we are reducing bureaucracy.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister accept that some of the reporting requirements placed on police are about accounting for the very serious powers that we give them to act on our behalf? In the past, a lack of such requirements led to deaths in custody, stop-and-search practices and other things that brought the police into disrepute. How is the Minister going to make sure that he achieves the balance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not allowing the police to go back to old ways?
Nick Herbert
I accept the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is important that we have proper processes and accountability, but we must trust officers as trained professionals to exercise their discretion and we need a proportionate approach to risk-taking. The stop-and-search form is a good example, because we have reduced the amount of data required, not scrapped it entirely. That will save hundreds of thousands of hours of officer time, but it will still keep in place important safeguards to ensure community confidence in policing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On the question of that balance, I understand that Greater Manchester police are talking of removing face-to-face access for the public at police stations. On top of the 620 support posts that have had to be removed, does the Minister not see that the 20% cuts are now leading to a degradation in service that will cause a loss of confidence in the police?
Nick Herbert
I do not accept that there will be degradation of service in Greater Manchester, and I do not believe that the chief constable would either. He has talked about the fact that the headquarters’ staff in his force got too big and about the savings that can be achieved. As we have said, there are many innovative ways for the police to make contact with their communities that do not necessarily involve an attachment to old buildings. Forces around the country are sharing community centres and shop premises, increasing the contact time that they have with the public as a result. The number of visits to police stations can be very low.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary says that she is saving 1,200 police officer posts by cutting red tape, but we know that 12,000 police officers are being axed across the country. Of the six measures to cut bureaucracy, one has not been taken up by the national statistician and four are pilots. Is not the real truth that the scale and pace of the cuts is slashing front-line policing, not red tape, as we know in Warwickshire? What will be the administrative saving in this financial year as we see the deepest front-loaded front-line cuts?
Nick Herbert
I have said that the package of measures that we announced recently would save another 2.5 million hours of officer time, equivalent to 1,200 police officer posts, and we will go further with, for instance, more efficiencies in the criminal justice system. We will take no lectures from the Opposition about bureaucracy. It was they who tied up the police in this red tape with their targets, directions, policing pledge and constant interference, and it has fallen on this Government to reduce that bureaucracy and ensure that police officers can be crime fighters, not form writers.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
6. What estimate she has made of the likely number of police officers in 2012.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
It is for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers who are deployed within the available resource.
Jack Dromey
Crime is once again rising in the west midlands as police numbers fall, with hundreds of Birmingham’s and Britain’s best police officers being forced to retire under regulation A19, some as young as 48 years of age. Does the Home Secretary accept any responsibility, including for the latest casualty of Government cuts, the head of the west midlands counter-terrorism unit?
Nick Herbert
The detective chief superintendent to whom the hon. Gentleman referred has said:
“I have always fully appreciated the reasons why West Midlands Police is implementing A19”.
That was a procedure that the last Labour Government chose to retain. Police officers are not being made redundant under this procedure, they are retiring with a full pension having completed 30 years of service. It is for chief constables to take the decisions about how best to deploy their resources, and unlike the hon. Gentleman I will not second-guess the chief constable on that.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does the Minister of State agree that I am lucky to represent a London constituency where we can see the reality of Conservativism in power? In 2012, after four years of Mayor Johnson, there will be more police officers in London than there were after eight years of Mayor Livingstone.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend makes a good point, on which the Opposition should perhaps reflect. A directly elected individual who has responsibility for policing is working hard to ensure that resources get to the front line. He has sought to maintain police numbers, and is protecting neighbourhood policing for the benefit of Londoners. It is a very good example of direct democracy in action.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the police are only as effective as the teams that support them? If he has been in the intelligence room of a police station, as I have in the Huddersfield station, he will know that it is not a back-office function that can be wiped away. Those intelligence teams are under threat, and the police cannot work without them.
Nick Herbert
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that the idea of one police force, which Tom Winsor, who is leading the independent review of police pay and conditions, has talked about, is a good one. Police staff play an important role in modern police forces, which we should understand. Nevertheless, there has been a very big growth in the number of police staff in recent years, which has proved unsustainable. Around 25,000 police officers are working not on the front line, but in back and middle offices. That is something to which chief constables need to pay attention.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, despite a challenging settlement this year, Thames Valley police are not cutting the number of front-line police officers, despite misleading information being put out locally by the Labour party after it was briefed to the contrary by the chief constable. Does he agree that it is possible to cut back-office functions, rather than front-line policing?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree. Thames Valley police are taking decisions about how to make savings and work more efficiently in many areas so that they can protect the front line, and that is what forces up and down the country are doing. A good example is the collaboration between Thames Valley police and Hampshire police on a range of functions. That is the sort of thing we want to see extended across the country.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on police cuts in London, can he explain why the Mayor, Boris Johnson, is cutting 1,800 officers in the next two years from London’s police force, including 300 sergeants, which will result in cuts to local safer neighbourhood teams? The Mayor is also proposing to reduce the minimum number of officers in each safer neighbourhood team from the current level of six, and I have seen a letter from one commander stating that police community support officers will not be replaced as they become fully-fledged police officers. Does the Minister accept that safer neighbourhood teams in London face being cut by stealth? Should he not get to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the people of London, on behalf of the Government and the Mayor, for cutting the number of front-line police officers?
Nick Herbert
The Labour party simply cannot stand the fact that the Mayor of London has said that he will enter the next mayoral election with more police officers than he inherited. He has made that pledge and is protecting safer neighbourhood teams. Of course there are sensible arrangements whereby some sergeants are being shared, but the number of officers in safer neighbourhood teams is being protected. It is possible, as the Mayor has shown, alongside the leadership of the Met, to protect front-line policing while having to deliver significant savings. The hon. Gentleman—
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
9. What recent estimate she has made of the number of people who are addicted to a class A drug.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The chaotic lives of drug addicts make it difficult for the Government to make an official estimate of the total number of people addicted to Class A drugs. However, for two drugs in this category—opiates and crack cocaine—the Government estimated in 2008-09 that there were more than 320,000 users in England. Figures for 2009-10 will be available later this year.
John Mann
We know that it is difficult for the coalition partners to agree on drugs, but surely that is no excuse for their total inaction and silence on drugs policy and on tackling drugs since coming into power. When will we see some action on drugs and some drugs policy emerge from this Government?
Mrs May
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he could not be more wrong in his assessment of what the coalition Government have being doing. A few months ago we published a new drugs strategy, which is looking not only at the action being taken by the police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to apprehend those dealing drugs and importing them into the UK, but at responsibility for rehabilitation. We have a clear message that we can use payment by results, working with organisations in the private sector and in the voluntary and charitable sector, to ensure that we do not just churn drug addicts through courses that take them off drugs and then return them to the same environment where they are pressured back on to drugs, but instead that we give them a longer-lasting solution that helps them get off drugs forever.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Last week the Justice Secretary told the House that almost one tenth of people who have used heroin first did so while in prison. What actions have the Home Department’s national crime agencies taken to catch and seek to prosecute people who illegally take class A drugs into our prisons?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and action is taken in two ways. The Ministry of Justice is now looking at drug-free wings in prisons, so work is being done on that, but in the Home Office we continue, through not just regional police forces but the Serious Organised Crime Agency, to fight the fight against drug dealers and those who import drugs to this country, and that fight continues.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
12. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of her plans for the national DNA database on the number of DNA matches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government’s approach is based on putting on the national DNA database more people who are guilty of crimes, rather than those who are innocent. Simply increasing the size of the DNA database does not necessarily result in more detections. We have been informed in the consideration of our plans by past statistics highlighting falls in DNA detections despite the huge increase in the number of profiles retained.
Steve McCabe
That is interesting. What is the Minister’s response to the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on those matters, Chief Constable Sims, who says that there will be 1,000 fewer cases solved because of the decisions that the Minister is going to take?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman may also know that Chief Constable Sims acknowledged that such estimates were
“notoriously difficult to put figures on”.––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 8, Q1.]
The Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee also heard evidence from GeneWatch which pointed in a very different direction. I again point the hon. Gentleman to past circumstances and to statistics highlighting that, despite the huge increase in the number of people that his—the previous—Government put on the DNA database, DNA detections have fallen.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Last Friday a man with no previous convictions, Mr Ronald Toms, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the attempted rape of an 84-year-old woman. He was caught because he had been previously arrested but not charged with an offence, and his DNA had been taken. Will the Minister confirm that under his proposals Mr Toms would be free to rape again?
James Brokenshire
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that he will well know that the use of individual cases cannot be undertaken lightly, given that they rely on all sorts of other issues such as consent and on other identification evidence. We have taken a very measured approach by making sure that those who are guilty are retained on the DNA database, and that there are matches to ensure that the cold-case database is used effectively. That way more crimes are detected.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
For the second time in five days, the Home Secretary has declined to answer questions on DNA, even though she knows that it is a growing concern, and that I and the Leader of the Opposition raised it last week. There are about 5,000 rape cases each year where the police think that they have enough information to pass a case on to the Crown Prosecution Service but the CPS decides that it cannot charge. In those cases, the Government’s plans mean that DNA will not be held even though rape has a notoriously low charge rate and we know that some people go on to offend again.
On Thursday the Minister with responsibility for women, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), suggested that the police would be able to apply to retain DNA in cases where they thought that the public were at risk. That is very different from what the Home Secretary told me on Second Reading of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, when she did not include cases where the public were thought to be at risk.
So, will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) now explain how the police and the DNA commissioner are supposed to assess who poses a risk; and in how many of those 5,000 cases does the hon. Gentleman expect the police to apply and for DNA to be held?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Lady is wrong on a number of counts, because the Home Secretary was absolutely clear on Second Reading about the approach that would be taken. The Government have said that, when an individual is arrested for a sexual offence such as rape but not subsequently charged, the police will be able to apply to the new biometrics commissioner for the DNA profile’s retention. If the commissioner agrees, the profile will be retained for three years. The right hon. Lady seems to ignore the facts and the way in which the issue has been presented, but there is the clarity on what is to happen.
Yvette Cooper
The Minister has not answered the question. He may want to look back at the words that the Home Secretary used on Second Reading, which were rather different. Does he really think it is practical for the police separately to assess, fill in forms and apply to hold DNA on 5,000 new rape cases each year, as well as countless other serious crimes? Ministers have just spent 20 minutes telling the House that they want to cut police bureaucracy; now they are increasing it. The West Midlands police chief said to the Bill Committee:
“We have always argued that it is impossible to create a regime of individual intervention for a database of 6 million. We have to make decisions based on automation.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 9, Q4.]
The Home Secretary is making it impossible for the police—
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Lady needs to look at the statistics, as I have already highlighted. If she looks at the data from 2001-02, when there were 39,000 detections against a database of fewer than 1.4 million, all from convicted people, and compares that with the data from the last year, when over 5 million individuals, including hundreds of thousands of innocent people, were on the database, she will see that the number of detections had fallen to 32,500. Labour Members appear to be very casual with people’s liberties, although they claim they are not. They seem to assume that simply because someone is arrested for a crime, they are guilty. We take a different view. Labour Members are not prepared to look at the facts and the evidence.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
14. What estimate she has made of the potential cost to the economy of her planned changes to tier 4 visa requirements.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The impact assessment estimated the net cost to the economy of the student and post-study work proposals to be £2.4 billion. There will be additional compensating benefits from reducing abuse, ensuring cohesion, and increasing public confidence in the immigration system, but it is not possible to quantify the impact of these changes.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for his clear response. He refers to a cost of £2.4 billion. The best case scenario is a cost of £1 billion, and the worst case £3.5 billion, for a problem that the Home Affairs Committee struggled to find anybody, other than the Minister, to say was a really serious problem; even Migrationwatch UK was not that bothered. Given that we do not want to lose £2.5 billion from the economy, will he rethink these proposals?
Damian Green
It would be absurd to say that there are no problems with the student visa system. It represents two thirds of the amount of immigration into the system, and it has become the biggest single loophole in our immigration system. On the slightly arcane theology of impact assessments, my hon. Friend will know that some strange assumptions have to be made by Government economists. For instance, this has to be costed on the assumption that if migrant students are no longer able to work here as before, not a single one of the jobs that they vacate will be taken up by a UK citizen, particularly one who may be currently unemployed. If there is replacement, which is intuitively very obvious, then the cost to the economy will be significantly lower. That is why we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to investigate this assumption, and we expect it to report in November.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Despite what the Minister has said about impact assessments, it is surprising and deeply worrying that the Government are pursuing a policy which, on their own view, will cost the country £2.4 billion and which, on their own view, will have only half the impact on net migration that they originally said. This policy was part of a package of changes that the Government said would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015. In support of the policy, the Prime Minister said in April to Tory party members:
“No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people. And it is a promise we are keeping.”
Well, not according to his Government’s own impact assessment, and not according to the Migration Observatory—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must now bring herself to a one-sentence question. That is the end of it.
Shabana Mahmood
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I was just about to. Will the Minister be upfront and admit today that this is a promise that he and the Prime Minister will not be keeping?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
15. What steps her Department is taking to protect women from domestic and sexual violence.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
17. What steps her Department is taking to protect women from domestic and sexual violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
In March this year we published a detailed action plan on tackling violence against women and girls. We have already delivered in several areas, including a commitment to provide more than £28 million of Home Office funding over four years for local specialist services to support victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Richard Graham
Recent incidents of rape and sexual assault in my constituency have been linked to Gloucester’s nightlife. Although Gloucestershire constabulary, which incidentally is increasing the number of front-line officers in our city, is doing a great job to protect my constituents on the streets, many parents would like awareness to be raised among youngsters about the risk of sexual assault. Are there things that the Home Office could do, perhaps together with the Department for Education, to help in that?
Lynne Featherstone
Preventing sexual and domestic violence from happening in the first place is a key priority of our action plan to end violence against women and girls. We are committed to developing education and awareness-raising campaigns on rape and sexual assault. As my hon. Friend said, we work with the Department for Education to encourage teaching about sexual consent in schools.
Alun Cairns
What discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Justice about victims of domestic violence who do not report offences to the police, particularly in the light of potential legal aid changes?
Lynne Featherstone
There have been no specific discussions with the Secretary of State for Justice on this issue. However, the Ministry of Justice is a member of the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary. Discussions on the support provided for all victims of violence against women and girls is discussed at its meetings.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Two wards in my constituency have seen increases in domestic abuse of 38% and 44%, which is way out of sync with the national or local trend. Will Ministers consider targeting work in areas where the figures are so far above trend?
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will look at the areas that have higher rates of domestic violence, with an eye to seeing what has happened in those areas.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the need to rehouse victims of domestic and sexual violence in safe homes? There are a number of cases in my constituency where I do not feel that the council is stepping up to the mark in providing a safe haven for these women.
Lynne Featherstone
It is clearly very important that when women need a place of safety and refuge, they have such a place. Obviously women’s refuges and shelters are available, but there is always a blocking issue with housing. We keep a constant eye on that. Councils should hear the message loud and clear that they need to provide for women who need shelter from domestic violence.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the much-needed funding for rape crisis centres. What does she expect the timing will be, because those centres are so greatly needed by this country?
Lynne Featherstone
The funding has been agreed and is on its way. Not only have the bids been accepted for the existing rape crisis centres; there is money coming through this year for four new centres in Hereford, Dorset, Trafford and Devon, which will fill the gaps left by the previous Government.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
How will destroying the DNA of people who have been arrested for rape, had their files sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but with a charge not being able to be brought, help to reduce sexual violence against women?
Lynne Featherstone
As I said last Thursday, we do not believe in keeping 1 million innocent people on the database. If someone is arrested for rape and not charged, but the local police believe that they are a danger to public safety, the police may apply to the commissioner to retain their DNA for three years, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
18. What representations she has received from children’s charities on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
Children’s charities have warmly welcomed the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. A number of such charities have made representations on specific aspects of the Bill, which we continue to discuss with them.
Bridget Phillipson
I do not think that “warmly welcomed” describes many of the representations that I have received from children’s charities. Will the Minister explain why a school will not be told whether a prospective volunteer has been barred from working with children, and why her Government are creating a loophole that the NSPCC says will put children at risk?
Lynne Featherstone
There are no loopholes in the Bill. The barring scheme will continue to cover all those in day-to-day, unsupervised contact with children, and those working in supervised positions will still be eligible for Criminal Records Bureau checks.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office is committed to protecting the public, controlling immigration, securing our borders and helping the police to combat and prevent crime and terrorism. I recently announced to the House the outcomes of our review of the Prevent strategy to counter radicalisation and our plans for a new national crime agency, which will be a powerful body of operational crime fighters who will secure our borders, tackle organised crime, fight economic crime and protect vulnerable children and young people.
Alun Cairns
The Prime Minister had significant success in Brussels last week in maintaining strong rules on the deportation of illegal immigrants. What role will the border police command play in allowing that to be delivered?
Mrs May
The new border police command within the national crime agency will play a very important role in ensuring that we can protect our borders. What is crucial about its role within the agency is that we will be able to bring together a number of bodies that deal with crimes and activity across our borders. That will enable us to get much greater effectiveness in dealing with such problems.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
In January the Government let lapse provision for pre-charge detention for 28 days. The Home Secretary said that she needed a fast way to restore it if needed, but her counter-terror review stated that the current order-making power was too slow. We warned her then that her new proposal for emergency primary legislation was not workable, and the senior Joint Committee has now concluded that it is “totally unsatisfactory and ineffective”. It is now six months since she changed the limit, and there is still no satisfactory emergency back-up plan in place. When will she get this sorted out?
Mrs May
We remain of the view that it is important to have that legislation available for Parliament to enact, and that in the vast majority of circumstances it is appropriate that that is done after Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the matter. There is a question about what happens when Parliament is dissolved. We have considered that and will bring forward proposals for an order-making power to cover the dissolution of Parliament.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
T2. I very much welcome the steps that the Government are taking to protect women and children from domestic and sexual violence. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituents from Esteem, based in Truro, who run the only service in England for men who suffer from those dreadful and often hidden crimes?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of male domestic violence victims. The Government take the issue extremely seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that every victim of domestic or sexual violence has access to appropriate support, including specialist support. In addition to the funding that we are providing for independent sexual and domestic violence advisers, we are funding the men’s advice line for all men who experience violence from a current or ex-partner. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituents. I have heard of Esteem and its work, and I would be very interested to meet its representatives.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
T7. The national missing persons database is an important resource in understanding the scale of the problem, safeguarding vulnerable people and locating those who are missing. What more can the Minister do to ensure that all the police forces in the United Kingdom provide to the database full, accurate and up-to-date information on missing persons in their area, including children?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
First, I thank the hon. Lady not just for her question but for the work in which she is engaged with the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults. I very much look forward to the report that I know she is working on with other members of that group on this important issue.
The police code of practice on the collection and sharing of missing persons data requires police forces to submit information on missing persons to the missing persons bureau. We want to examine the application of that code more generally, to ensure that standards are raised and that it is applied more broadly. I am keen that whatever steps can be taken to improve matters are taken and, in that regard, I look forward to the publication of the report on how we can ensure that that takes place.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
T3. At the beginning of this year, Lancashire constabulary spent £200,000 refurbishing Fulwood police station in my constituency, only to earmark it for closure the following month. Does not that waste of money show that with good leadership and good management, it is possible to save money without affecting front-line services?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I agree with my hon. Friend about protecting front-line services and I note that the chief constable of Lancashire constabulary said in March that
“the public can be reassured that we are leaving no stone unturned in our non-frontline services to take money out where we can.”
That is the right approach. It is possible, by making those savings in the back and middle offices, to protect the quality of front-line services for the public.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
T8. Last week, members of the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare had a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss dangerous dogs. Has the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice had a chance to listen to the briefing from lead police officers on that continuing problem? Will he be so kind as to meet me and members of the associate parliamentary group to discuss the matter in due course?
Nick Herbert
No, I have not had the briefing, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue. It is a very serious matter, which can result in harm to people. The police have to deal with it and, of course, we will ensure that they have the right powers to do that.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
T4. The Minister with responsibility for security will know that West Worcestershire contains companies such as QinetiQ, Deep-Secure and Edge Seven, which do important work in cyber-threat resilience. Can he find time in his busy diary to visit that important cyber-hub?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government recognise the importance of delivering cyber-security and protecting the country from online threats. We have therefore announced a £650 million transformative programme. As part of that, I pay tribute to the work of many companies. Private industry has a vital role to play and I shall certainly look at the details of my hon. Friend’s companies and their work, and, as appropriate, arrange a visit.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The chief constable of South Yorkshire, Meredydd Hughes, has said that reductions in back-office support will put an increased operational burden on officers, which will detract from their front-line duties. Does not that show that the Home Secretary’s reductions in red tape are just a sham?
Mrs May
No. I am very pleased to say that the chief constable of South Yorkshire has also made the clear point that despite challenging times he is,
“confident that the men and women of South Yorkshire Police will continue to effectively serve their communities”
and that they are determined to uphold the standards that they have been able to maintain in recent years.
Throughout the country, chief constables are rising to the challenge and ensuring that they protect services to the public while making necessary budget cuts.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
T5. What steps is the Home Secretary taking in these difficult times to support the work of women’s refuges, such as the one in my constituency, in their important work?
Mrs May
I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office has, of course, protected £28 million over the next four years for specialist support services in relation to domestic violence and violence against women. At a meeting on 14 June, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I heard from stakeholders, including the providers of women’s refuges, about the funding issues that they face. We have discussed with local authorities, mainly through the Department for Communities and Local Government, how local authorities should continue to support women’s refuges in their important work.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Each year, 5,000 people are arrested but not charged with rape. Will one of the Ministers, hopefully the Home Secretary, tell me for how many of those 5,000 it is appropriate for the police to apply to hold their DNA on record?
Mrs May
The whole point of the arrangement under the Protection of Freedoms Bill is that it will be for the police to make a decision about those individuals for whom they think it appropriate to apply to retain that DNA. However, I repeat a point that fellow Ministers made earlier: we are taking a different overall approach from the previous Labour Government because we believe that we cannot assume that everyone who is arrested is automatically guilty. The Labour Government made that assumption. We are putting safeguards in place to ensure that the police can make a judgment and apply for the retention of DNA for those arrested and not charged in circumstances that the police believe to be operationally important.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T6. Cheshire police have successfully made £13 million of efficiency savings while maintaining front-line services and dramatically cutting crime. Does the Home Secretary agree that that superb achievement highlights a fundamental difference between this Government and the last? While Labour judges things by how much is spent, we focus on the services delivered.
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I visited Cheshire police a few weeks ago and was impressed by what they are doing to drive savings and, in particular, by a pilot scheme that they are running in Runcorn, which returns discretion to police officers and improves the service to the public. In the pilot, when police officers are dealing with an offence, they are asked to look at the causes of that offence—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I think we will take that as a yes and perhaps make some progress.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
This Friday, the Metropolitan Police Authority will consider a report that, if agreed, would halve the number of safer neighbourhood team sergeants in my constituency. If the Minister is so adamant that police numbers in London will not be reduced, what will he do stop the planned reductions in Lewisham?
Nick Herbert
I repeat the point that the Mayor has said that he wishes to get to the next election with more police officers than he inherited in London—he has clearly stated that ambition. How those officers are deployed is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his team, but he is protecting the number of police constables in the safer neighbourhood teams. It is quite right that he should seek to drive savings and efficiencies. I am sorry that Opposition Members simply do not understand the importance of that.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
In the spirit of joined-up government, will the Home Secretary discuss with the Defence Secretary the future of the Ministry of Defence police? The previous Labour Government cut the number of MOD police officers in Colchester garrison from 30 to 3, and I regret that our Government now talk of cutting the number of MOD police by 1,000.
Mrs May
I note that my hon. Friend was quite careful in the phrasing of his question, because of course, this is an MOD responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have regular discussions on matters that affect both our Departments, and I am sure that we can put that on to the agenda.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Greater Manchester police announced this day, I believe, that more than 200 serving police officers and 600 back-room staff will be shed. Will any Home Office Minister come to the Dispatch Box and promise my constituents that, if the great gains in crime detection and prevention are not continued, they will reverse the cuts and allow numbers to go back to where they were?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend and I are both eager to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We know full well why it is necessary for police forces to make budget cuts—we need to make cuts overall because of the situation with the public sector finances. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police has been absolutely clear on a number of things. For example, he has been absolutely clear that this is a time for transforming how policing is undertaken, and that the changes he is making are focused on delivering the same good quality of service to the residents of the Greater Manchester police area. I would also point out that in evidence to a Select Committee of this House, he pointed out in terms that in the past, numbers were put up almost artificially, because police officers were put in back offices.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What tools will the Home Department make available to local police and local agencies to tackle ingrained and site-specific antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new range of measures to ensure that police and other agencies at the local level are better able to tackle ingrained antisocial behaviour. One problem in the past was that the things available to them worked too slowly and were ineffective. That is what we intend to remedy.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation and Surrey police have successfully trialled software that monitors internet use by registered sex offenders, and the Home Secretary has indicated that she wants to take steps to close the loopholes in the monitoring of registered sex offenders. Therefore, why was there not one single word about the internet in her consultation on the monitoring of sex offenders when it was launched two weeks ago?
Mrs May
We retain an interest in the whole question of the internet. The consultation that we launched was about a number of proposals that we will put in place in reaction to the Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998, and to the fact that sex offenders should now have the right of appeal as to whether they stay on the register. Alongside putting in the process for dealing with those appeals or a situation in which offenders ask for a review of their reference on the register, we will tighten the loophole by requiring them, for example, to notify the authorities when they are travelling abroad for more than 24 hours, and not the several days—
Mr Speaker
Order. With a degree of self-restraint, we can get through a couple more questions.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Given that the Home Secretary is reviewing extradition law, does she welcome last week’s report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighting again the case of my constituent, Gary McKinnon, who has fewer rights than foreign criminals facing deportation? When can we have British justice for British citizens such as my constituent, Gary McKinnon?
Mrs May
As my hon. Friend will expect, I do not intend at this stage to comment on that case in the House. A review of extradition law is being conducted by three eminent lawyers who hope to report later this year. The review will include the extradition treaty with the United States, European arrest warrants and other extradition matters.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I return to the Policing Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), which was just not good enough? Many of my constituents consider a public front-desk facility at a police station or police post as part of the front line, so what can the Minister do to reassure the people of Greater Manchester that they will have face-to-face contact with their police service when they need it?
Nick Herbert
We are strongly in favour of police forces providing face-to-face contact in all sorts of innovative ways. However, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply will not accept responsibility for bequeathing to the country the deficit that we now have to deal with, and which means that we have to make savings—police forces have to make those savings, too, and protect the front line at the same time.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The Home Secretary will be aware that Mr Raed Salah has been invited to speak in the palace precincts. Given this man’s history of virulent anti-Semitism, will the Home Secretary ban him from entering the UK?
Mrs May
The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases. I will seek to exclude an individual if I consider that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, and the Government make no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe that they might seek to undermine our society. Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who seek to subvert our shared values.
European Council
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.
The main focus of the Council was, quite rightly, Europe’s economy. In advancing Britain’s national interest, I had two objectives: first to ensure that Britain did not have to contribute to any new Greek bail-out through the European financial stability mechanism; and, secondly to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and growth to Europe as a whole, while fully protecting Britain’s position. Let me take each in turn.
I turn first to the situation in Greece. As I have always said, Britain is not in the euro—and while I am Prime Minister it never will be—so we should not be involved in the euro area’s internal arrangements. Only eurozone countries were involved, alongside the IMF, in the first Greek bail-out, and only eurozone countries have been involved in discussions about potential further bail-outs. It is absolutely right therefore not to use the EU-wide EFSM for future support to Greece—that is what I asked for an assurance about at the Council, and that is what I got.
That was not a simple matter because, as the House knows, article 122 of the European treaty is being used to provide aid to eurozone countries that have mismanaged their economies. That was not our choice; it was agreed before the Government took office. We have dealt with it for the future, however, because when the new permanent arrangements replacing the EFSM come in—from 2013—we will not be part of them, and article 122 will no longer be used for eurozone bail-outs. That was the deal that I secured last December. However, we still had to deal with the prospect of a bail-out under the existing arrangements. Under qualified majority voting, that required real negotiating effort, but the Government have consistently stood up for the interests of British taxpayers, and as a result the British taxpayer will avoid a potential liability of billions of pounds.
My second objective was to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and to promote growth across Europe. Although we are not in the eurozone, we would be badly affected by a disorderly outcome to this crisis. Why? First, banks across the world, including in the UK, hold Government debt of all eurozone countries, including Greece; and, secondly, the effect on other countries far more exposed to these debts would have a knock-on effect on us. As Sir Mervyn King made clear when unveiling last week’s financial stability report, the present difficulties in the eurozone are:
“The most serious and immediate risk to the UK financial system”.
It has always been a long-standing principle that the British Government do not comment publicly on market-sensitive issues, and I am not going to depart from that very wise approach. What is important is that a solution be found quickly that is credible in the markets and that will address over time Greece’s fundamental problems and contribute to providing stability in global markets and the world economy.
One element of that solution must, in my view, be using the time that we now have to ensure that banks and banks’ balance sheets are strong enough to withstand any problems and difficulties, and that there is full transparency across the financial system. In the UK, we are stepping up efforts to ensure that our banking system is resilient to risks originating from the eurozone. That needs to be done right across Europe, it needs to be done now, and it needs to be done properly. I argued for that very strongly at the Council, and it is reflected in the language in the communiqué. As a first step, that means that the current stress tests being conducted in the banking sector must be conducted properly and transparently, unlike last time, and that Europe must implement in full—rather than water down, as some have suggested—the new detailed Basel capital and liquidity standards.
A key way in which we can help all economies in Europe, including the eurozone, is to promote sustainable economic growth. The best stimulus available for European economies is to ensure that we are promoting competition, deregulation, supply-side reform, the single market, innovation and structural changes, and also using the EU to advance the cause of free trade, both via Doha and, where appropriate, through bilateral deals. Following the proposals that Britain set out at the last Council, which many member states now support, I pressed in particular for concrete steps to reduce the burdens on small businesses and micro-enterprises, which are vital to promoting innovation, jobs and growth. The Council agreed that
“the regulatory burden on SMEs needs to be further reduced,”
and that the European Commission would now assess the impact of new regulations on micro-enterprises and identify existing regulations from which micro-enterprises should be excluded altogether. That mirrors what we are doing in Britain, and it is the right thing to do. For too long, European Council conclusions have focused only on what member states should do, rather than on what the European Commission needs to do; and when we think of the quantity of regulation that comes from Brussels, we realise that that must be the right approach.
Let me briefly turn to other issues raised at the Council, of which there were three of significance: migration, the Arab spring and the accession of Croatia. First, on migration, Britain does not participate in the Schengen border area, and we are not going to weaken our border controls. As an island, Britain has an important geographical advantage in preventing uncontrolled immigration. At the same time, practical measures to strengthen our external borders in Europe are in Britain’s interests too. However, there was a proposal ahead of the Council to suspend the measures in the Dublin regulation that allow us to return asylum seekers to the first safe country that they arrive in. Together with Chancellor Merkel, I ensured that those proposals were rejected, and they are not referred to in any way in the Council conclusions. We will not have our border controls compromised in that way.
Next, the Arab spring. On Libya, the Council agreed a declaration confirming its full support for UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, and the efforts that our brave servicemen and women are undertaking to implement them. There is now, I believe, real unity of purpose and political will across the European Union on this issue. The wider world is turning against Gaddafi too, recognising that the transitional national council is the only credible diplomatic body that can represent the people of Libya right now. The Russians and the Chinese have accepted the importance of the transitional national council, and Premier Wen made this point to me in our meeting this morning. Gaddafi is increasingly isolated; indeed, today the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Gaddafi is now a fugitive from international justice. The pressure and the time are telling on Gaddafi, and we will not let up until the job is done.
On Syria, the Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression, and the unacceptable and shocking violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. At my instigation, we expressed particularly grave concern about what Syrian troops are doing close to the Turkish border. On the middle east more generally, the Council called on all parties to engage urgently in negotiations, and, on the fifth anniversary of his capture, demanded the immediate release of Gilad Shalit.
Finally, on Croatia, earlier this month I met Prime Minister Kosor and welcomed her country’s progress towards completing European membership negotiations. At the European Council we agreed that the negotiations would be concluded at the end of this month. Croatia’s success points the way for the rest of the countries of the western Balkans, whose aspirations to join the European Union we have always strongly supported.
At this Council, Britain has achieved some important objectives: we have protected the interests of the British taxpayer; we have secured agreements to promote and safeguard economic growth; and we have protected Britain’s borders from uncontrolled migration. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I start by expressing sympathy with the Prime Minister for the sense of shock and loss he must feel over the death of Christopher Shale. From whatever side we come from, we all know that it is unsung heroes such as him who are the backbone of our constituency associations. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to all of Mr Shale’s family and friends.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the European Council. On immigration, we support the position he set out, including on the continuance of the Dublin regulation negotiated by the previous Government. We also support the Government’s position on Croatian accession to the European Union. Let me ask the Prime Minister questions about Libya, Syria, the eurozone and the wider economic situation in Europe.
On Libya, the Prime Minister will know that Opposition Members welcome the Council’s continuing commitment to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. We are clear that we must keep up the pressure on Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime. Those who are expressing doubts over the mission should remember that if we had not taken action this European Council would have been discussing not the conduct of our campaign, but, in all likelihood, our failure to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi. But beyond immediate military and diplomatic developments, experience of conflicts demonstrates that post-conflict planning is crucial to a successful long-term outcome. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to say something about this, and will he explain why it appears to be Britain and not the United Nations that is fulfilling this role? Will he update us on what progress is being made?
In the context of the Arab spring, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to publish the review of the strategic defence and security review, which he told us at Prime Minister’s questions last week had been conducted? We are all interested in the outcome and look forward to seeing it.
Let me ask the Prime Minister about the situation in Syria, as he mentioned it in his statement. Will he tell us how we can continue to step up the pressure on Syria, including at the United Nations?
We have also consistently said—on both sides of the House, I believe—that Britain, as a supporter of Turkish membership of the EU should say to the Turks that the potential refugee crisis on their borders will only grow unless they help to put more pressure on the Syrian Government. Will the Prime Minister update us on conversations between this Government and the Turkish Government on that issue?
Turning to Greece, let me first say that we agree that the primary responsibility for addressing the situation lies with eurozone countries. As the Prime Minister will know, the UK made no direct contribution to the last Greek bail-out agreed on 2 May 2010 under the previous Government. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on sticking to our approach to these issues. Indeed, on the question of article 122, which the right hon. Gentleman raised, he did not mention the famous 15 July 2010 Greening memorandum on the European bail-out mechanism, which is of much interest to the Conservative Benches. That, of course, said that article 122 had been agreed “by cross-party consensus”. Every time the Prime Minister comes before the House and says that this is not something we supported, he needs to know that is not what the memorandum of his own Economic Secretary said in a submission to this House.
The truth is that we have an interest in the Greek situation that goes beyond the level of our direct contribution—because of the potential exposure of our banks; because we contribute indirectly through the International Monetary Fund; and because of our wider interest in growth and jobs in Europe. I understand issues of market sensitivity, but will the Prime Minister confirm that a full analysis is being done of the impact of any restructuring of Greek debt on UK taxpayer-owned banks?
Britain also clearly has an interest in the durability of the bail-out. The Governor of the Bank of England has said:
“Providing liquidity can only… buy time”
and
“will never be an answer to a problem”.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has confidence that the right balance is being struck in demanding a further round of austerity against the need for growth in Greece?
After this European Council and after the Prime Minister’s statement, it remains unclear what the Council and the Prime Minister regard as a long-term and sustainable solution to the Greek crisis. Instead of boasting about being on the sidelines, should not the Prime Minister engage more with his colleagues to secure a solution to the crisis that will last, and will be in the interests of the eurozone and the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my constituency chairman, Christopher Shale. Some people say that in politics there are no real friendships, but I think that that is completely untrue. Many of us in the House become extremely close to people who work very hard in our constituencies to help us. Christopher was one of those people, and he will be missed by my family and me and by many, many people in west Oxfordshire. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this might be a moment for us to reflect on the fact that, while we all consider what we are doing in this place to be public service, the work done by people who toil very hard in political parties up and down the country is also a form of public service, which I think should be recognised and praised as well.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support in regard to Libya. He asked about post-conflict planning. We are doing a huge amount of work there, not least by the stabilisation team that we sent to Benghazi. The right hon. Gentleman asked how we would be working with the United Nations. We are working closely with the UN, but I believe that when our constituents think about post-conflict stabilisation, as well as the longer-term stabilisation work that they expect the UN to be doing, they also want to know what will happen the day after: what will happen immediately after the departure of Gaddafi. We need to work very hard on that as well. There are clearly timing issues when the UN becomes involved, if I can put it that way.
As for the strategic defence and security review, I tried to explain that the National Security Council regularly reviews the implementation of the SDSR, and asks profound questions about it. If the right hon. Gentleman has complaints to make, he should be a bit more specific. I have found, looking at the SDSR—[Hon. Members: “More detail?”] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman should be a bit more specific. What we are seeing in Libya is that we need to move faster to an area where we have the flexibility, the ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—and the new assets that the SDSR is all about.
I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration over Syria. Britain and France are leading the way at the UN, wanting a strong resolution, but we are meeting objections from many. We should push ahead as far as we can, because what is happening in Syria is completely unacceptable. I think that the UN has done well in establishing asset freezes, travel bans and the like, but we need to go further.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about working with the Turks. We were side by side with them on this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in permanent contact with their Foreign Minister, Mr Davutoglu.
When it came to Greece, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave brass neck a whole new definition. If he wants a brief description of the history of article 122, he should remember that it was subject to unanimity until the Nice treaty. It was in this House that my former right hon. and learned Friend Michael Howard objected to article 122 going to qualified majority voting, and warned of the dangers of bail-outs. He was told at the time, “Don’t worry, it will all be fine.” This is a hopeless line of argument for Labour Members, given that it was their party that got us into this mechanism, and this party and this Prime Minister who got us out of it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a full analysis of the Council. Of course the Bank of England and our banks are working hard to calculate our potential liabilities. I thought that the dog that did not bark in the right hon. Gentleman’s response was his failure to mention his proposed £51 billion cut in VAT. That, of course, is what the Labour party suggests that everyone should be doing in Europe. As one of those who sat around a table in the European Council representing countries with budget deficits—including our own at 8%—I think that in suggesting that VAT cut the right hon. Gentleman has achieved what I thought was impossible, and ensured that he will be taken even less seriously in Europe than he is in Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is extensive interest in this statement, but there is another statement to follow, and a heavily subscribed debate thereafter. What is required, I say hopefully, is brevity.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister be good enough to put on record his appreciation of the support and encouragement of the British people and Members of Parliament in securing the terms from the negotiations on the Greek bail-out, and will he now take that further and do whatever is necessary to take the lead in both the United Kingdom and Europe to get us out of the mess the existing treaties got us into?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support, and for his question. I have got us out of the mechanism from 2013, because Britain is excluded from the treaty change that is going through putting in place the new permanent bail-out mechanism. It took negotiation to get that deal, because we were in a mess beforehand.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I have two brief questions. The Prime Minister mentioned Sir Mervyn King’s remarks of last week. Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Mervyn that the combination of austerity plus bail-out will never bring Greece to solvency? Secondly, the Prime Minister mentioned the stability of the banking system in advance of what I believe is an inevitable Greek default. In that context, is it not the case that future European Councils will be discussing whether to use the European financial stability facility or the European stability mechanism to shore up and recapitalise the banking system, rather than throwing good bail-out money after bad?
The Prime Minister
Of course the Greeks have a debt and solvency problem as well as a liquidity problem, but they have decided that they want to use liquidity to give themselves some time to deal with their debt problem. That is the choice they have made—and that is the choice the eurozone members are supporting—and I can quite see why they want to do it in that way. Let me also just make the following point, as I think a number of colleagues will ask similar questions: we must be very careful not to speculate about the financial situation faced by a fellow member state of the European Union.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst outcome for the British economy from the Greek crisis would be a disorderly and chaotic default by Greece and subsequent departure from the euro? What discussions did he therefore have with colleagues about preparing for that default, which is inevitable, and that departure, which is desirable, and in particular with President Václav Klaus, who has said that neither departure from the euro nor the dissolution of a monetary union need be disorderly? He dissolved the monetary union of the Czechs and Slovaks over a weekend without too much disruption.
The Prime Minister
As on many previous occasions, I had a very interesting meeting with President Klaus in Prague, at which he made that interesting point. However, dissolving a monetary union between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is very different from changing arrangements within Europe, where there are some very serious issues of equilibrium. The other point I would make is about those of us who do not want to join the euro, would never join the euro, and think that countries should maintain their own flexibilities. I have always held that view, but those of us who do hold that view should not misunderstand the fact that there would clearly be very big consequences for Britain were there to be a disorderly situation in Europe. To put it another way, it is much easier to stay out of the euro than to leave it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Many of us worry about not only the direct consequences for Britain, but the possible indirect consequences, such as for the people of Cyprus, with which many British people have a direct connection. What analysis have the Government done of what the effects for the people of Cyprus would be, and is there any opportunity of reinvigorating the peace process so that there might no longer be a divided capital city of Nicosia?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that disorder in the eurozone will have knock-on consequences for other countries—he mentioned Cyprus—as well as for the country that is directly affected. Obviously, we are looking at all potential eventualities and all possible problems, and doing contingency planning for them. That is what we would expect the Treasury to do, and that is exactly what the Treasury—and the Bank of England and others—are doing. On getting the Cyprus peace process started, Alexander Downer, the special representative, worked extremely hard, but we have a lot more hard work to do to convince both sides that there needs to be a deal, and a deal soon.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government seem to be listening to this House and seeking to minimise eurozone debt liabilities. It is very encouraging that Ministers are no longer in thrall to the Europhile Whitehall mandarins who negotiated us into this mess. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will not use the European financial stabilisation mechanism for any further eurozone bail-outs—and not just those for Greece—between now and 2013?
The Prime Minister
The first part of my hon. Friend’s question was a slight dig at the mandarins, but it is important to blame Ministers rather than officials for decisions that one does not like. I would place the blame squarely on those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench rather than on officials. I cannot really give him satisfaction on the second part of his question, because the EFSM is in place, it is subject to qualified majority voting and it will not go until 2013. Although I cannot give him that satisfaction, we have done the best we can by getting us out of that situation from 2013, when the treaty changes. In the meantime, we have kept ourselves out of the Greek situation.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Are not Italy and the Arab League now putting far more emphasis on trying to bring about a genuine ceasefire in Libya and would it not be better to do that instead of going for regime change? On the question of the nature of the Gaddafi regime, is it not a fact that we were selling arms to Gaddafi right up until the uprising?
The Prime Minister
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, our approach to Gaddafi and Libya is clear. The Government have been utterly consistent and I do not agree with those who believe there should be a ceasefire now. There could be a ceasefire if Gaddafi agrees to do what he has to, which is to withdraw his troops from the towns and cities he occupied and to stop butchering his own people. For us unilaterally to declare a ceasefire, which was what the hon. Gentleman hinted at, would be a mistake. We have turned up the pressure on Gaddafi and we should keep it up, because it is beginning to tell.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I join the expressions of condolence to the Prime Minister and the family and friends of Mr Shale?
Is it not right that although it is not the UK’s duty to intervene to bail out the Greeks, it is absolutely in the United Kingdom’s interest that the European Union and the wider community took decisions to support the economies of Ireland, Portugal and Greece this year to prevent them from collapse? Is not the lesson from the history of those countries over the past year that they should follow the example of this country and take tough measures early to deal with the economic legacy? We should support the three new Governments in those countries as they deal with the failures of the past five years, just as this Government have sought to do.
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my constituency chairman, Christopher Shale.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that if one is in a debt situation, one has to deal with one’s deficit and debts and show a path back to solvency. That is what the Government have done. We have had to take some tough measures to show how we will pay down our deficit and debt and that is what other countries must do, too. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is in Britain’s interest that we should do that and it is also in Britain’s interest that there should not be a disorderly outcome to what we are seeing in Europe.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I suggest that the next EU summit takes place on Filakio on the Greek-Turkish border, where members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs were told that 100,000 people crossed the border between Greece and Turkey last year? Their destination is not Athens but London, Paris or Stockholm. What further steps can we take to encourage our EU colleagues to help countries such as Greece, rather than letting Greece export its problem, and to get Frontex to do the job it is supposed to do?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that we should support Frontex in its work and that we should support the action that Schengen members are taking to secure Europe’s external borders. That is vital because, as he says, many of those people do not stay in Greece but come to Paris or London. I do not think it is any contradiction to say that we should support that action while at the same time maintaining our own border controls and arrangements, particularly with the French, that have done us proud in recent years.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have spoken for the overwhelming majority in this country when he expressed his anger at the proposed £280 million new European headquarters. Was any progress made at this Council meeting in implementing the coalition agreement’s aspiration to end the obscenity of the European Parliament moving between Brussels and Strasbourg, wasting a huge amount of money? Does he agree that anybody who does not agree with those points is, to use a phrase coined at that Dispatch Box, living in cloud-cuckoo land?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend much satisfaction because the fact that the European Parliament moves between those two cities was not discussed at the European Council. Indeed, the problem that I have referred to in relation to the new building rather shows that there are too many people in Brussels who do not understand the need to cut their cloth according to what is available—by passing around a very expensive brochure to a very expensive new building.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What are the dramatic consequences, as the Prime Minister just called them, on Britain and the rest of Europe of a Greek default and the break-up of the euro?
The Prime Minister
As I described in my statement, the consequences would be twofold. First, British banks, like banks around the world, hold a debt of other eurozone countries, including Greek debt. Clearly, there would be a consequence either if there were a default or if Greece were to leave the eurozone. That is self-evident.
Secondly, there is the knock-on effect from the countries that are more exposed than we are to Greek debt. As I have said, those of us who do not want Britain to join the euro should not use that as an excuse to say that this does not affect us—it does and that is why it is important that we help to encourage eurozone countries to take the right steps to sort out their issues. That is the very constructive approach that the Government have taken. I see no contradiction between that—making sure that we do not stand in the way of the eurozone’s sorting out its issues and helping with that—and at the same time keeping Britain out of the euro.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Further to the question of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is important that we retain the Dublin regulation so that we do not simply have asylum shopping all over the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. The Dublin regulation has been effective at allowing us to return people who seek asylum in this country but who have come from another European country. One of the reasons it was suggested that the Dublin regulation had to change was because of repeated court cases against the Greeks regarding their asylum policy. It seems to me that the answer is for the Greeks to sort out their asylum arrangements rather than for the rest of Europe to have to give up the Dublin regulation.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister have a chance, in the many bilateral conversations he will have had at the European Council, to discuss the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Europe at the moment—currently in London? Why will not the Prime Minister mention the name of Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel peace laureate who is in the Chinese gulag? Mrs Thatcher also raised the position of Sakharov in public and said, “Get him out of the gulag.” Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity now to say, “Liu Xiaobo should be out, not in prison”?
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely the Government’s view. I had very good meetings with Premier Wen this morning and a lunch with him and there has never been anything in the Britain-China dialogue that is off limits, including individual cases. Nothing is off limits, but it is right to have the dialogue at both the leader-to-leader level and the human rights level. As I said, nothing is off limits and we have a very frank relationship.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister for standing up for the important principle concerning the Dublin process? Does he share my concern about the people traffickers who are stuffing unseaworthy boats full of people and casting them adrift in the Mediterranean? Does he agree that more needs to be done to patrol that area? Were there any discussions about positive moves to attack that problem?
The Prime Minister
There were long discussions about this issue because the Mediterranean countries in particular feel extremely strongly that we have got to do more to strengthen borders and Frontex, which can help to secure Britain’s perimeter. Britain is fully supportive of that, and we are not in the Schengen area, which means that we are protected from some of the problems that Schengen countries are suffering from. I think we have the best of both worlds—backing the action taken at Europe’s perimeter while at the same time being able to maintain tough and strict border controls for our own country.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In the midst of all the other pressing issues on which the Prime Minister has reported from the European Council, was there any acknowledgement of the gathering ravages of conflict in parts of Sudan, the humanitarian crisis facing people there yet again and the plight of aid workers and journalists from Europe in that situation? Does the duty to protect extend to them?
The Prime Minister
The issues of Sudan were not discussed at the European Council itself, but they will be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council that is coming up soon. I raised the issue of Sudan with Premier Wen today, because of the close relationship between China and northern Sudan. It is important that the terms of the comprehensive peace agreement are properly stuck to and that we deliver that and the two-state solution that is being put in place, in which Britain has played a constructive part.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I welcome the commitment to exclude micro-businesses from EU regulations and urge the Prime Minister to continue his campaign to free up British risk-takers from Brussels’ red tape?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I said in my statement, so often at European Councils the Commission comes along with a list of things that countries should do, but does not ask enough, “What can we, the Commission, do to encourage deregulation and growth?” From 1998 to 2010, I think that 69% of new regulations came from Brussels. Clearly, Brussels needs to play its part in trying to exempt small businesses from at least some of those regulations. I shall keep pushing this agenda and I find growing support for it around the table at the Council of Ministers.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the conclusions of the European Council that there is recovery within the European zone, that that recovery is long and sustainable and that the Heads of State and the leaders of Governments will commit themselves, and have committed themselves, to do all that is necessary to ensure financial stability within the euro? Is that not in the interests of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is in the interests of the United Kingdom. Fifty per cent. of our exports go to the EU and 40% go to eurozone countries. We want the eurozone to be sustainable and strong, and it has issues that it needs to sort out, so we do not stand in the way when eurozone countries want to do more together, as they are doing through the euro-plus pact. I still think that there is a big question mark about whether they are really gripping some of the issues that they need to resolve, but none the less it is in our interests, and that is why we are playing such a constructive role in it.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Following the Prime Minister’s interesting and welcome answer to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on the subject of Libya, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our mission is entirely humanitarian and there is the genesis of a deal here? If Gaddafi is prepared just to hold what he has in Tripoli, we could then achieve a compromise and the end to this war.
The Prime Minister
Britain’s role is clearly set out in UN resolution 1973, which is to work with others to stop the attacks on civilians. It is not about regime change; it is for the people of Libya to decide who governs them and how they are governed. We have also always been clear that if Gaddafi declared a ceasefire and removed his troops from the towns and cities that he has invaded, that would be playing his part in resolving resolution 1973. Where I have always gone on and said that I cannot see a future for Libya where Gaddafi is still in place for the simple reason that if one looks at what this man has done during the last 100 days—although he has had every opportunity to pull back and put in place a ceasefire—all he has done to his own citizens is more shelling, attacking, murdering and sniping. So it is inconceivable to think of a future for Libya where he is still in a position of authority.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Given the significance of the European Council, it is a great shame that the Leader of the House still thinks that this is Back-Bench business and therefore we did not have a debate ahead of the Council meeting. Has the Prime Minister instructed his officials to demand that the Commission starts to prepare a legal framework for a country to leave the euro rather than just wait for the bad day and then have chaos?
The Prime Minister
On the extent of parliamentary debate, we have one of these statements every time there is a European Council, and we seem to be clocking up those at a rate of knots. We have also put in place the recommendations of the Wright Committee to ensure that Back Benchers have proper time for debate.
In terms of what happens next in the eurozone, I have set out the Government’s position. We do not want a disorderly breakdown in Europe. We are playing our full part in making sure that the eurozone sorts out its problems, and we are protecting Britain’s interests by ensuring that we are not contributing as a European country to a Greek bail-out. The Greeks have chosen their path and they will be voting in Parliament shortly. They have chosen the path where they want to put in place further measures so that they can stay inside the eurozone and find their way back to solvency in dealing with their debt problems. That is the choice they have made; it is the choice that is being supported by eurozone members. We are not in favour of disorder in the eurozone for the very good reasons that we have given.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House, in view of the increasing number of European summits, whether he managed to save any taxpayers’ money en route to the recent European Council summit?
The Prime Minister
As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, I use a variety of transport means. On this occasion, I flew by a scheduled plane to Prague for my meetings with the Czech Prime Minister and President and shared the Prime Minister’s aeroplane from Prague to Brussels, although I have to admit that the RAF kindly flew me home. I seem to remember in previous years different Ministers flying in different planes to the same summit. I think that sharing an aeroplane with another Prime Minister is a good way forward.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister tell the House the amount of British taxpayers’ money being made available to Greece indirectly through loans from the International Monetary Fund and confirm that, should a default occur that ultimately causes further defaults in Europe, that money might also be at risk?
The Prime Minister
Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, our share of the IMF is a little over 4%, so that is our contingent liability share of what the IMF dispenses. Secondly, the point about the IMF—this might also be of some reassurance to my Back-Bench colleagues—is that it will lend money only if it is confident that it is part of a programme that a country can repay, and that is important to consider. I say to those who are sceptical about our role in the IMF that Britain, as a leading economic power in the world, has an important role to play as a shareholder and board member of the IMF, and the idea that we should somehow be seeking to reduce that is wrong.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Seventy-two top businesses, including Google, Centrica and Unilever, have made a joint declaration saying:
“Moving to a 30% emissions reduction target is a win-win-win for Europe”
that will
“boost economic growth and create new jobs”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with those companies, and if so, is there anything he can do to ensure that his MEPs vote accordingly next week?
The Prime Minister
We do agree with those companies and want Europe to move to that target. We have supported that and put it in our own carbon budget in this country. I think that that is the right way ahead.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Recent press reports indicate that 15 member states are questioning the wisdom of Schengen. Indeed, Denmark has reintroduced passport controls with Germany and Sweden. Were there any further discussions on the issue over the weekend, and is there any possibility of moving away from Schengen over the next few years?
The Prime Minister
There was a very lengthy discussion on the Schengen issues, and clearly there is some unhappiness among Schengen members about some of the pressures they face. There was a particularly long discussion about the fact that Romania and Bulgaria feel that they have now qualified for membership of Schengen and want to see that membership advanced. There are pressures within the Schengen area that clearly do not apply to the UK, but it is clear that some of the northern members feel that Schengen has not been operating in their interests in the same way in recent years, but the Council’s conclusions were pretty clear that Schengen is working and will continue.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that in the event of any breakdown in the eurozone, in assessing the potential banking liabilities in this country and abroad, by far and away the best thing we can do is ensure that there is, first, transparency in the banking system and, secondly, a proper set of stress tests in place so that we know what the potential liability for UK banks might be in future?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. The Governor of the Bank of England spoke powerfully about this and has set out what the liabilities of British banks are in terms of Greece. We need the stress tests to be transparent, and we then need them to be acted on by making sure that those banks that need to build up their reserves do so. One of the things I wanted to secure at the European Council was to ensure that the conclusions were very tough on this, because at the same time as they are operating these stress tests and arguing for more capital to go into the banks, some European powers are trying to water down the Basel requirements. It seems to me to be completely illogical to try, on the one hand, to strengthen a banking system to withstand pressure in the eurozone, and then to start weakening it on the other. I am thankful that the conclusions are pretty clear on that point.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about Croatia coming closer to the European union, but was there any reference to Turkey?
The Prime Minister
In terms of future membership of the EU, I think I am right in saying that the conclusions referred only to Croatia, which is completing its negotiations. There was a reference to Serbia’s European perspective, because with the arrest of Ratko Mladic I think that it has taken another step towards European membership. There was no specific mention of Turkey, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, I strongly support Turkey’s membership of the European Union.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the most successful defence of British interests at a European summit since the halcyon days of the noble Baroness Thatcher? Will he turn his negotiating firepower on the Commission’s proposal to increase its own resources tax base?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, although I would not put my efforts in the same class as the famous Fontainebleau negotiation, because the British rebate still benefits Britain to a huge extent—even after the Labour party signed a large portion of it away. But I do hope people agree that they were a good step forward to keep us out of the situation.
On the budget, we have secured a very strong letter to the European Commission about future financial perspectives, saying that effectively there should be nothing worse than a real-terms freeze. That is what we got other countries to commit to, and I am sure that Government Members, like me, would wish to go further, but we are laying down the baseline of a freeze going into a negotiation, and that is a pretty good start.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
What is causing disorder and instability in Europe is the fact that Greece is bankrupt. The whole world knows that, and nothing said in this Chamber will alter it or create greater instability in the world markets. If Greece can neither withdraw nor default, good money—our money—via the IMF, or European Union money via other mechanisms, will be wasted bailing it out. Why does not the Prime Minister discover his Eurosceptic self and lead an orderly withdrawal of Greece from the euro?
The Prime Minister
First, as I said earlier, the IMF cannot lend money unless it believes that a country can undertake a programme that will lead it to pay back that money. Secondly, Britain’s interests are protected, because we will not contribute via the financial mechanism to Greece. Thirdly—I have said this before but I do think it important—the Greeks want some time, via some extra liquidity, so that they can take steps to get themselves back on a path to fiscal sanity. Of course, people can doubt whether that can happen, but the Greeks want to be able to get people to pay their taxes, to reduce spending programmes and to privatise assets so that they can get back to a position of financial sanity. That is the decision they have taken; that is the decision taken by members of the eurozone; and that is what the eurozone members themselves will support.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
With the Greece situation showing what happens if a country does not control its deficit, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the actions of Labour’s paymasters this Thursday show that they and the Opposition are more interested in dogmatic cobblers than harsh reality?
Mr Speaker
Order. I have explained the point on innumerable occasions to Members that questions are to be about the policy of the Government, not that of the Opposition, so we will now move on.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Bank for International Settlements, in its annual report published yesterday, identifies two solutions to the Greek sovereign debt crisis: either mutualising Greece’s debts through further eurozone bail-outs, or restructuring them. Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis, and if so, which option does he favour?
The Prime Minister
Of course, everyone is free to speculate about the different paths that Greece might take or might like to take, but it is not for the Government of the UK to speculate about another country’s finances. The Greek Government have made their decision, backed by the eurozone and the European Council, to seek further austerity measures so that they can deal with their deficit. That is the decision they have taken, that is what is supported by eurozone money, and the IMF will lend money only if it believes that it can be paid back.
On deficits, let me just make the point before people get too over-confident that if we look at 2011, we find that the UK’s deficit is 8.6% compared with Greece at 7.4%. That to me underlines the importance of our domestic programme of dealing with our debts and our deficit—[Interruption]—and not of charging around, as the most annoying man in British politics is currently doing, and suggesting a £51 billion VAT cut.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly acknowledges the tension between, on the one hand, the need to rebuild capital ratios in order to achieve resilience in the banking sector and, on the other, the crying domestic need to get banks lending again. Does he agree that part of the solution lies in tackling the barriers to entry for potential new lenders, and that that could start with Brussels looking again at the uneven regulation on overdrafts, on how banks are allowed to market them and on how other lenders handle short-term lending?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, if we are asking banks to rebuild their balance sheets and their reserves, there is a tension with that compared with asking them to lend. One of the solutions, as he says, is to make sure that there are new entrants into the banking sector, and that is something we are keen to secure.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that the IMF would not have made the loan to Greece if it did not think it could be repaid. The Governor of the Bank of England seems to disagree about the likelihood of that loan being repaid. I think that what the people of this country want to know is how much British taxpayers will be liable for if Greece defaults.
The Prime Minister
The point I made is that Britain’s share of the IMF is a little over 4%. It is a broad requirement of the IMF to consider whether the money can be paid back before it makes the loan. That is not something that it has decided to do on this occasion; it is something that it has to do.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. On Libya, did the European Council discuss the position of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in continuing to support the mission the longer it continues? As the Prime Minister will know, those two countries provide the largest Arab support to the mission at the moment.
The Prime Minister
We did not discuss that specific issue at the European Council, but I speak regularly to the leaders of both those countries. I praise them for the huge commitment they have made—not just in men and matériel, as it were, but in the political commitment to garnering support in the Arab world for keeping up pressure on Gaddafi. I think that what the Qataris and Emiratis have done has been absolutely superb.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
My constituents will warmly welcome what the Prime Minister said about asylum, given that anyone who wants to claim asylum in the UK has to do so in person in my constituency. Is it not true that under this Government the trend of applications to the UK is going down while in other countries it is going up, and that if we allowed people to choose where in the EU to apply, that trend would reverse overnight?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Dublin regulation is so important, because it enables us to return people who claim asylum in the UK to another safe country. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, many of the people breaking into Europe’s borders do not want to stay in the first country they get to—they are trying to come to the UK. We need to be wise about this.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his very significant success in largely keeping Britain out of this Greek bail-out, despite what the previous Chancellor agreed? Could he tell the House what has changed given that he was able to keep us out of this Greek bail-out when that did not prove possible with regard to Portugal?
The Prime Minister
I think that what changed was that because we were not involved in the first Greek bail-out, we were able to make the argument that we should not be involved in subsequent bail-outs—particularly because, as we are not members of the eurozone, we were not involved in the design of the new package. None the less, we were at risk, because there were countries that wanted to push the EFSM and its use for Greece, but we ran a very strong diplomatic campaign, using every lever at our disposal to persuade our good friends and allies in Europe that it would not be fair for Britain to pay, and we achieved that. It was not an insignificant achievement, because it took quite a lot of negotiating heft to get it done.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. With an estimated cost to UK taxpayers of £25 million for the new £280 million home for European Union summits, which represents an unnecessary expense at a time of cuts and deficit reduction across Europe, will he assure us that further spending by the European Union will match the manner of spending currently seen in member states?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give that assurance. We have actually managed to write into Council conclusions that Europe’s spending should mirror what is happening in member states. The decision about the new building was taken, I think, in 2003, when the Labour party was in power. All I can say is that it seems to me that the building in which we hold the European Council has got plenty of space for all of us, and indeed for new members. I think they need to get real in Brussels and in the European Union about recognising the sacrifices that many countries are making in terms of spending restraint, and they need to start showing a bit of spending restraint themselves.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I want to add my congratulations to the Prime Minister on standing up for Britain and British interests. On the answer he gave to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about Greece paying attention to its asylum reception centres, I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that perhaps the people of Greece have other things on their minds. Is not this an opportunity for the European Commission, through Frontex, to spend its money and resources appropriately on helping member states rather than on some grandiose white elephant?
The Prime Minister
Frontex has an important role to play and it must be invested in for the reasons that my hon. Friend gives. My understanding is that one reason why there was pressure to get rid of the Dublin regulation was that Athens’ arrangements for dealing with asylum seekers have been judged insufficient by the courts. We need to speak to our friends in Greece to get them to sort out their problems, so that the asylum system can work better throughout Europe.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the European Commission to identify regulations from which small businesses should be exempt. What does he expect to be the time scale in which that task is completed? Will he give an assurance that he will follow this matter through ruthlessly to ensure that the Commission delivers on the promise?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes the good point that getting these things to appear once in a set of European Council conclusions is a good start, but that we have to ensure that the European Commission follows through on that. That is why I am trying to build an alliance in Europe on this issue. The fact that several consecutive Council conclusions have mentioned it means that a programme will have to be put in place to get it done.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s statement rightly said that the transitional national council is the only credible body in Libya and that there is now unity of purpose in the EU. Will he tell the House what the EU is doing in practical terms to support that body?
The Prime Minister
Cathy Ashton, the EU High Representative, has been to Benghazi, which I think was extremely worth while, and the EU has opened an office in Benghazi. We are trying to reposition the EU’s plan for engaging with its southern neighbourhood to ensure that it puts resources, of which it has lots, into countries that are reforming in a democratic direction. In the past, we have handed out far too much money without questions being asked and without proper conditionality. We are now ensuring that there is a conditional programme that rewards countries that are heading in a democratic direction.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his statement. Would the accession of Croatia be likely to increase or decrease the burden of our contribution to the EU budget?
The Prime Minister
We are very hopeful that it would not have an impact. That has been one of our negotiating stances with regard to Croatia. I remind my hon. Friend that the letter to the European Commission that I signed, along with the German Chancellor, the French President, the Dutch Prime Minister and the Finnish Prime Minister, said:
“The action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up progressively over the remaining years of this financial perspective and payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”
I know that my hon. Friend and many other Government Members would like us to go further, but to have lined up five countries behind an effective real-terms freeze over the next period is a very good start.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Yesterday, I had a meeting with a constituent who I know can be very difficult at times. She was exceptionally happy and was singing the praises of the Prime Minister because we will not be involved in the Greek bail-out, and because after 2013 we will not be involved in any bail-outs. However, Mrs Bone wanted to know whether, if a bail-out came before 2013, Britain would vote no in any case, despite qualified majority voting. She would be very happy if the Prime Minister gave that undertaking, and it would be really helpful for the Bone household if he could.
The Prime Minister
I feel that a very big part of my life is spent trying to give pleasure to Mrs Bone. On this occasion, I can go only so far.
Mr Speaker
We note the admirable self-restraint that the Prime Minister has demonstrated and we are grateful for it.
Defence Reform
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Last August I asked Lord Levene to undertake a fundamental review of the way in which the Ministry of Defence is structured and managed. Today I am publishing the independent report led by him. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank him and all the members of his steering group both for that excellent report and for setting us all an example by delivering it early.
Lord Levene’s group has recommended a radical new approach to the management of defence, and I am pleased to say that I agree with him, as do my ministerial colleagues, all the chiefs of staff and my permanent secretary. We have already taken forward some of the recommendations.
No one in this Government was under any illusions about the scale of the challenge that we inherited in defence, which Lord Levene’s report confirms. We have already introduced changes to budgetary control, the reform of procurement, export promotion, small and medium-sized enterprise development and changes to our armed forces. The strategic defence and security review set a clear direction for policy and will deliver coherent, efficient and cutting-edge armed forces fit for the challenges of the future. As a result, Britain will remain in the premier league of military powers.
However, the vision of the SDSR cannot be achieved without tackling the drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability in how defence is managed, and Lord Levene’s report provides the blueprint for the necessary transformation. Before I set out his recommendations in more detail, let me first acknowledge the great strength that resides within our people in defence. They are professional, committed and often frustrated by a system that all too frequently lets them down. Among other things, the report describes a Department bedevilled with weak decision making and poor accountability, in which there is insufficient focus on affordability and proper financial management. Lord Levene’s steering group proposes a new, simpler and more cost-effective model for departmental management, with a clear allocation of responsibility, authority and accountability. That will build on the strengths of the individual services within a single defence framework that ensures that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It will be underpinned by a number of core themes.
First, to date individuals in defence have been asked to deliver defence outputs, but not given the means with which to do so effectively and efficiently. Authority must be aligned with responsibility, and budget holders should have the levers that they need in order to deliver. They should then be held robustly to account. In the past, the decisions that should have been made centrally have been ducked, and head office and Ministers have delved into tactical-level detail.
The defence reform unit recommends a strengthened decision-making framework for defence, centred on a new, leaner defence board based around the Defence Secretary, who will chair it and make the decisions. He will be supported by the permanent secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff, who will bring to the meeting the views of the single service chiefs. I have already established that new board, and I chaired the first meeting last week. The new group will offer the type of decisive and focused strategic direction that has been so lacking in recent years.
Secondly, financial management must be tightened and a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level of the MOD. The review recommends a new planning and financial model. Within that framework, we will empower the chiefs to run their individual services. Our single service chiefs are the custodians of their services, the fundamental building blocks of defence. Sadly, they are currently forced to devote far too much of their time to trying to influence policy and haggle over funding in London, which is a pointless waste of time and talent.
In the new model, the service chiefs will get clearer direction from the defence board, carry out the detailed military capability planning needed across equipment, manpower and training, and then propose how best to deliver that strategic direction. Once that is agreed, they will be given greater freedom to veer and haul between priorities within their own service to deliver what is needed in defence. They will enjoy long-denied freedoms, and they will be held robustly to account for doing so.
Allowing the chiefs to spend more time with their service reduces the requirement for commander-in-chief appointments, which will be phased out as part of a general reduction in senior posts. We will work closely with the Treasury on how to deliver that major change, but I am confident that when they are properly supported, trained and directed, our people at the point of delivery are best placed to run their business, not those at the centre. Micro-management must be consigned to the past.
Thirdly, the service chiefs have an established role as advocates for their service, but powerful single-service advocacy can sometimes be at the cost of joint or cross-cutting capability. The report has recommended that we create a new Joint Forces Command. It will manage and deliver specific joint enabling capabilities and set the framework for other joint enablers within the single services. It would include the permanent joint headquarters and be led by a new four-star commander. Joint Force Command will therefore be an important organisation in its own right but also have a symbolic purpose, reflecting our view of how conflict will develop, and providing a natural home for some of the capabilities of the future, such as cyber, as well as reinforcing joint thinking, joint behaviours, and the new generation of officers in defence. It offers a new opportunity for career progression right to the top and a challenging and intellectual career for those who otherwise may not have been attracted to defence. It is a fundamentally meritocratic reform. It may also be a path for service personnel who are injured on operations and unable to serve on the front line, but who are still determined to serve their country.
Fourthly, the report rightly challenges us to consider whether we maximise talent across defence. Be it in promotion, the development of key skills, or helping our people choose the right career path, more can and should be done. The report has concluded that we must pursue more vigorously the principle that posts be filled by the right person, with the right skills, for the right length of time. Buggins’s turn must not interfere with the promotion of the right person for the job. Nor can we have the sort of musical chairs that occurred in the past.
Lord Levene has therefore recommended that we move to a system whereby most senior civilian and military individuals stay in post for longer than at present, as a rule for up to five years. That will allow our people to establish themselves in their roles, and invest the time they need to make a real difference to defence and be held to account for their performance.
To ensure that we maximise delivery on the front line, Lord Levene has recommended that we review all non-front-line posts across defence, beginning at the senior and management levels, including an assessment of the most cost-effective balance of regular military, reservists, civil servants and contractors. We are top heavy and that must end.
Most significantly, Lord Levene recommends that we adopt a new, more “joint” model for the management of senior military personnel to make the promotion and appointment processes more transparent and standardised, and to encourage the development of officers with strong joint credentials.
Lord Levene’s report covers far more than I have been able to address here. It is a thorough and compelling analysis that deserves close attention. I am confident that when the people in defence review the recommendations, they will recognise this work not as a criticism, but as a constructive critique of a Department in need of reform, and that they will relish, as I do, the challenges that it represents.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and Lord Levene and his team for their work in recent months.
It is right to start by paying tribute again to our armed forces. They defend our values and secure our interests. Today, in Afghanistan, Libya and around the world brave men and women are doing just that: protecting our national security and that of others. With armed forces day still in mind, we must all reflect on and give thanks for their patriotism and sacrifice. We all have a responsibility to ensure that they have the support and equipment they need to do their job.
Reform of the Ministry of Defence is a vital element of that. Successful reform should strengthen the bottom line and bolster the front line, enhancing Britain’s ability to project force and tackle new threats, and to do so cost-effectively. It is important that efficiencies are sought for that purpose and not for reasons of strategic shrinkage by stealth.
Based on the limited details in the Secretary of State’s statement—we look forward to debating them at a later date—we welcome the focus on cyber, widening the pool of promotion, making chiefs more accountable for spending and, in principle, some of the changes in MOD structure.
On streamlining in the senior ranks, Labour Members agree with measures to balance the higher levels of the military. Of course, no two situations are the same, but as our force numbers continue to fall, it cannot be right that the US Marine corps, which is 15% larger than all our armed forces put together, has five times fewer senior officers. Efficiency must run from top to bottom. The difficulty will be in the implementation, but we support the introduction of a Joint Forces Command. A joint approach to structures is welcome as that reflects how operations are now routinely conducted.
Let me consider the changes to the defence board. Single service orientation must not be an impediment to decisions about equipment and acquisition programmes, which must be tied solely to defence policy objectives. However, does not the fact that the Secretary of State has chosen to act on inter-service rivalry after the strategic defence and security review demonstrate, at least in part, the problem of that inter-service rivalry?
Of course, there are strong arguments in favour of the reform of the defence board, but last week, unfortunately, the Prime Minister told service chiefs:
“I’ll do the talking…you do the fighting”.
Unfortunately, today’s announcement of the removal of the three service chiefs from the defence board will be seen by some as a structural confirmation of that strident sentiment. It is beyond doubt that there is now at least a partial fracture in the relationship between Ministers and service chiefs, and the Secretary of State must make the case more carefully in the next few months than his boss has done in the past few days. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that service chiefs were wrong when they said that services are running hot and will be unable to sustain the current tempo of operations in Libya beyond September? Will he tell us how he will better incorporate military advice into those new decision-making procedures?
On MOD finances, I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that successful MOD operations are dependent on the defence budget being on a stable footing. However, today in the media, for hours on end, the Secretary of State blamed the previous Administration for the cuts that he has chosen to make. Let me remind the House that he agreed with each of our spending decisions on defence, and called for even greater spending on a bigger Army, Navy and Air Force, and more equipment for all three services. Is not the truth that, owing to the rushed and arbitrary decisions taken in the defence review, the Government have created their own black hole? They saw efficiency savings where they could not find them, and are engaged in events that they did not foresee.
The Secretary of State has his own financial legacy to deal with. In opposition, he spent just as much time demanding more as he has spent in government providing less. Will he therefore answer the following questions? First, will he tell the House whether there is any truth to reports that the mismatch between the MOD’s assumptions and the spending settlement is up to £10 billion, which would be a greater overall cut than was made in the SDSR? Secondly, will he confirm that there are to be further cuts to the size of the Army in this Parliament? Thirdly, will he say what work will cease within the MOD in order to cut the number of civil servants by 25,000?
On procurement, the positions that the Government currently hold of using open competition on the open market, buying off the shelf and promoting exports, are inconsistent. Will the major projects board have as its remit the maintenance of a competitive, highly skilled UK defence industry? In that spirit, what sovereign capabilities does he believe the UK should maintain and promote over the longer term?
In conclusion, the Opposition welcome much of today’s statement, and we look forward to scrutinising it in detail and discussing it in the House. However, the Secretary of State must know that there is real disappointment not about what is in the statement, but about something that is not in it. On this, the 100th day of operations in Libya, in which forces are using equipment that the Government had previously planned to scrap, it is surely now time once and for all to have a new, post-Arab spring chapter of the defence review. Such an announcement would be welcomed on both sides of the House and throughout the country.
Dr Fox
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome of the report and its contents. It is an important report and it is very detailed, and there will be opportunities for the House to debate it more fully, not least because the Government will want to look at some of the report’s more detailed recommendations and tell the House how we intend to implement them.
I was particularly keen that the shadow Defence Secretary accept the proposal for the Joint Force Command, which he has done. The command is a good way forward for our armed forces, and represents a strong consensual basis for moving forward on defence policy in the UK. Of course, we are all aware of the contribution of our armed forces—today, many of us would like in particular to pay tribute to the RAF Regiment and its contribution.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, the defence board proposal is not a reaction to anything that has happened in the short term. This has been 10 months in gestation. Lord Levene and his team, including the vice-chief of the defence staff and the second permanent under-secretary, were very clear that we needed a simpler, more manageable defence board. It is of course fed by both the ministerial committee and the chief of staff committee, through the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Minister for the Armed Forces, into the committee representing other ministerial and the chiefs’ views.
When it comes to plans for the Army, we have no plans to reduce its size in this Parliament. On the 25,000 cut in the civil service, I regret that we are having to make reductions of that size, but we recognise that we have to do it to deal with the financial legacy that we inherited from the previous Government. However, we believe that we can make the cut while maintaining our full function. We believe that the best way to help the British defence industry is to support British defence exports.
Finally, on the question of Libya, when we make statements about Libya we must be careful about the messages. Colonel Gaddafi and his cronies will be listening to the messages we send, and the only message that we should send is that we have the military capability and the political and moral resolve to see through the task that the international community has begun. Anything else would risk civilian lives in Libya.
Mr Speaker
Order. Understandably, there is intense interest in this statement, but I have also to protect time for the heavily subscribed debate that is to follow. Therefore I must insist on brief questions and brief answers.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what is a truly radical shake-up of the Ministry of Defence, which it has needed for decades. I am delighted especially to hear that the chiefs of the armed forces will get more control over their budgets. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Treasury shares my delight and will honour this promise?
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and Lord Levene, and I welcome the broad thrust of what is proposed. The Green Paper that we produced in the winter of 2009-10 flagged up the need for a joint command of the type that will now be introduced, and it is the right thing to do. How real and how deep will that jointery be? It is no good if it is not real and people’s allegiances belong entirely and exclusively to the single services.
The other thing that is needed is transparency. How can we have the kind of reforms that will be necessary in order to put the Ministry of Defence where it needs to be if we do not have transparency? The Secretary of State effectively abolished 3 Commando Brigade without ever admitting having done so. How can we introduce real transparency?
Dr Fox
One of the reasons why I was keen that we should have the Joint Forces Command with its own four-star at the top was that I believe that people who are involved in defence at any level—in logistics, in ISTAR, in defence intelligence or in defence medical—should have a chance to rise to the top of the tree, if they have the talents to do so. I want to create a fourth pillar precisely to create a more meritocratic structure. That will be much more transparent than what we had before, because we will not be able to have the stovepiping that gives primary allegiance to single services rather than defence as a whole.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I sound a note of caution. I have lost track of the number of occasions on which I heard his predecessors stand at the Dispatch Box and promise us accountability, responsibility and efficiency. How can we be sure that these necessary qualities will arise as a consequence of the implementation of Levene?
To go from the abstract to the particular, when senior commanders, both in public and in private, express reservations about the sustainability of current operations, does the Secretary of State have not a scintilla of doubt about the match between commitments and resources?
Dr Fox
We have already put in place some of the recommendations, including the defence board, and we have begun implementing some of the other changes. We have put into place the major projects board, which will give greater accountability in terms of the running of the major projects. As for Libya, I repeat the point that I made earlier. While we will constantly look at the resources available, the public message must be simply that we understand the mission that we are undertaking, its legality and its moral force, and we have the political will and military wherewithal to see it through.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I welcome many of the proposals in the report, but should not the reorganisations announced today and the forthcoming review of reserve forces have been conducted in parallel with the SDSR? This combined with the Arab spring means that the case for a new chapter is overwhelming. Does the Secretary of State agree that the world has moved on and that defence policy and resources should move with it?
Dr Fox
The VCDS leads the reserves review and was a key member of the steering group, so there is no lack of continuity. The hon. Gentleman asked why these things were not done at the time. We had to complete the SDSR because the comprehensive spending review was running at the same time, and because we had to deal with the huge deficit left by the previous Government. I know that the Labour Benches remain populated by deficit-deniers, but that does not reduce the responsibility on the Government to deal with the problem.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As I understand it—perhaps I am wrong—service chiefs lost the right some time ago to go directly to the Prime Minister. What right does a service chief have when he or she feels strongly about something outside the normal chain of command?
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I appreciate the advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement, in which he said that the senior ranks are “top heavy”. That is not true in Scotland, however, where only 2.1% of the most senior ranks are stationed. Under this report and the plans that will follow it, will there be even fewer decision makers in Scotland, or will the number remain at the same derisory level?
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman always fails to point out that across the piece far more people in the defence industry are based in Scotland and a disproportionate amount of defence industry spending goes to Scotland. Scotland might have fewer positions in terms of military rank, but these are Crown forces and their footprint is spread evenly, one way or another, across the United Kingdom.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for getting down to the unglamorous business of how his Department works, and may I welcome the Levene report as the kind of corporate change programme that the Public Administration Committee is seeking to recommend for every Department? Will he bear it in mind, however, that such corporate change takes years and depends on united, consistent and sustained leadership from the top and throughout the Department in order to bring about the necessary cultural change that I am sure his people want to see?
Dr Fox
I fully accept that this is the unglamorous but no less necessary part of the business. It might mean that I have to bore the House witless—but some would say that is no break with precedent. On the corporate change programme to which my hon. Friend referred, may I specifically thank him for the encouragement he has given me through his focus on corporate change programmes? That has been instrumental in giving us the will to drive through the reforms to this point.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us more about how these reforms will deter future cyber-attacks?
Dr Fox
I was keen to discuss at length with Lord Levene how to create a structure within defence that could offer careers to those who might be attracted to the intellectual, if you like, side of defence—electronic warfare and so on—but who might not want to become commandos. We need to create a pillar inside defence that can grow as the nature of conflict changes. We want to create that expertise and attract those young minds who have a different view of what the electronic and cyberspaces look like and who are interested in a defence career. It is essential that we change how defence does business in order to reflect the genuine threats out there. As we develop that expertise, so we will have a greater ability to deter the sorts of attacks to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
One of the issues that needs clarification is the practice of individuals being appointed to sensitive roles in large procurement processes for just two years. Will that be reviewed, so that the period of the role suits the project, rather than an arbitrary career path?
Dr Fox
The specific work on that is currently being done by Bernard Gray but, as I said in the statement, it is now important that we increase the length of tenure of many such posts, otherwise we are wasting talent. If the MOD were a private company, it would be number three in the FTSE. The idea of having the most senior people in the private sector stay for 18 months or two years, and then rotating them round because it is “good for their career experience” would not hold water in the private sector, and it no longer holds water in the MOD.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State started his statement by referring to our being in the premier league of military powers. In the view of the three chiefs of the services, we are currently not a full spectrum power. If these reforms are implemented, will we again be a full spectrum power, and if so, when?
Dr Fox
I refute the idea that the United Kingdom is not among the leading defence powers in the world. We have the fourth biggest defence budget, and we have extraordinarily capable armed forces, which are among the most professional and best trained. If that does not put us in the premier league, I do not know what does.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I endorse the statement in the strongest possible way. In particular, I would like to pick out my right hon. Friend’s comments about the length of tenure in important jobs. It really is astonishing that we change people over every two years. If we are to make the progress that he wants to make, this will involve not just the most senior jobs, but other sensitive key positions in the organisation.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The statement is welcome because it recognises the waste and inefficiencies arising from rivalries between the three services, but should the Secretary of State not take the next logical step that the realities of modern warfare demand, which is to aim to create a single, unified service?
Dr Fox
No one can deny the intellectual logic behind the hon. Gentleman’s point, but anyone who has spoken to a Canadian Defence Minister in recent years will have got a strong message: “Whatever you try, don’t try that.” There are differences in the approach of the single services, sometimes differences in the ethos of the single services and, clearly, differences in their history too. As we are asking our servicemen and women to do so much for us, the last thing that we want to do is to destroy that important emotional attachment to their heritage.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome that response from my right hon. Friend. He knows that he is assured of my personal support for the work that he is doing, but I remain convinced that there is a difference between the management of defence procurement and the formulation of military strategy at the highest level. What bothers me is that the single service chiefs are increasingly separated from the Chief of the Defence Staff, and that is no way to end inter-service rivalry. We ran the second world war with a committee of three, and we ought to be running these wars with a committee of four, not with a CDS on his own on a defence board, even if supplemented by the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Dr Fox
But of course this is not a process that is run by the CDS. As part of the defence board, we have purposely set up the chiefs of staff committee so that the views of the chiefs of staff can be discussed collectively before the defence board and reflected to it by the CDS, not formulated unilaterally by the CDS.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Secretary of State referred to a “radical new approach to the management of defence” and a “new, leaner defence board”. In that spirit, how many ministerial posts are going to be axed?
Dr Fox
As my hon. Friend knows, it is not for me to determine the number of Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government. What we have said, however, is that when we have had time to address the Levene report in greater detail, we may well look at the designation of Ministers— their titles and specific roles—to see whether we can bring the organisation of the ministerial team better into line with the organisation of the Department.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I welcome the good report by Lord Levene. It is long overdue and prompts the question of what the Labour party was doing over the past 13 years. As a result of the report, a number of key figures in the Ministry of Defence are worried about the future, and there will be some uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State please let us know what time scale he envisages to put these reforms in place?
Dr Fox
Some reforms have already been put in place; some are being put in place; and others will be put in place as quickly as possible. I hope that by the time the Department has made a full review of the report and given its full response, we will not be much past September.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend help me to understand how this can improve our relationships and our discussions with our NATO allies?
Dr Fox
Our discussions at both ministerial and official level are already full and fruitful. This will allow us to translate anything decided collectively into action in a much more disciplined and cost-controlled way. It is about the effective and efficient running of defence in the United Kingdom rather than any change in doctrine for dealing with our international partners.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
How will these structural changes affect the role of the reserves, who are equally as professional and as committed as anyone else in the armed services?
Dr Fox
The reserves review, which is headed by the vice-chief of the defence staff and which will report to the Prime Minister in the near future, will set out a number of options on the balance between regular forces, reserve forces, civil servants and contractors. I hope to report on that to the House at the soonest possible date.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Is the Secretary of State confident that the Puma helicopter upgrade being carried out overseas is on target and on budget? Is he confident that, when upgraded, those helicopters will carry out their intended role? Does he agree that it might be a better option to scrap the upgrade and use the money to buy new state-of-the-art helicopters from AgustaWestland, which will carry out their intended role and have a service life of 40 years?
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome this businesslike statement, particularly the setting up of the joint force command, but will my right hon. Friend go a little further in explaining what other capabilities, apart from cyber, might be included? For example, what is going to happen with complex weapons, which can come from different platforms but share quite a lot of capability and infrastructure?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend raises a good point. I have already mentioned defence intelligence as a key element within that pillar and that defence medical is being brought together for the first time. We will want to see what other elements we can introduce that fall within the broad joint arena, not least because we owe it to the younger generation of officers, who have a much more joint approach, to ensure that they have a genuine career structure and that those involved in areas such as logistics, who are invaluable to the delivery of our service, are not regarded as ineligible for some of the top posts in defence.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I share the Secretary of State’s unequivocal support for this report. Given the streamlining to which he has referred, will he take this opportunity to guarantee that defence procurement will be both more efficient and more cost-effective in the future than it has been in the past?
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Inter-service rivalry and single service lobbying is a key tradition of the British armed forces. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the single service chiefs will have confidence in the CDS to represent their branches fairly, and how will he prevent noises off?
Dr Fox
The single service chiefs will, through the chiefs of staff committee, always be able to have a robust debate among themselves and with the CDS ahead of the CDS reporting their views to the defence board. They also have access to me, as Secretary of State, if they have a particular grievance that they feel has not been listened to. My door is open to them at any time.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
During the year for which I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have often been shocked by the poor management of the budget in the Ministry of Defence, so I warmly welcome the report. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new joint command will be held to account, and will he reassure me that the establishment of a new command will not reduce accountability?
Dr Fox
All parts of the armed forces will be subject to regular and rigorous review. Although, as I have said, we are devolving power to the single service chiefs in terms of their budgets—which will allow them sometimes to exchange manpower for equipment, for example—they will be subject to quarterly review by the CDS and the PUS, who will consider both the military impact and the financial implications of any decisions that are made.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he, not the PUS, will be in charge of the defence board?
Dr Fox
Oh, yes. I fully intend to chair both the defence board and the major projects board. I have done so once already, and on that occasion was both elated and depressed: I was depressed, because so many of my fears about poor project management were shown to be correct; and I was elated by the fact that we seemed to have identified the problem and put the appropriate solution in place.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
In Macclesfield, we are fortunate enough to have many skilled engineers in the military aviation sector, which is so important in the north-west. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his plans will focus more on allowing them to apply their skills, and less on unnecessary layers of bureaucracy?
Dr Fox
I want to end the presumption that those at the centre know better how to micro-manage the services than those who are trained and have spent a lifetime in those services. We need to accept that, while politicians have a particular role in policy, the application of that policy should fall to those with the real expertise, namely the armed forces chiefs themselves.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Like all Conservative Members, I welcome the statement, not least because it deals with so many of the inadequacies with which my right hon. Friend was left by the previous Administration. Does he believe that his statement, and the publication of the report in full, tell us all that we need to know about behaviour of the present Government as opposed to that of the previous Government, who tried to bury bad news in the form of the Gray report?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now proceed to the debate on House of Lords reform. Before I call the Deputy Prime Minister, let me inform the House that, because the debate is not only well subscribed but over-subscribed, we have introduced a seven-minute limit, which is likely to be reduced later. I ask Front Benchers to take that on board when considering the length of their speeches, and I ask for restraint in interventions, which will clearly lengthen the Front-Bench contributions. I also request that no Members approach the Chair to find out when they will be called in this over-subscribed debate.
House of Lords Reform
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of House of Lords reform.
On 17 May, the Government published a draft Bill and White Paper proposing a reformed House of Lords. Since then, there has been considerable debate on the content of the proposals—I, of course, welcome that debate. These are significant constitutional changes and so demand proper and full scrutiny. As the debate unfolds, however, it important for us to step back for a moment and remind ourselves why we are doing this. First, very few people seriously believe that the status quo—an unelected second Chamber—makes sense in a modern democracy. [Interruption.] Most people agree with that, anyway.
During last week’s debate in the other place, someone said that elections are not
“the only form of democracy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1165.]
The suggestion that democracy can somehow exist without elections reminded me that there is a fundamental principle at stake here—a basic choice. Do we believe that people should choose their representatives in Parliament, or do we not? Should citizens choose the people who make the laws of the land, or should they not? Every hon. Member must now decide which side of the argument they support.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I apologise for intervening so early in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, but it is important to pick up his statement that everyone presumes that the status quo is not an option. What evidence does he have? The status quo is precisely the option for which I will vote.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend voted for 100% election to the House of Lords when this subject was last up for discussion, which suggests that he might be more willing to entertain change than his question implies. Even the advocates of minimal change—even those in the other place, as was witnessed in last week’s debate—accept that some change is now unavoidable.
We have all promised change—every major party committed to Lords reform in their manifestos last year—so there is a legitimate expectation that we will now deliver it. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have long pursued Lords reform as part of a wider renewal of our political arrangements; the Labour party has advocated it as a blow to patronage and privilege; and the Conservative party has, especially in recent years, pushed for putting more direct power in the hands of voters.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In that regard, was my right hon. Friend struck by the contributions in the other place of Lord Whitty and Baroness Quin, which made clear both the need for reform and how it should be taken through, and which represented fine examples of what their party so often stood for in the past? Will my right hon. Friend encourage Labour Members to return to their roots by taking that as their example now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The contributions of Lord Whitty and Baroness Quin were, indeed, excellent, and I look forward to hearing support for the ideas that they set out last week from Labour Front Benchers today.
Turning to the second key reason for change, if we do not modernise the other place, a question mark will continue to hang over our second Chamber. We have passed the point of no reform, and to come this far and give up is to condemn our upper House to enduring doubt about its legitimacy. Yes, Lords reform has been debated for a century and, yes, our second Chamber has evolved over that time, but the other place cannot afford another 100 years in limbo. Reform is overdue, and it is time to bring this chapter to an end.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I must confess that I think the House of Lords has done a pretty good job over the past 100 years, and I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledges that it does, indeed, do a good job. I invite him to consider that House of Commons Library figures show that the average Member of Parliament costs the British taxpayer about £257,000 a year, whereas the average unelected appointed peer costs well under £100,000. Is now the right time to start demanding that we spend more money on more politicians, more expenses, more secretaries and more office space, when the House of Lords is doing a perfectly good job as it is?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the other place is oversized—it is far too large. That is why one of the centrepieces of the proposals worked up by the cross-party Committee, which I chaired, was that we radically cut the number of politicians in the other place right down to 300, so it would be less than half the size of this Chamber.
Mr Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you look into the House’s sound system? I distinctly heard the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister refer to the size of the House of Lords, when my intervention made no mention of that whatever, so he must have misheard me.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will respond to that point of order, however. The issue of cost is, of course, directly related to the number of Members serving in the House of Lords; the larger it is, the more expensive it will be. Under our reform proposals, the size of the House of Lords will be cut to 300, less than half the size of this Chamber.
The Prime Minister and I are committed to reform, but the reform will go with the grain of the evolution that we have already witnessed in the Lords; it will be steady, ordered and careful; and it will be built on the widest possible consensus. That is why our proposals build on the work of countless others from both sides of this House as well as the other place over recent decades. The Wakeham commission, the Straw committee and the Cunningham report have all made hugely important contributions, and I pay tribute to the work of reformers on all sides of the argument. Without them, the case for change would already have been lost.
I also thank the cross-party Committee established to consider this matter last year. We reached agreement on most elements of the proposed package and in the end there were only two issues relating to the content of the reforms on which we did not reach final agreement. On both, we have left our options open in the White Paper.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Let me return my right hon. Friend to the cost of these reforms. He will be aware, no doubt, of Lord Lipsey’s estimate that 300 or so new Members of the upper House would cost about £430 million in the 2015 to 2020 Parliament, which is enough to employ some 21,000 nurses. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the British people would rather have 21,000 additional nurses or some 300 fully expensed and fully paid identikit politicians?
The Deputy Prime Minister
With the greatest of respect to Lord Lipsey, I think that his figure was a guesstimate rather than an analysis. There are all sorts of unknown quantities involved, such as what the final size of the House of Lords will be, how many Members will be elected, the time scale and the transitional arrangements for those elected and for those who depart. Until those things have been decided, which I hope will happen in the coming months, it is impossible to come up with an accurate figure.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Let me make a little progress, if I may.
If we are to continue in the spirit of co-operation, it is essential that we are pragmatic. House of Lords reform has constantly been blighted by an inability to compromise, because of either pessimism on the one hand or purism on the other. Both must now give way. When we differ on the detail, we must not lose sight of our overarching aim, which is a more democratic and legitimate upper Chamber.
Members know my preferences for reform: I support a fully, rather than mostly, elected House and believe that Members should be elected by the single transferable vote to give the other place greater independence from party control. I shall continue to argue strongly for both, but I will not make the best the enemy of the good. I shall remain open-minded and realistic, and I hope that Members on all sides of the debate will do the same. On that note, I give way to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister is being very courteous in giving way. Does he accept that to elect two Houses by different electoral systems will lead to arguments over relative legitimacy? Will he put this particular voting system to a referendum? Why should we have a referendum on the voting system for this House and not one on the voting system for the other House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
On the first point, we have an array of different electoral systems already in this country, from that used for the European Parliament to that used here in London and those used in the devolved Assemblies. Those systems all co-exist. I do not think that we need perfect consistency of electoral systems, as we do not have it anyway. On the second point, when all three parties have committed to something in their manifestos, such as House of Lords reform, the situation is unlike that with electoral reform to this place, so there is not a similar case for a referendum.
A range of issues will no doubt come up today, and many of them have been brought up already. There are two particular areas of concern, however, that have frequently come up in debates so far, and I want to address them in turn. The first is that the Government’s proposals risk creating a second Chamber that is too powerful and the second is that Members will be elected but not properly accountable.
On the question of the balance of power between the two Chambers, it is simply not the case that the other place will rival the Commons—with 300 Members, it will be half the size. That is the number that we judge to be right, although we are listening to views on that question. Whatever number we settle on, however, the Commons will remain significantly larger, as is the case in the vast majority of bicameral systems around the world. Members of the other place will serve long single terms of 15 years with no prospect of re-election, keeping them a step removed from the electoral cycle of this House. They will be elected according to a different voting system, which will be proportional and will have, we propose, larger multi-Member constituencies, giving them an entirely different mandate from MPs. Their elections will be staggered, so that they will be either elected or elected and appointed in combination in thirds. That will mean that they will never have a more recent mandate than the Commons.
The two Chambers will remain entirely distinct. The Commons will continue to assert its authority through the Parliament Acts, through MPs’ decisive right over the vote of supply and through the Government’s need to retain the confidence of MPs in order to remain in office.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman knows my interest in this matter, which is to protect the power and functioning of this House. I do not know of any bicameral system that works as efficiently as the arrangements that we have at the moment. Every other bicameral system that I know ends up being deeply conservative and with the elected, mandated Government in the lower House being frustrated in implementing their manifesto by a second Chamber that becomes increasingly powerful over the years.
The Deputy Prime Minister
No doubt, those are the reasons why the hon. Gentleman voted for 100% election last time this matter came up for vote.
Mr Sheerman
I have several times voted for the abolition of the House of Lords, and I want that to be on the record.
The Deputy Prime Minister
And for direct, full election, which is obviously something that I welcome—we are at one on that. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point, anyone in doubt should remember that there are 61 elected second Chambers in the world, and the overwhelming lesson is not the one that he has underlined but that they do not threaten the primacy of the first Chamber. As Baroness Quin, who was rightly cited earlier as having delivered an excellent speech last week, eloquently put it:
“Experience from abroad shows that second Chambers generally live within their powers. They cannot increase them unilaterally and they do not cause gridlock on the whole…Surely our Parliament, with its long and proud democratic tradition, is capable of creating a democratic, competent and respected second Chamber for the future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1233.]
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On the 61 countries in which the second Chamber is elected, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in those countries there is a written constitution that clearly enshrines the relative powers between the first and second Chambers? I welcome many of these reforms, but I have many misgivings about that particular aspect.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is the view of the Government that this reform, which is long-overdue and long-debated, can take place without the embellishment and framework of a written constitution.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Parliament Acts are the reason why this House will retain primacy, but they apply only to legislation that starts in this House, not to that which starts in the House of Lords or to secondary legislation. When the House of Lords overturned a piece of secondary legislation concerning large casinos that this House had supported, the right hon. Gentleman supported the House of Lords and not the House of Commons. That was the first time that that had happened since the Southern Rhodesia issue.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Perhaps I have not followed the hon. Gentleman’s point carefully enough, but that arrangement will not change. The asymmetry between the two Chambers rests not only on the Parliament Acts but on the different mandates, different terms and different electoral cycles of the two Houses, as occurs in the vast majority of the 61 bicameral, elected systems around the world, which seem to rub along perfectly well.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has said that this House has the capacity to overrule the other place only in respect of legislation that starts here, but it would be a very simple matter to change the law so that this House had the power to overcome the House of Lords whether a Bill started here or in the other place.
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is one of the many options available to both Houses to ensure that the deliberate imbalance between the two Chambers persists. As I have said, all the evidence from bicameral systems around the world indicates that that imbalance is perfectly well understood, whether the Chambers are elected or not.
On accountability, given that we are proposing single, fixed, 15-year terms, some Members have asked, “If someone cannot stand for re-election, how can they be held to account?” That is a reasonable point to make and a concern that I understand. It is important to strike the right balance between increasing the democratic legitimacy of the reformed Chamber and preserving its independence from the Commons, and these arrangements are essential for that.
The longer non-renewable terms ensure that serving in the other place is entirely different from holding office here, separate from the twists and turns of our electoral cycle and more attractive to the kinds of people whom we wish to see in the other place—people who are drawn more to public service than party politics and who are not slavishly focused on their eventual re-election. That system guards against—dare I say it?—an element of political selfishness, ensuring that Members of the other place are there to do a job, not simply to pursue their own electoral ambitions.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has explained the accountability issue very well, but if somebody in the other place has no accountability, no electorate to whom to be answerable and no prospect of overturning anything that is done by this House, which is what the right hon. Gentleman has just promised, why on earth would anyone of any standing wish to become part of such a House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I know as a leader of a party, people are queuing up to get in there right now without elections, and I suspect that that will continue, because the House of Lords does an excellent job as a revising and scrutinising Chamber. There is a place in politics for people who do not want to become Members of this Chamber, but who want to play a role as serious scrutineers of legislation and holding the Government of the day to account.
Mr Sheerman
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I represent Huddersfield, and presumably one of these 15-year senators, or whatever they will be called, would, theoretically, float above the two constituencies of Huddersfield and Colne Valley. They would be elected only every 15 years. My successor or I would be fighting an election every four or five years, whereas this person, who presumably might be from another party, would not get involved in my election, campaign in general elections, have any political will or conduct any activity at all. Is that what he is saying? A kind of neutered politician would float—
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has, say, six Members of the European Parliament floating around, as he puts it, in his area already, and I assume that relations are perfectly cordial. I do not want to cast aspersions on the future reformed House of Lords by comparing it too directly to the European Parliament, but the idea that politicians with different mandates, elected on different cycles and different systems, cannot co-exist, is patently not the case. It happens now, and I think it will happen in the future.
By reforming the upper House so that it is more legitimate but still independent, we can ensure that it continues to function as an effective revising Chamber, able to hold Government to account, but with a new democratic mandate. We can preserve everything that is good about the other Chamber—expertise, independence and wisdom—but at the same time we can inject democracy into the mix and reform the Lords so that it is fit for modern times.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am probably in a minority on the Government Benches, but I support a democratic House of Lords. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, however, that the complications that he has already put in place in the 20 minutes that he has spoken so far will help opponents of reform to frustrate what he is trying to achieve, whether it be 15-year terms, a partly elected or fully elected Chamber, or a proportional representation system? It is literally seven and a half weeks since the people of this country, in a plebiscite, had a chance to say, overwhelmingly, that they did not want a PR system in our Parliament. How can he possibly consider that this is the right way forward for democratising the House of Lords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The two issues are wholly separate. More than that, if my hon. Friend has other ideas about how we can arrive at our shared objective of a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords, that is precisely why we are now creating a Joint Committee. That is precisely why we have published not a final Bill but a draft Bill with a White Paper and why that followed a process of cross-party discussion in a Committee that I chaired, and which in turn built on many recommendations of a cross-party nature over the years and the decades. It was not just an invention of this Government. The Wakeham commission, the Straw committee and others came up with many of the recommendations that we are now suggesting. If he thinks they are too complicated, I look forward to his suggestions about how they can be made simpler.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I may make a little progress, because I know many others wish to speak.
Our proposals are a comprehensive blueprint for change—there are 68 clauses and nine schedules. There is a lot to discuss. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will respond to points raised in the debate in his closing speech.
The next stage, as I have just mentioned, is pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and White Paper on a cross-party basis by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that the Committee will take note of today’s debate in its deliberations, and we look forward to hearing its conclusions in due course. The Government’s plan is then to introduce a Bill next year in order to hold the first elections to the reformed House in 2015. There is clearly a lot of detail to be hammered out between now and then, and I hope that both sides of this House and of the other place will work together constructively as we move forward.
The truth is that no one seriously supports the status quo. [Interruption.] The vast majority of people do not support the status quo. I am delighted, by the way, by the enthusiasm for change from Opposition Members, which is excellent progress compared with the previous debate. Everyone has committed to change and we must now be pragmatic on the detail, never losing sight of the basic principle at stake: in a modern democracy, people must choose their representatives. Let us complete the long journey of Lords reform once and for all.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I believe in a fully elected House of Lords. It is right and proper in this day and age that both Houses of Parliament are directly accountable to the electorate. I would like to remind the House where Labour stood on Lords reform at the general election. Labour’s manifesto stated:
“We will ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords. Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages.”
The Deputy Prime Minister has often suggested that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good—he used the phrase today—as justification for the proposals contained in the draft Bill presented to Parliament, which falls short of his own party’s manifesto commitment, but I feel very passionately that there is a principle at stake, the fundamental principle of having a 100% elected upper House. That is the right and proper outcome, and one which will deliver the democratic system that the people of this country deserve.
Dr Julian Lewis
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the single most important function of our second Chamber is the revision and improvement of legislation? If we remove hundreds of people who are experts in their field and substitute them with hundreds of professional party politicians, what will make the latter better qualified to revise legislation in that Chamber than we amateurs are in this Chamber?
Sadiq Khan
I do not think that the second point necessarily makes the first point impossible; it is possible to have a second Chamber that is a revising Chamber and for all its Members to be elected. Of the 61 other bicameral Parliaments, none has an appointed upper Chamber. All of them are elected and seem to be doing a pretty decent job.
I am concerned that in other areas of constitutional change the Government have shown themselves willing to be less principled and more partisan. For example, we will see the number of MPs reduced from 650 to 600 at the next election, with no evidence for why we should lose 50 Members, which will simultaneously increase the power of the Executive. We have had 117 new unelected peers appointed to the House of Lords since last May, with more promised. Each peer costs £108,000 a year—we can all do the maths. There are now almost 830 unelected peers in our Parliament. We have seen boundaries re-fixed according to out-of-date electoral data that exclude 5 million eligible voters. We have seen Parliaments fixed at five-year terms, which was mentioned by neither coalition partner before the election, but is now mysteriously favoured by both. We have seen the political fudge of establishing a commission on a Bill of Rights, papering over the cracks between the coalition partners on human rights, and we have seen a failed referendum on the alternative vote. Those are some of the reasons why those of us who should be the natural allies of the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to reform the House of Lords are suspicious of his plans and of him.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would like to see a 100% elected House of Lords, but if the choice were between 0% elected and 80% elected, given that so far we have waited 100 years, I would like us to make some progress and to get to 80% elected at least. In that situation, what would he choose?
Sadiq Khan
I would make sure that my leader, if he were the Deputy Prime Minister, negotiated properly for a fully elected second Chamber so that the problems that have been highlighted did not occur. What has happened—[Interruption.] I hear the chuntering both from Government Front Benchers and from Liberal Democrat Members, whose concerns and aspirations I will come to in a moment. We remember the sanctimony of Liberal Democrat Members when we were in government. I will talk about the progress that has been made over the past 13 years, but I accept that there was not enough.
We have also heard that 100 years is too long to wait for those who sit in the Lords to be elected, and those of us who want a fully elected second Chamber understand the wish to proceed sooner rather than later, but there are many issues that the Deputy Prime Minister has not addressed in the draft Bill or in the White Paper, and with the best will in the world it is simply unrealistic to expect the Joint Committee to have resolved them by February, as he wants it to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour only of 100% election as a matter of great principle, why when the House last determined the matter in 2007 did he vote for all the elected options that were on offer?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman might not recall, but in 2003 this Chamber rejected all seven options, so it was important to ensure that some proposals went through. They went through, and both the party that he is now in coalition with and our party had in their manifestos a promise of a 100% elected second Chamber. We are not in government; the Liberal Democrats are.
The genuine obstacles and difficulties that remain require solutions, but they are not limited to the two areas to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred. First, we must identify exactly what we want a reformed House of Lords to do. My view, and I agree with some of the interventions from Government Members, is that it should continue as a revising Chamber that seeks to finesse legislation and, yes, on occasions, to act as a check on this House. We might not like it, and when in government we might all prefer to push our legislation through without any opposition from the second Chamber, but its role is an important check on this House and on the Executive, and that is right and proper and part of a healthy democracy. Too few checks are bad for all of us, and it is important that we preserve the balance.
Sir Menzies Campbell
I am having some difficulty following the right hon. Gentleman’s logic, but perhaps he will help me in this respect. Is he saying that he is so committed to a 100% elected House of Lords that he would vote against an 80% elected House of Lords?
Sadiq Khan
What we have before us is a draft Bill, but we have also a very good Joint Committee, and I look forward to it doing the work that is required, within a sensible time scale, to come back with a Bill that we can all accept with cross-party consensus.
Mr Gray
May I invite the shadow Minister to rise from the short grass and the detail of exactly what is going to happen and, for a second, before he moves on to the detail of his speech, to address a fundamental question? Which aspect of the work of the House of Lords, as currently constituted, does he dislike or think unsatisfactory? If he can point to some part of the work of the House of Lords that is wrong, will he explain how it would be improved by electing 100% of its Members?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman heard the speech from the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave a number of examples whereby the other Chamber—[Interruption.] I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. Is it right that we have 828 Members in the other place, all of whom, except for the 92 who by good fortune of their DNA have to go through elections, are not elected? That is not acceptable in a modern democracy.
There are those who have, I accept, legitimate concerns that a directly elected upper Chamber might seek to assert its newly found democratic mandate by facing down the Commons, and it is critical that the Joint Committee addresses that issue. After all, the primacy of this House must remain. It currently rests on two principles, the first of which is legislative. The Parliament Acts removed the powers of the Lords over money Bills and empowered the Commons to override the Lords on non-money Bills. The second principle underpinning the primacy of the Commons is drawn from the elected nature of its Members, so if we move to a directly elected upper Chamber it is not unreasonable for some to ask whether this House faces a threat to its primacy.
Graham Stringer
I will try to have another go at the point I made to the Deputy Prime Minister. In today’s edition of The Times, the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, says that the newly reformed House of Lords—the Senate—would be able to stop this House doing what it wanted on a manifesto commitment. I was completely against the poll tax, but it was in the Conservatives’ 1987 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats want more power to go to the other place. How would my right hon. Friend guarantee the primacy of this House on non-legislative matters?
Sadiq Khan
There are big questions about the powers and functions of the second Chamber, and my hon. Friend has given one example of the anomalies that arise. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) gave another example of the issues that those of us who are in favour of a 100% elected second Chamber need to address if we are going to win the argument not only in this House but in the other Chamber. That is why a simultaneous debate on powers, conventions and the relationships between the two Houses is absolutely fundamental if we are to get the reform right so that it delivers the bicameral system that serves our democratic needs effectively. Form and function go together, and I am afraid that there is scant evidence that that is recognised in the draft Bill and in the White Paper.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is a reformer within his party and has a good political tradition, and the newly elected Labour leader has a similar view on this issue. Will he therefore be very clear to the House that he supports, and the Labour party supports, a bicameral Parliament with primacy in this Chamber and an elected second House, and that during this Parliament Labour will work with the Government to achieve that so that we can have elections in 2015?
Sadiq Khan
The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard everything I have said—it has not been that great so far—but I think I highlighted in the first 30 seconds the Labour party’s policy, and my views, on this issue. He can take it from us that we will do business with those who keep promises and whom we can be sure have a real commitment to a properly elected second Chamber.
It is obvious that many of the conventions that have stood us in good stead over decades are becoming increasingly defunct and will not serve us at all should reform proceed as planned. For example, the convention whereby the Lords will not continue to oppose legislation based on manifesto commitments for which there is a mandate faces a new test under the coalition given that it is not clear what can be considered its manifesto. Is it each party’s manifesto or the coalition agreement, which the electorate did not vote on? We will need to ensure that the rules and regulations that allow a reformed upper Chamber to continue to revise and scrutinise are in place, while continuing to recognise the role of the Commons. The second Chamber must continue as a revising Chamber, not a rival Chamber.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s strong commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, will his party honour its own manifesto commitment to insist on a referendum on any Bill on an elected House of Lords?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention. It is important that the Joint Committee respects party policy and manifestos, and I hope that it will do so in its recommendations.
The draft Bill does not adequately address these issues. Clause 2 simply states that nothing in the Bill
“affects the primacy of the House of Commons”.
That is inadequate and ignores work done on rules and conventions by previous Committees, including the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by Lord Cunningham of Felling. The new Joint Committee will need to recognise this fact and seek to open up the issue of powers and conventions; otherwise, the reform process runs the risk of being fatally flawed.
Another area of concern is the length of term of those elected to a newly reformed upper Chamber. Increasing the democratic accountability of the Lords has to be one of our key objectives, but I am unclear how this will be best served through single 15-year terms for those elected. What do we do in a situation where some less diligent individuals are elected and recognise, almost straight away, first, that the next 15 years are now sorted and, secondly, that they do not need to worry about what the electorate believe or want because they will never need to face them again at the ballot box? Is this what we want in our second Chamber?
We also face the tricky constitutional issue of the future of the bishops. I recognise that we have an established Church and that a move to a fully elected upper Chamber would not accommodate our current system. Some have argued that if we allow the bishops to stay in the reformed second Chamber, we should allow representatives of other major religions to have seats. However, there are major practical difficulties, not least the fact that some religions do not have such obvious hierarchical structures as others, so it is unclear who would be their representatives—let alone whether it is right for organised religion to play such a central part in our political system. It is right and proper that this House and the Joint Committee debate such issues if we are to get reform of the second Chamber right.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. At the beginning, I was a little concerned that those of us who have consistently, even when we have voted tactically to frustrate some of the motions—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, Members on both sides of the House have done that. Some of us resent the suggestion that we are anti-democratic. Those of us who believe in the primacy of this House want either the abolition of that place or a very weak upper House. That is the democratic position and it is due some respect from both Front Benches.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
Another area that the Joint Committee will have to examine is the transition. What will happen to the existing Members of the House of Lords? One option is to allow them to continue until they choose to leave by their own volition or die. Even the option of a phased move over time leaves the question of which Members to keep and which to ask to leave. That would not be easy to manage and would not be cheap.
Mr Field
Is there not a precedent from what happened in 1999, when the hereditary peers whittled down their own number from 650 to 92? Will the shadow Secretary of State and his party support a similar situation if there is any sense of frustration from this Bill in the years to come, whereby the massively over-bloated House of Lords is reduced from 800 or so Members to 300, allowing each group, including the political parties and the Cross Benchers, to choose their Members on a pro rata basis? Might that not be an important poisoned pill to ensure that we get reform with some speed and alacrity?
Sadiq Khan
It is very unusual for me to be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, but he did include that very option in the White Paper. The Joint Committee will have to look into that before a Bill is finally published in February, as the Government hope.
We are also faced with the cost. Each peer, as I have said, costs £108,000 a year. The 117 new peers who have already been announced will cost £63 million over this Parliament. A transition that involves a 15-year phasing out of existing peers would therefore result in a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Other areas that need resolution are the size of the second Chamber, the impact of early elections, the electoral system to be used, and the need for a referendum for such a big constitutional change.
Between 1997 and 2010 a number of parliamentarians, including some very good ones, stood where the Deputy Prime Minister just made his speech from and argued for reform of the House of Lords. During that time, we made some progress in reforming the House of Lords. We removed 90% of the hereditary peers, created the post of elected Lord Speaker, separated our judiciary from the Lords by creating our first ever Supreme Court, and created people’s peers. We clearly did not go as far as we would have liked. However, as I am sure has happened and will happen to the Deputy Prime Minister, we encountered opposition to our proposals at every turn, most tellingly from his new political bedfellows. The Conservatives opposed our attempts to remove the hereditary peers from the Lords, most recently in the passage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They undermined our attempts to reach a cross-party consensus on Lords reform throughout our 13 years in government. The irony is that this Government are embarking on Lords reform at a time when citizens up and down the country are more preoccupied with fears about job losses, their pensions and cuts to public services. They expect us to prioritise those bread and butter issues as well.
One great parliamentarian who stood where the Deputy Prime Minister just stood and argued for major change to the House of Lords was Robin Cook. When I look at the draft Bill and the White Paper presented by the Deputy Prime Minister, and when I think of the task facing the Joint Committee, I think of the words of Robin Cook on the evening in 2003 when the House of Commons rejected all seven options for reform that had been presented by another Joint Committee:
“We should go home and sleep on this interesting position. That is the most sensible thing that anyone can say in the circumstances.”
He went on to say that
“the next stage in the process is for the Joint Committee to consider the votes in both Houses. Heaven help the members of the Committee, because they will need it.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 243.]
Reflecting on those comments, I sincerely wish the members of the Joint Committee and the Deputy Prime Minister the best of luck in the challenge ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I thank both Front Benchers for making short contributions so that more Back Benchers are able to get in. There is a seven-minute limit with two minutes of injury time, but Members do not need to take interventions or take their seven minutes.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
An Opposition Member referred in an intervention a few moments ago to something called the poll tax. Known, as I am, as a doughty defender of Baroness Thatcher, may I point out that she is recorded as saying that she was a great fan of the Polish people and would never have tried to tax them?
May I begin by saying to the Deputy Prime Minister, who concluded his remarks by saying that no one is in favour of the status quo, that I am in favour of the status quo, as I know many Conservative Members are? In that context, it is vital that as we have this debate we remember the words of Lord Denning, who said that two reasonable men may hold opposing views without surrendering their right to be considered reasonable. The tone in which the debate is conducted is incredibly important, and having known the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for more than 20 years, I know that he will handle it with great tact and dignity.
I welcome the establishment of a Joint Committee. Many of us on the Conservative Benches, and on the Opposition Benches, are open to reform of the other place but opposed to its abolition. To say that it has become too big, or that it is becoming increasingly political, is true, but that has happened not because of the other place but because of people down here sending too many people there. It is wrong to look to total abolition because of failures at this end of the building.
I am totally in favour of examining ways to improve the effectiveness of the other place. I hope to develop that argument over the coming months and feed it into the Joint Committee. We should consider retirement mechanisms, a cap on numbers and enshrinement of the proportion of Cross Benchers. We should also consider attendance criteria, because far too many Members do not come into the other place.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that his noble Friend Lord Heseltine has not even made his maiden speech in the House of Lords. “Part-time” would not be a good adjective to describe him. Can the hon. Gentleman think of one?
Conor Burns
I can think of many, and it is not often that I am accused of being on the same side as Lord Heseltine. I remember telling Lady Thatcher a couple of years ago that he had not made his maiden speech, having been in the Lords for nine years at the time. Her reply was, “Well, look on the bright side, at least we haven’t had to listen to it.” Lord Heseltine is a very good example of my point—he says that he took his membership of the other place because he wanted the honour, but he did not want to participate. He has participated in fewer than 20 Divisions in the 10 years that he has been a Member of the other place. That was why I found it absolutely disgraceful that he came in the other night to vote against the referendum lock in the European Union Bill, which is going through the other place. Such examples show that the other place needs some reform.
Dr Julian Lewis
Does my hon. Friend accept that there would be no more accountability under the current proposals than there is at present, because someone who underperformed in the other place would have been elected democratically for just one term of 14 years and could not be voted out again?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend, as always, puts his finger on it. I will come to that precise point in a moment.
I remember some years ago knocking on a door when I was standing for Southampton city council for the first time, and somebody said to me that they thought there should be one major constitutional innovation in this country, which they deemed would improve our politics dramatically. They said that anyone who actually wanted to stand for Parliament should be barred from so doing. I have to say, sometimes when I look around and listen, I have some sympathy with that. The point of the other place is that it brings into Parliament people who would not dream of putting their name forward.
My noble Friend, and my predecessor’s predecessor, Lord Eden of Winton, asked some fundamental questions in a speech in the other place last week. On what basis would candidates put themselves forward for election to a revised second Chamber? Would they bear a party ticket, and would they be answerable to any form of mandate? By what form would they be chosen by the political parties? Would there be a risk that we would be putting more and more power into the hands of the party apparatchiks? Government and Opposition Members have seen what that manipulation can mean.
I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has seen the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Eden that the Deputy Prime Minister should be based permanently in the other place and subjected to regular parliamentary oral questions. I suspect that if he thinks the response he is getting here is fierce, it would be considerably fiercer at the other end of the building.
I wish to deal briefly with the argument that reform was in every party’s manifesto. It was, to some degree, and the Liberal Democrats, who had the most pro-reform manifesto commitment, got 23% of the vote in the general election. Labour, which was slightly more lukewarm, got 29%, and the Conservatives, who were the most lukewarm, got 36%. There is almost an argument that if we want to do things on the basis of what was in the manifestos, we should remember that the most people voted for the party that was most lukewarm on the issue.
We have to ask ourselves, as at the time of Maastricht, when all three Front-Bench teams are united on something, how do those who dissent make their view known? I say to Opposition Members that they could do no better than listen to the words of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who was very clear in saying that
“the key question on election is whether we want a revising Chamber or a rival Chamber”,
which was why it was a question
“not for one Parliament, but for the long term.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 877-878.]
Despite manifesto commitments, he twice committed himself to a free vote in the House of Commons so that every hon. Member could put their points across.
My biggest worry is that we will create a rival to the House of Commons and to the supremacy of this place, which we will come to regret. We will have the problem of mandate creep. It may start innocuously, but I point out the words of the noble Baroness Williams when the matter was last debated in the Lords, in 2003. She said that
“I want to say simply that, having listened to many speeches on the issue of the right of a non-elected House to challenge the other place, Members on these and many other Benches in this House declare that it is not our wish to be a non-elected House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2003; Vol. 655, c. 18.]
In other words, when that place gets more democratic power under an electoral system, which the Deputy Prime Minister is on record as saying he believes to be more constitutionally robust and right, its Members will not sit there and happily accept that they have no power at all.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I say to my hon. Friend that the Australian Senate is elected on a different, more proportionate electoral system, and it does not have that problem.
Conor Burns
And I say in response to my hon. Friend that it is at the core of Conservative beliefs that if something is working, one does not mess around with it. The other place is working, as is shown by the fact that we in this place accept more than 80% of the amendments that it sends back to us. It is playing its proper role as a revising Chamber.
There is one point of consensus on all sides. We want to see an effective second Chamber that works. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister saying that he is open to ideas for reform and improvement, and as the Joint Committee embarks on its important work, I hope that it will consider ideas for improving the second Chamber from those of us who want to improve the status quo. We all want it to work in the interests of our constituents, but I am not convinced that the proposals that the Government have on the table at this point will achieve that objective.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for having to absent myself for a short period this evening.
It is nice to be able to speak in the House in full and enthusiastic support of the manifesto on which I was elected, and consistent with my previous votes in the House for 100% election and 80% election to the Lords, in 2003 and 2007. I look forward to getting the chance to vote on the matter again.
I wish first to dispose of three very bad arguments against proceeding towards an elected House. The first is that we need to sort out the functions of the House of Lords before doing so. The truth is that there is agreement on that point. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber not equal to the House of Commons, prevented by statute from pre-empting the supremacy of this House and established by law and by practice to persuade and restrain this House.
The second argument is that the public have got other things on their mind. The idea that the Government have a bad economic policy or health policy because they are distracted by House of Lords reform is frankly risible. We are elected to this place to debate the big issues of the time, and I do not believe that it is sufficient to say that this is not people’s main preoccupation.
The third bad argument is by far the most tempting. It is: because the Deputy Prime Minister is in favour of an elected House, is sponsoring the debate and will sponsor the Bill, it must be a bad idea. That view has many supporters in both main parties, as we will discover, and one can see the force of the point. When the right hon. Gentleman said before the election that he wanted to unite the nation, he could scarcely have imagined that people of all shades of opinion would come together so quickly to agree that he is not a very lovable rogue. However, although that is a tempting argument, I hope that my colleagues, especially Labour colleagues, will not fall for it. The right hon. Gentleman needs no help from either of the two so-called main parties to administer his fate, and there is a much bigger game here than the temptation to kick a man when he is down. The roadblock to reform is not, in this case, the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government’s puppetmaster, the Prime Minister. We should not be diverted by the temptation of kicking smaller fry.
The fundamental issue at stake is whether a stronger, more assertive, more legitimate House of Lords will be good for the governance of the country, not just in democratic theory, but in real life and practice. I believe that it would. I am a believer in strong government. I also believe that a strong Government get stronger and better when they are more accountable to a strong legislature. That is what we are debating today. That is a recipe not for gridlock but for better government.
Legislative strength is, in part, the way in which this House functions. Personally, I would have liked to see electoral reform of this House and the second Chamber on the same ballot paper in a single referendum, because we should debate the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a whole. The House of Commons and the House of Lords exist in relation to each other, not simply separately. However, following the alternative vote fiasco, that opportunity has been missed. None the less, it is striking that many of those who argue that reform will make no difference to the public also contend that it will mean the end of the House of Commons as the voice of the public. They cannot have it both ways.
Reform of the House of Lords is important to the strength and effectiveness of the legislature as a whole. That is why I argue for it.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reciting such a compendium of errors. If he is giving us a lecture on logic, how does he explain the contradiction of a Prime Minister, who is allegedly, in the right hon. Gentleman’s view, a puppetmaster, yet also an enthusiastic advocate of the proposed legislation?
David Miliband
The hon. Gentleman tempts me and I will deal with that exact point shortly.
To those who say that an elected House of Lords will be stronger, I reply, “Good.” It will be good for the House of Commons and good for Governments of any stripe to face more effective and assertive scrutiny, and, where necessary, revision of their legislation from the House of Lords. That is not the same as advocating the overthrow of the primacy of the House of Commons, or as saying that the House of Lords will be a rival to the House of Commons. This country’s democratic problem is not neutered Government, emanating from the House of Commons, but under-scrutinised, under-accountable, over-centralised and over-confident Government.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
In the first minute of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that the House of Lords would not be more powerful; in the fifth minute, he said it would be. I think that it would not be a bad thing if the House of Lords were more powerful, but we ought at least to recognise what we are doing.
David Miliband
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have my speech in front of me, and I did not say that the House of Lords would not be more powerful. I made the logical point that the House of Lords could have a stronger voice in the nation’s affairs; that it would not become a rival to the House of Commons, but that it could provide more effective scrutiny of legislation proposed by a Government elected to this House.
The problem in the current system of an over-centralised and under-accountable Government would be significantly reduced by an elected House of Lords. The simplest and most principled case is for a wholly elected House. It has my support. However, I do not accept the argument that the reservation of 20% of seats for independent voices, independently selected, torpedoes the purpose of reform. It is less pure than a wholly elected House, but it may be more practical. The argument that it creates a hybrid House is not strong, given the current composition of the House of Lords, in which the hereditary peers and the non-party peers are in a class of their own.
Let me conclude with some history, which addresses the point that the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) made. I had the pleasure of writing with Lord Irvine of Lairg the 1997 Labour manifesto that committed the new Government to removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The wording was designed to pre-empt any queries from the other place on Salisbury convention grounds. However, we did not bank on the willingness of Viscount Cranbourne and his backwoodsmen to threaten the whole of the Government’s programme if we proceeded with the abolition of all hereditary peers. That was the origin of the then Government’s acceptance of the so-called Weatherill amendment, which reprieved 92 hereditary peers.
In speaking to the historic motion to remove some 650 hereditary peers from the Lords, Lord Irvine said that the compromise in respect of the 92
“would guarantee that stage two would take place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 1999; Vol. 599, c. 204.]
One reason for its not taking place is that, until now, the Conservative party has been officially opposed to an elected House of Lords. However, the Conservative Opposition in the House of Lords in 1999, in reply to Lord Irvine, said that it was absolutely crucial that one amendment to the Bill should be a timetable setting out exactly when stage two would be put in place.
Twelve years on, we are still waiting, to the shame of all parties in this House. Many of us fear that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Joint Committee will be another recipe for foot dragging. However, for the first time in centuries, the Conservative party has been dragged to support an elected House of Lords. Let us get on with bringing it about.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the long overdue reform of the second Chamber. I welcome the publication of the draft Bill and the appointment of the Joint Committee. I am sure that its members, given their background, will do an excellent job of scrutinising the proposed legislation.
Although the draft Bill may not be the direct product of the joint discussions that have taken place so far, it reflects broad areas of agreement. I hope that, more importantly, there will be an opportunity for thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, to which hon. Members of all parties will contribute in order to make it successful. It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who reminded us that progressive forces operate on both sides of the Chamber.
As the draft Bill makes clear, those of us who are reformists do not want the new second Chamber to compete with this House, but to retain its role as a revising Chamber. However, it is important—and a fundamental principle for many of us—that Members of that House have legitimacy through an election. That is only way in which they can have legitimacy.
Perhaps the House of Lords has become marginally more legitimate with the abolition of the hereditary principle. The right hon. Gentleman rightly alluded to the fact that that was an evolutionary process. Attempts were made to remove all the hereditary peers in one go, but that could not be achieved and 92 remained.
Liberal Democrats passionately believe in a 100% elected Chamber, but we appreciate the opportunity for evolutionary change: 80%, with 20% appointed, must not be squandered—it is a huge step in the right direction. However, we must emphasise that this House retains primacy. As well as Members being elected for the single 15-year terms, we will have a different electoral system, which will ensure that power remains in this place.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend makes the important point, as several others have done, that we must not upset the balance of power between the other place and us. Does he agree with the comments that Lord Ashdown made last Tuesday? He said:
“The fact that we do not have democratic legitimacy undermines our capacity to act as a check and balance on the excessive power of the Executive backed by an excessive majority in the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1190.]
Mr Williams
I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I have great sympathy with my noble Friend’s comments.
The Government’s critics have mentioned a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of other Bills, but that is precisely why we have set up the Joint Committee, which is about to undertake such work, and why it is important to have a robust House of Lords, which will continue its function in scrutinising legislation. As someone who worked in the other place many years ago, I understand the sort of detailed scrutiny that was undertaken.
The expertise in the other place has been mentioned. I must say that that debate is 20 years out of date. When I was there 20 years ago, I had the privilege of sharing an office with a former lecturer at the London School of Economics, a former chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, a former chairman of the National Coal Board and a former Minister for the arts. The composition of that House is very different now. It is dominated by people who have served in this place. Without being rude to those people, they spend a short time on the red Benches and go native.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the expertise of the other place is a myth, because in fact there are many elected experts in this House? Experts have nothing to be afraid of in standing for election to this House. They could gain legitimacy to add to their expertise.
Mr Mark Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, with which I of course agree. I simply observe that the points made about expertise in the other place are largely historical ones.
When the House of Lords operates well, it can make significant improvements to legislation, as we have seen recently in the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. I would hazard a guess that that will be vastly improved when it comes here shortly. That scrutiny role is vital, which is why we need to be clear on the role and responsibilities of a reformed second Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the codification of those roles in a written constitution, but as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, that is not the direction in which we are going.
Despite what some Opposition Members have said, the Parliament Act makes clear the primacy of this House. However, we need to make it clear to the public, who may not be as engaged in the debate as some of us would wish, that we expect senators or Lords, or whatever the Joint Committee decides to call them, to have a very different role.
Doubtless there will be questions about the size of a second Chamber. In this climate, the Government are absolutely right to have a streamlined House with committed Members. In the 2009-10 Session, only 281 out of 792 peers attended more than 75% of sittings; 85 attended less than 10%; and 46 did not attend at all. We need to ensure that the membership of the House is large enough for it to function adequately, and so that it can provide members for all its Committees and ensure healthy debate. I am not sure whether the agreed number will be 300, but that problem needs to be addressed by the Joint Committee. Importantly, the draft Bill alludes to the statutory appointments commission and independent 10-year terms for commissioners.
There is a risk of competing mandates, which should be avoided. My experience of Welsh devolution and the National Assembly for Wales is that there is no problem of legislatures and those who make laws knowing about their responsibilities. However, 12 years on, public confusion on the role of MPs and AMs remains. Perhaps that will wane in time.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman cites devolution. I am sure he accepts that in Scotland there has been constant mission creep by MSPs on to Westminster territory, leaving aside the Scotland Act 1998. What guarantees can he give us that this House will not experience such mission creep by the other place?
Mr Williams
I can give the hon. Gentleman no guarantees, but that is one concern that the Joint Committee will address. I accept that risk, and it needs to be addressed. There needs to be specific reference to the four or six senators elected in Wales in the first tranche not undertaking constituency duties, and not competing with MPs or AMs to get on to the front page of local newspapers. Again, that points to the importance, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, of having different electoral systems and different term lengths to suit the different roles. Those guarantees will come from that legislation.
Although Members of the second Chamber ought not to have a constituency role, it is important to elect representatives from the regions and nations of this country and to provide a guaranteed presence, to end the bias towards London and the south-east. We have had some notable peers from Wales—the list is endless—and many still function there, but critically, they have had to rely on the patronage of the Prime Minister.
This is an historic opportunity to give legitimacy to the second Chamber and to remove the power of patronage. I accept that I have not had a huge number of e-mails or letters on this subject, but as the right hon. Member for South Shields said, that is not a reason to ignore the reform proposals.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Williams
I will not, because time is very short.
During today’s debate, the proposals—[Interruption.] I anticipated being called to speak somewhat later—[Interruption.] I was about to say that the proposals have been characterised as a Bill. I would certainly lay that charge at noble Lords in another place. This is not a Bill but a draft Bill. There is much work to do, but it gives us the basis to develop a legitimate second Chamber which can undertake that scrutiny role. I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition in another place described the proposals as a bad Bill. I sincerely hope that after the Joint Committee has finished, it will not be a bad Bill. She will have the opportunity to label it a bad Bill when the Committee’s work is done.
The draft Bill represents a huge step forward, and I hope that progressives on both sides of the House play their part in developing reform. I hope that we are not subjected to a Michael Foot-Enoch Powell 1968 holy alliance that stops otherwise sensible reform.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I have never before heard an hon. Member complain about me calling them early, but there is a first time for everything.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I do not complain, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is both a bad Bill and a half-baked Bill, and I shall certainly vote against it. It is not improvable in that sense because of the principles on which it is based. Admittedly, we are in strange territory with the new coalition, but some very strange policies and constitutional principles are coming out. First, in the name of democracy we are reducing the number of elected MPs and increasing the number of Members of the other place. That is pretty strange.
Secondly, the Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—annunciates, as the basis of his support for many policies, that he can support any policy he wants, even if it is in contradiction to his manifesto, because he did not win the election. Who ever expected the Lib Dems to form a Government on their own? He is saying that because they were not going to form a Government on their own, he can support any policy he wants, irrespective of what he said to the electorate.
Thirdly—this is a difficult but fundamental point—reform of the House of Lords was in the manifestos of all three parties. However, that means that there was no differentiation. The electorate could not choose to vote for one party or another on the basis of what was in a manifesto. We have just had a fairly ridiculous referendum between first past the post and the alternative vote, but how much more important are making fundamental changes by introducing a voting system and changing the balance of power between this House and the other place? Are we having a referendum on that? No we are not, even though the electorate had no choice during the general election.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the lack of differentiation in the manifestos, but in actual fact one manifesto called for a referendum on the subject—the manifesto was for a party that was defeated at the election.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but all the parties lost the election. Nobody got a majority.
What is the problem? Is the problem in our democracy really the relationship between this House and the other one? I do not think so. Where has all the power gone from these Houses of Parliament? It has gone to Europe. Depending on which area people are in, 60% or 70% of our legislation is now passed by Europe. The proposals do not deal with that, but it is one of the most fundamental problems.
Within the power structure of our constitution—I accept that a lot of that power has gone away—the problem is not the House of Lords but the Privy Council, the royal prerogative and the fact that there is no separation between Ministers and Members of the legislature, which is almost never talked about when we compare Parliaments. It is fairly unusual in Parliaments around the world for Ministers to be accountable to themselves within a legislature. That is a big problem, and one reason why there is less Government accountability than one might expect, so the arguments for it are second rate and do not deal with the main problem.
Most of the debate we have had today has been about whether these reforms would affect the primacy of the House of Commons. If we introduce a democratic element into the House of Lords, it is bound to undermine the primacy of this House for several reasons. First, what would happen if we introduced proportional representation—STV or any other form of PR? Some Members of this House believe that PR is a superior and more democratic system to first past the post. The electorate disagreed, but that is those Members’ honest and openly held view. If we were to elect the other place by PR, it seems reasonable that they would then argue primacy.
Secondly, is it more democratic to elect people who never have to go back to the electorate who elected them and account for themselves? I do not think so. It is just a method of appointment. Democracy implies not only the ballot box, but accountability in terms of justifying which way Members have voted. Otherwise Members could vote any way they wanted without any consequences.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In the election to this Chamber, someone could be elected on a Thursday night and on Friday announce to the world that they had no intention of seeking re-election five years later. Where is the accountability there, according to the hon. Gentleman’s argument?
Graham Stringer
It is difficult to argue that the fact that individual Members of this House could say that they would not stand again is a justification for every Member in the other place never standing again. That would be a very odd argument to make.
My third point is one that the Deputy Prime Minister made a great deal of, and it is that the elected senators or Lords in the other place would never have a fresher mandate than we have in this place. However, that cannot be guaranteed. Even the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill contains mechanisms that allow for elections and one could still have elections twice a year, so we could get out of phase with the other place and their mandate would be fresher. They would then argue that they had primacy. I have never come across anyone standing for election who does not really believe that their view is the right view or who does not want to prosecute that view as hard as they can. Otherwise, why stand for election in the first place?
My final point is about how this House would assert its primacy if the other place were 80% or wholly elected. If legislation started in this place, it would be subject to the Parliament Acts. That process takes a long time and is of limited use. Further, some lawyers would argue that there are real difficulties with the second Parliament Act of 1949.
Much discussion and debate is not about legislation, but about policy. It is about secondary legislation, and some Conservative Members were pleased when the House of Lords overturned the decision of this House on a statutory instrument on the super-casino. That was not a principled issue of this House against the other place—people who did not like very large casinos voted against it, even though the primary legislation had been passed in this House. The House of Lords overturned a detailed decision—and that happened before they had elections.
I can see no situation in which an elected house would not want to have more power. That would mean that we would have less and we would not be dealing with the fundamental issues. These proposals do not deal with the biggest issues facing our society at the moment. International experience is prayed in aid of the Bill. In nearly every international case there is a written constitution, often set up by the British Government after wars or revolutions, when people have to define the various powers of the president, the legislature and the Government. We do not have such a constitution and the real fight in history has been between the House of Commons and the Government, of whatever stripe. Unfortunately, increasing the power of the House of Lords is likely to reduce the power of the House of Commons and all elected Members to the benefit of the Government. That is why this is a very bad Bill.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) that over the years power has gone from this place—to the EU, to the Government and to the devolved assemblies. It is important to bear that in mind, and the balance between Parliament, the Executive and those other bodies is something that we should debate in some detail on another day.
A respectable case can be made that the House of Lords works well. In recent years, we have had the issues of 90 days’ detention, attacks on jury trials and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which would have given Ministers the chance to overturn laws just by signing an order. On those occasions, the Lords came to the rescue of the country and did the right thing. It is an excellent revising Chamber and it does not try to rival what we do here. One has only to think of the contributions that people make there—we can point to Lord Heseltine, but I can think of other people who have gone from this place to the Lords, such as Lord Boswell, who is a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and others who do a very good job. The mix in the Lords is something that would never be invented, with all those landed aristocrats mixing with the bishops, a dose of Labour trade union leaders—[Interruption.] Yes, that includes Tommy McAvoy and other former MPs. It does work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns)more or less said, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” But he suggested what I would call maintenance work—just servicing the vehicle so that it does not break down. Some changes could usefully be made, such as to the retirement age, and I personally believe that there is a case for a minimalist approach to voting. That is probably where I would fall out of step with my hon. Friend.
The last time we debated this issue fiercely—between 1995 and 1997—the background was the scandal of loans for peerages, as it became known. There was much concern that the method of appointment to the Lords was part of the problem. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) had a working party—of which I was a member—and we looked at all the issues. There was a feeling that we wanted to keep the 20% made up of the great surgeons and lawyers and others who make such an important contribution, so we needed an appointed element, but for the political Members there was a case for election. That could be as minimalist as simply saying that at the general election people would get another vote for a party—Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem—and the seats would be filled from the parties’ lists in that proportion. In many ways, it would be very similar to what we do now, but it would give an added respectability to the method of appointment.
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend is eloquently making the argument that we should consider a range of options, as we have done in the past. This House and the other place should consider a number of options, rather than just one, so I hope that the Minister will assure those of us with ideas for improving the system that we can look at a broad range of ideas, rather than just the one. There might be an argument for a small element of election, but I am not convinced.
Oliver Heald
I welcome that intervention, and I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, when we came to the votes in 1997, an unclear picture emerged.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is 10 years out—I think he means 2007, not 1997. Is not the most bizarre element in the argument against any form of election the fact that 70% of the present House of Lords take a party Whip, and 85% of those who attend on a daily basis take a party Whip? Surely those people at least should be elected.
Oliver Heald
Yes, the case for election is this: it would give the appointment mechanism for the political element of the other place an added respectability. I agree passionately that we do not want to set up a rival Chamber. It is important that we do not run the risk of two people, both in Parliament, representing the same area, and one interfering with the work of the other. I do not think that would be satisfactory. I am gradually coming round to the idea of a national list system: a voter would decide at a general election whether they were Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, and the lists would be devised in proportion to the votes cast. However, I am quite happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West that we should consider a range of options. Some people say that we could improve selection.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Surely my hon. Friend would agree that a national list system would actually hand all the power back to political parties, which would put their placemen at the top of the list.
Oliver Heald
It depends how we view the people appointed under the current system. I happen to believe that the current system works pretty well but needs some maintenance. Those who think that the people appointed to the other place have been the wrong people, or that it has not worked well, might take a different view, but the benefits of a national list system are that it gives us elections, it does not create constituency rivalries and it recreates what we have now but in a way that has an elected element to it. It therefore answers one of the problems. It is just a thought, but it might be something to look at.
When we voted last time, in 2007, there was no clear outcome. There was actually a lot of support among Conservative Members for the status quo, and quite a lot of support among Conservative Members for 80:20. Then, at the end of the day, everybody—apart from me—voted for 100%. I am not sure why, but it was curious—
Oliver Heald
It might have been, but I think it unlikely. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman the credit because he mentioned 1997—or perhaps I did. What was I thinking? It was a terrible year.
I think that the Committee will do useful work. There are a lot of options to be considered, and I think we should show respect for the work of the other place, and the fact that it does an excellent job and has saved us when we needed it.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Article 21 of the universal declaration of human rights declares:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
I cannot believe that in the 21st century anyone could seriously argue for a wholly or mainly appointed second Chamber. I believe that the nation should move to a 100%—or, if that is not possible, at least an 80%—elected Chamber. That the Deputy Prime Minister is fronting this charge should not prejudice us unduly. I, for one, would be pleased were we to see the end of that very British creation—peer creation. Under the Blair Government, the number of peers increased by 37 per year, but let us not forget that it was that Government who abolished 555 hereditary peerages—so a net reduction of 181. Under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), on average 11 peers were added per year, but under this Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who wishes, by non-consensual methods, to abolish 50 Members of this House—the number of peers in the House has increased by 117.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that 50 of those were appointed by the current Prime Minister, and 54 by the former Prime Minister?
Susan Elan Jones
I would welcome the hon. Gentleman saying that he would support the consensual method for retaining the number of MPs. I thank him for that.
Let us consider where we are with the House of Lords at present. It is the second largest parliamentary Chamber in the world behind only—would you believe it?—China’s National People’s Congress, which has 3,000 members, and which meets for two weeks a year. It is not an upper Chamber. The House of Lords is the biggest upper Chamber of the 80 upper Chambers recorded by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the United Kingdom is the only bicameral country in which the second Chamber is bigger than the lower. It has been argued in this debate that somehow, as if by osmosis, the House of Lords works rather well. We have heard how it brings in the shy who would never stand for election—those rare creatures who suddenly, by osmosis, will find themselves in the second Chamber. I cannot accept that, and I cannot accept that we can seriously be thinking of any Chamber in this Parliament being predominantly or wholly un-elected.
The House of Lords reform White Paper plans to reduce the size of the Lords to 300 Members, but let us not forget the coalition agreement—even if, sometimes, the coalition partners do. The agreement states:
“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.”
However, such proportionality might give us 86 more Tory peers and 99 more Liberal Democrats, and therefore a Chamber of 977 Members if no new Labour or independent peers were created. Some of the proposed transition arrangements to the new system would leave all the current peers alongside the new peers for several Parliaments, which would mean approximately 1,000 or more Members next door.
We have to go down the route of a more democratic upper Chamber. I would be slightly concerned to see 60 appointed Members. For all the good that the Bishops do as individuals, there is a case for giving the matter some consideration. I say that even though I am a member of the disestablished Church in Wales. We also need to consider whether the single term of 15 years allows proper electoral accountability. I was interested to hear that when the new Iraqi constitution was drawn up, the west commended it because it was democratic. There was a strong commitment to elections, but there was no mention of an upper House, and there was certainly no mention of an appointed Chamber. It is extraordinary that as so many countries around the world are exploring democracy—just think of the middle east—we are sitting in this House and seriously suggesting that there can be any merit in a wholly or mainly appointed second Chamber. The modernisers need to speak in this place for a new and modernised pluralistic Britain.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this important debate. By speaking today, I am breaking a little pledge that I made to myself: I assured myself, when I was elected just over a year ago, that rather than be tempted to speak in every one of the interesting and exciting debates that we hold in this Chamber, I would limit myself to those debates concerning a particular constituency issue, or where my constituents were particularly concerned. I wanted to be the voice of the people of Burton and Uttoxeter, and in order to do that I was going to champion their views in Parliament.
By speaking in this debate, I am breaking that pledge, because not a single constituent has contacted me to discuss Lords reform. Not one e-mail, either pro or anti, not one telephone call, not one letter and not one person attending my surgeries has brought the burning issue of Lords reform to my attention. That is why I am so concerned to speak in this debate, because not only has that not happened in the past 12 months of my being an MP, but it did not happen in the previous four years, when I was busy knocking on doors and kissing babies as a parliamentary candidate. Indeed, in the 10 or 20 years that I have been an active member of the Conservative party, campaigning regularly, nobody has ever raised the issue of Lords reform with me.
Dr Julian Lewis
In support of what my hon. Friend is saying, let me point out that in response to a Liberal Democrat comment in The Southern Daily Echo in favour of House of Lords reform, I wrote an entire column saying why the House of Lords should remain appointed and not be elected in any way, shape or form. Not only was not a single blog post or letter of dissent directed towards me, but nothing was put in the paper, which only goes to show what a non-issue this is, in either direction, for the electorate.
Andrew Griffiths
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He makes the exact point that while we are devoting valuable time in this Chamber to the subject—we will devote more time to this discussion over the coming months and probably years—our constituents want us to talk about things such as employment.
Andrew Percy
I want to ask my hon. Friend whether anybody in his constituency had ever written to him about fixed-term Parliaments or the electoral system, and whether he voted for those Bills.
Andrew Griffiths
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I have received quite a lot of letters about fixed-term Parliaments. Most of them came from Liberal Democrat activists who wanted me to vote in favour, so that point is not quite right. The reality is that our constituents want us to spend our time in this Chamber producing legislation that will have an impact on the things that matter to them. They want us to talk about jobs, the economy, schools and the health service. Above all, they want the legislation that comes out of this place to be the best possible legislation with the best chance of making the kind of difference that they want.
Conor Burns
When my hon. Friend and I were candidates knocking on people’s doors during the previous Parliament, does he recall the number of people who raised with us subjects on which the House of Lords was expressing their opinion and who urged this place to think again?
Andrew Griffiths
I concur with my hon. Friend. We heard earlier about a number of issues that the other place has led on, saving the nation in many respects. I commend wholeheartedly not only the work of the other place, but my hon. Friend’s earlier speech. My speech will be considerably shorter, because he covered many of the things that I want to say, and he did so more passionately and more eruditely.
Simon Hart
If one of my hon. Friend’s constituents was unlucky enough to flick over from the tennis this evening and instead watch him in action, what does he think their reaction would be? Does he agree that this debate simply contributes to the idea that what we do here is quite often irrelevant and a vast distance away from what we should be doing?
Andrew Griffiths
As my hon. Friend is, like me, a member of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, he will know how passionate we both are about political and constitutional reform. We want to see a better Chamber and a better politics come out of this place, but all too often we are navel gazing by talking about the things which turn us on as political anoraks, but which have no impact whatever on the general public and voters at large.
Jesse Norman
Does my hon. Friend share my view that the process of scrutinising the Bill is likely to take days, if not weeks, of parliamentary time? Does he also share my view that it will be impossible to account to the electorate for how that time was spent when there is a fire in the economic engine-room?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should focus on the issues that matter to our voters. I return to the original point: we are here today to debate the future of another place. Fundamentally, we should be asking ourselves what we want it to do. What is it there for? Fundamentally, it is there to improve the legislation that we put before it. It is there to polish—I remember the phrase, “You can’t polish”—[Interruption.] I cannot remember the end to that phrase. The House of Lords is there to improve the legislation that we send to it. It is a revising Chamber. It is there to scrutinise the work that we do.
Among all the people in this debate, both for and against—those in the other place, Ministers and experts—absolutely nobody has suggested that the other place does not do a good job in scrutinising the legislation that is put before it. To repeat the saying that has been used so often, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” One of the reasons why the other place works so well is the experts contained within it. We have heard from some people who suggest that perhaps that point is out of date, but when I look at the quality and the level of the debate that takes place in another place—
Andrew Griffiths
I have indeed, on many occasions, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines the quality of some of the debates that take place there.
Chris Bryant
Sometimes the Lords have excellent debates, but quite often they do not. I remember a debate on the Communications Act 2003 in which several hon. Members down that end of the building spent all their time talking about black and white television licences. Honestly, sometimes their expertise is rather out of date.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender in this Chamber. If he can honestly say that he has never heard anyone make a spurious speech or move away from the point in any of the debates that he has attended, he has obviously not been to some of the debates that I have sat through in the past 12 months.
Oliver Heald
I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees with me, but one can go to a debate in the other place and hear Lord Pannick, a top lawyer, talking about the detail of a legal issue, or Lord McColl, a wonderful surgeon who has been involved in Mercy Ships. There is some marvellous knowledge there.
Andrew Griffiths
I should throw away the rest of my speech, because my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The quality of the debate in another place is so high, because of the experts there. When another place has a debate on the NHS, it can rely on the comments of people such as Lord Winston. When it debates the economy, it can rely on captains of industry, ex-chairmen of the CBI and people who have taken small businesses and turned them into nationally successful businesses. When Members in another place talk about sport, they can listen to the views and opinions of a number of gold medal winners. Those are the kinds of people who are best placed to polish and improve the legislation that this place sends to it.
I have taken a number of interventions, and I will now draw my speech to a conclusion. We should return to the central point, which is that we wish to send the best possible legislation from this place, with the best chance of improving the lives of our constituents. The contribution that the other place makes to that is crucial.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I will not follow the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), but I will refer to him later in my speech.
The first ghost that I should like to lay to rest in this debate is the ghost of manifesto commitments past. It is a well known and well subscribed to constitutional position that the sovereignty of Parliament lies in the fact that Parliament cannot bind its successors. It follows that it cannot be bound by its predecessors. The point was made by the Deputy Prime Minister in response to a question from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) has also referred to it, as have my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). Thus, the vote in the last Parliament that there should be an elected second Chamber on the basis of 100% elected Members does not bind the present Parliament. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). Nor, I should add, are manifesto commitments binding when entered into by a party that has lost the election. Were that to be otherwise, I would have fought successive general elections on a 1983 manifesto commitment unilaterally to disarm our nuclear deterrent and to withdraw from the European Economic Community.
If a manifesto commitment is supposedly written in stone by the Labour party, which lost the election, why is the party carrying out a review of all policy—a review that is taking place over a year? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) tried to put forward a position for the Labour party as best he could, but he did nothing other than put forward a position that was entirely his own. It is not the position of the Labour party, and only when the Labour party comes out with its review at the end of the year will its position be clear. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the review? Why have it and waste one’s time. Why have a review on a policy when we already have one? How can that be?
The lack of logic on the part of my Front-Bench team is astonishing. [Interruption.] Any manifesto commitment by the Liberal party might have—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a sedentary intervention. He was a great supporter of the alternative vote, and we know where that went. He now says he will commit the Labour party to a 100% elected Senate. I can tell him now that if he wants to divide his party, he should go ahead. We almost divided the party on the alternative vote—that did not happen thanks to those who supported the “No to AV” side, as we kept our heads down when the leadership supported AV. If my hon. Friend is telling the House that the Labour party has a commitment that it does not have for a 100% elected Senate, he will split the party. It is as simple as that.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend knows that in political parties there are quite often issues that divide. One such issue is Europe, although he and I are on the same side on that. When it comes to the House of Lords, this policy was not devised without reference to party members; it went to a national policy forum, which increased the percentage from 80% to 100%. Until such time as our policy changes, that is our policy.
Sir Stuart Bell
It is not our policy, and my hon. Friend would do well to realise it. He replied to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about debates in the other place. I will write to my hon. Friend, so he can read last week’s debate and the statement made by Baroness Royall, which said that the Labour party is divided on this issue. Whatever forum made an agreement, it does not bind the party until we come out with a new set of policy commitments, which will not take place before the end of this year. I can tell my hon. Friend now that if he wants the Labour party to go down the road of having a 100% elected Senate, he will not have my support.
Conor Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the Labour party is divided on this issue, but so is every party. That is why this issue has always been subject to a free vote in previous Parliaments. Does he agree that the coalition should be encouraged to do the same this time?
Sir Stuart Bell
We have to be careful about free votes, because one does not know where they will end up. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has made a series of remarks from a sedentary position, which I heard and which I will not forget.
Sir Stuart Bell
My hon. Friend knows what they were, and I will not forget them.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
As ever, my hon. Friend has been illuminating the House from a position of great wisdom and experience. When he talks about parties being split, however, does he not accept that the Labour party might be split on the detail, the minutiae and the sub-clauses of the Bill, but that there is absolutely no man, woman or child in the Labour party who is against the principle of House of Lords reform in some way, shape or form?
Sir Stuart Bell
I would have reached that part of my speech, if I had not been interrupted from the Labour Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. Of course we want reform of the House of Lords. The noble Lord Steel has proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. If it is a question of reforming the House of Lords, the proposals are already there. Why go to the expense when even the Deputy Prime Minister—he made an eloquent contribution today and the other day—cannot quantify the cost of a new House of Lords or Senate, as it will become.
Sir Stuart Bell
I certainly voted for an 80% elected Upper Chamber, but never on the basis of proportional representation—never! A number of votes were taken on that occasion, but Members who were present at the time know that they were no more than wrecking votes or wrecking amendments. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting voted for every motion put to the House that night. [Interruption.] He said so earlier.
Mrs Laing
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he and every other Member has the right and the privilege to change their mind as circumstances change and that whatever the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) did or voted for in the past, he is entitled to vote for something completely different today?
Sir Stuart Bell
Just as Parliament does not bind its successor, I do not bind myself by a vote that took place in the previous Parliament.
Constitutional issues are the most important issues that the House faces tonight and that it will face in the future. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that this is a constitutional Bill, and he referred to it as such again tonight. It is so constitutional that it passes by the prerogative of the Whips, who cannot control how this House will vote when it comes to the abolition of a third of Parliament, as we understand it. Parliament, as we understand it, consists of the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. If we talk about democratic deficits for the Lords, when are we going to get around to the democratic deficits for the monarch? [Interruption.] If the Liberals wish to debate the democratic deficits of the monarch—[Interruption.] They should not say no. I am not going to see it in my generation, but future generations might see it.
I have witnessed anti-establishment of the Church of England views being put by Labour Members seeking the disestablishment of the Church through this constitutional debate. The time might come when someone says that there is a democratic deficit for the elected leader of this entire country. As I have said, these issues of constitutional importance cannot be dealt with by Government Whips or by a whipped vote on the Opposition side. The established Church has hardly been mentioned, but this is the reason why I have never voted for a 100% elected upper House. The established Church is part of our constitution. It is in every interstice of our life throughout the parishes of the land, and the Queen is head of the Church and Head of State. To start dismantling the established Church and to take away a third of the Parliament—and to keep the name of the House of Lords, when it will really be a Senate—is all part of the Government’s obfuscation, and they are being helped by my own Front-Bench team.
There will be a battle royal on this issue. If the Government wish that, so be it. If the Labour party wants to go down the road of proportional representation to allow the Liberal Democrats and their friends on our Front Bench to achieve for the second Chamber what they could not achieve for the first, it can count me out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To assist the process of more Back-Bench Members contributing to the debate, the time limit is reduced to six minutes, but injury time for two interventions remains.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The draft Bill before us is not the solution to a 100-year-old problem, but it might be the precursor to many new problems being introduced into British politics. From it could spill unintended consequences: first, that the upper Chamber will become a less good scrutinising body; and, secondly, that the primacy of this Chamber will be fatally undermined.
The Bill assumes that the upper House’s composition should be decided predominantly by universal suffrage. I was struck by what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) said. The reductio ad absurdum is that if this concept of closing a democratic deficit by having a universal suffrage franchise is adopted, it could result in the election of a head of state. I do not think that any Conservative Members are interested in that, but that is what we are dealing with.
The Bill’s proponents seem to be saying that because universal suffrage is good enough for this Chamber it must be good enough for the upper Chamber, but the upper Chamber does something radically different. It revises, it amends, it delays Bills to make us think again in extreme cases, and it has no control over money Bills. Because of its very nature, however, that revising Chamber requires a different set of talents.
We heard eloquent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and others about the unique contribution that men and women with skill, experience and expertise bring to the process of revising and amending measures that we send them in order to make them better. I know many individuals with such talent and experience who speak and revise well in the upper Chamber, and they would not stand for election. Distinguished medics, Nobel prize winners and members of the arts community would simply not put themselves through the process.
Gavin Barwell
I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. I have had a chance to review all the appointments to the House of Lords since the general election. What proportion does my hon. Friend believe to fall into that category of independent-minded people who have never stood for election and have no party-political involvement?
Mr Ruffley
So many people are being appointed nowadays that I would not hazard a percentage, but I will deal with the point about nominations later.
Mr Ruffley
I want to make some progress.
It seems that we are being required to duplicate the mandate of this House, but why should we do that, particularly when it would lead to confusion and conflict? As night follows day, elected Members of an upper Chamber would be able to claim as much legitimacy as Members of this House. [Hon. Members: “No!”] An elected Lord, from my party or any other party, would be entitled to turn up in my constituency, or any Member’s constituency, claiming that he had a mandate on almost any issue he chose. What would the public make of that, and what kind of mandate would it be? Would it be based on proportional representation? There are two problems with that. First, any kind of electoral reform was—the last time I looked—rejected fairly decisively by the British people in a referendum earlier this year. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burton observed, the system would be the creature of party machines—dare I say it, Whips—who would ensure that, on a national or regional list, troublemakers, perhaps independent-minded existing peers, were not placed on such a party list.
Mr Ruffley
I want to make some progress.
The final objection to such a system, of which we have heard much today, is that an elected peer would be elected for a 15-year term, and during that period would be accountable to no one. Even on its own terms, the democratic argument seems defective.
According to the White Paper published earlier this year,
“The Government does not intend to amend the Parliament Acts or to alter the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament.”
I must say, with respect, that that utterly misses the point. A democratised upper House would be stronger, and would have its own view about the balance of power. Once the power has been given to them, what Ministers “intend” is irrelevant. The Minister has said that there would be no change in the balance of power. How precisely does he intend to enforce that?
Jesse Norman
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am by the example of Scotland? Although Mr Salmond has no mandate to call a referendum on Scottish independence, it seems absolutely certain that he will do so in the next two to three years.
Mr Ruffley
That is an excellent point. We heard some sensible observations along those lines from other Conservative Members earlier. It would be a case of mission creep. It is not something that anyone would specifically intend and it would not be explicit in a Bill, but it would be implicit in the granting of powers to a new set of elected individuals who would claim legitimacy and a democratic mandate. I ask again why we should wish to duplicate the mandate that elected individuals have when those individuals are here, in this Chamber?
When it was studying the upper House, the Joint Committee on Conventions said that if the conventions between the Houses were to change—which would be inevitable if there were elections to the upper House—all the conventions and Acts involved in their relationship would have to be examined again. Will the Minister undertake to re-examine the conventions and Acts governing the delicate balance between this Chamber and the upper House?
Many of us are not luddites. We know that practical reform of the upper House could be effective in certain respects, and could make it more efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West gave us a flavour of some of the changes proposed by Lord Steel, who suggested the establishment of an independent commission that would limit the number of peers. He also suggested that the 92 hereditaries, as and when they died off, should not be replaced, and that peers who did not attend for a defined period should lose their right to speak and vote, as should those who committed serious criminal offences.
I consider it unacceptable, in this day and age, that in the last year 137 peers did not table a question or make any contribution to debates in the upper House. We can change that, and we can do so along sensible, practical lines that most Members of both Houses would sign up to tomorrow. The upper House should not be pickled in aspic—we should not be luddite in any way—but, although it can be improved, the Bill is not the way in which to do that. We fumble with the rich and delicate texture of our constitution at our peril, and we should beware the law of unintended consequences.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
Before the Minister leaps up and tells me how I have voted on various debates on the House of Lords over the years, let me say that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), I eventually voted for a 100% elected House, but for very different reasons. According to a rather bizarre tactic—I must confess that I did not quite see the logic of it—if I voted for that, the establishment of a directly elected House of Lords would somehow be prevented. [Laughter.] There it is; we were told that at the time.
Nevertheless, I want to put on record that I do not believe in a directly elected House of Lords. I am not attracted to the idea because I believe that we would elect a rival to this House of Commons, and I do not think that we would have a revising Chamber anywhere near as good as the one that we have now, although I do believe that there is a strong case for reforms of the House of Lords as it stands.
A Member mentioned Australia earlier. The lower House is elected by alternative vote—that is another story—and the upper House by single transferable vote, but over the years there have been serious differences of opinion and almost gridlock between the two Houses on various issues such as climate change. That could well occur were the upper House in this Parliament to be elected. The Prime Minister’s tutor Vernon Bogdanor, who recently wrote a book on the coalition and constitutional change, has said that in the event of disputes between the two Houses,
“a directly elected second Chamber would decrease, not increase, the power of the voter, by insulating Parliament even further from the voter than it is already.”
I am not persuaded in that regard.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and others have observed that the House of Lords does not contain the sort of expertise that it might have years ago, and that today it is packed with place-people from various parties. I am not sure that I agree with that. In last week’s debate in the other place, Lord Howe of Aberavon cited contributions to a debate on the national health service by
“two former deans of university medical schools, a practising dentist, a consultant obstetrician, a consultant paediatrician, a former GP, a former professor of nursing, a former director of Age Concern and the president of Mencap.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1195.]
I do not believe that a House of Lords whose Members were elected in the way suggested could provide such expertise.
Conor Burns
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that even if the number of experts diminished over time with the increased number of appointees, that would be an argument not for the abolition of the House of Lords but for returning to having more people of expertise appointed to the House of Lords?
Paul Murphy
It is an argument for reform, not abolition. The bishops are another case in point. I am a Roman Catholic, not an Anglican, but I believe that the bishops of the Church of England offer a tremendous amount of expertise and experience to Parliament, and that they should still be Members of the House of Lords.
Duncan Hames
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that bishops voting in the House of Lords adds in any way to the expertise they are able to offer through what they say in that Chamber, and might they find it easier to remain in that Chamber if they were to desist from taking part in Divisions?
Paul Murphy
That is possible; obviously, such matters would have to be addressed.
Whatever our views about the Bill, I have to say to my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that I entirely agree with the Opposition Front Bench on a number of points—for example, a 15-year term of election is completely dotty. I hope that will be reconsidered, because it would give Members a long time in the other place without any proper mandate. As they are to be paid and their job will therefore be a profession, most of them will, presumably, be about 51 years of age upon election now that the pension rules have been changed, so that they can retire at 65. I hope that that proposal will be jettisoned, therefore.
I want to conclude with a few comments about process. When this House considered the constituencies Bill, the coalition was not a bit interested in consensus. Every time contributors to the debates both here and in the other place talked about the need for major constitutional changes to have a bedrock of consensus, the coalition Government refused to take any notice, but now that they want their way on the House of Lords consensus is the order of the day. I wonder whether this is a consensus of convenience, therefore. I believe that my own Front-Bench team should be rather sceptical about a Joint Committee and about being drawn into a consensus that in my view is convenient. We should not be gulled by that, and I think this particular constitutional change needs more than a Committee; it probably needs a royal commission to deal with it, rather than a Committee of politicians. Whatever sort of body it is, however, we must be very careful.
In all the years I have been a Member of this House, there has been a free vote on reform of the House of Lords. That should be the case whatever the manifesto commitments—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) that our manifesto commitment fell when we lost the election—and whatever the policies of the parties. Over the years, there were manifesto commitments and party principles and policies, but there was always a free vote for all the parties in this House of Commons and in the other place, and I believe that there should be a free vote on this issue.
Finally, I wish to raise the referendum issue. Some 100 years ago when the then Liberal Government introduced their first reform of the House of Lords, there was, to all intents and purposes, a referendum in that there was a general election on a single issue: whether the House of Lords should be reformed. Therefore, it is completely logical that we, too, should have a referendum on reform of the House of Lords. We had a referendum on whether we should remain a member of what was then known as the Common Market. We had referendums on elected Assemblies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We had a referendum only this year on whether the powers of the Welsh Assembly should be extended—they were—and we also had a referendum on the alternative vote.
Lord Ashdown referred in his speech in the other place and in The Times today to people who hold my views on the matters under discussion as war horses, and to those who agree with me on the alternative vote as dinosaurs. Whichever animals we might be, the dinosaurs won the argument with the people on the alternative vote, and the war horses have the following in common with the dinosaurs: we want the people of this country to decide the constitutional future of this country in respect of the House of Lords, so let us have a referendum on this Bill.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I start by warmly endorsing that suggestion, although I am afraid that a referendum would result in the triumph of hope over experience? I fear that the knowledge that this proposed reform of the House of Lords to a primarily elected or all-elected Chamber would not get past a referendum ensures that no referendum will be offered to the British people.
I have been trying to think of what I might contribute to this debate that has not been said before and that might not be repeated subsequently, and in the end I have come up with a little personal experience, which I hope the House will indulge me in discussing. It has often been my silent boast to myself that I did far more in affecting legislation before I became a Member of Parliament than I have managed subsequently. In fact, I have only once managed to affect legislation going on to the statute book since I was elected to this House in 1997, and that was over the issue of MPs’ home addresses not being made public in response to freedom of information requests. I was able to win that change only because the then Labour Government had the decency to give the House a free vote.
I influenced legislation on three occasions prior to becoming a Member of this House, however, thanks to the House of Lords and the way in which it functions. The first of the three occasions was to do with the Trade Union Bill of 1984. The then Thatcher Government did not propose to make postal ballots for trade union elections compulsory. The issue was passionately raised in the House by Conservative Back Benchers, and most prominently by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)—who was in the Chamber until very recently but has sadly slipped out just at the wrong moment—but their arguments were brushed aside. In the House of Lords, however, an amendment that trade unions should conduct their elections by postal ballot rather than the raising of hands in unrepresentative branch ballots was discussed in great depth and at great length, and that amendment was carried on the strength of the argument. Of course, there was no question of that surviving into legislation without the agreement of the democratically elected lower House. Precisely because Members in the upper House had recognised the strength of the argument and had taken the trouble to amend the Bill, when it came back to the lower House, although the Government did not accept the amendment in full, they at least made a determination that trade union postal ballots should become the norm. In subsequent years they did not become the norm, however, so in 1988 that measure was brought in against that test, which would not have been in place but for the intervention of the upper House. Subsequently, trade union postal ballots were made compulsory in the 1988 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has now returned to the Chamber, having just missed my recent reference to him.
The second campaign was to do with the fact that in the 1980s many ideological disputes and divides were finding their way into the school classroom. Once again, we could not get an amendment considered seriously in the lower House, but it was taken very seriously in the upper House. The Bill that became the Education Act 1986 was amended in the upper House to ensure that political issues were raised in the classroom in a balanced and responsible way. When the Bill returned to this Chamber, the amendment’s merit was recognised and it was kept.
Finally, the same thing happened with the Bill that became the Broadcasting Act 1990. Questions of due impartiality for politically controversial subjects were enshrined in law as a result of changes made in the upper House.
The whole point is that in the upper House there are not only experts but people who can make changes to Bills that would be whipped out of existence if they were introduced in the lower House. If we go down the road of having a fully elected upper House, we will simply increase the number of Members of Parliament by a total of 300. They will be whipped in that place in the same way as they are in this place and the prospects of their being able to make changes that will survive the process in the democratic lower House will be lost.
Gavin Barwell
I am partly giving my hon. Friend an opportunity to finish his argument in the time allowed to answer my intervention, but I also ask him to consider the model in the draft Bill, which is 80% elected and 20% appointed. That does not seem, at least from the study I have done of the appointments since 2010, to be that different from the ratio in the upper House at the moment between political appointees and those who might be classified as independent experts. Why does he think there is a danger with the 80:20 model?
Dr Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which was made by Lord Ashdown in his article in The Times. He said:
“As for wisdom versus democracy, well I concede that there is a reservoir of expertise in the Lords.”
He went on to say that
“maybe we should preserve this 20% if they are independently appointed”,
much though he would prefer to follow the 100% model.
On the question of experts, nobody is denigrating the potential expertise of people who become party political professionals when they enter this House. I am not saying that the average level of intelligence or articulateness in this House, whatever people might think, is lower than the average level of the same qualities in the other House, but the fact remains that those of us who chose in our 30s or 40s to become professional politicians gave up the chance of reaching the pinnacles of expertise that we might have reached if we followed other careers. If we make the proposed change, we will find that people who reach the pinnacles of their profession will no longer be part of the legislative process and that will be our loss.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
After many years of debate on this issue, it might be thought that there is little new to say. It is important, however, and the first thing we should do is leave aside the argument that because the subject is not raised very often on the doorstep and because other pressing issues face our nation we should somehow set it aside. If we took that view, we would never carry out any constitutional reform, so I do not think it should be the starting point for the debate.
The debate is important because in the past the House of Lords has been at the heart of sometimes titanic struggles with the Commons. If we look at our history, we can see that the Lords stood for old interests and old power. That is less so today, but historically it was true. When the great reforming Labour Government were elected at the end of the second world war and there were practically no Labour peers in the House of Lords, they felt the need for the Salisbury convention, which said that the House of Lords would not oppose manifesto commitments carried through by the elected Government of the day.
The discussion about reform always starts with composition and percentages. Indeed, as we have heard, when we discussed this matter a few years ago we had a series of votes on the percentages—20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and so on—with little discussion about the relationship between the two Houses.
The first point to be made about the argument on an elected Parliament is that we already have a 100% elected House of Commons. The discussion often takes place as though the House of Commons does not exist, but that must be the starting point for debate. It is a crucial part of our democratic system that general election day is the decisive democratic moment for the country. That is valued by the voters and if anyone doubts it, they need only look at the referendum result a couple of months ago.
The second and closely related flaw in the traditional argument is the assumption that we can change the democratic legitimacy of the upper House and nothing else will change. The Government’s document and draft Bill repeat that assertion, and clause 2 states:
“Nothing in the provisions of this Act…affects the primacy of the House of Commons”.
It is simply not possible, however, for a second Chamber to be elected without the power relationship between the two Houses being changed. There is no way that politicians elected to the second Chamber will not do their job by asserting themselves and claiming the authority that comes from democratic election in doing so. I have some experience of such reform as an adviser during Labour’s first term of office, when we removed the bulk of the hereditary peers. Even that fairly minor reform was responded to with the threat that from that moment on, the Salisbury convention would be taken off the table. If that was the response to a fairly minor reform, there will also be a similar response to a much more far-reaching reform, such as the one under discussion.
We can decide whether we want a second Chamber that is 80% or 100% elected, but we must also follow the logic of that argument. This is not a cosmetic change. After all, what would be the point of asking the public to take part in elections for the second Chamber if they did not really matter? They will matter. An elected second Chamber would mean a recasting of the relationship between both Houses and would certainly claim greater legitimacy and alter the nature of general election day in the future. Some Members may welcome that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) did earlier, but let none of us deny that it will be the case.
There are other consequential changes, some of which are discussed in the Government White Paper, to do with pay, pensions and so on. I do not believe that they are fundamental and I think we should take the decision on its merits, not by adding up the cost of a Member of the House of Lords or House of Commons. I mention in passing that the Government will give this elected second Chamber the gift of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and I wish its future Members all the best with that relationship.
There is one difference between the proposals and the situation for Members in the Commons and that is that the second Chamber will be given democratic legitimacy but not accountability, because of the single 15-year term. The accountability that informs us daily will not inform the Members of the second Chamber.
The second Chamber is in need of reform. It is too big and too many people do not turn up, and we ought to be able to do something about such things. There is also the question of the separation of peerage and membership of the House of Lords. I do not stand here opposed to all reform, but I do say that although Parliament can choose to have an elected second Chamber, we must follow the logic of what that will mean. If the Government say that such an alteration will not change the relationship, they will have to do far more in their Bill to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and I think I agreed with virtually everything he said. There have been some outstanding independent-minded speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including three excellent speeches: the last speech and those made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). I agree with them all. It is a bit of a pity, if I might say so, that the Deputy Prime Minister did not stay for longer, because this is an important constitutional issue. I know that a lot of people in the Dog and Duck are not very exercised about it, but why should they be? It is an important debate and it is important that the Government should listen to it. I know the Minister is listening. Virtually every speech we have heard has been thoughtful and very critical of the proposals and it would be highly regrettable if the changes were forced through on a three-line Whip. I believe that the House of Commons should consider all the options very carefully and by all means come to some sort of compromise, but it would be regrettable to force this through on a three-line Whip, with people who have taken no part in the debate, who perhaps have very little interest in it and who have their careers to look after, being poured in, especially given that the proposal was not in a manifesto. Let us consider that.
I sympathise with the Deputy Prime Minister in a sense, because he has an impossible task. In the absence of a written constitution he is trying to create an elected second Chamber that is not a rival to the House of Commons, but that is a virtually impossible task. He has therefore come up with the idea, which was well summed up by the right hon. Member for Torfaen as “dotty”, of electing people for a single, 15-year term. We really have to kill that idea; I am not aware of any other major legislature in the world that does that. The points have been made again and again, so I do not need to repeat them. Those people will be elected but unaccountable, and what sort of life will they lead if they are in the House of Lords for 15 years and never have to stand again? Is the senator for the east midlands, which is a vast area, really going to want to go and talk to Poverty Action in Nottingham on a rainy Saturday night, or to their local party in Leicester on a wet Friday evening? That is not going to happen. Those people will be sitting in the Lords knowing that they are never going to be allowed to stand again—so, unaccountable in that sense—but they will claim that they are elected, and it is for the birds to suggest that they will not take on this House. Of course they will, especially if they think they are more representative because we are elected under this old-fashioned, first-past-the-post system—which by the way people quite like, but let us forget the people for a moment—and they are elected under a much more democratic, proportional representation-type system.
I think it is the worst possible system and I say to the Minister that it does not address the real problem. The problem is not a great constitutional dispute between the people and the House of Commons or between the House of Commons and the House of Lords: the problem is that there are too many Members of the House of Commons who are not sufficiently independent, because, yes, they are elected but, quite rightly, they are ambitious and they want to be Ministers as the only outlet for their energy. I suspect that once the people in the Lords are elected for their 15-year term, they will start off with all the joys of spring but will very soon be like the rest of us—they will want to become Government Ministers and they will be as much under the thumb of the Executive as most Members of Parliament are. So what will the changes achieve? Having just got rid of 50 Members of Parliament, because, apparently, too many of us are under the thumb of the Executive, why are we creating another 280-odd up there who, after a couple of years, will also want to become Ministers?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Why, if the other Chamber is to be a revising Chamber, should there be Ministers in a reformed House of Lords? This Chamber could be well distinguished as having primary powers by being the only seat of Government Ministers—not the other Chamber.
Mr Leigh
That was an excellent intervention. There are many other legislatures in the world, such as the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, in which one cannot be a Minister. That is why Senators in the United States are much more independent of the Executive than Members of Parliament here are. If we were to create an elected Chamber, why not have a rule that nobody up there who was elected could become a Minister? Then, perhaps, they would be free from the powers of patronage, which strongly militate against genuinely free debate in this Chamber.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
What we should be talking about is what the House of Lords is for and what it should be doing, but all we are talking about is whether it should be fully elected, fully appointed or 80:20. We should really be concentrating on what its key role is.
Mr Leigh
That is absolutely right. Perhaps we have spent too much time, even this afternoon, talking about methods of election rather than about the sort of men and women whom we want in the second Chamber and what sort of job we want them to do. Apparently, the sort of men and women we want are people of expertise who are good at revising legislation, and I submit that we have very large numbers of dedicated Members of the second Chamber who do precisely that. Of course, there are some who are lazy, corrupt or bad—and some are good, some are old and some are young—but there are scores of people up there who do their job as men and women of expertise in revising and improving legislation. Let us concentrate on the sort of people we want up there rather than being absolutely obsessed by the methods of election.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that one of the most important things in the second Chamber is having a number of people of independent mind. Is it his experience that party leaders, when recommending people to go into the second Chamber, primarily think about their independence and their voting record in this House?
Mr Leigh
I suspect that a lot of the people taking part in this debate would quite like to end up in the other place—we all have fallible human natures. No doubt Prime Ministers reward their acolytes, friends and people who have been in the Cabinet—we all know that goes on—but before we get terribly excited about the concept of an independent appointments commission, let us consider whether it would produce a House of Lords that was necessarily superior in intellect or whether it would just produce the same old great and good from the liberal establishment and ensure that nobody of idiosyncratic views, such as myself, perhaps, or my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), would ever end up in the other place. I am not sure I accept that the concept of prime ministerial patronage is altogether wrong.
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister fixated on the concept of PR? It will not only ensure that the Lords will claim democratic legitimacy but will allow our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches to have a gridlock on legislation. It will make it more and more difficult for those on the radical left or the radical right to come up with ideas that will actually get into legislation. Why do we want that kind of gridlock? In the remaining seconds of my speech, I contend that what we have in the House of Lords is not so very bad. It reflects our history and traditions and I would have thought that, as Conservatives, that is what we are about. We are about preserving what is best in our history and I very much hope that as this debate proceeds to its final conclusion, there will be a blocking mechanism from the old left and the old right to throw this proposal into the dustbin of history, where I believe it belongs.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) perhaps agreeing with his last observation—that what we will see is a coalition of reaction against reform and change from the traditional right and the traditional left. Essentially, when we talk about House of Lords reform, we have a situation in which so many people consistently aspire to a democratic Chamber but then consistently conspire to sustain the undemocratic status quo. That is happening on both sides of the House. I agree with other hon. Members that this has been a good debate up to a point. I do not know how many Lords-in-waiting we have heard from in the debate, but we have definitely heard from some, and—surprise, surprise—it is clear where they stand. They see themselves moving into a slightly adjusted, slightly reformed Chamber, but certainly not a democratic one.
To my mind, the Joint Committee is going to be a mixture of hypocrisy meeting up with futility on the way back from apparent amnesia about people’s positions, and it will be detained by self-interest in various forms. We have a situation in which people who said they were committed to democratic reform of the House of Lords in the past now say that they did not mean to vote for it because it was just a tactic and they cannot even remember why the tactic was needed. That is not a very believable case against reform. As I said on the day that the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement about the draft Bill, I fear that this is going to be another situation where we have a penalty shoot-out in which no one scores, with everyone putting their case for reform.
Some say there cannot be reform without consensus, but the same people also say, “And by the way, because we don’t trust consensus, we want to make sure that there are free votes on any proposals.” We also had the nonsense of the scratchcard idea. Everybody could vote for different proportions of electability to the second Chamber, safe in the knowledge that there would never be a sufficient cluster around any one for there to be a clear outcome. So I am not impressed with some of the arguments that I have heard.
I have some sympathy with some of the arguments against some of the proposals. We run up against the tensions that have been created by the constituencies part of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. House of Commons constituencies will change every five years, possibly significantly. If Northern Ireland loses a seat, all our constituencies will change relatively significantly, and MPs may feel that it is more difficult for them to deal with changing constituencies if there are elected Members of the other House who sit there for 15 years without having to worry about boundary changes or anything else. I accept that point only in relation to how it affects the position of MPs, but I do not accept that this Chamber would be at all undermined by an elected second Chamber if that second Chamber had a clear, limited role in relation to qualitative revision of legislation. That is one reason why I do not agree with the proposal in the draft Bill for supernumerary Members to accommodate the appointment of temporary Government Ministers.
Conor Burns
As the Bill stands, I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is there not the potential for a creep in that over time? In the event of a conflict, if both Houses were elected and one had a fresher mandate, it could claim that it had an equal voice in the debate.
Mark Durkan
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s worry that the danger lies there. I believe that the danger lies in this Chamber. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, have asserted the primacy of this Chamber, but they are the same people who slavishly accept the bizarre convention that operates in this House that the Government will not accept amendments in this Chamber, even when they accept that they are right and logical and make sense, but will instead concoct their own version. The unelected Chamber then gets this great score rate of all the significant amendments, precisely because that is the way this Chamber accepts it. This Chamber accepts being bound and trussed with programme motions that everyone complains about but then votes for, just as everyone says they want House of Lords reform, but manage then always to conspire against it, and somehow there is a sufficient coincidence of objection to one proposed reform or another. I would worry whether this Chamber is up to the challenge. Perhaps the challenge of an elected Chamber next door is what this Chamber needs for it to assert itself a bit more against the Executive. Moreover, if the Executive seek to have Government Ministers only in this Chamber, that too would be an improvement.
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument in favour of reform of this Chamber. Does he not accept that in the White Paper, under the section on powers, it is clear that the Government have no intention of addressing the issue of the existing conventions? There is no intention to codify them in any form, so there is a chance of the leach of power from one Chamber to the other.
Mark Durkan
That is only if the measures go forward as they are in the Bill. That is not an argument for the status quo; it is an argument for getting necessary change and getting it right, making sure that there are clearly distinct roles and powers. Those distinctions will be clear in the minds of Members of the respective Chambers and in the minds of the public who will be separately and distinctly electing people.
There is the idea that one form of election will trump another. In Northern Ireland, even those parties that defend the first-past-the-post system for elections to this House all agree that the elections for our three seats in the European Parliament should be by single transferrable vote, because it is fairer, better, safer and avoided geo-sectarian tensions and everything else. At no point are the mandates of MEPs used to trump or override the individual mandates of MPs in any sense. If we clearly distinguish between the two Chambers in how we work and function, there will not be a problem.
There is also the issue of other supernumerary members, not just those appointed temporarily as Ministers, but the bishops from the Church of England. I do not believe that that should be the case. However, from my own background and experience, I am obviously very aware of religious and constitutional sensitivities. If representation is to continue, there is no reason why there should not be some sort of pastoral Bench in the second Chamber, for, yes, Church of England bishops, but for other faith interests as well, perhaps without the right to vote, but with the right to address issues so that they can offer their sincere reflections without being trapped into various procedural devices and partisan ruses. Many of those pastoral interests might prefer to speak without the bother of the vote or being caught having to decide between amendments here and particular votes there. If we have 80% election, part of the 20% could be elected or approved indirectly through some of the devolved Chambers, and perhaps that could include some of the faith interests and some pastoral representation as well.
We need to think reform through a lot more than is provided for in the Bill, and we need to use the Committee to improve it. Unfortunately, I note that the only two parties in the Chamber that have never appointed anybody to the House of Lords—that have always refused to do so on principle—are not involved in the Committee. We are serious about reform; I am not sure if anybody on the Committee is.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
On 18 August 2011 it will be the 100th anniversary of the Royal Assent of the Parliament Act, which has been used on only seven occasions. It is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, Acts of Parliament, for the simple reason that it establishes the primacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords.
Having read some of the debates from 1910 and 1911 on the Parliament Bill, I find it interesting that at that time further change was expected. Indeed, the preamble to the Bill actually states this. No less a person than Winston Churchill said that the Parliament Bill was not meant to be the last word but the first. Speaking in the 1911 debate, he said that further legislation would include
“a measure for creating that fair and evenly constituted second chamber.”—[Official Report, 22 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 2036.]
It is clear that when the Parliament Bill was being debated back in 1911, further reforms were intended. At that time, some suggested the abolition of the House of Lords and that we should have just one Chamber but generally, overall, the view was that there should be two Chambers, and that view still prevails today. Interestingly, during the last 100 years we have effectively had a muddle. We had legislation in 1949, 1958, 1963, and more recently in 1999, but we have ended up in a thoroughly unsatisfactory mess. We now have an opportunity to put that right.
All three main parties in their manifestos have made a commitment, however lukewarm, to reforming the House of Lords. We have been talking about reform of the House of Lords for years, and it is about time that we got on and reformed it in such a way that we do not need to be debating it for the next 100 years but have a settled will. To achieve that, two key issues need to be dealt with. The first is the principle of reform, and the second is the practicalities of reform—the composition of the House of Lords and its powers. For today’s purposes, the most important is just getting across the principle of reform. To deal with that there are three key issues.
The first and most important issue is, quite simply, that we live in a democracy and power belongs to the voters. Voters exercise that power through the ballot box. As democratic authority derives from the electorate, the composition of any chamber or council should be decided by the people. It is extraordinary that we elect members of councils, MEPs, Members of devolved Assemblies and parish councillors, we even elect captains of golf clubs—
Mr Andrew Turner
Does my hon. Friend think that there would be any objection to electing magistrates?
John Stevenson
We are talking about the democratic institutions that make laws and byelaws, so I would take a different view on that point. We elect Members of this House, but for whatever reason we do not elect those who sit in the second most important part of our democratic institutions. For that reason, the House of Lords lacks true legitimacy and accountability. However great its expertise, diversity or experience, it is simply not elected. Of the 71 major Parliaments around the world, 61 have an elected or partly elected second Chamber. In fact, Canada is the only other major democracy with a fully appointed upper Chamber.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservative Government in Canada have just introduced a Bill in the Canadian Parliament to ensure that the Senate is elected for periods of nine years.
John Stevenson
That is an interesting point that I did not know, but it helps to support my argument. As someone who lives in a democracy, I think it is absolutely right that I should have the opportunity to stand for any elected Assembly in that country. As someone from this country, I should have the right to stand for election to the House of Lords. It is completely wrong that membership can be determined by a person’s religion. Interestingly, there have been comments about the Church of England, but as a member of the Church of Scotland I take a slightly different view.
John Stevenson
It is established, but not represented in the House of Lords. Members of the House of Lords are appointed by Prime Ministers past and present, and there is still the hereditary element. The composition of the House of Lords has also been mentioned. It is interesting to note that the average age of a peer is 69 and that the vast majority live in the south-east of England. I am not ageist, and I have nothing against people who live in the south of England, but that demonstrates that there are pluses and minuses to the composition of the House of Lords. Ultimately, it is right and proper that the House of Lords should be democratically elected because, quite simply, we live in a democracy.
Secondly, there is a lot of talk about the experience, expertise and, indeed, wisdom of Members of the House of Lords. I fully accept that there are some very able people in the House of Lords, far more able than myself, but they would not lose their expertise by being excluded. They could still be members of commissions and produce reports for the Government. Lord Hutton recently produced a report on pension reform, but he did not need to be a Member of the other House to do that, so I am not so sure about that argument. More importantly, we forget that this Chamber, too, has expertise. We do this Chamber a disservice when we talk about the expertise in the other Chamber, because the same expertise exists here. Indeed, Members develop that expertise over the years they are here, and I see no reason why that would not be replicated in an elected House of Lords.
John Stevenson
I do not believe that access to that expertise would be removed, because those people could still produce reports and be members of commissions and we could still debate their advice and act upon it.
Thirdly, there is the challenge between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which could be termed the power struggle. Yes, the conventions will undoubtedly change and a democratically elected House of Lords might assert itself more, but I do not think that that would necessarily be a bad thing. Indeed, it might be a good thing for our democracy. Ultimately, to go back to where I started, in 1911 the Parliament Act gave primacy to this Chamber, and that will remain the case however the conventions change.
In 1911, an MP called Herbert Samuel said that there might be
“common agreement as to the necessity for a reform of the other House… But there is no common agreement as to the character of that reform.” —[Official Report, 2 March 1911; Vol. 22, c. 669.]
In many respects that has been the issue ever since. There is no perfect solution, but we must find common ground as best we can so that we can conclude the reform. One hundred years ago the Member for Carlisle voted for the Parliament Act and supported the reform of the House of Lords; one hundred years later the Member for Carlisle would like to see that completed and will support the reform of the House of Lords.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by doing something that Members on the Opposition Benches do not do very often: congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on the approach he has taken so far in the formation of legislation. He said that it was impossible to defend the status quo. I disagree that it is impossible, but it is very difficult. The principle that legislators should be elected and hold popular legitimacy is one that we would want to see across the world and in our Parliament.
Let me be specific about what I welcome in the proposals. First, I welcome having an elected upper Chamber. Secondly, I welcome the Chamber being elected by proportional representation. I proudly voted no to the alternative vote and was glad to see that the people spoke resoundingly against that system, which I think would have been awful. One of the reasons people voted against it is that it would not correct what many consider to be the inherent unfairness in our system, even if I might want to defend first past the post, which is that AV is inherently disproportional. I think that there is scope for us to look at the arrangements between the House of Commons and the other place to address that by maintaining a strong system of first past the post in this Chamber and one of proportional representation in the other. I will go on to explain why PR would be a good option for the upper Chamber.
Conor Burns
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a danger in that, because many people believe proportional representation to be more legitimate than first past the post? If we were to elect a proportion of the Members at the other end of this building by a system that many people regard as more legitimate, the other place could claim more legitimacy.
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was just about to make. Some people in this country view proportional representation as a more legitimate system of representation, although I and many Members of this House would disagree, so there must be safeguards to prevent the second Chamber taking on the mantle of that legitimacy. In my view, a wholly elected upper House would be the best way to manage that change. Specifically, what would be of most benefit would be to ensure that there was no constituency link between Members of that Chamber and the places they sought to represent.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should confer legitimacy on the upper House and then prevent it taking on the mantle of that legitimacy.
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman and I obviously have different opinions on the definition of that legitimacy. There is a type of legitimacy that is very important—the legitimacy of being able to look people in the eye, having stood for election, and hold the mandate of being elected. Equally, there is an issue of accountability. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) were here, I am sure he would stand up and say that the most accountability and legitimacy he would have would be with Mrs Bone, because he has a particular one-to-one relationship. [Interruption.] Obviously, I should not speak about him when he is not here. I hold a level of legitimacy and authority with the constituents I represent—100,000 or so—and believe that that would be an unfair level of legitimacy, accountability and authority to bestow on the other place in its new and revised form. I think that that indirect accountability is probably the best way to achieve the balance between having an elected House and not threatening the rights and responsibility of Members in this House to represent their constituents. I think that a party list system would probably be the best way to achieve that. There are many arguments for and against it, and I look forward to the Joint Committee looking at that in more detail.
I want to discuss one other area in relation to which I feel that a 100% elected system would be best: the selection of bishops in the House of Lords. I am a Christian. I am quite overt about that and very proud of my Christian faith. I want to see more Christians and people from other faiths coming into Parliament, but I find it very difficult to defend a system under which we choose a certain group over-represented or to always have a seat in that Chamber. I buy into the liberal idea that there is a round table around which we all get to come together and make our voices heard, and, although I do not feel that that position is always held in this Chamber or in the other place, I believe that that second Chamber could be a place where people go with their own representational legitimacy to make their case, and to make it well, without relying on the fact that they are there simply because of who they are in their own organisations or through right of birth.
The proper way to get more people of faith into our institutions is to encourage more people of faith to stand and make their case for election.
Stephen Pound
I am extremely impressed, as I am sure the House is, by my hon. Friend’s speech. I do not claim to speak either ex cathedra or for the Roman Catholic Church, but I can confirm that it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church not to seek Catholic bishops in the House of Lords, because quite simply we believe in the sound Augustinian principle of the separation of Church and state. There should be good Catholics in the House of Lords, but not as bishops.
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend speaks as a good Catholic.
In summary, we will need to resolve the issue of whether 80% or 100% of Members should be elected, and we will need to ensure that this Chamber is predominant in our discussions, while extending greater legitimacy to the other House so that its Members can look people in the eye and say that they have been elected and chosen to go there.
I believe that 100% elected is the best way as we choose to go forward as a House with the other place.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am very grateful for your calling me to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I admit that for the first time in 13 months I do so with some trepidation, because, given the interventions and sedentary comments of those sitting close to me, I suspect that this is one of those arguments on which we will respectfully have to agree to disagree.
In case it has escaped anybody’s notice, we are at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, and in a democratic country it is anathema that both Houses of Parliament should not both be democratically elected. The ultimate question in a democratic system is, “Who appoints the representatives?”, and the ultimate answer is that only the people should be empowered to do so.
We have heard about the 61 other bicameral Parliaments throughout the world and how the vast majority have two fully elected Chambers, and that is absolutely right. Throughout the world, throughout the Commonwealth and, although it pains me to say it, throughout Europe, we see that that democratic structure is the norm. The United States Congress, with its House of Representatives and its Senate, is probably the predominant example, and 49 of the 50 American states have fully elected bicameral systems, too. There we have systems that work extremely well and, indeed, provide a greater check and balance than we have in our own Parliament.
In the Commonwealth, perhaps the best example is the federal Australian Parliament with its House of Commons and Senate, a system that, although no system is perfect, works extremely well for the people of Australia. That system goes for most Australian states as well.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and interesting speech, but he is surely aware that the vast proportion of the legislatures that he describes operate under codified constitutions that explicitly prevent power leaching from one side to the other. Does he propose a codified constitution in this case? That is surely the counterpart of the undoubted change in conventions that would occur if there were an elected Lords.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend anticipates the remarks that I hope to make in a few moments.
Several weeks ago I was in Poland, where I was fortunate to meet the Speaker of the Polish Senate. That country saw its Senate abolished under the Communist totalitarian regime but, happily, had it democratically restored approximately two decades ago, and again it is a system that works very well.
My main point—I hope this answers my hon. Friend’s question— is that I do not look to the rest of the world to tell me the best way to construct our Parliament; I look to our proud British history. We have had Parliaments in these islands for the best part of 1,000 years, and I am struck by the coincidence that 2015 will be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which is probably one of those points that set us off on our constitutional journey.
Since then, we have had the civil war, which in a greater way established the sovereignty of this Parliament, the Bill of Rights, the Reform Acts starting in 1832, the Parliament Act exactly a century ago, universal suffrage for women following the first world war and the Parliament Act 1949.
We are an evolving constitution, and we are a country that to its credit has proudly developed the principles of liberty and participative democracy over the best part of many centuries, but, as we are at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, an evolving constitution to my mind says that the only legitimate second Chamber for this Parliament is a wholly elected second Chamber, because 100% is the most legitimate and best way forward.
I do, however, want to make a couple of remarks about the draft Bill. I am pleased to note that it is a draft Bill, and I congratulate the Government on that and on the Joint Committee, because it is important that we feed in as many views as possible to what is an important constitutional change.
Time does not allow me to elaborate too much on the pros and cons of 15-year terms, but I suggest, first, to the Government that there should be a power of recall over any future elected Member of the House of Lords. I am sure that the vast majority of them will diligently carry out their duties on behalf of this Parliament and the country.
Stephen Pound
Just as Bagehot said that
“the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it,”
may I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the House of Lords record on those occasions recently when recalcitrant peers have been identified as breaching the rules? He will suddenly see that the wagons circle around them and, far from a power of exclusion, there is a power of holding tight to the ermined bosom. That comes across loud and clear.
Henry Smith
I wish I had the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, based on that final comment. There are some infamous examples of noble Lords who have behaved in a less than noble way, but most Members of the other place do a very diligent job, and I am sure that future Members, under whatever system, will do so as well. It is important, however, that we have a mechanism like that in local authorities, whereby, if somebody does not participate for six months, excepting ill health or some other legitimate reason, there is a power of recall or replacement for that individual.
My second remark is about an 80% versus a 100% elected second Chamber. I think that 300 Members is about the right number for a second Chamber, but my concern is that if only 80 Members are elected at the beginning of every Parliament, that will not be terribly representative of the smaller regional constituencies proposed in the draft Bill. Having 100% election and 100 Members elected at the start of every Parliament would ensure that there was far greater representation in the other place. It would also mean that we had a second Chamber that was not dominated by any one party, not only because of the system of single transferable votes but because of its term stretching over the course of three Parliaments.
With regret at not having more time to elaborate on my arguments, I very much support the Bill and look forward to Members’ contributions making it even better.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and to follow an extremely fine speech by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I agreed with practically every word.
Prior to being elected to this House, I was a lecturer in constitutional law. [Hon. Members: “He’s an expert!”] Perhaps not an expert, but certainly a lecturer. One of the highlights each year was to delight, if that is the right term, students with the subject of the composition of the other place and to observe their look of astonishment that in the first decade of the 21st century, as it then was, so many Members were there by virtue of the hereditary and appointive principles rather than the elective principle.
I rise to give expression to the commitment that was first given by Keir Hardie from the Labour Benches more than 100 years ago in favour of a completely elected second Chamber. Like many Members, I believe that that is the most legitimate form of composition of a second Chamber. I believe in the important principle that those who make the laws to which others will be subject should do so as a result of the elective principle. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Crawley has said, we can improve the draft Bill further by electing not 80% but 100% of the Members of any revised second Chamber.
This debate has been extremely useful as a discussion of the powers and functions that a second Chamber should have. I want to direct Members back to the very impressive royal commission report that Lord Wakeham helped to draw up in 2000. He mentioned two important functions that it is important to put into the debate, the first of which is scrutiny of the constitution and of human rights. Having viewed the experiences of other second chambers across the world, he believed that the second Chamber was uniquely placed to be able to give particular scrutiny to those parts of our public policy, and he was right to point that out.
It is also important that the second Chamber should be a voice for the regions and nations of the UK. Of course, that is characteristic of second chambers in federal states. Given that so many parts of the UK have embraced the joys of devolved legislatures or assemblies, it is important that the second Chamber moves away from the south-east-centric nature of its composition and gives a voice to other parts of England, to Scotland, to Wales and to Northern Ireland. Such a second Chamber would help to bring the Union together.
I accept that a completely elected second Chamber would change the nature of the relationship between the two Houses, but it would not necessarily become a rival to this elected House. Drawing on our experience of devolution, there is a Scottish Parliament; there is, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has pointed out, a Northern Ireland Assembly; there is a National Assembly for Wales; and there is devolution in London. None of those institutions means that Members of Parliament in this House have less work to do than we did before—it is different work, certainly, but it is not less. A completely elected second Chamber would not be a rival to this House, and we should not try to stymie reform on the basis of that argument.
We must look at the conventions between the two Chambers. The interpretation of the Salisbury-Addison convention, which has been alluded to many times, has changed over the past century, and that will have to continue if we move to a completely elected second Chamber.
I support a written constitution, which would be a way of enshrining more comprehensively many of the conventions that are part of our system. It would also set out much better the relationship between the state and the citizen, between this House and the other place, and between this Parliament and the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. That will be outwith the remit of the Joint Committee, but I hope that the Government will move towards a commitment to such a constitution as this Parliament continues. Labour Members will continue to point out the benefits that that would have.
The proposals in the Bill are fine, as far as they go, but they would be much improved by being bolder in moving towards an entirely elected second Chamber. We have waited 100 years for this change, and we must not baulk at it now. I believe that an entirely elected second Chamber is what this country and many Members of this House will expect us to achieve during this Parliament.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I am not entirely opposed to reform of the House of Lords, but I am deeply sceptical about the idea of an elected House of Lords. The simple fact is that there is far more to a successful democracy than elections. Many people have said that the reason why we must have elections for the House of Lords is to give it legitimacy. That is not the right argument. Lots of institutions in our democracy do not need elections to make them legitimate. Judges and magistrates are not elected, and we have a monarch who is not elected. All these parts of our constitution play a very important role despite the fact that they are not elective.
Stephen Williams
Judges and magistrates exist in our constitution to pass judgment over people who have broken laws. They are not there to make laws, which is what the House of Lords is for.
George Eustice
I accept that to some extent, although judges often make public policy decisions, and those judgments influence our legal system. However, my point is that we do not need elections for these institutions to be legitimate.
Jesse Norman
It is not true that judges do not have a role in making the law. For 700 years, common law judgments have been made in difficult cases that have laid down what is the law as a result. This position has always been understood by the judges. A famous lecture was given on the topic by Lord Reid in the 1960s. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we should have no truck with the idea that judges do not have a thoroughly legitimate, though unelected, place in the constitution.
George Eustice
I have given way a couple of times and I am going to continue.
The reason for having elections is not to give legitimacy but to deliver accountability. People say that we need to have greater legitimacy for the House of Lords, but if we gave it democratically elected legitimacy, it would then become a rival to this Chamber. That is one of the problems that is overlooked.
The proposals will not deliver accountability. There will be single terms of 15 years, and there is no chance of a failing lord being thrown out at the end of it. Accountability works when one can fire people who fail; if one cannot do so, it defeats the object of the exercise. We ended up with the stipulation of 15-year terms, because even the advocates of this reform recognise that as a consequence of having a democratically elected second Chamber people’s independence might be compromised, because they would have to jump to the electoral cycle and would be more in hock to the parties that sponsor them.
The proposed Chamber would have a mixed nature, with some people being appointed and 80% being elected. Who would be blamed if they failed? Would it be the fault of the ones who were elected or of the ones who were appointed? That would cause confusion where there should be clarity. It should be either all elected or all appointed.
We must also consider how the elections would work in practice. People will typically make these judgments on the same day as a general election. They will not necessarily vote for the best people to scrutinise Parliament in the House of Lords. It will be rather as it is with the European Parliament at the moment—a national opinion poll on whether the Government are doing well or badly. People will therefore not be selected on their ability to scrutinise the Government.
George Eustice
No; I have given way a couple of times and want to make some progress.
What is legitimate about electing people based not on their own performance or ability, but on the performance of the governing party or the Opposition? That is not the right way to select a Chamber that is, after all, there to revise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has said that the average age of Members in the other place is 69. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was also rather scathing about the advanced years of some Members in the other place and the quality of the debate. However, the House of Lords is the forum that we provide for debate for the older generation and people who have experience. [Laughter.] This is an important point, if Members will hear me out. I believe that the dynamic between the other place and this place should be akin to that between a non-executive chairman and a chief executive, or between a father and a son. It is a natural dynamic. This place makes the decisions as new Governments come in with fresh ideas that they want to implement. However, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that we are so clever that we do not need another Chamber of people who can bring to bear their experience and say, “Well, we tried that in the ’70s and the ’80s and it didn’t work.” That is the reason for having a revising Chamber.
I do not think it necessarily matters that not everybody in the other place is of a completely independent mind, such as those with a political background or former politicians. The key thing is they have independence of mind coupled with experience. Retired politicians who go to the other place are often of the view that they have been told what to do for long enough by the Whips and that they will use their experience to change legislation sensibly, which must be a good thing. If we change to an elected House, we will lose some of that. The types of people who will stand for election to the House of Lords will tend to be people like us. They will be of the same generation as us and might include people who were unsuccessful at the last general election and so decide to stand for the House of Lords instead. We will lose the natural dynamic between the two generations, which is important.
To conclude, I will say a little about the areas that could be meaningfully reformed without having an elected Chamber. First, we could make the Lords smaller. Secondly, we could limit the time that people are there, so that they serve 10 or 15 years and then retire. Thirdly, we could tighten the appointments criteria, so that there are more independent people, if that is what we want to achieve. The single most important thing that we can do is to expect people to attend and participate. All too often in the past 10 years, people have been granted a peerage in recognition of something that they have achieved in life, but not with the expectation that they will work and attend debates. If we changed that, it would be a more meaningful and important reform than having an elected upper Chamber.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
In years to come, when the proud constituency of Camborne and Redruth is mentioned, one speech will spring to the memory: the glorious suggestion of the Saga Chamber or the pensioners’ Parliament, where the old, the tired and the formerly famous can shuffle off to some distant spot where they will do no harm; where the dust will slowly settle, the clocks gently unwind and the ermine capes float through the detritus of torn Order Papers and House of Lords Hansard; where, like in the dying days of the court of Emperor Haile Selassie, no wages are paid; and where, like in the great zoos of Addis Ababa, giant pachyderms sink to their knees and surrender to starvation. There, in the House of Lords, a few people with their last breath will say, “Well, at least we weren’t out there causing trouble. We had been put somewhere safe. And who have we got to thank for it? Let us look to Camborne and Redruth.”
I suggest that there are other, better ways. I am not entirely sure that we suffer from a democratic deficit; I think we suffer from a flipping democratic surfeit. I, as an honest burgher of a sophisticated west London borough—Ealing, obviously—am represented by three first-class councillors; an MP of certain qualities, that is to say myself; a member of the Greater London authority; Members of the European Parliament; and Tony Blair, who certainly represents me in some forum somewhere, because he represents us all all the time. Do I really want somebody to be trailing his escutcheon through my constituency every few years, touting for votes, presumably on vellum and hand-engraved? There would be nothing so vulgar as an election, but I am sure that there would be some process, which would no doubt be worked out in North East Somerset. Do we really want that? I think that we probably have too much democracy.
There have been a few occasions on which people have sat down and thought about whether they actually needed a second chamber. One thinks obviously of the great Philadelphia convention, but some of us also think of the 1937 constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Those great legislators sat down and said, “Do we need a second chamber?” They came to the conclusion that, by and large, it was a fairly good idea to have one. I will not ascribe any ignoble motives to that, but it might have been a form of care in the community. To this day, Ireland has the vocational panels. The original idea was that there would be vocational panels to represent all aspects of modern Irish life. That is why people such as Oliver St John Gogarty, in between being thrown in the Liffey, and W. B. Yeats were Members of the Seanad Eireann. To this day, Ireland has the cultural and educational panel, the agricultural panel, the labour panel, the industrial and commercial panel, the administrative panel, and, of course, the national university of Ireland panel and the university of Dublin panel. I miss people such as A. P. Herbert who were elected to this place from the universities. Why does the university of West London not elect someone? If it cannot elect them to here, let it be to the other place.
Let us ask ourselves the most simple, basic, obvious question: is it really true that the only way in which experts can bring their light to bear is in the upper place? Did the noble Lord Ara Darzi achieve more as one of the finest and most famous surgeons in Europe than as a Member of the House of Lords? Look at the single greatest social change of the 20th century. The person behind that—Beveridge—was not in the House of Lords. He did not have to sit as a Member of the upper House to come up with the extraordinary idea of the national health service. The upper House is not the sole repository of wisdom, and it is not the only place where the great, the good, the bright and the brilliant can go and shine. There are so many other ways.
So do we need the House of Lords? I am not entirely sure, in all honesty, that we do, but as with so many things in this country, let us leave well alone. It is some glorious, great Gormenghast of a building that no one would ever build nowadays, but around which accretions, crenellations, towers and ramparts have emerged over the years. Hardly anybody knows what the original purpose was, but it does little harm, it is attractive, and on occasion it can actually add to the limited pool of intelligence and expertise that exists in this place.
I want to say that I have no ambitions whatever.
Stephen Pound
At least not this week, no. The difficulty, obviously, would be what level of expertise I would bring to the House of Lords. However, I have to say that I am instinctively opposed to the idea of a replicate second Chamber. We cannot have a dual mandate and have the same level of accountability in two places at once. Man cannot serve two masters; Parliament cannot have two masters.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
I begin by declaring an interest, because I have two noble kinsmen in another place, one a Cross Bencher and one actually on the Labour Benches. I feel it would be unhelpful of me to try to abolish them. Generally speaking, as I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, our noble kinsmen should not be abolished.
I am concerned about the draft Bill, because I do not think it tackles the fundamental constitutional issue that we ought to be considering—the fact that there used to be a balanced constitution, with the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, each having considerable power, authority and influence. In the 19th century the Crown lost its power, and over the 20th century the Lords lost its power, so now all the power in the constitution is theoretically vested here in the House of Commons. Of course, it is not, because it has gone back to the Prime Minister. Effectively, the Crown is more powerful than it has been since the time in the 18th century when the House passed the motion saying that the power of the Crown
“has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”.
My concern about the draft Bill is that it has been introduced without an examination of how that constitutional imbalance ought to be reformed and improved to get a better-working constitution that does not put all the power in the hands of essentially one person. Our coalition has changed that a bit at the margins—it is sort of one and a half people—but that really is not a very satisfactory constitutional settlement.
We have heard a lot of talk today about the Parliament Act 1911, without, as far as I know, anyone reading it out. I feel that I must put good that omission. The preamble to the Act is very clear, stating:
“Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:
And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:
And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber”.
We have not got that. That is the absolute nub and crux of the debate. We need to decide whether a fully elected House of Lords will have such legitimacy that it will then be an equal partner with this House of Commons, as it was prior to 1911 and the Parliament Act. Her Majesty’s Government argue at the moment that that will not be the case, and that all will remain the same. I simply do not think that is credible.
An Opposition Member said that since the removal of the hereditaries, the House of Lords has exercised its muscle more. Why? It has done so because it feels legitimate. It questioned the Salisbury convention. Why? It did so because the life peers thought that they had a greater legitimacy than the hereditaries. We know that secondary legislation is not covered by the Parliament Act, under which we cannot force things through until a year after the end of the current Session. Had their lordships dug their heels in on the alternative vote referendum, nothing could have been done until after the Queen opened Parliament about a year from now. Their lordships did not do that, because they recognised that it would have been an abuse of their non-elected power against the elected House.
As it happens, I am all for an elected second Chamber on that basis. I believe that a lot of legislation that is passed is bad, and I like what happens in the United States, where there is gridlock, and the mad ideas of one politician who happens to be in office for a short time are gummed up. In particular, that would make it difficult to effect major constitutional change on the whim of a junior partner in a coalition based on 23 words of his manifesto—23 words of the Liberal Democrat manifesto against a total, helpfully counted for me this morning, of 21,668. Of those 23, “House of Lords” is repeated twice. Once that is taken out, there is virtually no policy on the Lords in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, yet they say that that is enough to change our constitution fundamentally. That is an absolute scandal. We have already had a referendum on their pet project of AV.
Of course, the Labour party is right in its manifesto: if we are to make the change, it can be made only if it is put to the British people. They have to be given a choice about that constitutional settlement, and we have to be realistic about the fact that it will completely change the relationship between the two Houses. It will mean a strong House of Lords that will exercise its power, and if one thinks that that is a good thing, one may wish to support Her Majesty’s Government. However, those who want this House to remain primary must oppose the change. The Government’s statement in their draft Bill that Lords will not interfere in our constituencies is fair old bunkum. Of course they will—they are politicians. It will give them a chance, in exactly the same way as we interfere in matters that rightly belong to the councils. I oppose the proposal as it stands.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will drop the time limit to five minutes. It would be helpful if hon. Members shaved a little off their speeches—there is a load of Members to get in.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the debate. I have listened with interest and sometimes amusement to hon. Members’ speeches. I support the principle of a second Chamber or upper House that is 100% elected. However, my response to those who argue that we should pull back from the proposal because it is not enough is that securing 80% elected Members of the second Chamber would represent great progress compared with what has been achieved in the previous 100 years.
As Labour Front Benchers pointed out, a change was made to remove hereditaries some time ago, but that merely meant that people who were appointed at the whim of their Executive were considered better than the descendants of those appointed by previous Executives. That does not represent anything like a significant change. Moving to an elected second Chamber would achieve that change, which many Members would like.
I welcome the sensible phasing of elections because it could overcome the point about both Houses being elected on the same day, which feeds into the debate about rival mandates.
Although cost is not fundamental to what we are debating today, it will undoubtedly be raised by the forces of reaction, who, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, are present among us and very vocal today, as they were when electoral reform was debated here. It is therefore crucial that the proposal would reduce considerably the number of Members in the other place.
Case work and acquiring a new role in constituencies that would conflict with that of Members of the House of Commons have been raised. It would be useful to have a clear indication, as we have now when a Member of Parliament is expected not to take up case work from another Member. A similar principle could apply to Members of a second Chamber.
I find the idea that there is something different about people who do not face election, that they are somehow superior and that standing for election is a nasty, grubby business, utterly preposterous. I stumbled across an item on Radio 4 on Saturday, in which Baroness Bakewell said that it was much better not to have politicians in the House of Lords. It is ludicrous to claim that, just because people are not elected, they are not politicians. If they sit in Parliament and they legislate, they are politicians. They are merely unelected politicians. When I look at the House of Lords, I see parties in operation, Whips, Ministers and many of the things that we recognise in this House, but I do not see people who are elected by the people. That is what the draft Bill seeks to change.
I come from Cornwall, where there is strong tradition of independence in local government. There is a debate to be had on the role that Cross Benchers play in the other place. Their role is not superior. Cross Benchers often function and work together as a group—they are just as political as the party political groups—just like independent groups in local government.
As we proceed to debate this matter in more detail, and as the Joint Committee looks at it, I hope that we can come up with a solution that will deliver an elected second Chamber. I think that that is what the people want, even if it is not at the top of their agenda when they are looking for better employment opportunities, or to secure decent health care and a good education for their children. When asked, people will say that they believe in that change, and I hope that we can deliver it for them.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s publication of the draft Bill. As many hon. Members have said this evening, the House of Lords needs to be reformed. Much in the White Paper is very good. We need to reduce the number of Members of the other place; to introduce mechanisms for retirement and for dealing with peers who never attend; and, for those of us who are disestablishmentarians, we need to consider the role of the bishops—it is not fair that antidisestablishmentarians get to use the longest word in the English language. I managed to use it in my speech anyway—that was my challenge.
The Deputy Prime Minister is right to modernise, but he is not right to destroy the House of Lords. We do not need a copy of this House, and not just because of the cost, or because normal people out there are not paying attention to what we are debating. Nobody will be paying attention if Andy Murray is still playing. The rest of the country knows what is going on at Wimbledon; only those of us in the Chamber do not have a clue because we are concentrating on the debate—[Hon. Members: “He’s through!”] That is wonderful news! A Scotsman is on his way to winning Wimbledon—[Interruption.] I shall correct myself. A British player is on his way to winning Wimbledon. We need something different from this House not just because people will be appalled at the creation of a few hundred more full-time politicians—that is abhorrent to the man in the street—but because the value of a bicameral system is that the two Houses should be different from one another. They should be complementary, but not a mirror image.
The value of the House of Lords is its cumulative wisdom and experience. Most of its Members have unique value to bring to the House and to Parliament precisely because they are not elected, and not politicians seeking votes. That is their independence and strength. Make them stand for election, and they will become politicians, when they will lose their independence and their unique value.
Election is not the only route to democratic legitimacy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) rightly said, many people are part of our working democracy, and in their valuable, well-held positions, through methods other than election. What matters is not democratic legitimacy, but democratic accountability. That does not come about because someone is elected for one long term, with no opportunity for re-election.
If the House of Lords is elected, the delicate balance between our two Houses will be destroyed. No amount of assurance or clauses in Bills or examination of the Parliament Act will change the reality of that. It matters not that the Deputy Prime Minister says that the balance will not be changed; we all know that it will. Changing the House of Lords changes Parliament as a whole, and we should be considering the future of Parliament as a whole.
In their 13 years, the previous Labour Government tinkered with the constitution for short-term political gain. I have every confidence that this coalition Government, when they consider the consequences, will not make the same mistake.
In his conclusion, the Deputy Prime Minister said that in a modern democracy people must choose their representatives. That is absolutely right. We in this House of Commons are those representatives. The House of Lords is not the representative of the people. The Members of the House of Lords are not the people’s representatives: they are something different, and long may they remain so.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I am broadly in favour of the Government’s proposed reforms—at least, I was until the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) appeared also to be, at which point I wavered a little. I am coming back round as the debate goes on.
I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have had to say and we have heard strong arguments on both sides, which have served to highlight that this is a very difficult issue with which the House has been asked to grapple. However, that is not a reason for shying away from doing what I believe is—broadly speaking—the right thing. I agree with many of the Government’s objectives—I agree that the other place grows too large and that it raises issues of accountability and balance in how people are appointed—and I have looked at the proposed reforms and read the White Paper. It contains some good ideas. Indeed, I support 15-year elected terms, on condition that Members cannot seek re-election and the House is elected by thirds. That is a positive step that will tackle many of the issues that have been raised today.
My support is still slightly tentative, however, because I have a very serious reservation about the method of election proposed for the other place. At the moment, the proposed method is the single transferable vote. If one believes in proportional representation—and let us set aside the merits or otherwise of PR itself—STV has some advantages. It is relatively proportional and it allows individual members of the public to rank the candidates whom they want within a party slate, and so diminishes the power of parties to influence directly who gets elected—in a way that the closed list system does not, for example. STV gives the public the power to choose, but in the context in which we are now talking it is fatally flawed.
If we are looking at electing 180 senators—or MLs, Lords, peers, whatever they will be called—we must be looking at huge electorates in each constituency. In order for STV to be proportional, constituencies of four or more members are necessary. The larger the constituency—in terms of the number of members representing it—the more proportional the outcome of an STV system. In Northern Ireland, when STV was introduced, there were constituency sizes of six elected members. There have been debates in Ireland about the best size of constituency, and indeed wherever STV or a version of it is used across the world that is a long-running topic of debate. STV, therefore, would deliver elected members representing upwards of 500,000 people—voters—each, in which the public would be expected to rank candidates of their choice based on their preference.
In the north-east region, we would have four, possibly five, members of this new Chamber. As well informed an electorate as we have in the north-east, people would struggle to pick between party candidates on an individual candidate basis, because candidates would have to appeal to an electorate of some 2.5 million. Studies have shown, therefore, that an STV system discriminates against people whose names, by accident of birth, place them towards the end of the alphabet. I declare an interest, having a surname that places me at the end of the alphabet. When people are asked to rank in an STV system, many of them vote by party, as we know. The good, right-thinking people of the north-east would look for the Conservative candidates and rank them 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the order in which they appeared on the ballot paper—[Interruption.] Opposition Members shout “Shame!”, but those few people who may be confused and choose to vote for them would do the same. Therefore, this system discriminates almost directly against people based on where their name appears in the alphabet, and I urge the Government to think very carefully about introducing it.
This discrimination is well observed and indeed the Electoral Commission, in a report on ballot paper design in 2003, observed it. When Professor Dunleavy gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he also raised this issue. If we are even to discuss STV, we need to find a way to state clearly that this problem would be tackled, so as not to introduce a biased system, on the basis that it was an improvement, that would discriminate against people based on their surname. For many of the reasons discussed today, I broadly support much of what has been said on both sides of the argument, but in my own mind I still fall more or less on the side of the Government and am likely to support their proposals. However, I will not support them if they contain STV in an unreformed form, so I hope that the Government will think carefully about the electoral system that they use.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
If my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) were to propose that names appear on the ballot paper in reverse order, I would happily support him, given that my surname begins with V.
When these proposals were first made, I used the same phrase as my hon. Friend—I said that I broadly supported them—and having examined them more closely, I endorse them almost without reservation. I have some reservations, however, which I will come to later. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), I think I am right in saying that no one in my constituency has contacted me about this matter, either for or against, and despite my efforts, using my column in the Grimsby Telegraph, to bring attention to it, all I have succeeded in doing is to stir up apathy.
One of the strangest things to emerge in recent weeks, as this matter has been debated, has been the argument by those in the upper House who keep declaring that their role should continue to be one of scrutiny, but who then declare their total opposition to the Bill in principle, despite it appearing in the manifestos of each of the three main parties. Had I been a Member of the House in the late 1990s, I would probably have opposed the proposals that were made then, but life has moved on, and we now have a totally unacceptable situation in the upper House, which is completely reliant on patronage. I happen to believe that in a free country, representatives should be elected, and one of my objections is that the current proposals suggest that 20% remain unelected. I would prefer 100% elected, although I hold the rather idiosyncratic view that the bishops should remain. Even were they to remain without voting rights, they would offer spiritual guidance beneficial to our deliberations.
Those who argue that two elected Houses will lead to conflict and a power grab by the upper House—or Senate, as I hope it would be called—I would say that the lower House will retain control of money Bills, and of course the Parliament Acts will remain. Why should this country alone among nations with two elected Houses be unable to meet the challenge of those two Houses co-existing? The draft Bill acknowledges that the relationship between the two Houses is governed to a great extent by convention, and I am pleased that that will be retained. It would be a backward move were conflicts to be resolved by the judiciary.
On the question of expertise, it is interesting to note that, as has been said, expertise can be drawn on through the setting up of boards of inquiry and royal commissions, to which the great and the good can be appointed. The logic of saying that only experts should decide is that we pack our bags, go home and leave it all to the experts down the corridor.
On the 15-year term of office, it has been suggested that once elected, Members will be unaccountable. Governments with a working majority could be said to be unaccountable, although of course they constantly renew their mandate with support from this House. Those who come up for election to the upper House will stand or fall by the popularity of the Government, in the same way as MEPs and councillors are swept to one side if the Government happen to be unpopular. The same will happen in elections to the upper House.
Whatever electoral system is eventually settled on, I sincerely hope that it will not include a closed list. Closed lists are the complete negation of democracy, which is what we are trying to improve and encourage in this process. They give power to party officials, and, as someone who played a minor role as a party official, I speak from some experience. I have previously questioned the electoral districts, and the Minister knows my concerns about them. I hope that the districts will be as small as practicable to operate in a proportionate system. I support the proposal.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
To start at the end of my speech—if there is time, I will move towards the beginning—the main problem with the House of Lords is not a lack of accountability, independence or democratic accountability, it is the sheer number of peers. Let us take the number of peers appointed since the last election as an example. The former Prime Minister appointed 58 new peers in his working peers and dissolution honours lists. In November, the current Prime Minister appointed another 54. This is not sustainable, but there is no reason in law why it cannot go on for ever.
We should set a limit on the number of peers by Act of Parliament. That would prevent a Prime Minister from overriding the limit without changing the law. I believe that the limit could be 850 or 450, but let us take 850 to see how such peers would emerge. If we start with the current figure of 828 peers and, for argument’s sake, let us say that 20 peers die over the course of this Parliament, there would be 42 vacancies to fill in 2015. If the turnout at the next election was 60%, then 40% of voters would have chosen not to vote for any political party. Let the Prime Minister—or better, someone else—appoint that 40% of new peers from among people with no political affiliation. That means that 17 of the newly appointed peers would have no political affiliation, leaving 60%—or 25 seats—to fill with political appointees.
If the Conservative party won a majority of, say, 60% of seats in the House of Commons, the Conservative Prime Minister could appoint 60% of the remaining vacancies in the House of Lords—that is to say, 15 peers. The Leader of the Opposition, having won, say, 25% of the seats, could nominate that 25% of the remaining vacancies, or six peers, and so on. Therefore, the outcome in the House of Lords would be proportional to the number of seats in the House of Commons, thus representing the views of voters and those who did not vote. That would be a much more efficient way of achieving the Deputy Prime Minister’s aim of creating an independent, accountable and democratic upper Chamber.
Let me turn to how the House of Lords can be more democratic. An elected upper Chamber would, in fact, confound our democracy. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 emphasise the supremacy of the House of Commons as the representative body of the people. However, if these reforms go ahead, that statement will no longer apply. The second Chamber, also elected by popular vote, will have as much of a democratic mandate as the House of Commons. It would quite justifiably claim to be a representative body of the people. As representatives of the people, those in the elected upper Chamber would have as much right to refuse to ratify legislation as we in the lower House do. That would cause a constitutional crisis of epic proportions. That would be the danger if the newly elected upper Chamber, with as much of a democratic mandate as the House of Commons, decided to amend statutory instruments. That would be the consequence of making an unelected House an elected House.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank hon. Members who will serve on the Joint Committee for listening to the contributions of other Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who I believe have listened to every contribution.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), I did have one constituent—a gentleman from Kelsale—bring up the issue of Lords reform when I was canvassing in the general election. As I told him then, although I had not had a thought about it and did not feel particularly strongly about it, I would listen to the debate—and that is what I am doing now and for the future.
I agree with several things in the Bill. If we are to reform the House of Lords, for example, I agree with capping the number. I agree with the idea of its Members not being for life, and I agree with the idea of the transition. I quite like option 1. My favourite is the option to move to a smaller Chamber straight away, and I firmly rule out option 2 in favour of aspects of option 3.
As my hon. Friends have already said, it seems peculiar to say that there is accountability when people are not re-elected. There is, however, an opportunity to include recall powers, perhaps if Members do not show up. That happens in councils: if people do not show up for a certain period of time, they are automatically disqualified.
I welcome the idea of having ministerial Members, but will the Minister clarify whether these would be voting Members? Otherwise, there is nothing in the draft Bill to stop the Government of the day packing the upper House with a huge number of Ministers who could then vote.
I am not so sure of the need for Lords Spiritual. As others have suggested, there could be a role for a chaplain and it would be possible for people to speak as non-voting Members. As for having appointed Members, although I respect people’s expertise, there is as much of it in this House as in the upper House. So-called experts could be called as witnesses, although there is a risk of Buggins’s turn. A large number of ex officio appointments seem to be made when people retire from certain roles. That is wrong. Today, the Secretary of State for Defence has ruled that out for elements of our military forces.
As for where I strongly disagree, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), I believe that having the single transferable vote is wrong in this context. I would go further and suggest to the Minister that if we are having the elections on the same date, why bother having two separate votes? Having two voting systems on one day is completely unnecessary. We could use the proportion of the national vote—or the vote within a region, if regions are insisted on—to determine the election of Members to the upper House.
On the issue of whether we need regions or electoral districts, I strongly support other Members’ views on how, frankly, we do not want people floating around our constituencies, especially when they can say that they are also the representative in Westminster. I am not suggesting that our electorate is not intelligent enough to know the difference, but—how can I put it?—one election leaflet after another can sometimes be put across in a certain way. I will not go any further; I think hon. Members know what I mean.
Dr Coffey
I could not possibly comment on that.
Let me move on to deal with the powers. I made this point when the Deputy Prime Minister originally raised the issue. I disagree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), as I think we should be careful before we say definitively what the powers are going to be. I sympathise with hon. Members who are worried that giving legitimacy to the House of Lords by making it elected will lead its Members automatically to accept the idea that that is their lot in life so they will not look for any more. The European Parliament used to be appointed, then it became elected and over time it has gradually grabbed more and more powers. Indeed, it has an insatiable desire for more power, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned earlier. During this Parliament, we have seen the Welsh Assembly gaining more power and the Scottish Parliament demanding more power.
People will be elected for 15 years on the basis of a common manifesto. As I may learn, perhaps to my downfall in future, manifestos change every five years. If someone were elected for one term of Parliament, they might not feel bound to support the Government later on in their time. That said, Members elected for 15 years will at least be able to say to the Whips, “This is what I was elected on; this is my credibility; I will vote as I choose.” On that note, I support further discussion.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and I agree with much of what she said.
Obviously Parliament is not just this House, but it appears that this House, the legitimate House, is the House that lacks confidence in itself. The big fear is that giving more legitimacy to the House of Lords will diminish powers here, but the reforms that we are discussing, which will mean greater legitimacy for the other place, give us an opportunity collectively to hold the Government to greater account: to examine, cajole, petition and more effectively, not less effectively, ensure that there is greater scrutiny of Government. We need to claim back more powers collectively, and with a legitimate other place we can add to Parliament’s powers without any erosion of the powers in this Chamber.
It is not a zero sum game. If we have a stronger and more representative secondary Chamber, this place will not be diminished. Not only is it defeatist to think that we might be diminished, but such thinking does not reflect the history or tradition of Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) so eloquently observed, Parliament is here to take power away from the Executive. That is why it was created, and one of my ancestors spent a bit of time in the Tower of London as a result.
The proposed reform would also remedy a long-standing sore at the heart of our Parliament: the power of patronage. Since the inception of Parliament, the main thread linking generation to generation in this Chamber has been the fight against patronage. There is nothing more invidious than the patronage that accompanies the bestowal of membership of the House of Lords. It is much worse than the system of hereditary peers, it is much more open to questionable donations, and it allows Members of Parliament to be moved from this place to make way for high-fliers. In my view that system is not tolerable, and should have been reformed decades ago.
Nevertheless, I am not entirely uncritical of these proposals, but we need to think about the name that we give to the new version of the upper House. It must be defined as the junior Chamber: it must be seen not as upper or superior but as secondary, and, as many Members have suggested, the role of that secondary Chamber must be understood in relation to constituency MPs. We must decouple the issue of membership from that of honours. Sitting in a secondary Chamber is a job of work, not a fast track to aggrandisement.
There are two more fundamental issues with which the Committee’s consultation must deal. If we are to strengthen Parliament, we need more, not less, scrutiny of long-term planning by Government. I think that 15 years is an excellent term during which to examine a Government’s strategic policies, rather than examining their immediate legislation as we do. Most fundamentally, the secondary Chamber must not be able to initiate legislation. It should be able to petition Members of this House to introduce legislation, but it must not initiate it by means of private Members’ Bills, ten-minute rule Bills or any other mechanism.
This is one Parliament with two Chambers, one of which has its hands tied behind its back. We need to release it from its lack of legitimacy. Let us worry less about powers moving between the two Chambers, and spend more time thinking about the overall power that both Houses of Parliament should wrest back from the Executive.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Why are we discussing constitutional matters in this way? Is this how we should talk about our constitution? Is this how we think such matters should be discussed? Have we forgotten what a constitution is? Do we really think that something which constitutes the rules of the game, and which is supposed to protect our citizens against us, is something that we can somehow arrange in darkened rooms on the basis of 22 words out of 20,000 and three-line-whip through on a rainy afternoon? If we are here for the purpose of democracy, let us deal with the issue in a democratic way.
All of us in this House believe that there is a crisis of accountability and democracy. Let us make not only the outcome democratic; let us make the process democratic too. Let us have the confidence to open it up. Let us accept that constitutional issues are not like other laws, and that we cannot push through constitutional change in the same way that we change the treatment of wild animals in circuses. There is a reason for that.
Constitutions have traditionally emerged either from revolutionary fervour or slow historical evolution, yet we now behave as though they can simply be downloaded from the internet and, with a single press of the “replace all” key, be adjusted to any nation. We are going around the world doing that to other people, and now we are going to do it to ourselves. We are sending out British consultants to lecture Kenyans on governance and Egyptians on democracy, and we are writing constitutions for Iraq and holding elections for Afghanistan, and we are about to do it for ourselves with the same lack of success, because we lack the same thing. In all these cases, we fail because we fail to engage with the nation—with its imagination and desires. Instead, we treat this as a technical exercise. All the issues that have been raised today—who should be in that other House, what that House should do, how its Members should be selected, why it should be changed—are important not just because they are technical details, but because they matter for our country. They matter for our citizens, and the citizens should be allowed to speak about them.
The question of who is to be in the other place is not about what we in this House think should be the balance between elected politicians and the people down the other end of the corridor; it is about what the people think. Do they agree with the shadow Minister that our debates are of a far higher quality and that our expertise can be ranged against that of the other place; or if they were to spend some time in both this House and the other place might they think that teachers, policemen, professors and scientists have something to contribute that matters to them—that is valuable and that they appreciate?
What are we trying to create? Who are these senators with their 15-year terms? What will people make of these monsters of pride, with all the disadvantages and all the unaccountability—they will never stand for election again—sitting on their red Benches, swathed in their ermine robes, without the expertise of others, and able to claim a mandate from the people that conveys power without responsibility? Why are we doing this? We are doing it because the public is angry with us. Under the cloak of democracy and legitimacy, we are switching things around. It is as though our constituents had asked us to repair a leak in the school roof, and we have said, “Don’t worry, we’ve repaired a leak in the church.”
Please let us put our democratic principles into the process. Let us have a free vote at least. Ideally, two thirds of this House should vote for a constitutional change. The Labour party gave us a free vote, and I say to the shadow Ministers that they should stick to it. We should have a free vote on constitutional issues.
Finally, let us accept that if no crisis demands it, and if the public is indifferent and the other side is uninterested, then this reform is uncalled for. We should not let unfocused measures detached from urgent needs or our nation drive us towards a decision that will undermine trust, which is the only foundation of our legitimacy.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), not least because I can hope that the reason for our disagreement is that he has not yet had the chance to hear my speech.
I do not trust Governments—not this Government, not the last Government, nor any I have known. I am, after all, a Liberal. If, in common with many of my constituents, one distrusts Governments, then one must think it important to have checks on their power that protect people from their tyranny, be that a tyranny of the majority or, as is often the case in this country, a minority—of the old left and the old right as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) described them earlier.
Chief among those checks on power in our country’s proud history has been the strength of Parliament, and in this debate we hear much about the relative strength of each House of Parliament. I do not want to see an end to the primacy of the Commons, but it is more important to rebalance power between the Executive and Parliament as a whole and to do so in Parliament’s favour, as argued by my neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and more strongly by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
I, for one, appreciate the valuable work done by members of the House of Lords, and recognise that it is most unlikely, and in certain cases most undesirable, that those from some walks of life, whose wisdom or expertise is cherished there, would stand for election to a reformed second Chamber. For that reason, I can see how I could support the continued presence of a group of unelected members of a second Chamber, so that they could attend, advise, speak and no doubt persuade elected Members with the force of their argument. So powerful would these contributions be, however, that I see no reason why these unelected Members would need to cast a vote when the House divided.
The contribution of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber has been both welcome and necessary, but we cannot afford to leave it at that. I suspect its ability to be a revising Chamber is dependent on the powers with which it can persuade this Chamber to accept its revisions.
Parliament’s second Chamber needs the political legitimacy confidently to act as a brake against the unfettered power of an Executive who wield a majority in the House of Commons that they dominate first by their presence and then by their patronage. The Public Administration Committee noted in its recent report the increasing size of the “payroll vote”, as it is not entirely accurately called, to 141 MPs, which is already half the votes the Government have needed to win most of the Divisions in this Parliament. That dominance might grow further when the total number of MPs is reduced for the next Parliament.
It is an unwarranted concentration of power to have a second Chamber that is primarily appointed by the leaders of the political parties, at least one of whom will be at the head of the Government, as well as a Commons Chamber in which a quarter of MPs owe their roles in government to a similar process—and in which many more hope to. Such power is felt not just during Divisions in the Commons, but through programme motions that guillotine debate and through influence via the Committee of Selection in the appointment of Members to Public Bill Committees and those that decide on delegated legislation.
Some say that turkeys will not vote for Christmas and that that means we cannot hope to persuade the House of Lords to accept reform, but I say that for that same reason it is even less likely that this House will ever escape the dominance of the Executive. Our best hope of strengthening Parliament in the face of the Executive is to reform the Lords and to let the people decide who is to go there and vote on the laws of this land, a case that was made eloquently by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Crawley (Henry Smith). In this way, party leaders can be made to cede power to the voters and the second Chamber can grow confident in the use of its existing powers, with greater public acceptance. Parliament will again be able to stand tall before the Executive.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I welcome these proposals but lament the fact that they do not go quite far enough. I am one of that die-hard band of Conservatives who believe in a 100% elected upper Chamber. I joined the party not because it was the Conservative party but because I wanted to be a member of a party of change—a party in favour of changing Britain for the better, rather than keeping what was wrong as it was.
I have listened carefully to the debate. Some clear themes have emerged and I found some common ground with my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I want to draw Members’ attention to two important 18th-century individuals, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who wrote the federalist papers: 85 editions of pure intellectual dynamite that played an important role in the formation of the American constitution. They had great insight into human nature, how to balance competing interests and how to ensure that a constitution worked as a whole. If one mistake is being made today, it is our trying to consider the reform of the House of Lords in isolation from wider constitutional change. Ten years ago, I would have had no truck with the idea of a written constitution, which was anathema to me, but such was the tinkering of the Labour party over the past 13 years, with a bit here and a bit there, that I am afraid we are left with no choice but to go back to the drawing board—to the famous blank sheet of paper that the leader of the Labour party constantly brandishes at us—and start to redraw our constitution.
The other key concern that I have heard today is the importance of maintaining the parity of this House with regard to the other House. I entirely accept that, and there must be no question of our becoming a subsidiary Chamber, but my fear is that the Government’s proposals risk that very thing. My fear about using the single transferable vote to elect Members to the senate, or this other House, is that it will create the very debate about legitimacy and who has the greater mandate that we seek to avoid. However, there is a solution, which might appear perverse to many Members and will not please my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I think that the answer is to find an electoral system that is so manifestly unfair, disproportionate, unrepresentative and idiosyncratic that there could be no question whatever of any dispute about which is the pre-eminent Chamber.
Might I suggest that we go back to the federalist papers of Alexander and James and ask ourselves why it is that tiny Delaware has two Senators in the US Senate while mighty California also has two Senators? May I just fly a kite, as we do all the time in politics and hope not to get shot down, as I might be about to—who knows? Could we return to the counties of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland before the Local Government Act 1972? Perhaps we could have a senate with elections for the historic county of Lancashire, reuniting Barrow and bringing Liverpool and Manchester back in. Perhaps we could also recreate Rutland and have Surrey stretching into the Surrey docks as it once did. The system would be full of illogicalities, but surely that is the point, because to maintain the primacy of this Chamber and defend the principle of first past the post—which I will do to my dying day, I have now decided after that fiasco of a referendum—we have to ensure that we have an electoral system that retains the confidence of the people and starts to tie people more into their legislature. I can think of few things that would do that more than having senators for the historic counties.
I may be an MP, but I try not to have too big an ego, and I can cope somehow with having MEPs, county councillors, borough councillors, district councillors, parish councillors, Uncle Tom Cobleighs and all trampling over my local newspapers, talking about things that I have an interest in. I no doubt do the same to them. We can cope with having multiple elected representatives in the areas that we also represent. I think it is important that we support the Deputy Prime Minister as he re-enters the Chamber. These are bold and important proposals and we must back them.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) because he has expressed a view from the Conservative Benches that is probably discordant with the views of the majority on those Benches and I shall do the same from mine.
I welcome many of the reforms, such as the removal of hereditaries, the constraint on patronage and the limit on the term, which is probably a matter for debate, and the reduction in the number of peers, which should also be debated further. There are also the Government’s intentions about the maintenance of function and power and about the primacy of the Commons over the other place. In addition, we have the right to retire, which will clearly be welcome, and a beefed-up Appointments Commission. The transitional arrangements have been debated elsewhere.
Unless the other place can do things that we in this Chamber cannot do, or bring into the legislative process something that we in this rather more tribal environment are unable to achieve, frankly we need to ask ourselves the unicameral question: why bother having a second Chamber at all? It would be far better for the country, particularly in these rather straitened times, to turn it into a museum and generate resources rather than for the nation’s resources to be sapped by something that contributes nothing to the process itself.
I have a great passion for democracy, but we do not need to democratise everything that moves. What we are about is improving the primacy of this Chamber. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place, rightly emphasised that properly to have a debate about the need for this Chamber to function effectively we need to establish a written constitution that empowers this Chamber in relation to the Executive. It is not necessary to create a mirror image Chamber at the other end of the Corridor that contributes nothing to the legislative process.
There is a debate that we have not properly had. We have leapfrogged over the question of what we want a second Chamber for to how people get into that Chamber. The risk in the Government’s proposals is that we are welding the worst side of what we have in this place—its tribalism—into another place, rather than helping it to achieve the kind of objective that we want and the nation needs in order to balance what we do here with what is required in what should be a revising Chamber, a place for sober second thoughts, and not one that simply reflects the same kind of party tribalism that we have here. It will contribute nothing. We might as well not have it at all.
The potential risk of the seepage of power from this Chamber to the other is addressed in the draft Bill, but not sufficiently. It acknowledges on page 11 that the balance of power is established on the basis of statute to a certain extent, but also convention, and of course convention is changed by convention. One of the conventions that will be under a great deal of scrutiny and is at risk is that if there is no intention to codify the relationship between the two Chambers, powers will seep to another place. There will certainly be a challenge to take those powers to another place. Rather than go through the process of electing members to another Chamber, we should establish and work on a written constitution for this country.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
As is pretty obvious to people who know me well, I am not an academic, a lawyer or a constitutional expert, which puts me in a minority of probably one for the purposes of this evening. However, I am a pragmatist from west Wales, and in that spirit I want to offer something constructive to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), of whom I have grown rather fond during the past 14 months as we have discussed one constitutional matter after another. Some of my best friends are estate agents and car salesmen, and much as I know them well, like them and enjoy their company— indeed, I was one at one stage—it does not necessarily mean that at the end of the day I want to buy what they have on offer. I fear, and I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, that this moment is no different.
Given the limited time that we have, I thought it would be helpful to summarise the debate. I have sat through 50-odd contributions and for the sake of something different to say, I jotted down what I thought the debate had shown. A snapshot of the views expressed across the Chamber reveals that this is not about Lords reform but about parliamentary reform, abolition of the Lords and the relationship between the Lords and this place, between us and the devolved Assemblies and between us and voters. Those are serious matters. This is not some throw-away matter that we can loosely describe to the press as a process of kicking out a few old duffers. This deserves to be taken more seriously.
Another point that has been raised is that there would be long-term effects. There are long-term questions that need to be answered and arguments that have not been properly addressed, and I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to reply to them. What failure in the upper House are we seeking to remedy? How will elected Members succeed where unelected ones have apparently failed? What improvements are we hoping to achieve? We seem fixated on how the House of Lords, or whatever it will be called, will look, rather than what it should do. That is the nub of the matter, and I must say that this afternoon’s debate has simply confirmed my fears in that respect.
On the other hand, the Government have attempted to make the case that the Lords “lacks sufficient democratic authority”. Mind you, so do many other institutions in which the nation happily puts its trust. That is an absolutely fair accusation if that is what we seek. There have been enough contributions from around the Chamber and the other place to suggest that that is not what we seek, so we must be very careful not to justify these measures purely on the basis of that argument.
There appears to be no public appetite for this, and people have dismissed public appetite as somehow irrelevant. They say, “It may be boring, but it’s important.” Well, many things we do here are boring and important, and some are boring and unimportant, but this is actually boring and very important. I wonder what my friends in The Eagle in Narberth would say tonight if they flicked over from the tennis and saw me standing here. When they are trying to cling on to their public service jobs, or hold on to their house, or get an operation in their local hospital, they will think—I apologise for looking at the camera if this is the case—that this is yet another example of some self-indulgent activity that contributes to people’s disinterest in and indifference to politicians of whatever nature, either elected in this House or unelected in the other.
There seems to be almost no parliamentary support for the proposals, judging by the statistics in the House of Lords and in this place. There appears to be some coalition interest, and we can only speculate why that might be. There are profound long-term constitutional consequences that need further examination. We are told that there would be significant costs, which one estimate puts in the region of £433 million. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the comments that have been made this afternoon and follow the recommendation that many Members have made, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), which is to proceed with great caution, go for a free vote and remember that it was not long ago that we suggested to the Labour Government that there was a fine line between constitutional reform, which we all support, and constitutional vandalism, which we accused them of achieving. We should bear in mind the wonderful words of the Prime Minister, whom I also commend, who rightly said that this was a fourth-term issue.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and congratulate him on an excellent speech. This Government will be seen in time as one of the great reforming Administrations, but I must say that I am not an enthusiast for this legislation. I will focus on one argument that goes to the heart of the debate. It has been repeatedly claimed that an elected House of Lords is a commitment set out in all three main party manifestos and that the Government and the Opposition would therefore be justified in using the Whip and the Parliament Act to push it through. If we look at the manifestos, however, we can quickly see that this argument is mistaken. The Liberal Democrat manifesto includes just three references to the House of Lords and includes a commitment to “a fully-elected second chamber”, so Liberal Democrat MPs who vote for an 80% elected Chamber will be voting against their manifesto.
The Labour manifesto does better, because it has five references to the Lords, but its commitment includes a referendum and the Bill does not, so Labour Members can hardly be whipped to vote for an elected Lords without the democratic legitimacy of a referendum.
What does the Conservative manifesto say? There is just one reference to an elected House of Lords, on page 67, and it is not deemed sufficiently important even to be included in the summary at the head of the chapter. It states:
“We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”.
That is a commitment not to an elected House of Lords but to
“work to build a consensus.”
We have a White Paper and a draft Bill, so that commitment has been discharged, and on those grounds alone it would be quite wrong to use the Whip or the Parliament Act to force Members of this House to vote for this legislation. There must be a free vote.
The House of Lords is an imperfect institution, as even its own Members concede. Its powers, composition and legitimacy have all come in for severe criticism over the years from different parts of the spectrum, but I am at a loss as to why anyone should want a Lords that was more party political, less expert and more expensive than it currently is. There is widespread public distrust in elected politicians, but this measure serves only to aggravate that distrust when we should be doing everything that we can to restore it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), although that was the most casuistical argument based on party manifestos, and I completely disagree with him.
My central argument in favour of reform of the second Chamber is that the current system is unsustainable, in particular because of its effect on this House. At the moment, that House infantilises this House, because all too often Ministers stand up in this Chamber and refuse to give way or to agree to a perfectly sensible amendment, and then the Government go down the corridor and give way in another House.
Quite often, civil servants—whom we all love—say to their Minister, “What are you going to give away when you get down to the other end of the building?”, and that means that we do not do a proper job of scrutiny in this House. We will never do a better job of scrutiny in this House until we reform the other House, and that is why it needs to be changed.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because he has only just spoken. Some 34 Back Benchers spoke, and I want to reply to as much of the debate as possible.
The current system is also unsustainable simply because of the numbers. There are already more than 800 Members down the other end, and if we do not make reforms towards an elected second Chamber, we will end up with another 269.
Chris Bryant
I hear the hon. Gentleman say, in a rather Tudor way, “Let’s just reduce the number.” What? A kind of cull? Beheadings? We should have Acts of Attainder, perhaps, down this end just to get rid of particular named Members down the other. I am not sure that that is right, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who said that there are too many Members and we need to ensure that there are fewer. The proposals are right in that regard.
A system that is based on appointment always leads to patronage. It was ever thus, and surprise, surprise, whoever we get to appoint people, they end up appointing people who are rather like them. When Lord Home of the Hirsel announced that women were to be introduced to the House of Lords, he rather bizarrely said that
“taking women into a Parliamentary embrace would seem to be only a modest extension of the normal… privileges of a Peer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 1957; Vol. 205, c. 590.]
People did not quite understand what he meant, but the following year, when the first four women peers were introduced, one was the wife of a viceroy, another was a daughter of a viceroy and a third was already a Dame of the British Empire.
It was exactly the same in 1997, when the Labour Government decided to ask somebody to draw up a new system of appointments. We asked Herman Ouseley to do so, and he came forward with the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which we now enjoy. Guess who was on the first list of people whom the commission appointed—Herman Ouseley, now Baron Ouseley. To recite an old Robin Cook joke, there is of course Elspeth Howe, who became a Lady when her husband became Sir Geoffrey Howe, a Lady when her husband became a Member of the House of Lords and was then, herself, made a people’s peer, so she was “Once, twice, three times a lady”—[Interruption.] Sorry!
Appointment for life is also, in the end, reactionary. It often means that the wisdom and experience that goes into the House of Lords sits there for 20, 30 or 40 years and then becomes out of date and refers to a society of many years before. It was suggested earlier that the House of Lords should be a place of debate for an older generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that that is effectively the Saga version of the House of Lords. We need a far better system to ensure that what it does reflects the will of the whole country. One of the other problems about appointment is that over the past few years the vast majority of appointments have come from London and the south-east of England. It is almost inevitable that those who end up doing the appointing end up appointing in their own likeness.
The system of by-elections for hereditaries is unsustainable, as is reflected by the elections that take place when one of them dies. As I am sure that all hon. Members know, earlier this year, on 11 May, there was a by-election following the death of the 11th Baron Monson. Fourteen hereditaries stood; seven got no votes at all; five—the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Drogheda, Lord Cromwell and Viscount Colville of Culross—were eliminated because the single transferable vote is already used for the House of Lords; and the Earl of Lytton beat the Duke of Somerset by 15 votes to nine. I have to say that my favourite is still the 2005 by-election in which there were 28 electors, 26 stood, 19 got no votes at all, and in the sixth and final round Viscount Montgomery of Alamein defeated the Earl of Effingham—you couldn’t make it up, could you?—by 11 votes to eight. It was pure “Blackadder”. I am delighted, however, that in the other by-election that took place this May, a Labour candidate, the third Viscount Hanworth, stood against a Liberal Democrat, the Earl of Carlisle, and the Labour man got 233 votes while the Liberal Democrat got only 26. Interestingly, it is sometimes said that people will not stand for election to a second Chamber, but the Earl of Carlisle has not had much luck, as he also stood for the Commons in 1987 and 1992.
Incidentally, it is inappropriate that we still combine the peerage with the legislature. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) wants to be a baron, a viscount, an earl or whatever, it would make far more sense for him to make his bid and start to get a bit less rebellious, because the Government will not be doling it out to him, and I am sure that Her Majesty will end up giving him a suitable honour.
Several hon. Members referred to experience and expertise. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has said, we should not undervalue the expertise and experience in this House. Many of us look to people such as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who have a degree of experience in certain fields, to bring that to this House. It is true that there are not many generals here, but there are majors and people who served in the ranks. One of the best speeches on the military covenant that I have read or heard in either House was made by a Member who has never been a member of the armed forces—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby)—as I think that a lot of hon. Members who heard it would agree. As regards the NHS, we have GPs and a gynaecologist, who is in the Chamber now. We have teachers, people who have run their own businesses, people who have built their own businesses and people from the shop floor—we even have a vicar and a former Member of the House of Lords. We should not undervalue the experience that people like to see getting elected to this House.
On the bishops, it is inappropriate that they should represent only the people of England. For me, one of the great moments of the debate was hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is a well-known papal knight and a respected Roman Catholic, acknowledge that the bishops of the Church of England are actually bishops—so the job of the Reformation is done. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who served with distinction as one of the Church Commissioners, that the bishops were originally here because they were one of the major land tenants in the country, then because we took into Parliament the business of deciding on religious matters such as transubstantiation and now because people argue, as we have heard, that we need them for spiritual support.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, neither the spirit of the land nor the Churches have collapsed because no bishops represent those areas in Parliament. Although some of my best friends are bishops, I honestly think that the time has come for them to depart the House of Lords. That would not signal the disestablishment of the Church of England, just as the fact that there are no representatives of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords does not prevent it from being established. I say to my bishop friends that they can make a far more effective contribution to society by editing the New Statesman. If that has not helped Conservative Members join my cause to take bishops out of the House of Lords, I do not know what will. I hope that we will see an end to bishops in the House of Lords.
There are some problems with the legislation, as hon. Members have said. First, the powers of the House of Lords must be addressed. I do not think that clause 2 will stand the test. The Salisbury-Addison convention, to all intents and purposes, is now non-existent. It cannot hold water when there are more than two political parties in Parliament. It is frankly not worth the paper that it was not written on.
I think that 15 years is too long for somebody to be elected for. It is very difficult to see how somebody can be genuinely representative and accountable when they sit for fully 15 years. As the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) have said, it is important that we have a system of recall. If somebody is elected and hardly ever turns up, abuses their position or gets into some kind of trouble, there should be some system of recall, just as there should be for this House.
Many Members have said that this issue is not a priority and that we should not deal with it, but I profoundly disagree with them. In the end, it is about how we use power. All the other issues that my constituents of course talk far more about, such as jobs, unemployment, benefits, creating a successful economy, transport, teachers and hospitals, depend on whether we distribute power properly. That is why it is important to have change. Having just a system of appointments is reactionary. It means that we always reflect the past and do not offer a greater future, and it also creates the problem of patronage.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough hopes that the radical left and the radical right will combine to see off the proposals. I hope that everyone unites to improve the proposals, because they certainly need improvement. If the Government are too intractable, the measures will die. However, let us not lose sight of the unsustainability of the present arrangements. Surely, if one wants to tell other people how to live their lives, which is in essence what a Member of a legislature does, the least one can do is to put oneself up for election.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s very positive winding-up speech. He clearly listens to the debate in this House, which is unlike that in the House of Lords. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the House of Lords debate last week, there were 101 Back-Bench speakers, of whom 19 were in favour of a wholly or mainly elected House, at least in principle. I thought that was actually quite encouraging, given the turkeys and Christmas principle. It is worth noting that 68 of those speakers were former Members of this House, which gives the lie to the idea that all those who speak in the other place are disinterested experts; they are largely people who have been in politics and remain in politics. It seems to me that such people would have no problem standing for election.
Our debate was more balanced. Out of 34 Back-Bench speakers, I counted 15 who were broadly in favour of the proposals, 16 who were not in favour and three who were broadly in favour of reform, but had significant concerns about our proposals. It was a fairly balanced debate, which I think is why the Opposition Front Benchers became more enthusiastic about our proposals as the debate proceeded. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) started very positively by saying that he was committed to a 100% elected Chamber. However, I detected that there was a danger of his letting the best be the enemy of the good.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) gave a sensible counsel of action. He made it clear that he was in favour of a 100% elected Chamber, as is my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, neither of them wants to let attempting perfection prevent any reform whatever, and both think that ending up with 80% of Members of the House of Lords being elected would be an improvement on the position that we have today. I hope that other Members will pay attention to that.
It is worth reminding everyone at the beginning of my remarks that we are considering a White Paper and a draft Bill. We are carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny, which we were urged to do on previous constitutional Bills. A Joint Committee has been set up, with 13 Members of this House and 13 Members of the other place of varying degrees of enthusiasm for reform. If we look at the Committee in the round, we see that it is broadly representative. I hope that it will consider the issues raised in the House of Lords last week and the House of Commons today. I know that a significant number of its Commons members were present today and listened to the debate either in full or in part.
Mark Durkan
Is the Joint Committee not really going to be just a theatre for screensaver politics, in which images are going to be projected, an impression of activity and movement generated and shapes thrown, but nothing real will actually be achieved?
Mr Harper
I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There are serious people on the Committee, and it is chaired by a very senior Member of the other place, the noble Lord Richard. It has the capacity to consider the matter seriously, examine our White Paper and our draft Bill and bring forward a serious report that we in this House and the other place will consider. It has that opportunity, and it is up to the Committee whether it decides to grasp it or to do what the hon. Gentleman says. From looking at the members of the Committee appointed from this House and the other place, I have confidence that it will take the matter seriously. The Government will listen to it if it engages seriously in the process, and I hope that it will.
A number of Members wondered why are introducing these proposals. The simplest answer is that those who make the laws should be elected. One Member of the other place, who will remain nameless, said last week that she did not believe there was a democratic deficit, or that elections were the only form of democracy. In response, the noble Lord Sharkey said:
“She argued that the scale of the House’s outreach and its collective wisdom constitute a kind of democratic system.”
He continued, in a way that I thought was appropriate to the House of Lords, that that allowed
“a much more flexible definition of democracy than is usual.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1233.]
I agree with him. Democracy is based on direct election to key institutions, and the House of Lords is a key institution that makes laws. It is a legislating body. Having been responsible for steering legislation through Parliament, I am not sure about the idea that the other place simply gives the Government advice, and it is entirely up to us, in a relaxed manner, whether we take it or leave it. I am afraid that was not my experience of trying to get legislation through the other place. It is part of this Parliament, so its Members should be elected.
A number of Members suggested today that they had concerns about primacy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who was the first Back Bencher to speak, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). We have not said in our proposals that there will be no changes if Members of the other place are elected. We have said that there will be an evolution of the relationship between the two Houses, but that ultimately the primacy of this House is guaranteed by the Parliament Acts. We control the supply of money, and ultimately we can pass legislation without the agreement of the other place. The relationship will change, as it has over the past century. It has changed since last year, with the advent of a coalition Government and the fact that the Salisbury-Addison convention does not operate in the same way, if at all. That change will continue, but ultimately this House is supreme, and that is guaranteed by law.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), made the point that this is not a zero-sum game. Improving the way in which the other place works could mean that our game is raised, and that collectively these Houses will do a better job of holding the Government to account. Many Members have referred to the role of the other place, which is to scrutinise and revise legislation, but also to hold the Government to account. Both Houses have a responsibility to do that, and both could do it better.
I say to those concerned about primacy that we considered carefully how to constitute the other place and examined ways of preventing it from being able to argue that it was more legitimate than this House. We proposed a different system of election, and elections by thirds, so that the House of Lords never has a more recent mandate than the House of Commons. We have said that Members should be legitimate by being elected, but we recognise that they will not be as accountable as us because they cannot be re-elected. They cannot therefore argue that they are more legitimate and usurp our powers.
Let us consider the point about talents and skills. Broadly 25% of the current House of Lords are Cross Benchers; the rest are already party political nominees appointed by the party leaders and the Executive. The idea that the other place is somehow free of politics or party politics is simply wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) explained that elections will be an improvement on patronage.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said that the House of Lords was larger than all Assemblies except China’s National People’s Congress, which has more than 3,000 Members. That was a particularly topical reference given Premier Wen’s visit today. I will not pass on that news to the Prime Minister—he might think that 3,000 Members is a target for which to aim rather than something to be discouraged.
The serious point is that the other place has talented Members on the Cross Benches and the party political Benches, but I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: so does this place. Someone mentioned a national health service debate in the other place, in which Lord Howe of Aberavon referred to the number of experts there. We have them in this House, too. We have a practising dentist, a former GP, a former hospital doctor, former nurses, former members of the armed forces, former business people, former opticians—[Interruption.] I skipped over lawyers deliberately, but we have other talented people who can contribute to the House. We should not do ourselves down and pretend that Members of this House do not have a lot to offer.
I have been present for the entire debate and I have read Hansard for the two days of debate in the other place last week. Frankly, I must say that more fresh and considered ideas about improving the draft Bill came out of today’s debate from elected Members of this House than emerged from the debate last week.
One or two hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), asked why we favoured proportional representation. The answer is simple. First, the Government should not have a majority in the other place. It should not be a carbon copy of this House, so the system should be different. We selected single transferable vote in the draft Bill. We recognise that there is a case for an open list. The STV system would reduce parties’ control and allow Members to be more independent. People said that they liked that aspect of the existing House of Lords.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) when he said that having first past the post in this House, which he and I supported in the recent referendum, and proportional representation in the House of Lords, forms a solid constitutional settlement. The two Chambers have a different role and should therefore have different electoral systems that play to those different roles.
For the future, we have a draft Bill, and both Houses have appointed a Joint Committee, which can start its work. Both Houses have given the Committee an “out” date—we want it to report by 29 February next year. If the Committee wants more time, it can come back to both Houses, as is usual. The Government will listen to what the Committee states in its report. We have listened carefully to the debate last week and today, and we will continue to listen to hon. Members’ views. We will listen and adapt our proposals, and in the next Session we will introduce a Bill to reform the other place, with the first elections in 2015. I hope that we will get the support of as many Members as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of House of Lords reform.
Business without Debate
Community Orchards
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I am pleased, both as a Conservative Member of Parliament and as the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, to speak about this important subject of community orchards. However, I am more pleased still, because I am also a russet, which is not merely a type of apple, but the name given to those who originate from the tiny village of Weaverham in the centre of Cheshire, which is where the Wareham russet was first invented. I am a true Wareham russet.
It is a pleasure to talk about community orchards. My home village of Weaverham was once awash with them. They grew both apples—Wareham russets—and our famous damsons, but in the immediate post-war period, they were all grubbed up to make way for council housing, to provide accommodation for those who went to work at the great Imperial Chemical Industries plant in Northwich.
We lost our community orchards, but sadly, we were not alone in our loss. Since 1945, we have lost 63% of our orchards one way or another. Indeed, in the traditional fruit-growing counties, such as Herefordshire, Kent and Worcestershire, the losses have been greater still.
However, things are stirring in the orchard world—a susurrus whistling through the bows, that some in the House have not yet quite heard. I should like to pay tribute to a very large number of organisations that I have contacted in the past week which have helped me to put my speech together. Common Ground, which is based in Shaftesbury in Dorset, is a particularly worthwhile organisation that has done much to promote apple day, which falls on 21 October, the same day as Trafalgar day. In fact, that gives added credence to the idea of making Trafalgar day our new bank holiday. We could perhaps call it apple day. Other groups, such as the Orchard Network and the Northern Fruit Group—the list is endless—do sterling work to protect heritage fruit species that I feel so passionate about. The People’s Trust for Endangered Species has just completed the national orchard inventory as part of its work to protect the noble chafer beetle. That is an example of biodiversity in action, which encompasses much of what orchards stand for.
However, I am sure the Minister is wondering why I summoned him on a Monday night, to sit here at the end of the day to talk about community orchards. I am sure he is not overly amused, but let me explain why I have come here tonight. This debate is not just about orchards, but about the meaning of localism. There is a need to recognise the distinctiveness of our towns, villages and communities, and orchards are a wonderful way of doing that.
Many people, when they heard that I would have this debate, asked, “What is a community orchard?” and I had to explain that they are orchards that are in the community. Anyone can go in and enjoy them at any time, and those people can come together as a community. They can be the focal point for a village, an estate or even just a block of flats. The concern that animates our national debate on cloned town centres, with their identical chains of shops, is also behind community orchards. We need distinctiveness and difference.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I absolutely applaud my hon. Friend in his call for more community orcharding. I come from the county of Herefordshire, which is thrilled to be the largest cider orchard county in the country. Does he share my view that we should not restrict cider and other orchards to rural areas, but encourage them within urban and suburban areas, where they can also give so much joy to local people?
Paul Maynard
Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My constituency has no green space apart from a golf course plonked in the middle of it, so I would welcome more green of any variety.
It is also important to recognise that the last Government—although no Labour Member is in their place now—did something to recognise that orchards were a habitat at risk, as they were added to the list of 15 biodiversity action plan habitats. However, as no inventory had been made, we were not sure of the starting point for the action plan. The work that has just been done by the traditional orchard inventory project, helped by Natural England, has allowed us to identify 17,000 hectares of orchards, many of them basic community orchards. One sad aspect of that work is that 45% are considered to be in poor condition, and that is where we start to get into the political remit of this issue.
The natural environment White Paper contained a sole, but welcome reference to community orchards, in relation to Tower Hamlets, which is a very urban area. The issue of protection for these orchards is paramount so, with the authority of many of the stakeholders for these orchards, I ask the Minister what more he can do to offer protection to the orchards. Many people have complained to me about the difficulty of obtaining tree protection orders. There is a failure to realise that many fruit trees grow for many hundreds of years. For example, I had no idea that a pear tree could still be maturing after some 300 years.
We also need to ensure that any fruit produced by these trees is not wasted. That means better liaison with the cider industry and within communities. I was pleased to see that the White Paper mentioned local nature partnerships and nature improvement areas, which could encompass community orchards. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that organisations such as Common Ground and the Orchard Network will be able to start to bid for money to allow them to assist local groups to conserve their older orchards through small grants for insurance, fencing, stakes and gates—all those things that are needed to put the infrastructure together to help us to build a community.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of these orchards to biodiversity. I recall them from my childhood days as being an edible hedgerow, with so many varieties of fruit on offer in the village, but they are also communal assets. Some of the concern stems from the need for more statutory presumption against the grubbing up of these smaller orchards for in-fill development. We often have debates in this Chamber about back-fill, in-fill and bungalows popping up everywhere. Orchards are very susceptible to this, and I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that he will give some consideration as to how they can be more protected.
I recognise that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot do it all. Orchards have a great potential. Indeed, the Department’s fruit and vegetables taskforce came up with a multitude of recommendations for cross-departmental working that will be very helpful. I am one of the few MPs who has managed to wade through the gargantuan Marmot review into healthy living, which is a 300-page leviathan of nanny-state prescriptions, but which made an important observation:
“Improving the good environment involves addressing issues concerning the accessibility of affordable and nutritious food that is sustainably produced, processed and delivered”.
I have referred to the importance of not wasting the fruit that grows in community orchards. My constituency is the fourth most deprived constituency represented by a Conservative MP and includes a particularly poor estate called Grange Park. It was where the Conservative party held its social action project during the 2007 party conference. That is where the fruit trees in my constituency came from—planted by the party as part of that social action project.
The great lesson I took from that experiment was that for many children on the estate, fruit comes in a bag from Iceland. In this week of all weeks, with Wimbledon being played just down the road from here, the notion that fruit such as strawberries have a season would be incomprehensible to many of the children on that estate. The importance of orchards as educational tools should be considered as well.
Although the Slow Food movement is growing in popularity—I was in Ludlow, not too many weeks ago, enjoying a food festival there—it must not become the preserve of the upper middle classes, or something chichi or fashionable. It has to be something that my constituents can access as well. I am pleased, therefore, that at the recent civic trust awards in Blackpool, a fruit-growing project in Blackpool South, Grow Blackpool, won a civic award. I have many other examples from around Lancashire of people who have written to me about their small community orchards.
There is a recognition that fruits and community orchards have a role to play in our local communities, and that, more importantly, localism is not just about what we ask our councillors to do, and what decisions we allow councils to take; it is also about how we see our communities and about this very important idea of particularism. What makes this country special, in my view, is that we manage to cram so much diversity into such a small geographic area. It is that local distinctiveness that makes this country so special. We should never become estranged from the nature at the heart of our communities, and orchards, in the right places, cared for, nurtured and built up, link people with the place in which they live and the history of that place. It certainly linked me to the history of the village I come from, and I very much hope that the community orchard movement will strengthen and grow, with the Government’s support and protection where appropriate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on obtaining tonight’s debate. He wisely commented on—perhaps foresaw—my initial reaction when I saw the subject of tonight’s Adjournment debate on a non-voting night. However, having done the research that it is incumbent on me to do in order to reply—although I have some knowledge as well—I think that he has chosen a subject not only about which he clearly knows a lot, but which is of much greater importance than first sight might suggest.
I know that my hon. Friend has a close involvement with and interest in the subject, and I know that the Grow Blackpool project includes a community orchard and received a Blackpool environmental action award in January—I believe he was present. I also understand that two schools are involved in that activity, demonstrating some of the points to which he referred. He kindly furnished me with a list of some of the issues he was going to raise, so I have been able to prepare properly, I hope, for this debate. I will try to answer some, if not all, the points he made.
So many of the things that my hon. Friend described are encompassed by a phrase that will be close to his heart, as it is to mine—the big society. It is about bringing together a range of different benefits and community gains within the community. I am therefore pleased to have this opportunity to pick up his points. I am sure that he appreciates—he effectively said so— that DEFRA is committed to improving the natural environment and reconnecting people with nature and food. We also have wider responsibilities for Government policy on orchards and, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) mentioned, on the cider industry. Community orchards can contribute to all those areas. Obviously, there is no formal record of community orchards but we believe that several hundred have been established throughout the country, largely due, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys has rightly said, to the successful efforts of Common Ground and other organisations.
In the process of this research, I discovered that one of my predecessors in my office had been given a book written by Common Ground about orchards. I found the book fascinating and I thoroughly encourage my hon. Friend to read it if he has not done so. The main purpose of a community orchard is not just the production of fruit—although as my hon. Friend said, it should not be wasted—but to provide a valuable green space, a focal point for the community and the opportunity for relaxation. People of all ages and from all backgrounds are concerned about access to and the quality of local green spaces. Research has shown that they are frequently motivated to act together to develop and manage the spaces that they most care about, whether they be community orchards, parks, playgrounds, allotments or other places.
The recent “National Ecosystem Assessment”, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a few weeks ago, put the value of access to open space at about £300 per person, which demonstrates its benefits. My hon. Friend referred to the Marmot review, which also demonstrated that there is a benefit to communities and individuals—and, perhaps in particular, the less well-off, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged, whom the Marmot review targeted—in having access to leisure opportunities such as those provided by a community orchard. The Government’s programme makes a commitment to protecting green areas of particular importance to local communities, something that also featured in the natural environment White Paper. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government are taking the lead role in encouraging communities to take over the ownership or management of significant community assets, including community orchards. Under the Localism Bill, residents will be able to play a bigger role in planning, designing, managing and maintaining community green spaces for food growing and other purposes.
The vital importance of green spaces—both through their benefits to local communities and as part of our ecological network—is highlighted in the natural environment White Paper. The role of community orchards is recognised in that. Although we do not use the term “community orchard”—the White Paper uses the term “urban orchard”—the nomenclature is designed to cover the same types of orchard. The White Paper showcases the excellent work of Tower Hamlets Homes in providing access to green space and supporting healthy eating through resident-led community food projects, allotments and urban orchards.
The White Paper includes the proposal to create new nature improvement areas. We want to see such areas wherever the opportunities or benefits are greatest, driven by local partnerships. DEFRA will launch a competition for funding to contribute to the first tranche of 12 improvement areas in July. Each application will be judged by a panel of experts chaired by Professor Sir John Lawton against criteria that will be made available on the Natural England website. Among other criteria, the panel will look at areas that restore and join up priority habitats, and areas where identifiable benefits to local communities can be demonstrated. There is therefore plenty of scope for community orchards to be part of a nature improvement area and included in applications for the competition.
Another key feature of the White Paper is the proposal to introduce local nature partnerships. These will be inclusive partnerships working on a landscape scale, using an ecosystems approach. That, too, will give the opportunity to highly valued community orchards to be included in a partnership.
My hon. Friend referred to the superb work done by the People’s Trust for Endangered Species on behalf of Natural England in compiling an inventory of traditional orchards—not specifically community orchards—using aerial photographs. It will be used to target and restore sites, as he rightly said, and to monitor targets and inform local planning policies and development. The five-year project located 35,378 traditional orchards, which equates to just under 17,000 hectares of habitat. I was astonished at the scale of those figures, which demonstrate just how important community orchards are, especially as traditional orchards have declined considerably, as he said—they are believed to have declined by 63% since 1950. However, for the first time we now know their extent and location.
As my hon. Friend also said, traditional orchards are recognised biodiversity hot spots. It is recognised that, without proper protection and sensitive management, they can easily slip into decline. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have a community orchard in my own constituency; it is privately owned, but access is given to the community and the community has the fruit from it. These orchards embody all the things that we read about and see in picture books about a traditional old English apple orchard.
If we were to lose this habitat, we would also face losing rare English fruit varieties—another point to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. We would also lose the traditions, customs and knowledge in addition to the genetic diversity represented by the hundreds of species that are associated with traditional orchards. They are a haven for biodiversity. As I said, not all community orchards fall within the definition of a traditional orchard—indeed, many have been planted in more recent years—but they nevertheless have a very valuable habitat and biodiversity role.
My hon. Friend asked about protection and referred to tree protection orders. These are a matter for the local council, but he is right to say that some fruit trees, which are not normally the subject of tree preservation orders, can be very old and ancient trees that are worthy of protection in certain cases. As I say, it is a matter for local authorities.
Community orchards can also have a valuable place, as my hon. Friend said, in maintaining the cultivation of heritage varieties. I am not even going to try to repeat all the ones to which he referred, but there are many more. The book to which I referred earlier lists the origins of many varieties, explaining where they were first bred and listing the individuals who bred them.
Both my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and for Hereford and South Herefordshire referred to the cider industry. It is probably true to say that relatively few community orchards grow predominantly cider varieties, but they can still have an important role in supporting small-scale, often local, cider producers. Most local cider producers will make cider from any variety of apple, not just the specific cider ones. As many of us, especially members of the all-party cider group, know, there is a growing interest in artisan or craft-scale cider making, which is attracting increasing numbers of people from all over the UK who are keen to make some cider or perry—or indeed something else—from their local fruit.
My hon. Friend also referred to education, and he was right to do so. Community orchards can support and enhance the curriculum by helping children to understand where their food comes from and, as my hon. Friend so aptly said, its seasonality. I am sure he is right that it is not unique to the people of his constituency not to know that fruit is seasonal. I fear that, as with much of our food production, many people are not very aware of its origins or how it comes to be. Community orchards can offer great opportunities to see food growing, for people to experience producing food for themselves and to understand the links between food and sustainability. They are also places where children can learn how food plots support biodiversity, including the important role of bees, about which the House has heard so much in recent years. Orchards have helped to revive British apple varieties, so children can learn about varieties not usually seen in the supermarket.
One of the other goals of Government food policy is to encourage people to eat healthily and there is some evidence showing that children involved in growing fruit and vegetables move towards more healthy eating. They have a greater understanding of the dietary composition of fruit and vegetables. As I mentioned earlier, there are also benefits from being outside and gardening—well known for both mental and physical health.
Finally, my hon. Friend will be aware of the Government’s initiative in what we call the big tree plant, which was designed for community woodlands. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why it could not also be applied to growing fruit trees. We certainly do not lay down the species of trees that could be grown. There is some assistance available in that regard for communities who want to get involved.
Let me conclude by saying to my hon. Friend that I really congratulate him and I respect him for the amount of research that he has obviously done and for the way he presented his points. I do not hold it against him that he has held us here this evening. Frankly, so many of the objectives of DEFRA—local food, fresh air, community spirit, biodiversity—are provided by community orchards. They have the lot to offer. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on allowing us to raise the profile of community orchards this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Post Box Provision (Nelson, Lancashire)
Industrial Compensation (Stanley Embling)
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN 20 June 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 20 June 2011. The following items were discussed:
Legislative proposals on economic governance
The Council updated its general approach, with a view to concluding negotiations with the European Parliament in advance of the European Council on 23-24 June. The UK is content with the updated text: on the issue of economic dialogue involving the European Parliament, I ensured explicit text that member state attendance at public debates and hearings would be voluntary. In addition, the UK’s partial opt-out from the fiscal frameworks directive remains protected.
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank (EIB) against losses under loans and guarantees for projects outside the EU
The Council endorsed the outcome of the trialogue discussions (Council, European Parliament and Commission) on the EIB’s external lending mandate. This political agreement will, with the EP, be formally adopted later in the year. During the Council discussion, I emphasised the importance of Iceland repaying the money it owes to British and Dutch taxpayers. The following Council statement was then agreed to accompany the mandate:
“The Council takes note of the issuance of the reasoned opinion of the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) which states that Iceland has failed to comply with obligations resulting from the Deposit Guarantee Directive and the EEA Agreement. The Council underlines the importance of this reasoned opinion and encourages Iceland to take all steps necessary to swiftly fulfil all its EEA obligations”.
Regulation on over-the-counter derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR)
Finance Ministers held a policy debate, which focused on two issues:
The authorisation and supervision of central counterparties, in particular the role played by the European Securities and Markets Authority;
The scope of the regulation, That is, whether it should apply to all types of derivatives.
I emphasised that further work would be needed to achieve a regulation consistent with G20 commitments, single market principles and the agreement on the establishment of the European supervisory authorities last year. The Hungarian presidency will pass on a progress report to the Polish presidency, who will aim to agree a general approach following further work by the Council.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros
The Council briefly discussed the draft regulation. Some member states raised concerns, and the Commission agreed to work on a transitional process in order to address these. The Polish presidency will start negotiations with the European Parliament shortly. The UK supports the proposed regulation, which will facilitate the creation of a single market for electronic payments in euros.
European Semester
The Council approved the macro-economic component of the European semester country-specific recommendations. The Government expressed concerns about a lack of time for parliamentary scrutiny and abstained from the vote accordingly. The recommendations will be endorsed by the European Council on 24 June as Council recommendations, and formally adopted by the ECOFIN Council on 12 July,
European Banking Authority stress testing
Over dinner, Finance Ministers discussed backstop support schemes in the banking sector, with a view to the publication in early July of the results of the 2011 stress tests. The Government support the implementation of coherent and transparent measures to address any vulnerabilities in the EU’s banking system,
European Stability Mechanism (ESM)
In an inter-governmental meeting preceding ECOFIN, Finance Ministers discussed the draft treaty establishing the ESM which will be presented to the European Council for endorsement. In particular, it was agreed that the ESM would not assert preferred creditor status in the case of countries currently in receipt of assistance, should those member states access ESM funding post-2013. I also secured the removal of any language with respect to collective action clauses that might impact on the ability of euro area member states to issue debt under English law.
The Government’s opposition to the use of the European financial stabilisation mechanism for any second package of financial assistance for Greece has been made clear.
Initial Teacher Training
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I am launching today a discussion about my strategy for initial teacher training. This document, “Training our next generation of outstanding teachers”, sets out my proposals for initial teacher training, providing detail of how we intend to meet the commitments made in the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”. The document is for discussion with training providers, teachers, trainees, head teachers, pupils, parents and the general public, before I announce final policy later in the year, ready for changes to begin to take effect from 2012-13 teacher training courses.
If we want every child to have the chance to take their full and equal share in citizenship and shape their own destiny, then we need to give them the best possible start in life, and this means the best possible education. This begins before school, and high-quality early years learning provides the foundation for everything that follows. I want to be sure that the teachers who build on this foundation are giving the children of this country an education that ranks with the best in the world.
We have some excellent teachers in this country, but many who could make a huge difference in the lives of children choose other professions. Our teachers are trained in some of the best institutions in the world, but the schools which employ these teachers do not get enough of a say in how they are trained, and training does not focus sharply on the techniques teachers most need, such as behaviour management and the effective teaching of reading. We value our teachers highly, but the current system of funding does not incentivise the best. The system needs to change.
The strategy sets out proposals to build on the strengths of the existing system, as well as addressing some important weaknesses. The proposals cover:
Giving schools, as prospective employers, a stronger influence over the recruitment and selection of trainees and the content of their training;
Permitting and encouraging schools, often working as groups of chains, to lead their own high-quality initial teacher training in partnership with a university;
Offering high-quality graduates and science and maths specialists significantly better financial incentives to train as teachers;
Offering financial incentives to all trainees with at least a 2.2 so that teacher training continues to be attractive, and offering incentives of up to £20,000 for the best trainees in priority subjects. From September 2012 the maximum charges for mainstream university-based ITT courses will be £6,000, or £9,000 where the university has agreement from the Office for Fair Access;
Continuing to subject ITT provision to quality controls that focus on the quality of placements and selection;
Requiring all trainees to have high standards of mathematics and English and excellent subject knowledge demonstrated through achieving a second class degree or above to qualify for any financial incentives.
Copies of the discussion document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council, 20-21 June 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council were held on 20-21 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK.
The agenda items covered were as follows:
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
The FAC was chaired by Baroness Ashton. A provisional report of the meeting, and all conclusions adopted, can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/122937.pdf.
Sudan
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which:
Expressed support for the African Union’s efforts to facilitate a cessation of hostilities in Southern Kordofan.
Called on all parties to stop hostilities.
Denounced the 19 June attack against the UN mission.
Agreed to follow a comprehensive EU approach to Sudan.
The Foreign Secretary underlined the need to support the efforts of the Mbeki panel and continued political dialogue with Khartoum, which should include messages on debt relief. He also emphasised the need for a continuing UN presence after 9 July, to ensure the protection of civilians and humanitarian access.
European Neighbourhood Policy
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which endorsed the review of the European neighbourhood policy (ENP), setting out an ambitious new approach to the EU’s neighbourhood. This review is in line with the Government’s goal of an enhanced EU offer to its neighbours, particularly those emerging from the Arab spring, holding out the prospect of profound economic integration for those who engage in meaningful democratic reforms.
Western Balkans
Ministers discussed Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo.
On Albania, Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) deploring the deterioration of the political situation and increase in tensions following disputed municipal election results. They also urged the Albanian authorities to strengthen its reform efforts particularly in relation to the Copenhagen criteria and the 12 priorities identified in the European Commission’s 9 November 2010 opinion on Albania’s application for membership.
The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers welcomed the appointment of Peter Sorensen as the new head of delegation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Foreign Secretary said that Kosovo needed to be given tangible reassurance of its EU future. Ministers also noted Serbia’s EU ambitions.
Immediately following the FAC, I attended the western Balkans forum with other EU Foreign and Europe Ministers and Foreign Ministers from across the western Balkans. The meeting was chaired by Baroness Ashton, the Commissioner for Enlargement (Fule) and the Hungarian Foreign Minister (Martonyi). Many speakers emphasised the continuing importance of regional co-operation in the context of EU enlargement. I made clear that we did not want to see a pause on enlargement after Croatia’s accession. The positive prospect of conditions-based enlargement was a driving force behind economic and political reform and as such demanded clear and collective commitment to the process.
Belarus
Ministers adopted conclusions (see link) and agreed further restrictive measures on Belarus. The conclusions set out the EU’s concerns about the deterioration of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Belarus. On restrictive measures, the Foreign Secretary spoke in favour of including three companies closely linked to the Belarusian leadership. These were agreed.
Syria
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which condemned violence, reiterated the call for reform, and laid the ground for further work on sanctions.
On the same day as the FAC, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Syria:
“President Assad’s speech today was disappointing and unconvincing. If President Assad is to restore any credibility the Syrian people need to see concrete action, not vague promises. We have been clear that rapid and real implementation of substantial reforms, addressing the legitimate demands of peaceful Syrian protesters, is what is urgently needed. There must also be an immediate end to violence by Syrian security forces, the release of all political prisoners, an end to the torture and abuse of those who remain in detention and access given to international humanitarian agencies.”
Libya
Conclusions were agreed (see link) setting out the EU’s approach to a ceasefire and a political solution based on Gaddafi’s departure. The conclusions also referred to sanctions measures, such as the listing of Gaddafi-controlled ports in Libya.
Yemen
Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which called for all to respect the current ceasefire and reiterated the need for a solution based on the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative.
Middle East Peace Process
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the current situation in the peace process, including: the role of the Quartet; the handling of a possible unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence in September; and options for encouraging the two sides to restart negotiations.
General Affairs Council (GAC)
The GAC was chaired by the Hungarian EU presidency (Foreign Minister Martonyi). A draft record of the meeting can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/122949.pdf.
June European Council
Ministers examined the draft conclusions for the European Council of 23-24 June. The discussion covered the main agenda items: economic policy (progress on the euro-plus pact and on the EU’s response to the sovereign debt crisis); migration (review of progress in implementing asylum and migration polices); Croatia (review of progress on accession negotiations); and events in the southern neighbourhood.
I emphasised the need for positive language on economic growth, and for the right approach on deregulation for small and medium-sized enterprises. I also sought references on trade, particularly in relation to the Doha round.
On the European neighbourhood policy, I pushed for a clear Council position welcoming the review to be reflected in the Council conclusions.
European Semester
The presidency set out recommendations on national reform programmes submitted by member states under the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. The Council agreed to forward texts to the European Council. I abstained from voting on the grounds that there had not been sufficient time to complete UK parliamentary scrutiny. I asked that more time be given for the scrutiny processes in future.
18 Month Presidency Programme
Poland, Denmark and Cyprus presented the 18-month programme of the EU presidencies. The programme was endorsed.
I will deposit copies of this note in the Libraries of both Houses, and I will continue to update Parliament on Foreign and General Affairs Councils as and when future meetings are held.
Prescribed Diseases
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, responsible for welfare reform, Lord Freud of Eastry, has made the following statement.
The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2011 have today been laid before Parliament. The regulations implement, from 18 July 2011, the recommendations set out in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s reports:
“Bronchiolitis Obliterans and Food Flavouring Agents”, Cm 7439, published in July 2008; and
“Chromium and sino-nasal cancer”, Cm 7740, published in December 2009.
The recommendations made in the report(s) were to add the following two diseases to the schedule of diseases prescribed under the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme:
Bronchiolitis obliterans, and
Chromium and sino-nasal cancer.
These regulations implement those recommendations.
This means that people suffering from bronchiolitis obliterans can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit if their work involved the production of diacetyl, or the manufacture of food flavourings containing diacetyl, or the manufacture of food flavoured by diacetyl.
Those suffering from chromium and sino-nasal cancer can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit if they had worked in hexavelent chrome plating or the manufacture of inorganic chromates.
Occupational and Workplace Personal Pension Schemes
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to be able to publish today the Government’s initial response to the call for evidence on regulatory differences between occupational and workplace personal pension schemes.
Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will change the pensions landscape dramatically. It is therefore essential that the regulatory landscape to deliver these changes remains appropriate.
The call for evidence provoked varied and wide-ranging responses and has helped to identify areas of attention to ensure the success of the workplace pension reforms. The most contentious issue is short-service refund rules and I remain convinced that these rules pose a risk to our goals of increasing pension savings. Responses to the call for evidence show, however, that there are no easy answers and that removing these rules will result in more small, stranded pension pots. So we believe that a decision on short-service refunds must take account of a solution for small pots across the whole pensions industry.
This solution will go to the heart of what the pensions landscape should look like after 2012 and we need to fully understand the potential impact of this on individuals, schemes and employers. We will therefore undertake further analysis which builds on the call for evidence, in order to publish a more detailed follow-up paper in the autumn. This paper will outline how we intend to change short-service refunds, together with potential ways to manage the burden of small pension pots after automatic enrolment.
I would emphasise that short-service refunds are unlikely to continue in their current form. As this area remains under review, I would encourage employers not to choose a new pension scheme on the assumption that the default refund of employer contributions will be available after automatic enrolment.
I would like to thank all those groups who have been engaged on this issue and responded to our call for evidence.
The Government response will be placed in the Library and will be made available later today on the Department’s website.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Regulations 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, these regulations transpose into UK law the updated fourth EU directive on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities—UCITS IV—and are supplemented by new FSA rules. I will give a little background on the UCITS framework before explaining why the Government are seeking to introduce the new regulations.
The UCITS directive sets out a common set of cross-EU rules for how eligible investment funds should be run. The rules emphasise transparency and consumer protection, which means that UCITS funds are designed particularly for retail investors. However, they are frequently used more widely, including by pension funds and insurance companies. UCITS funds account for roughly three-quarters of funds under management across Europe.
The UCITS framework is very important to the UK fund management industry and to investors. For investors, the directive ensures strong consumer protection—for example, through clarity in marketing—and integrates the EU market, which gives investors a wider and more diversified set of funds to select from. UCITS has been a key contributor to the growth of UK asset management firms. The directive brings down barriers, allowing them to market across the EU based on authorisation by the FSA. The UCITS brand is recognised worldwide and EU fund managers market it globally. There are now some £500 billion of UCITS assets under management in the UK. This is the third update to the UCITS directive since it was introduced in 1988. It is intended to ensure that the market can operate more efficiently, bringing further industry and consumer protection benefits.
UCITS IV addresses four widely recognised shortcomings. The first is the difficulty that fund management companies face in establishing UCITS funds in other member states. UCITS IV removes this barrier by streamlining the way UCITS funds are notified in other member states. Funds can access the market without delay once their fund manager has notified the domicile’s regulator.
The second shortcoming relates to investor disclosure. UCITS rightly emphasises clear and transparent disclosure to retail investors so that they can easily understand the information about the fund that they are considering investing in. In practice, the requirements have led to prospectuses that are too long and complex and do not allow investors to make effective comparisons between UCITS funds. UCITS IV improves investor disclosure, replacing the required prospectus required with key investor information that will be contained in a simple document and will give key facts to investors in a clear and understandable manner.
Thirdly, European funds are often not taking advantage of economies of scale and are generally smaller than their American counterparts. Again, this has led to increased costs for investors. The directive addresses this in two ways. For the first time, UCITS will allow master feeder structures to be marketed across Europe. For example, feeder funds in different domiciles across the EU will be able to invest in the same master fund located, for example, in the UK. This will allow a single portfolio of assets to be offered across jurisdictions and for different types of investor. The directive also introduces a framework to allow UCITS funds to merge across borders, again removing a barrier to the creation of larger funds.
The final criticism made of UCITS is that it prevents specialisation. All the most important activities associated with a fund’s management have to be located in one member state as only the fund can be passported. So, in practice, even though much of the investment management activity may be carried out in the UK, funds not based in the UK would have to establish extra fund management companies in the domiciles of each of their funds. That has pushed up the administrative costs that ultimately have to be borne by the investor, and prevents gains from scale and specialisation.
UCITS IV introduces an effective management company passport. This allows a management company to operate a fund in a different member state without the need to be established in the member state of the fund. To support this, UCITS IV requires improved co-operation between UCITS regulators, particularly when they are supervising a UCITS management company and fund established in different member states.
The new UCITS regime has been warmly welcomed by the UK industry, which considers it a further opportunity to grow, while serving investors better. The Government are taking all available means, within the current fiscal constraints, to maintain and build on the UK’s lead as a centre for asset management, and that includes capitalising on UCITS IV.
In particular, the Government want the UK to be a home for new master funds. To achieve that, we are working with industry to develop the most suitable vehicle to meet the real demand for a tax-transparent vehicle in Britain. This year’s Budget announced that the Government will legislate to introduce a tax transparent fund, from 2012. We are amending tax law to accommodate the conditions introduced by the management company passport, removing any risk that a foreign UCITS fund may become taxable in the UK as a result of having a manager resident in this country.
I hope that the Committee will support the making of these regulations today. I hope that this brief speech has reassured noble Lords that the regulations will bring considerable benefits to both the UK industry and consumers, and that they will therefore gain their support.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I do not like this legislation, because it is moving in exactly the wrong direction with respect to regulatory responsibility in a multijurisdictional context; namely, it is legislation that empowers the home regulator, not the host—and this when recent events, particularly in international banking, have shown beyond all reasonable doubt that power should be flowing in the opposite direction, towards the host regulator.
I understand that one of the ultimate objectives of the programme to create a single market in financial instruments in Europe is to make the home-host distinction irrelevant. That can be done only by the development of a regulatory regime in which the domain of the regulator is the domain of the market—that is, there is effectively a single regulator for the entire market space. However, that is not the case in the EU, or the EEA, and will not be in the foreseeable future; indeed, I rather suspect that the Government hope that it will not be the case. Therefore, the Government must face up to the fundamental weakness of home-based regulation—that it encourages regulatory arbitrage.
It may be argued that one of the purposes of these regulations is to encourage the adoption of common standards, to which the noble Lord referred, particularly in conduct of business regulation, and that that will tend to reduce the potential for arbitrage. We hope that that is true, but arbitrage will not be eliminated. For example, different enforcement standards can provide rich pickings for mobile and perhaps not entirely respectable firms. That is evident even in the much more coherent financial space that is the United States of America. It is far more likely in the somewhat less coherent European Union.
I was surprised that I could find nothing in the Treasury’s impact assessment that refers to the impact of regulatory arbitrage. Nor could I find any reference to the role of the new European Securities and Markets Authority, the successor to CESR, which might be seen as a medium-term solution to the single-regulator problem. What is the Treasury’s assessment of the impact of this legislation on regulatory arbitrage? Is the Treasury content that regulatory arbitrage is in the best interests of UK consumers? If not, what steps is the Treasury taking to discourage regulatory arbitrage, and more generally, what are the costs and benefits of such arbitrage for the UK, as will be encouraged by these regulations? What will be the role of ESMA in the definition of procedures to be followed in the UK both in the short and medium term?
A key element enhancing the likelihood of regulatory arbitrage is the simplified notification procedure to which the noble Lord referred. This removes the right of national regulators to vet funds before they are marketed. Is that not a regulatory weakness at a time when the need for the efficient and effective regulation of financial instruments has been clearly demonstrated? Why are we giving up our right to vet instruments marketed to UK consumers? The FSA or any successor organisation will now have a significantly diminished capacity to ensure that new fund managers seeking to enter the national market will conform to our standards.
This leads to the vexed question of consumer protection. The impact assessment, in considering the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service, states:
“We have also asked whether … FOS referral rights should be made available in: Scenario 3—a UK management company operating a UCITS authorised by a regulator in an EEA member State other than the UK, on a cross-border services basis”.
The assessment apparently asks the question, but unfortunately does not tell us the answer, so could the Minister tell us now? Will UK consumers have access to the FOS in such circumstances and, if so, what authority will the ombudsman have with respect to activities authorised in another jurisdiction? When answering these points, perhaps the Minister would like to consider whether his answer would be the same were the relevant authority to be, say, Romania or Malta. That is not a criticism of those states; rather, it is a reflection on their capacity to manage complex instruments. So the crucial question, as yet unanswered, is: what extra measures are Her Majesty’s Government taking to protect UK consumers once UCITS IV is agreed?
Finally, I turn to the question of the review of the impact of this legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“The Treasury will review the operation and effect of the Regulations within five years”.
However, the European Commission plans to make further reforms regarding the roles and responsibilities of UCITS depositories and expects to publish proposals later this year. There are therefore no plans to have a post-implementation review until these further changes have been developed and proposed. Is that wise? Are we not likely to get into something of a muddle as to the impact of various changes layered upon one another over time? The changes about to be implemented have significant ramifications for the regulation of fund managers in national markets and on the options available to consumers. Would a review of the current changes not be in order sooner, regardless of other changes being proposed, to ensure that any problems are identified and addressed before they develop?
While this legislation will undoubtedly increase consumer choice by easing the market access of UCITS managers throughout the EEA, I cannot but feel, despite all the warm words on exchange of information between regulators and the introduction of the key investor information document, that it represents a significant diminution of consumer protection. That, to say the least, is unfortunate.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his contribution to the discussion, but I am sorry that he does not seem to see much of merit in what should be a sensible piece of tidying-up of a regime in Europe which has been in place since 1988. It has taken with it the interests of not only the industry but also the consumer groups as it has been developed successfully through three amendments—and now the fourth—to the directive. We have transposed the directive by way of copy-out without any gold-plating. It rather surprises me that the noble Lord takes this basic stance to a framework which has stood consumers across Europe very well for a considerable number of years and not to date raised any of the concerns that he suggests that this series of amendments might raise.
I shall go through those concerns. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that there is considerable work to be done to complete the single market, whether it is fund management, other parts of financial services or business services more generally. In areas of completing the single market, consumer protection has to be taken seriously but I would interpret that, as a starting position, as not wanting to help complete the single market. That is protectionist in its import if not in the intention, given how the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spells it out. That is an unfortunate starting point. We should be looking at ways to sensibly advance what is a well worked regime and to see how we can enable both consumers and the financial services industry to take advantage of sensible further development and the opening up of the single market.
On the noble Lord’s specific concerns, there are two aspects to the question of regulatory arbitrage. First, in the regime, the directive leaves little room for member states’ discretion. It is not that the UK will be transposing these rules in one way and other member states in a radically different way. I know that this is probably not the main thrust of the charge that the noble Lord made on this but it is important to be clear that it is not the rules themselves that will give any significant scope for regulatory arbitrage. Beyond that, it is of course important that we ensure in the UK that funds passported into the UK are suitably regulated. Broadly speaking, that is what has happened under UCITS to date. There are already a good number of funds passporting into the UK under the UCITS directive. The FSA has powers to regulate their marketing activities. This is not opening up some completely new avenue here.
Lord Eatwell
The noble Lord is quite wrong. It certainly is new. The whole point of the new regulation is that funds can be passported into the UK without the prior agreement of the FSA. That is entirely new.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it is completely possible—it is done widely now—to passport funds into the UK or other European member states. What is new is that, for example, there will not have to be a multiplicity of management companies set up, so that the passporting in will happen on a much more flexible basis. That is why in UCITS IV there is the introduction of enhanced supervisory co-operation measures between European regulators, precisely to take account of this point. The noble Lord may shake his head and tut-tut but this is what the directive introduces, precisely to address the sorts of concern that he has.
For example, if the FSA has concerns that an inwardly passporting fund is not being managed in accordance with the directive, it is laid out how it can raise the matter with the home state regulator, which must take appropriate action and inform the FSA of the outcome. While I accept that not all regulators will necessarily have the same capacity round Europe, the fact that the FSA or other host regulators will have those sorts of powers gives adequate protection given the sort of regime that we are talking about. We are not talking about bank capital or things that go to the heart of financial stability. Therefore, it is important that the proposed regime is proportionate. The points the noble Lord raises are very reasonable but they have been thought about and are accommodated in the regime.
Arrangements regarding access to the FOS and to compensation arrangements for foreign funds passported into the UK are covered by FSA rules. The FSA rules require that EEA UCITS management companies that passport into the UK in order to operate a UK-authorised UCITS fund will have to contribute to the FOS and FSCS levies so that they are treated equivalently to UK-authorised firms carrying on the same activity. If a claim arises against such an EEA firm under the FSCS rules, it will be met from the general levy on firms in the fund management subclass. We believe that that is appropriate and justifiable because of the need that the noble Lord properly identifies to protect eligible UK investors.
I hope that I have addressed the two main issues which the noble Lord raises on this regime. As I have said, the regulations will work alongside FSA rules to implement the fourth UCITS directive. If they are approved by this House, it is intended that they will come into force on 1 July 2011. The Government will in parallel continue to develop the tax and regulatory landscape to ensure that the industry is able to take full advantage of new opportunities provided by the directive, and to maintain—the noble Lord may not want to see this but the Government do—the UK’s position as a major centre of fund management activity in Europe.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am very keen that the UK fund management industry should develop, grow and be successful; whether this piece of legislation will contribute to that only the future will tell. My main concern is consumer protection. I also asked when the regulations would be reviewed.
Lord Sassoon
The noble Lord is often one step ahead of me; I was coming to exactly that point. One of the best answers to the charges that the noble Lord puts is review. It should be good regulatory practice to review any regulation or directive of this kind. Indeed, the Commission is required to review the UCITS IV directive two years after its implementation. The Government will, of course, continue to monitor the UCITS framework and engage constructively with the European review. We do not anticipate the noble Lord’s worst fears being justified but if that is the case a review is indeed built into the structure to address anything that arises.
I hope that I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns on the directive. Having heard that those concerns are already addressed in the directive, I hope that the Committee will support the making of these regulations.
Gender Recognition (Approved Countries and Territories) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gender Recognition (Approved Countries and Territories) Order 2011.
Relevant Documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the order before us today revokes and replaces an order made in 2005 regarding the legal recognition of transsexual people in the gender they live in permanently, their acquired gender. The order prescribes overseas countries and territories with gender recognition processes equivalent to our own. The purpose of this draft order is to enable transsexual people who have gained legal recognition of their acquired gender overseas to apply for legal recognition in the UK through a simplified application process. The order prescribes countries and territories that are approved under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for the purpose of this application process.
Members of the Committee may find it helpful if I outline the purpose of the Gender Recognition Act before considering this order in more detail. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to change their legal gender and gain the rights and responsibilities of their acquired gender. This means, for example, that a transsexual woman—that is, a transsexual person who is born a male but who subsequently transitions to live permanently as a woman—can gain the right to marry a man, or to form a civil partnership with a woman, as well as the right to claim state pension at the pensionable age for women. The Act sets out a stringent set of criteria which all applicants must meet in order to be granted a legal change of gender. Applicants for gender recognition must satisfy an independent judicial body established by the Act, the gender recognition panel, that they meet these criteria.
First, the person must have or have had gender dysphoria, which is the recognised medical condition of feeling oneself driven to present oneself in the appearance of the opposite sex. Secondly, the person must have lived permanently in their acquired gender for the two years prior to the application being made. Thirdly, the person must intend to live in their acquired gender until death. Successful applicants who submit evidence to show that they meet these criteria receive a gender recognition certificate.
Many other countries have their own gender recognition system, and for this reason the Act provides for an alternative application process for those who have gained legal recognition overseas. The intention of the overseas application process is to minimise bureaucracy without compromising the integrity of the criteria set out in the Act. When the Act was passed, Parliament was mindful of the danger of creating a system which might allow transsexual people who could not meet the criteria in the Act to effectively sidestep those criteria. Such people might travel overseas to obtain gender recognition in a country with weaker criteria and then obtain legal recognition in the UK by virtue of that overseas recognition. This would have undermined the robust criteria in the Act agreed by Parliament.
The Act therefore contains a power that puts on a statutory footing the countries and territories which are approved for the purpose of the overseas application process. Applicants submitting an application through this alternative application process must satisfy the gender recognition panel that they have obtained legal recognition in one of those approved countries or territories. An order made in 2005 sets out the countries and territories that are currently approved for the purpose of the overseas application process. At the time that the order was made, those countries and territories were deemed to have a gender recognition system equivalent to our own.
When the 2005 order was approved, it was the view of Parliament that the list of countries and territories approved under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 would have to be amended as countries or territories established new schemes for legal recognition. Gender recognition is a relatively new and fast-developing area of law, and some countries and territories have indeed introduced new systems for legal recognition of a gender change since 2005. There are also some jurisdictions that have amended their existing gender recognition systems. Quite simply, the 2005 order is out of date.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and informative summary of the position. I very much welcome this update to the Gender Recognition (Approved Countries and Territories) Order. I think that 31 out of the 46 other member states of the Council of Europe are now in the schedule. One hopes that next time there might be 46. It is most welcome that the United States is included—the District of Columbia and all the states of the union except for four. I wish that there could be similar widespread recognition of civil partnerships, civil union and gay marriage. We have, of course, an identical mechanism in our Civil Partnership Act to recognise those unions in other countries. It would be very good indeed if one were able to ensure that a similar range of European countries and the United States also recognised gay marriage, civil partnerships and civil union. This is obviously a sensible measure. I cannot think of any good reason against it and I am very glad that we will approve it.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I also support the order subject to the continued exemption for competitive sport, which the world of sport promoted and argued for at length in 2004 when the Bill came before this House in the first instance. It may help your Lordships if I briefly summarise the issue at stake there, in seeking reassurance from the Minister that in extending the list we retain the fundamental principle that competitive sport in this country will be exempt from the order, and will continue to be exempt from the Act.
It is important that the voice of sport continues to be heard before the order is accepted, as it could have a fundamental impact on the running of sport and its selection procedures since no surgery is required as a prerequisite for transsexuals to change their sex and have new birth certificates issued, with the full weight of the law backing their newly acquired legal gender not only in this country but in the countries listed in the order.
In pursuing an original amendment to the Bill, which was eventually accepted by the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, I sought to enable UK sporting bodies to continue to make decisions about whether individual transsexual people may take part in competitive sports competitions. At the time I was very conscious that national governing bodies of sport needed to be aware that considerable work would have to done to establish clear reasons for restriction of competition related to fair competition and/or the safety of competitors. The onus of proof is likely to be with the complainant, but the national governing bodies of sport could be vulnerable if policies, procedures and decisions are not robust. Legal precedents, such as the case of Renée Richards, the transgender female who won the right to compete in women’s tennis in the US Supreme Court, are likely to provide further challenges to sport’s regulation of single-sex competition.
There are several potential problems related to the recognition of the physical and physiological advantages attached to men and women in different competitive activities. This was reflected in my amendment, which was accepted by the then Government. It stated:
“A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport”.
Fairness in competition is facilitated by making provision for competition by categories other than sex—for example, age and weight. However, the latter categories are easy to define using the arbitrary limits of date of birth and weight on a specific date before or the day of competition. One of the intentions of the Gender Recognition Act was to protect the rights of individuals who wish to blur the boundaries between genders in their private lives. For sport, that is inherently problematic. It denies the only arbitrary limit between the categories of male and female: genetic sex at birth, as determined by chromosomes. The regulation of single-sex competition in sport currently depends on that arbitrary limit. Since the EHRA allows for the interests of the community at large to override the rights of the few, that arguably would mean that single-sex sporting competition may continue without legal challenge on the basis of sex at birth.
I give that background purely to set the scene for asking the Minister whether, irrespective of the legislation in each of the territories and countries in the order, governing bodies of sport in this country will still have the final word in determining those who enter into either the male or the female category, at whatever level of competitive sport. Should that remain the case, as I understand that it does, the order will have my full support. I look to the Minister for reassurance on that.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I can be brief. The Opposition support the order. I thank the Minister and other speakers in the debate; I thank him particularly for the clear way in which he outlined the order. I ask him to respond to the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the position as regards sport.
This is clearly an affirmative order; it has to come before the Committee. There will be changes in the future, of course; I hope that other countries come on to the list rather than countries coming off it. Will it really be necessary to bring that to a Committee sitting in this House and the other place, or is there any way around that? I do not know whether the previous Government willingly made this an affirmative order or whether it was forced on them by the then Opposition; it could have been either. In my view, if this is the sort of order to come forward, it would be much better for it not to be affirmative.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank the speakers who have participated in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has a long and proud history in such legislation. Like him, I welcome the fact that we live in a world of growing tolerance in this area, which for the individuals concerned needs tolerance and understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised an important point and one on which I will try to give some clarification. The effect of a UK gender recognition certificate is the same regardless of whether it is obtained under the overseas application process or the standard application process. The overseas application process simply enables a transsexual person to obtain legal recognition in the UK through a simplified process if they have already satisfied authorities overseas that they live fully and permanently in their acquired gender. It does not enable a person to be treated in the UK as they would be in their home state. The effect of a gender recognition certificate is subject to UK law. That includes a transsexual person’s right to compete in competitive sporting events in the UK.
As originally drafted, Section 19 of the Gender Recognition Act made it lawful to prohibit a transsexual person with a gender recognition certificate from participating in a sporting event in their acquired gender if the restrictions were necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of other competitors. The Equality Act 2010 presented an opportunity to replace Section 19 and an overlapping provision of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. After all, the Gender Recognition Act is not intended to protect transsexual people from discrimination; rather, it provides a mechanism whereby a transsexual person can obtain a change of legal status that reflects the gender in which they live permanently. Protection from discrimination lies in equality legislation. For this reason, Section 19 of the Gender Recognition Act and Section 44(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act were repealed and their effect replicated in Section 195(2) of the Equality Act. That provision makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in separate sporting competitions for men and women if this is necessary to secure fair competition and the safety of competitors. The participation of a transsexual person from overseas in a competitive sporting event in the UK is subject to these provisions. This remains the case even if that person has obtained a UK gender recognition certificate. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the clarity and reassurance that he sought. I know how important that is.
I was intrigued by the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. We would have to amend the procedure for future orders but it is a valid point. I suspect that, at the time, Parliament was still getting used to this whole idea. We may need to look at the procedure and discuss matters through the usual channels to see if it can be done without the necessary affirmative resolution. Perhaps this is something that will only come before the House once every four or five years as updates are made. It is a valid point and I will take it back.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
In looking at this again, one might look at the Civil Partnership Act. My memory is that that Act, with similar provisions, does not require the affirmative procedure every time we recognise another jurisdiction in the way that we are doing here. It might just be worth looking at. Of course, my memory is always faulty but I have just an idea that it might be a way of dealing with that. It would need amendment but I can think of no logical reason for treating civil partnerships differently from general recognition of equality.
Lord McNally
I always know that a distinguished QC saying, “My memory might be faulty,” means that he is absolutely accurate in what he says. Again, that is an extremely helpful suggestion. When I take this back to the House authorities, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has made and the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Lester may be the way forward.
Lord Moynihan
Before the Minister concludes his remarks, I thank him for clarifying the position and emphasising the fact that governing bodies of sport would be entitled to exclude a male-to-female transsexual person if competitive parity of the safety of other competitors was at stake. I should have declared my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association and apologise to the House for not having done so.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2011.
Relevant Documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I ask that the Committee consider these two orders together. Both were laid before the House on 17 May and, subject to parliamentary approval, the orders will be made by the Lord Chancellor under the Legal Services Act 2007 on the recommendation of the Legal Services Board.
The Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, both of which are currently approved regulators, have applied to become licensing authorities. The role of licensing authorities is to license legal service providers which are wholly or partly owned or controlled by non-lawyers—known in the 2007 Act as alternative business structures or ABSs. This will be possible only when Part 5 of the 2007 Act is commenced in full later this year.
Although not connected in subject matter, the two orders will allow the society and the council to put in place the necessary arrangements in anticipation of the new licensing regime. The order to be made under Section 69 of the 2007 Act will also make improvements to the two bodies’ existing regulatory arrangements.
Let me turn first to the Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (Modification of Functions) Order 2011. The purpose of this order is to make changes to particular aspects of the functions of the society and the council to enable them to improve their regulatory arrangements both as approved regulators and, if designated as such, as licensing authorities. Since both are statutory bodies, those changes can be made only by legislation—in this case, Section 69 of the 2007 Act.
Let me explain what regulatory arrangements the order changes and why. Article 4 amends the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to allow the society to make rules requiring firms of solicitors to pay periodical fees to the society unconnected to any application for authorisation. This will allow the society to authorise solicitor firms on an indefinite basis. At the moment, the society can charge fees only when an application for authorisation or an application for renewal of authorisation is received, which is usually annually. Under the ABS regime in the 2007 Act, licensing authorities can charge periodic fees and license ABS bodies indefinitely. The change is intended to make the society more efficient and effective by harmonising the arrangements applicable to both types of firms, allowing it to operate a single system of regulation for both ABS and non-ABS bodies. Article 7 of the order makes similar provision for the council.
Article 5 gives the society the power to make compensation rules in relation to licensed bodies for a transitional period by extending its existing powers under Sections 36 and 36A of the Solicitors Act 1974. Without this power, the society would have to develop a separate set of compensation arrangements for ABS bodies. The society is currently reviewing its compensation arrangements for all the bodies that it regulates and it considers that it would be disproportionate and inefficient to set up separate compensation arrangements for ABS bodies while this review is under way. By December 2012, when these provisions come to an end, new long-term compensation arrangements will be in place for all types of solicitor firms, including ABS bodies, following the conclusion of the review.
Article 6 will allow the society to make rules about the recovery of costs in its role as a licensing authority. Such rules allow the costs of investigating a breach of its licensing arrangements to be recovered from the ABS body or persons closely connected to it—for example, its head of legal practice. Article 10 makes equivalent provision in relation to the council’s regulation of ABS bodies to ensure consistency between different licensing authorities.
Article 8 extends the council’s power to make rules about compensation arrangements to any reserved legal activity in relation to which it has the statutory power to act as a regulator. The council has applied to extend the reserved legal activities that it can regulate and these provisions will allow the council to extend its compensation fund to cover those additional reserved legal activities if its application is successful.
Finally, Article 9 amends the constitution of the council to change the balance of membership so that it will have a lay majority. At the same time, it changes the definition of “lay member” to exclude all lawyers, not just licensed conveyancers, while allowing any lawyer working in a firm regulated by the council to become a lawyer member of the council. Finally, it removes the specific requirement that two members are appointed to represent consumer interest. This will allow more flexibility in the range of interests represented by its lay membership while still allowing consumer interests to be considered.
Under Section 62(2) of the 2007 Act, there is a requirement that the Lord Chancellor may make an order under Section 69 only if the Legal Services Board has made a recommendation to do so. As required under Section 70 of the 2007 Act, the Legal Services Board has consulted widely on the provisions included in the order and on the draft order itself. It has worked closely with the society and the council to ensure that the order reflects their requirements before making its final recommendation to the Lord Chancellor. Both the society and the council consented to the recommendations being made, as is required in the 2007 Act. The Lord Chancellor has agreed that these amendments will benefit both bodies in terms of discharging their regulatory duties, both as approved regulators and, if designated as such, as licensing authorities. The Lord Chancellor would be content and has agreed to make this order should Parliament approve it. I therefore commend this first order to the Committee.
The purpose of the second order is to modify the functions of the First-tier Tribunal to hear and determine appeals from decisions made by the council in its capacity as a licensing authority, should it be designated as such. This order contains three key provisions. It modifies the functions of the First-tier Tribunal to enable it to hear appeals from decisions made by the council under Part 5 of the 2007 Act or the council’s own licensing rules. Secondly, it sets out the order that the First-tier Tribunal may make on appeals from decisions made under the council’s licensing rules; for example, it may uphold, substitute or quash the decision made by the council. The order that the tribunal will be able to make on an appeal against a decision made under the 2007 Act is set out in the Act itself. Finally, it modifies the 2007 Act so that appeals from decisions of the First-tier Tribunal can be made to the Upper Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Under the 2007 Act, the Legal Services Board may only approve an application to become a licensing authority if there would be a body with the power to hear and determine appeals against decisions the applicant could make in its capacity as a licensing authority. The council has chosen to use the First-tier Tribunal as the appellate body for its licensing decisions rather than using its existing regulatory appeal body, the discipline and appeals committee. This order is needed for there to be an appropriate appellate body for the council’s licensing decisions. Without appropriate appeal arrangements, the council cannot be designated as a licensing authority. The Legal Services Board has obtained the consent of the Tribunals Service and the council to this order as required by the 2007 Act.
Following discussions between the Tribunals Service, the council and the Legal Services Board, it is anticipated that appeals from the council’s licensing decisions will be heard by members of the general regulatory chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, who have experience in regulatory matters. The licensing authority decisions which can be appealed are either set out in the Act itself, in Section 96—“Appeals from financial penalties”—and Schedule 13, or in the council’s licensing rules. Appealable decisions would include, for example, the refusal of an application for a licence and refusal to designate as a head of legal practice. This is in line with guidance issued by the Legal Services Board setting out what licensing decisions should be appealable. A memorandum of understanding between the Legal Services Board, the Tribunals Service and the council will be put in place and the arrangements monitored and reviewed at the end of the first year of operation should the council be designated as a licensing authority. As noble Lords might expect, there will be additional costs for the First-tier Tribunal and the council. The council has agreed to meet the establishment and running costs of the tribunal in setting up the new function. If the council is designated as a licensing authority, it will recoup the costs through the fees that it will charge to licensed ABS bodies.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I confess to being slightly confused. The Minister has addressed the orders in a different order from that in which they appear on today’s Order Paper—and they do have different aspects. As I understand it, the Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers are content with the modification of functions order, but the SRA is not content with the other order, which covers appeals against licensing authority decisions. Therefore, we are dealing with both bodies in relation to one order and one body in relation to the other.
I see no reason to object in any way to the proposal that there should be changes, to the powers of, first, the Law Society to enable it to make compensation arrangements, and to those of the council. Both seek to provide a fund for people who are damaged either by Law Society-regulated bodies or Council for Licensed Conveyancers bodies. They will have a common fund, as I understand it, from which compensation can be paid.
I will raise a single point that was put forward by the Law Society in its parliamentary brief, namely its concern about arrangements to ensure that the prospective owners of alternative business structure firms are fit and proper persons.
It is important that the Government should make a commitment that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should not be allowed to stand in the way of the approval of those who wish to involve themselves in alternative business structures. I have had the experience in Hong Kong of appearing, instructed by firms which were essentially Triad-funded, with a front of a solicitor who did very little except ultimately go to jail. The warning was there: one cannot be too blasé in these alternative business structures. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know how I feel about alternative business structures, but those arguments seem to be a long way away from where we are today. Can the Minister address the question of whether an exception can be made so that the licensing authorities can stop individuals with criminal convictions from becoming involved in ABS firms, specifically after the 10-year period has passed when their convictions might be concealed for other purposes? That is my only point on this order.
On the order about appeals from licensing authority decisions, it seems appropriate that the First-tier Tribunal should act as the appellate body for appeals in relation to licensing authority decisions. We certainly supported the setting up of the new tribunal system, with the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. They contain people of considerable and wide experience, not necessarily totally involved in this area but nevertheless well capable of dealing with the issues that would arise in appeals from licensing authority decisions. I am surprised that the Law Society has decided to opt out and follow its own method of appeal. From the Explanatory Memorandum, it seems that the issue that very properly concerned the Law Society was that of costs. The tribunal has only a limited power to award costs, and the Law Society seemed to take the view that there should be a wide discretion, as for tribunals in other areas, to award all the costs when an appeal is dismissed having been improperly brought. Is that the issue? To set up a separate body to take these appeals seems quite unnecessary. Can the Minister help us with where he is on that basis?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel. I welcome these two orders, which appear a little technical—as, indeed, they are. But they are also important milestones on the road to seeing a new form of company opening for business which will help clients get access to good legal advice and enable “one-stop shops” to serve the needs of consumers. The Legal Services Act 2007 is a key piece of legislation introduced by the previous Government. It set up the Legal Services Board and the consumer panel which I have the honour to chair. That Act established independent oversight of the regulation lawyers. The Act clearly requires that such regulations should be in the interests of access to justice and the rule of law, and also be consumer focused.
The Act, as we know, set up the new legal ombudsman, which came intro operation in October last year. What is pertinent to today’s discussion is that it allows a new form of business, as the Minister has set out, combining law with other services in ways that we hope will better serve the needs of some clients in accessing particular types of service. As has been stated, the orders are part of the preparation for the introduction of the new business structures and are intended to ensure that the licensing authorities, which are the specialist parts of the approved regulators, will be ready to accept applications from October this year.
I, too, will start with the second order: like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I had them originally in the other order. The second order deals with appeals that are turned down by the new licensing authorities. It gives the First-tier Tribunal the remit to hear appeals from the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. This is a sensible, proportionate and appropriate regime. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that he was surprised that the solicitors were not similarly covered. I very much regret that absence, and the fact that the Solicitors Regulation Authority did not accept exactly the same system for appeals against its decisions as a licensing authority on the same issue: namely, rejections of applications to be allowed to operate the new business framework. As other noble Lords have been said, the SRA prefers its own Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, for which, as we have heard, a separate order will come here in due course. I regret this because it will risk causing a delay to the desired 6 October start date. It will also mean, perhaps more seriously in the longer term, that there will be two tribunals dealing with essentially identical cases. It is in the interest of consumers, and more widely in everyone’s interests, that a single, consistent body of case law should develop about legal services regulatory matters. Despite the absence of the SRA, I nevertheless welcome the order, which allows for an efficient and cost-effective solution to regulation completely independent of the CLC.
On the first order, I simply note and welcome the proposed change in membership of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, explained, will provide for a lay majority. This is in line with the Act’s requirement for the Legal Services Board and also with the LSB’s internal governance rules for all front-line, approved regulators.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford in his comments about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I recollect that, with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, we spent considerable time not only in debating the Legal Services Bill, as it then was, but in the previous Select Committee. One basis on which we took forward the notion of alternative business structures was that there should be a level playing field. I explain that by reiterating the fact that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which was established by the Law Society to discharge the society’s regulatory functions, should have exactly the same powers to regulate ABS firms as it has already to regulate existing firms. We made several commitments at the time to reassure people about the new structures and affirm that there would be a level playing field between ABS firms and existing law firms. That is why we see a problem with the implementation of alternative business structures that is not dealt with through these provisions. Those are the arrangements to ensure that the prospective owners of ABS firms are fit and proper persons. Indeed, I could quote myself, Jonathan Djanogly MP or the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in stressing the importance of this key issue.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I served under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on a Joint Committee looking at the draft Bill. I was not a Minister at the time that the Bill went through, although I took some part in it from the Back Benches, so while I have some form on this, I do not have as much the noble Lord. I thought at the time, and I think even more strongly now, that the Bill was a very significant piece of legislation indeed, one that is already beginning to have genuinely profound effects on all three branches of the legal profession.
I congratulate the board on what it is doing. It has done a fine job until now, but as with all changes, and some of these are fairly revolutionary, it is important that the details are right and particularly important that they must be introduced sensitively. That is why I strongly support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hunt of Wirral, about the point of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I, too, will ask the question because it really is essential that the order is brought forward as soon as possible, and therefore before alternative business structure firms become a reality. Indeed, I am not going to be as shy as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about quoting the Minister’s colleague, who was an opposition spokesman when the Bill passed through the House of Commons. He said this:
“The effectiveness of fitness-to-own provisions is a crucial element of the public protections that need to be in place before external ownership of ABS firms can safely be permitted. It is essential to avoid the spectre of law firms being owned by criminal elements”.—[Official Report, Commons, Legal Services Bill Committee, 22/6/07; col. 300.]
If that was true then, it is certainly true now, and he is in a position, as is the noble Lord, to do something about it. It is important that the order amending the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is brought forward, and we look forward to the noble Lord telling us, when he replies to the debate, precisely when it will happen. We do not oppose either of the orders, and—again, rather late in the day—I thank the noble Lord for introducing them so clearly.
I want to say a little more before sitting down. On the statutory instrument concerning appeals, as I understand it the Law Society’s concerns were around the point that appeals from ABS firms, which were regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, would go to the First-tier Chamber, whereas appeals and decisions from other law firms would go to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the SDT. Now the SRA has agreed to use the SDT for appeals to do with alternative business structure firms. That was apparently agreed in March this year, but there is some surprise that no statutory instrument has yet appeared to put that decision into effect. Finally—as I am sure the Minister will be relived to hear—when will that statutory instrument be brought forward, and why has there been a delay? I congratulate the Minister on bringing the orders forward.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I have said before that, as a non-lawyer there is nothing more daunting than facing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who, as he confessed, was the Minister responsible when the key legislation was—
Lord Bach
I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord was not listening with his usual attention, or else I was particularly inarticulate. I served on the Joint Committee under the noble Lord’s chairmanship as a Back-Bencher, and was indeed a Back-Bencher when the legislation went through, so I cannot be held to blame or praise for the legislation itself.
Lord McNally
I now fully understand. I will have to look at the noble Lord’s CV: I had always assumed that he had ministerial responsibility going back well over a decade.
Lord McNally
In any case, both the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, fill me with fear on this.
I am sorry about presenting these matters as separate orders; I was only following orders, as they say. I am pleased that the contributions have been, in the main, supportive and that it is agreed that the initial legislation and what we are trying to do now take us forward into a new era of legal service provision. In that respect, I was particularly reassured by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, from her position as spokesperson or defender of consumers in these areas, found them useful.
My heart, too, sank when I saw that, despite all the consultation and so on, we had ended up with two lines of solutions, whereas one would be much more preferable. We will continue to use our good offices to encourage regulation and lines of appeal in this area to be as simple and clear as possible. I share with the Committee that, the other day, I had the great honour of meeting the Vice-Minister of Justice for the People’s Republic of China. In a matter of general discussion, he asked me quite out of the blue if I could explain to him the regulatory system for our barristers and solicitors. The brief mentioned about nine different organisations, with any multiple of them having lines of appeal. I ended up by assuring the Vice-Minister of the absolute integrity and independence of the various branches of our legal profession and that I would write to him.
Lord McNally
Yes, in Mandarin and with a suitable chart. We hope that the orders go some way along the line of trying to get some order into these things.
On the matter of the missing orders, they are being drafted. We are undertaking further consultation. At this stage, the draft standing order relating to the society is not finalised. Until it is, it cannot be approved to be laid before Parliament. As the order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, it will require parliamentary debate and approval before the order can be made. We will be back, folks.
Quickly, on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, that again is under review. The point that was made is being taken on board. The Law Society Council will have arrangements in place to consider fitness of owners. They are set out in its licensing rules. The Law Society Council has asked for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to be extended. An order has been laid before the House adding the head of legal practices and head of financial administration to be covered by the law. Again, I note what has been said here. These are serious matters and areas that need to be tidied up as we go through the process of bringing the ABSs on board and getting the right lines of appeal.
I am just seeing if there is anything else that I have either not understood or not covered. A draft order will be debated in the House next week. We are aware of the additional requirements sought for owners and managers. The matter is being discussed at the moment so, again, watch this space. I thank the contributors to the debate. I hope that this has been enough clarification. If I have missed things I will write to noble Lords.
My noble friend Lord Thomas raised the point about what the solicitors did not like. The Law Society did not sign up because of a principal concern that changes were needed to the First-tier Tribunal general regulatory chamber rules to allow a general power to award costs. The LSB has asked the tribunal procedures committee to consider changes to its costs rules but, on 1 March 2011, the committee came to the preliminary view that the rules in their current form were adequate to determine whether one party or another should pay costs. The Law Society has not consented to this order. As was said, it has made provision in its proposed licensing rules for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to be the appellate body for its licensing appeals.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Before the Minister leaves that point, will he give us an assurance that he will take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is quite wrong that there will be one way of appealing for ABS firms and another for Law Society-regulated firms? As she said, it is very important that there should be a common body that creates precedents on which people in future can advise and act.
Lord McNally
As a lay man, I was impressed that it was a consumer champion who made that point. Certainly I will take it on board. I know that in trying to get agreement one has to make sure that the profession is protected and that there are proper guarantees that these matters will not be repeatedly revisited. It is also important that, in getting through the negotiations, consideration is given to the consumer and to securing the clearest and most understandable forms of regulation. As I said when I read my brief, my heart sank a little when I saw that agreement had not been reached and that the bodies were going off in different directions. That was not the initial aim of the Act or the direction of travel that we want. Therefore, I hope that those responsible in the professions will note what has been said in this debate. I will report back to noble Lords and see whether we can help push these things in the right direction.
Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society and The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (Modifications of Functions) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legal Services Act 2007 (The Law Society and The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (Modifications of Functions) Order 2011.
Relevant Document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)
Moved formally?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
Moved formally. Sorry.
Co-operation in Public Protection Arrangements (UK Border Agency) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Co-operation in Public Protection Arrangements (UK Border Agency) Order 2011.
Relevant Document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould: I was already on the next one. However, this time I cannot get anything in the wrong order because there is only one order. It adds the UK Border Agency to a list of bodies that are required to co-operate with local criminal justice agencies in each area in assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. This co-operation already exists at an informal level. The order places it on a statutory basis, which should make it easier to identify, refer and manage foreign nationals in our criminal justice system.
The broad arrangements for co-operation are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 325(2) requires the responsible authorities in each area—the police, probation and prison services acting together—to make arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. These are known as multiagency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—because the different agencies work together to protect the public. MAPPA provides a structure for identifying eligible offenders, notifying the relevant agencies, allocating offenders to various categories and levels depending on their offences and the degree of risk they pose, sharing relevant information about them and managing them through regular meetings and reviews.
Section 325(3) requires the responsible authority to co-operate with a list of other bodies specified in Section 325(6) in the task of assessment and management. It also places those bodies under a duty to co-operate with responsible authorities, including the local authority, social services, housing, education and health services, registered social landlords, youth offending teams, Jobcentre Plus and others. These agencies can expect to be notified when offenders who are relevant to them are identified. For example, if the offender is under 18, representatives from a youth offending team and local authority social services will be invited to all meetings where the management of the offender is discussed.
Those bodies are all specified in the Act. However, Section 325(7) also provides a power, subject to affirmative resolution, to amend the list of bodies with a duty to co-operate—to add to the list or remove from it. Parliament must have envisaged that circumstances might arise in which it would be beneficial to make equivalent statutory arrangements for co-operation between the responsible authority and other bodies. Those circumstances have now arisen.
The UK Border Agency is responsible, among other things, for the operation of internal immigration controls, including asylum, management of applications for further stay, and enforcement. It aims to protect the public by deporting foreign nationals who commit serious criminal offences, where legislation permits, and by actively monitoring and managing foreign national prisoners who are released into the community. Over the past few years, the UK Border Agency has been working with the criminal justice agencies in an attempt to manage foreign nationals who are MAPPA offenders more effectively. This process includes sharing information, where it is possible to do so, about developments in particular cases and developing release plans.
However, there are limits to what can be achieved by informal co-operation. Both sides agree that they could achieve more together if their co-operation were placed on a statutory footing. One of the most important benefits would be that a clear legal basis would exist for the exchange of information about foreign national MAPPA offenders. Section 325(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 explicitly provides that co-operation between the responsible authority and the specified bodies with a duty to co-operate may include the exchange of information. Other potential benefits include: ensuring that valuable resources are not expended on planning for the community supervision of an offender who will be subject to automatic deportation; ensuring that the UK Border Agency can prioritise enforcement action for the most dangerous sexual and violent offenders; and improving the information flow to immigration detention centres in respect of risk management and safeguarding—for example, in order to avoid the placement of certain offenders with children and vulnerable adults at the centres.
Co-operation between the responsible authority and the UK Border Agency will be governed by a memorandum of understanding drawn up in pursuance of Section 325(5) of the Act. This will set out clearly what each is required to do. For example, the responsible authority will notify the UK Border Agency of any MAPPA meetings to discuss a foreign national offender so that the agency may attend the meeting or provide information to it. Similarly, the UK Border Agency will notify the responsible authority if the offender is released from immigration detention or removed from the UK. Training has been provided to the relevant members of staff so that they can start to co-operate more effectively, subject to both Houses approving the draft order. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is clearly sensible that the agency should be brought within the scope of the public protection arrangements. I have nothing to add to that. The most important thing is that it should legalise the passing of information between the various agencies that are concerned with these matters.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am mightily relieved at that unanimous support. I, too, think that it is an important order. One of the great frustrations of the criminal justice system in the past has been the working in silos. The MAPPA approach is very sensible, so it is equally sensible to extend it to the UK Border Agency. I thank noble Lords for their expressions of support.
Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011.
Relevant Documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the power to make these regulations is in Section 81 of Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. The regulations were not introduced when most of Part 5 was commenced because further consideration was necessary on the issue of seafarers’ pay. The draft regulations, if approved, will serve two purposes: applying the Part 5 work provisions of the Act to work on ships and hovercraft and to seafarers, and addressing the European Commission’s concerns regarding differential pay for seafarers. I shall explain briefly how Part 5 would apply to work on ships and hovercraft and to seafarers, and then say a few words about seafarers’ differential pay.
The proposals aim to ensure that the level of protection afforded to land-based workers under Part 5 is extended to those at sea, creating as consistent as possible an approach. The Act has many benefits, providing a cross-cutting legislative framework to protect individuals’ rights and to advance equality of opportunity for all. It delivers an accessible framework of discrimination law, protecting individuals from unfair treatment and promoting a fairer, more equal society. Part 5 deals with work, giving protection in respect of specified protected characteristics from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, these being: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
Broadly speaking, the regulations would apply Part 5 to seafarers, irrespective of nationality, working on board a UK-registered ship operating wholly or partly in GB or adjacent waters; and to EEA and designated state seafarers, where the legal relationship of their employment is located in or closely linked to Great Britain, working on board EEA-registered ships or hovercraft operating wholly or partly in British or adjacent waters. For ships operating wholly outside those waters, the regulations would apply on UK-registered ships only. Just to be clear, the designated states in question are those countries having various specific agreements with the EU, such as association agreements. They include various European states such as Russia, Mediterranean states such as Algeria and Morocco, and the countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states, with the exception of Cuba.
On a point of detail, while most of the obligations within the Equality Act are underpinned by EU law and therefore EEA states are also bound by those obligations, because the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership is a domestic provision not required by EU law, that protected characteristic is excluded as regards ships registered in EEA states other than the United Kingdom.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS—restricts a state’s ability to apply legislation to foreign-flagged ships but, where a seafarer works wholly or partly in Great Britain, these regulations will apply Part 5 to seafarers on ships registered in an EEA state other than the UK, provided the criteria that I have just mentioned are met. The regulations will ensure compliance with European law and provide clarity to employers and employees while achieving the intended effect of applying Part 5 to as broad a range of ships, hovercraft and seafarers as possible without breaching UNCLOS or European law, or placing additional burdens on UK-registered vessels alone.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I have a brief question for the Minister. I assume that Northern Ireland is making its own regulations in the context of this order. Can the Minister give us the background as to why this applies only to England, Scotland and Wales, and not Northern Ireland, yet the definition of “United Kingdom waters” is those waters adjacent to Great Britain or, under paragraph 3(c),
“the legal relationship of the seafarer’s employment is located within Great Britain or retains a sufficiently close link with Great Britain”?
What would “a sufficiently close link” mean in this context?
Lord Higgins
My Lords, it is a very long time indeed since I qualified as a member of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers. Since then, I have taken a strong interest in the industry, both as a Minister and Opposition spokesman on trade, in Select Committees and so on. This is an extremely important order. The Minister has set out clearly why it is before us: as a result of European legislation. However, I have always considered it important that the number of ships on the British register should be as large as possible. It has considerable advantages to the UK, not least because, generally speaking, if ships are registered here, the headquarters, operating offices and so on tend also to be in the UK; the Treasury, in particular, benefits as far as taxation and other things are concerned. In addition, it encourages other, related, industries such as insurance, which have traditionally been located in London.
That is very important, but there are other aspects such as the training of officers, which again builds up the link with the UK. We remain a major maritime nation. None the less, the size of the register has, for reasons such as taxation, varied over the years. However, we have always played an important role in the IMO and so on.
This proposal, the extremely helpful Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment really examine two possibilities. They rightly reject the idea that we could do nothing, because, as the Minister has pointed out, we are under considerable duress from the European Union to deal with the matter. So the alternatives are either to change the position on differential pay for employees from the European Union, the EEA and the designated states—the designated states are of course really quite expensive in this context—or simply to say that you cannot differentiate at all, regardless of where the employees come from. The Government have opted for the first of these options and, I believe, rightly so. I have received some assessments from the Chamber of Shipping, and the impact assessment also deals with these matters as far as both options are concerned. They say that if one were to do it for seafarers from the EEA and designated states, the average percentage increase in wage costs, which range between 6 per cent and 32 per cent, would impact on a ship’s overall running costs by up to 7.2 per cent. On the other hand, if one were to take the widespread option, the range would be an increase of 10 per cent to 130 per cent; it would depend, of course, on the type of ship and so on. The increase in the overall cost could be as high as 56 per cent.
The industry is highly competitive. If we are compelled to pay higher rates, as would be the case in the international market generally, that would obviously have a serious effect on our position and be likely to result in a considerable reduction in overseas earnings. While it appears that there is no choice but to go for the European option rather than the global one, that would seem to be the right solution. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he is certainly not proposing to consider any further a wider option, which would have a very serious economic effect at a time when the British economy is obviously under considerable strain.
There is a provision in the order for a review after five years. I hope that the Minister will say that if it turns out to be the case that the percentage increase in wage costs that I have indicated under the provisions of the order is having a more serious effect than the one that we anticipate at the moment—which is already serious—a review might be carried out earlier to see whether, in the light of experience, some change ought to be made in the order. However, overall, this is probably the best compromise that can be effected. None the less, it will have an adverse effect on the British economy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, 50 years ago in Worthing I had the privilege of arguing with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when I stood against him for the Labour Party and he won resoundingly. I disagreed with him then and, 50 years later, I disagree with what he has just said. I hope that in the long run the outcome might be different from what he hopes. The regulations are welcome—
Lord Higgins
The noble Lord should not worry unduly: my majority was only 32,000.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Yes, it was so great that the votes could have been weighed rather than counted. However, I got the highest vote Labour ever got in Worthing—which was still quite low.
The regulations are welcome in so far as they apply the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to employment on ships and hovercraft so as to forbid discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other unlawful conduct in relation to the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation. They are welcome also because they bring the law into line with our EU obligations so as to avoid liability in the pending Commission infringement proceedings. Because of the technical nature of some of the issues and their public importance, I gave the Minister notice of what I will say so that he might be well advised in his response. I hope that what I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was passed on to my noble friend who is handling the matter.
It is most regrettable that these regulations are designed to permit some forms of racial discrimination by the British shipping industry to be outside the protection of the Equality Act, where the discriminatory treatment involves paying seafarers less because of their nationality in a way that may amount to direct or indirect race discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or national origin. I pause to mention that the designated states do not include those of Commonwealth Asia: namely, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
It is worth recalling the history. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894,
“the master or owner of any ship, or his agent, may enter into an agreement with a lascar, or any native of India, binding him to proceed either as a seaman or as a passenger … to any port in the United Kingdom, and there to enter into a further agreement to serve as a seaman in any ship which may happen to be there, and to be bound to any port in British India”.
If the lascar refused to enter into the second agreement, under which he was employed on blatantly discriminatory terms, he should,
“be liable to the same consequences, and be dealt with in all respects in the same manner, as if he had voluntarily entered into the same”.
In other words, he could be punished under the criminal provisions of the Act for desertion or indiscipline.
Much of the 1894 act was repealed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which did not re-enact the unsightly lascar clauses. However, under the Race Relations Act 1968, the practice of making racially discriminatory agreements with non-white seamen brought to Britain for this purpose was given fresh statutory blessing. During the passage in 1968 of the Race Relations Bill—I was watching at the time—Ben Whittaker MP attempted in Committee to remove provisions that permitted race discrimination on board merchant ships. He was supported by Eric Heffer MP, who pointed out that if the exemptions were not removed, 35,000 Asian seamen would be outside the Bill's protection. But the Home Secretary, James Callaghan, recalled his personal experience as a Cardiff MP and said that there was a long tradition in the United Kingdom that seamen of mixed races were segregated according to race and that lascars continued to be employed on British ships on terms and conditions of service which were dissimilar to those pertaining to British crews. Mr Callaghan, as he then was, said that he wanted to see this discrimination ended, but he would not make an amendment, which no doubt would have been a great advance in race relations, but would have upset a great many other things.
Lord Higgins
I am trying to follow my noble and learned friend, and it may well be that I have misunderstood the situation. Incidentally, he refers to the shipbuilding industry, when it is the ship operating industry. However, as I understand it, although I may be quite wrong, the order is purely concerned with pay differentials; all the legislation with regard to discrimination in other areas and so on is not effective. No doubt the Minister can clarify whether that is the case. In all events, if, as a result of the change on the pay differential, the vessel is flagged out to, say, Liberia, any protection they may have from UK law is lost.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
First, I apologise for saying “shipbuilding industry”, which is of course not what was intended at all; one is concerned with the shipping industry. Secondly, my noble friend is perfectly right that we are concerned with racial discrimination in pay and nothing else, which is preserved by these regulations. It is that and nothing else which Susan Carter of the external panel was considering in her careful review of stakeholder evidence on differential pay in the shipping industry, where she goes through the consequences of outlawing differential pay on five types of ship based on a Chamber of Shipping survey of its members. She looks at 229 ships and estimates what may happen about change of flag and so on. I have been quoting from her report. I submit that, being an external reviewer who has looked at all the evidence, her report should be given careful consideration. I respectfully agree with the report and wish that the Department for Transport would follow the wise and objective advice of the external panel instead of creating considerable legal uncertainty and continuing unfairness which our courts and employment tribunals may have to resolve. That may be to the benefit of my profession, but it is not in the public interest. I wish that the Government had taken the advice of their own external reviewer and I hope that these points can be considered before we come to the debate to approve the regulations.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and other noble Lords for their thoughts. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is well made. The regulations will leave an unsatisfactory piece of law on our statute book. They will regularise discrimination by nationality on British vessels. There are no two ways about that: they are designed to do so. They are designed to be compatible with European law and, for appropriate individuals, with UK law, and are designed to except those who are not in the protected group: some 12,700 overseas seamen.
Option 2 in the impact assessment simply says that it is option 1, but also makes it unlawful for employers to pay seafarers differential rates of pay on the basis of their nationality. The argument against it is made by the Chamber of Shipping, and it is the argument that the Government seem to have accepted. It goes something like this: if we make discrimination illegal, our costs will go up, so we will deflag and that will be bad for the economy.
We are not going to oppose the regulations because we think it is better to get the first bit right, which is the option in front of us, and perhaps debate later the second bit, which is whether all seamen should be involved. But I am concerned that the report by Susan Carter, from which we have had extensive quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seems to have been ignored in the regulations, the memorandum and the impact statement. She makes a basic statement:
“On the basis of the evidence submitted, I recommend outlawing the practice of nationality-based pay differentials for seafarers altogether”.
So I hope that the noble Earl will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself on why this report was ignored before this goes in front of the House.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this has been an interesting and, as usual when the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is involved, well informed debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Gathered here today is a wealth of transport and equal rights experience, and I am grateful for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we should solve the immediate problem first of all and then consider the wider issues.
On 2 March 2010, in a debate during the Report stage of the Equality Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made an impassioned plea on behalf of seafarers in respect of both differential pay and the UK national minimum wage. Unfortunately, the noble Lord cannot attend the Committee today due to duties in the Chamber.
In response to that earlier debate, the then government Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said:
“The Government must carefully consider the implications of ending the practice of differential pay”.—[Official Report, 2/3/10; col. 1384.]
This Government have carefully considered the issue and I pay tribute to my colleague in another place, the Maritime Minister. Since taking office, he has demonstrated a hitherto unseen level of determination to address the issue. He has consulted extensively with the shipping industry and with the unions.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Government accept that the regulations on differential pay do not go far enough for some, while for others they go too far. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is clearly embedded in the first camp. However, the Government are determined to protect the future of the UK shipping industry and with it the Red Ensign. The regulations that we are considering do the least possible to avoid a substantial fine being imposed by the European court.
The UK national minimum wage for seafarers is also a highly complex area and the Government are very familiar with the concerns expressed by the maritime trade unions. A legal working group that includes these unions was set up to look into how far international and EU law would allow the Government to apply the UK national minimum wage to non-UK ships. The conclusions of the working group will be submitted to Ministers in due course, after which all interested government departments, including the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is responsible for the national minimum wage policy, will give further consideration to the issue.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for giving me advance notice of what he intended to say. I, too, picked up the “shipbuilding” typo but rapidly translated it into “ship owners”. In reply to the noble Lord, and with all due respect, indirect discrimination is not the issue here. The regulations allow discrimination on grounds of nationality. That is direct discrimination, excused by paragraph 1 of Schedule 23, “General Exceptions”, and by Section 81, which says that Part 5 of the Act applies to seafarers only in such circumstances as are prescribed. These regulations prescribe the circumstances.
I confirm that it will continue to be lawful to pay some seafarers differently because of their nationality if they were recruited outside Great Britain and are not British citizens or nationals of another EEA state or designated state. That will include Filipino seafarers.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I fear that I have not explained my point clearly. Something may be discrimination on grounds of nationality and also direct or indirect race discrimination. It may involve discrimination based on nationality and ethnicity or on national origins, for example—that would be direct discrimination—or it may be indirect discrimination based on nationality, national origins and ethnicity. I will not go through the definitions in the Equality Act to explain what I have just said, but the definition is very large and the case law makes what I have just said crystal clear, whether it applies to “no turbans”, “no Irish” or discrimination using other foreign epithets. It is quite clear from court rulings that discrimination may be ostensibly on one ground but in fact is on others. I do not want to see litigation on this matter because we have not dealt properly with it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I fully understand my noble friend's desire to avoid litigation. These extremely complex issues are well beyond my understanding, but I will give the noble Lord a detailed response in writing. My noble friend’s argument is an essentially legal one and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I write to him.
There remains the question of whether it is immoral to allow differential pay in any circumstances. That is a rather simpler question to answer. The short answer is no. The world is not that simple. That is why, traditionally, seafarers from around the globe have tended to be paid amounts commensurate with the domestic job market in their own countries. If seafarers from countries with generally low-paid workforces were paid at higher rates, this could seriously distort the job market in their own country. Imagine, for example, a situation in which highly skilled surgeons or other professionals find themselves better off serving as ratings on ships than using all their training, skills and knowledge to help to cure people and solve their problems. This would be damaging at a far deeper level, and I suspect that there could be other serious unintended consequences.
My noble friend Lord Lester asked me why the protected characteristic and civil partnership were excluded.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry; I have not asked that. Although I put it in my draft, I am satisfied with what the Minister said on that.
Earl Attlee
I am obliged to the noble Lord.
The aim is to apply the regulations to as many ships as possible of whatever flag, in so far as this is consistent with international law, to limit the effects being felt by the UK flag alone. The extension of the application of Part 5 to EEA ships is therefore limited to those protected characteristics which are underpinned by EU law. A ship flagged to EEA states would be under the same obligations. The characteristic of marriage and civil partnership is not an EU obligation and so is excluded.
My noble friend Lord Higgins made several important points. I accept his points about the importance of the UK register, and I hope that that came out in my comments. On the effect on the UK flag, leaving aside the issue of differential pay for the moment, the effect of applying the new consolidated equality legislation to work on ships is not very burdensome. Indeed, it should bring benefits through greater clarity for employers and employees.
As to the effect caused by the need to change the law in respect of seafarers’ pay, we cannot say with absolute certainty what the effect will be on the UK-flagged fleet, although many noble Lords have suggested what it could be. We have consulted closely with all sides of the shipping industry on the likely effect and will monitor it closely. We are regulating in a way that will be least disruptive to the industry while allowing it to comply with EU law. We are also seeking undertakings from the European Commission that it will be vigilant in ensuring that other EU member states are also following EU law.
My noble friend Lord Higgins asked me about the review provided for in the regulations, and asked whether we would review earlier. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we will keep the implementation and the situation under close observation.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked me why the regulations did not appear to apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has been asked to introduce its own parallel legislation at the earliest opportunity. Until that legislation is also approved, the UK will remain in breach of EU law. The European Commission has been informed that action in Northern Ireland was necessarily delayed due to recent elections, but that the matter is in hand. My noble friend also asked me a rather detailed question about the definition of “sufficiently close link”. It is a basket of measures as set out in Regulation 2(2)(b). It will be determined by reference to all relevant factors including those set out in the regulations.
Noble Lords asked me particularly about the Carter report. I agree that it is a significant report. Susan Carter reviewed all of the evidence submitted by stakeholders and came to the conclusion that she did. She was not asked to consider any other evidence, such as that from government. Maybe Susan Carter’s report was a comment on the industry’s evidence to maintain the status quo. As I have already indicated, my honourable friend Mr Penning, the Shipping Minister, has consulted extensively.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The wider issues are indeed complex. As indicated, I will write to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the noble Earl write specifically on the consideration that the department has given to Susan Carter’s report and say why it does not share her conclusion? He seems to give a partial explanation which I do not think is valid. Susan Carter consulted as widely for her report as the department has for the regulations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
While the noble Earl is dealing with that, I should add that Ms Carter states at the beginning of her report:
“This report reviews evidence submitted by key stakeholders in the shipping industry about differential pay for seafarers on grounds of nationality. The Department for Transport invited them to submit financial estimates of the likely impact of either: option A … or option B”.
That the department did not give evidence is, with respect, not the point; the point is that the department asked her to do this job on the basis of evidence submitted by—that ghastly phrase—“key stakeholders”. Therefore, I am mystified as to how anyone reading her report could fault her findings or her conclusion. I would be very grateful if the Minister would write to us about that as well.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that a summary of the evidence submitted can be found on a website. I will not read out the website address, but when I write to noble Lords I will discuss the Carter report. As indicated, I will write to all Members of the Committee before seeking the House’s approval of the affirmative instrument.
Pensions Act 2007 (Abolition of Contracting-out for Defined Contribution Pension Schemes) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Act 2007 (Abolition of Contracting-out for Defined Contribution Pension Schemes) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2011.
Relevant Documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
I shall set out the general context for these draft provisions. Contracting out of the additional state pension was first introduced in 1978. Initially, contracting out was restricted to defined benefit or salary related occupational pension schemes but, in 1988, it was extended to pension schemes contracted out on a defined contribution or money purchase basis. The scheme members and, in the case of occupational pension schemes, their employers, receive a national insurance contributions rebate in place of the state benefits forgone.
At this point I should explain to noble Lords the terms “money purchase” and “defined contribution”. A money purchase scheme is defined in legislation as one where all the benefits that may be provided are money purchase benefits, which in turn are calculated by reference to payments made by the member or by any other person in respect of the member and which are not average salary benefits. The term “defined contribution scheme” is not one defined in legislation but is the term commonly used throughout the pensions industry for money purchase schemes.
In 2005, an independent pensions commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, recommended the abolition of contracting out on a defined contribution basis. The commission’s view was that the contracting-out/contracting-in choice added complexity to the UK pension system and was poorly understood. Its application to personal pensions helped to generate the pensions mis-selling problems of the 1990s. The then Government accepted the commission’s recommendation and the Pensions Act 2007 provided for abolition, with some further consequential changes in the Pensions Act 2008.
During the passage of the legislation, there was widespread support in Parliament for abolition. In March 2010, the then Government announced that abolition would be on 6 April 2012, and that date has been confirmed by the present Government. For the purposes of this debate we are only concerned with contracting out of the additional state pension via a defined contribution pension scheme. We are not proposing changes here to contracting out via salary-related schemes.
In the case of a defined contribution occupational scheme, both the member and the employer pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. The employer pays a minimum payment to the scheme which is equal to the member’s and employer’s reduction in national insurance contributions. In a defined contribution contracted-out personal pension scheme, the full rate of national insurance contributions is paid by the employer and employee, and the rebate is provided by HMRC through an annual payment into the pension scheme at the end of the tax year. These reductions and payments are collectively known as the contracted-out rebate.
Under the current defined contribution contracting out system, special rules are applicable to protected rights, the collective term for the rebate, tax relief and investment return which abolition will remove. These rules include restrictions on the type of scheme in which protected rights can be invested or to which they can be transferred, a requirement to purchase a unisex annuity, and a requirement to make provision for a survivor benefit where the member is married or in a civil partnership at the point of annuitisation.
The affirmative draft order and regulations now before the Committee make consequential changes to the primary legislation by amending or revoking various pieces of legislation that will be redundant following abolition. They amend or repeal, where appropriate, all references to “contracted-out money purchase schemes”, “appropriate personal pension schemes” and “protected rights” in existing legislation. The order and regulations are part of a package of consequential changes and should be read in conjunction with the negative statutory instruments that were laid on 16 June 2011; namely, the Pensions Act 2007 (Abolition of Contracting-out for Defined Contribution Pension Schemes) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011, and the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2011.
Turning to the affirmative provisions which are the subject of this debate, I do not propose to explain the minor amendments contained within these statutory instruments. I will, however, highlight the main provisions. The Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequenial Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011 is split into three parts. Part 1 contains commencement provisions. Part 2 introduces a de minimis or minimum payment provision for late rebate payments and recoveries, and a transitional period that is necessary for the administrative tidying-up of late rebates. Part 3 deals with rebate payments made after the transitional period. By way of background to late rebates, rebate payments are made by HMRC to contracted-out DC schemes at the end of each tax year by means of automated payments.
In some instances, HMRC may need to amend an individual’s national insurance record because of the changes notified to them after the end of a tax year— for example, where an employer discovers an error in the amount of earnings paid by an employee in an earlier tax year or where an incorrect date of birth is recorded and has to be revised. These adjustments to the national insurance records can sometimes result in an additional contracted-out rebate payment, or overpayment, becoming due. Analysis shows that the bulk of late rebate payments fall to be paid in the three tax years following the tax year to which the rebate relates. The transitional arrangements in this legislation will ensure that adjustments to rebates for periods prior to April 2012 are paid to individuals’ pension schemes up to April 2015 by an automated process. Following the end of the transitional period of three years, payments will be made from 6 April 2015 to individuals who will be advised to pay the amount into a pension scheme.
The de minimis provision introduced by the order makes provision for a limit below which HMRC will not be required to make a rebate payment. This limit will correspond to the cost of paying the rebate clerically by HMRC—that is, the rebate will not be paid where it costs more to administer the rebate payment than its actual value. The limit is expected to be in the region of £15 where the payment is made clerically. Payments which are made during the transitional period through the automated payment system will, as now, not be subject to a minimum limit.
We have been working closely with the pension industry in developing the abolition legislation, including the transitional period. The legislation was subject to a full consultation and the industry is satisfied generally that it can all be implemented. However, there is one point that I need to draw to the Committee’s attention. Article 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011 makes a minor consequential amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986 but it has recently become apparent to us that it will not be possible for this provision to have practical effect. The article amends provisions which currently provide that any pensions payments which derive from protected rights are not taken into account as income when a court considers making an income payments order for a debtor. The amendment seeks to provide that any pensions payments which give effect to protected rights before the abolition date will continue to be exempt from counting as income for these purposes.
We now consider that it will not be possible for schemes post-abolition to be able to identify such protected rights payments as schemes will no longer be required to track protected rights. As such, this part of the amendment will have no practical effect as the courts would not be able to identify pension payments which give effect to protected rights. While we have discovered this issue, we consider that it does no harm. We will therefore press ahead and make these sets of amendments to provide the industry with certainty over the substantive changes to be made to implement the abolition of DC contracting out. We will undertake to amend Article 3 of the order before 6 April 2012—the abolition date—to clarify the intention on that particular point.
To conclude, I am satisfied that the order and the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord German
My Lords, I welcome these statutory instrument. It is important to note that the so-called amendment instrument No. 1—I will not read the whole title out—have been laid by negative resolution at virtually the same time as these instrument for affirmative resolution. That is good practice for the House because it means that noble Lords will be able to understand and see the whole picture, and be able to work on them together. I commend that action from the Government.
Secondly, concerning the transitional arrangements, clearly this is a commitment made by the last Government being enacted by the present Government and so has a great deal of political support right across the boundaries, as it did when it first came before your Lordships’ House at the time of the Pensions Act in 2008. I wonder, though, what would happen should there be an amendment needed or an error found outwith the three-year period. It might be, for example, that something was discovered beyond the three-year period. Is there any measure by which that can be dealt with?
I am pleased that the Government are introducing this measure because it will of course mean that small amounts of money will not need to be paid where the cost of administration is greater than the amount paid out. I hear what my noble friend says about the online methodology that will not be affected. However, when it comes to mechanical methods by which sums below £15 would be encountered, I dread to think what it will cost to administer a payment of £15: I am sure that it will be considerably more than the cost. Therefore, it is welcome that that area is covered.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not propose to detain noble Lords for long with my contribution. I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction to and detailed explanation of the orders. As he indicated, they spring from the Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008, of which one has some fond memories and some other memories as well. He reminded us that they were based on the findings of the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner. He will understand if we on this side now refer to the commission as the “Drake, Turner and Hills commission”. But he was right to say that there was a political consensus at the time, as indeed there is now. The date for implementation was identified by the previous Government, and we are grateful for the support of this Government in taking it forward. The noble Lord, Lord German, is in a sense right in his description of what is happening here. People are moving out of a DC scheme into something that is effectively a DB scheme—moving out of a funded scheme into something that is pay-as-you-go. That is the essence of the switch that is going on here.
I have about three questions for the Minister, all of which I hope are pretty straightforward. The first was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord German. The impact assessment talks about actuarial neutrality. It identifies for employers both a short-term and a long-term neutral component to this. For individual employees and for the Government, although there may be actuarial neutrality overall, the cash flow effect for each is different in the sense that the Government will generate cash flow from this in the early years, while of course the payback will be the extra state second pension paid in later years. If we look at the remainder of this CSR period and perhaps the next period, how do the cash flows pan out? What is the extra amount of revenue for the Government over the period, which they will pay for later with increased contributions to S2P? What are the Government planning to do with the headroom they will get from that cash flow? I might suggest that they could help out on dealing with adjustments to the state pension age, but that is probably a debate we ought not to have at this point.
My second query was partly prompted and indeed enhanced by what the noble Lord said about the Insolvency Act and Article 3, and why that will not operate in future because schemes post abolition will not be able to track protected rights. I suppose that my question is this: looking at what is happening here, most of the DC schemes involved are personal pensions and therefore do not have the trustee arrangements that some of the occupational schemes may have as part of their fiduciary duties. What will protect the legacy guaranteed minimum pensions of those who built up these rights in the past? As the noble Lord said in his introduction, at the moment protected rights have restrictions on scheme transfers, on the type of annuity that can be bought—a unisex annuity—on survivor benefits and on joint life annuities. I think that that is one of the requirements. If that is all swept away and we are left to deal with contract-based schemes without the protection of trustee arrangements, what protection will there be for people with legacy rights? Obviously for new entrants and for the future the issue does not arise.
My last point again picks up on a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord German. He said that he liked the direction of travel because it helped us towards the enhanced flat-rate pension. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us an update on that. In particular, will he explain how as a practical matter it will be possible to deal with that while there is still contracting out from DB schemes and whether, as the noble Lord asked, there are any proposals to accelerate the withdrawal of contracting out for DB schemes?
Those are the only questions I have, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, obviously we support the regulations.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for some pointed and excellent questions, which I will be pleased to deal with as best I can. The first, from my noble friend Lord German, on what happens outwith the three-year period, is relatively straightforward. That is rather simple: if there has been an overpayment, HMRC will consider some recovery if it is cost effective; I suspect that it costs rather more than £15, but if it is a reasonable sum it will do it. If there is an underpayment, the additional amount will be paid directly to the individual, obviously subject to de minimis, with the suggestion that they put it in their pension pot, as I said at the beginning. I think that that is more than a suggestion, as well.
My noble friend asked me about the critical issue of communication. When you are in the fourth league of complexity, explaining how you are undoing complexity can be even more complex, taking you down to the fifth league. We are well aware of that. DWP and HMRC are working with industry representatives on a pretty elaborate communication strategy so that the information is targeted at those who need to know. We have developed a number of fact sheets that will be online for members, for schemes, for employers and for trustees. On members, we have made changes in the negative instruments, as part of this package, to require schemes to inform individuals of the key impacts of the abolition.
Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, went on a slight fishing expedition—is that the fairest way to describe it?—about what the implications and interconnections might be with S2P and the state pension, referring to our consultation, A state pension for the 21st century. Again, I have to be slightly boring on that matter because we have now had the responses to it. The closing day was in fact last Friday, 24 June. I think that “We are considering the responses”, is the way that that is expressed. There is clearly a highly interesting and relevant knock-on from this to that, depending on how it comes out.
Both my noble friend Lord German and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about actuarial neutrality. The explanatory material makes it clear that there will effectively be an exchange with the uncertainty of the investment markets, where one can clearly get very good returns if one has the right investment strategy and equally appalling returns if one has the wrong strategy. Those risks are exchanged for the certainty of the state pension. I guess that that is what actuarial neutrality means, although it could be described in other ways as well.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That would be very helpful. I had a look at the impact assessment but could see only aggregate figures rather than year-by-year figures. It would be helpful to have those.
Lord Freud
We can do that. Obviously, there are many figures running around in various ways, but we will get the appropriate figures to the noble Lord in a letter. His connected question on the extent to which there will be increased revenue in the short term and where that might be spent is something on which I could not possibly comment—nor, I suspect, would I be expected to.
I turn to more general issues of insolvency. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about some of the more general implications for protected rights. Effectively, they mean that an annuity will have to be purchased with similar provisions to the state scheme. Of course, for that reason very few people will get extraordinary returns and we will get back to neutrality. The removal of the rules on protected rights will increase the flexibility for members. The size of the fund will remain the same but they will have choice in the provision of retirement income.
The provisions contained in the statutory instruments will support the delivery of the abolition of defined contribution contracting out. I hope that I have dealt with all the questions satisfactorily. I commend the measures to the Committee and ask for its approval to implement them.
Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Act 2008 (Abolition of Protected Rights) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2011.
Relevant Documents: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I regret that I have to inform the House of the death yesterday of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. On behalf of the whole House, I extend our condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Disabled People: Disability Hate Crime
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, hate crime, including that targeting a person’s perceived disability, is an issue that the Government take very seriously. That is why the coalition’s programme for government included a commitment to improve the recording of such crimes. We are also working with the police and others to increase the reporting of hate crimes against disabled people and on ways of identifying repeat victims more quickly.
Lord Rix
I thank the Minister for that response, which follows what Paul Burstow, the Minister for Care Services, told us last week at the launch of the Mencap initiative with regard to hate crime. But is she aware that, ever since the Welfare Reform Bill was tabled, certain inflammatory reports have appeared in a number of media alleging that people on disability benefits are scroungers and layabouts? Does she agree that such inflammatory language can lead only to more disability hate crime? What can the Government do to ameliorate this matter?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Lord, whose record in this area, particularly his long and distinguished association with Mencap, is respected throughout the House, raises an important point. Grouping people with disabilities together in a generic way is of itself a problem. Beyond that, it is important that as a society we start to recognise disabilities right across the spectrum, particularly those that the noble Lord has been such a good advocate for—those relating to learning difficulties and communication disorders where often the disability itself is not evident on first sight or first meeting. The noble Lord will know that I have taken a close interest in autism for the past 40 years and I have often described the disability as an iceberg—a third above the surface and two-thirds below. That two-thirds below the surface of the disability is as important as what people see on first sight.
Lord Peston
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. One of the overwhelming problems among people who ought to know a great deal better, including many members of the medical profession, is that they accept that someone like me who has a damaged leg is not faking it, but think that someone who has a disability of a psychological origin is making it up. That is something that the Government must take a lead on. I am delighted to hear that that is precisely the noble Baroness’s position.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. One of the difficulties that we often face is with professionals who have only a passing interest. He particularly mentioned the medical profession. I do not want to generalise, because some very good work is done by the medical profession, but you cannot expect the medical profession to be experts in everything. There are important factors to remember when they come into contact with people, particularly those in the group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whom the Mencap report focused on. Learning disability is defined as people who have an IQ of under 70. Some of those on the autistic spectrum have very high IQs and yet their disability is still there. It is important that when people are referred to so-called professionals, whether in the medical profession or elsewhere, for some sort of assessment, the person seeing them either has the expertise to make a proper assessment or has the good grace to refer them to someone who has.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, vis-à-vis the reference to the medical profession, does my noble friend agree that politicians are not exactly paragons of virtue in this field? In another place an MP with cerebral palsy was ridiculed for his speech.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, my noble friend hits on something very important and we should make hate crime against people who are disabled a priority. What is sometimes euphemistically referred to as anti-social behaviour or low-level crime has a cumulative effect, as we saw particularly in the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington. Also, when people commit hate actions, whether they are verbal or physical, that is criminal; it is not low level, it is not just an anti-social euphemism, it is criminal and should be treated as such.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, in October last year three men who tortured a young man with Asperger’s syndrome were prosecuted for actual bodily harm. Over a three-day period they kicked and stamped on his head, repeatedly beat his chest, smacked him with a tennis racquet, threw him down an embankment, pelted him with dog faeces, rubbed his limbs with sandpaper and then forced him to drink so much vodka and gin that he passed out. Their sentence was 80 hours of community service. The National Autistic Society thinks that was an extremely lenient sentence. I agree. Would the Minister therefore be prepared to facilitate a meeting between the Justice Secretary, the National Autistic Society, myself and others so we can go into this matter?
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord will know that I am a vice-president of the National Autistic Society and I am very happy to take forward his request.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, my son was a victim of hate crime 10 years ago and with my advocacy and support he was able to give evidence in court and the people who mugged him received significant jail sentences. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that court staff are being adequately trained in disability matters so that people with disabilities subject to disability hate crime get a proper hearing and that people with learning difficulties are involved in that training?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, the noble Baroness, whose case I am aware of, raises a very important point. Training across the police, the Courts Service and others was an integral part of the Mencap report. I asked to see the latest document, which I have here, which allows people with learning disabilities to record, with the help of others, the facts of the case. One of the difficulties in bringing cases to court and getting a conviction is that, by definition, these people are not very good witnesses and they need support and help to be able to explain what has happened to them and to bring forward sufficient evidence to bring the case to court. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are doing all we can to ensure that training takes place and that victims and their carers—very often they are the key persons to help support them through this—are given the support that they deserve and that the police and all those involved in the Courts Service recognise the way that they have to treat people to bring a case to court and to take it through the court. I am happy to say that there are many police forces now which are taking that forward and doing some very good work.
Armed Forces: Resources
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the Armed Forces have sufficient resources to meet their obligations in the light of recent and additional deployments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Craftsman Andrew Found of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, serving with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys), and Corporal Lloyd Newell of the Parachute Regiment, who were both killed on operations in Afghanistan on Thursday 16 June. My thoughts are also with the wounded, and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
The Government are fully committed to providing our Armed Forces with the resources needed to carry out operations, as has been demonstrated in Afghanistan and more recently in Libya. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the Government’s special reserve.
Lord Empey
I thank the Minister for his reply and, once again, the sobering reality of what our forces are facing. However, while fully understanding the difficult financial legacy which this Government have inherited, I believe there is a growing unease in this House, in the forces and in the country that the armed services are being asked to undertake more difficult and dangerous missions at the same time as their resources are being cut. How do the Government propose to reconcile these conflicting realities?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, dealing with the economic legacy that we inherited has required us to reduce the size of the Armed Forces and cut or gap a number of low-priority capabilities. However, the SDSR states explicitly the need for an adaptable posture to defend our interests in the world. As a result, we have structured and resourced our forces to give us flexibility to conduct operations.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we on this side also wish to extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Craftsman Andrew Found and Corporal Lloyd Newell, who have both been killed recently in operations in Afghanistan. We also join the Minister in paying tribute to the courage and fortitude of the wounded.
The Foreign Secretary has said that the Arab spring is a more important event than 9/11. The national security strategy, published last year, does not mention Libya or, indeed, Egypt and Tunisia. Should the Government not be looking again at the strategic defence and security review in the light of that to make sure that we have a review that has been updated to reflect what is now happening and the impact this has on our resources and capabilities to enable us to sustain our current commitments, including over Libya?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the SDSR was a thorough assessment of the threats we face. Its conclusion, that we need an adaptable posture with flexible forces, has been validated by recent events, and it will ensure we can continue to conduct operations today while preparing our future force. Those who argue for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending, but they fail to spell out the inevitable result: more borrowing, more tax rises or more cuts elsewhere.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, from these Benches I join the Minister in his tributes to those who have fallen. Perhaps I could also draw his attention to the fact that this month, the Prime Minister said that the military covenant will be made law. The covenant, as your Lordships know, is the state’s duty of care to its Armed Forces and will have legal force in the Armed Forces Bill. Will my noble friend the Minister explain how the UK can cope with increased defence commitments, increased defence cuts and the military covenant all at the same time?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as reluctant as all Ministers are to make reductions, we are tackling the issues that the Labour Party refused to face up to and getting the defence budget on to a stable footing. Without healthy finances we can create neither the public services nor the national security that we desire. We must recognise that our options are constrained by the need to reduce public expenditure across the board.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I join the Minister in his tributes to the fallen and the wounded. Some three months ago, in the first week of the no-fly zone over Libya, I asked the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government had both the resolve and the resources to maintain the zone as long as was necessary, especially in light of the fact that in Iraq the no-fly zones had lasted some 12 years. Obviously it is important that Gaddafi understands that we have such resolve and resource but, in view of some of the comments that have been attributed recently to some people in the military, would the Minister like to take the opportunity today to assure the House once again that not only the resolve but the resources to maintain that no-fly zone as long as possible are and will be made available?
Lord Astor of Hever
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has said, we can sustain this operation as long as we choose to. I am absolutely clear on that.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, I am sure that the Ministry of Defence can sustain the task in Libya as long as possible. Will the Minister say what other, higher-priority tasks will have to be given up in order for that to be sustained?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Government will continue to provide sufficient resources to achieve operational success in Afghanistan and elsewhere as long as we are in Libya. We are quite clear that we can manage what we are being asked to do in Afghanistan and what we are doing in Libya at the same time.
NHS: Clinical Excellence Awards
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Walton of Detchant
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have decided not to recommend any Clinical Excellence awards for NHS consultants this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the 2011 round for clinical excellence awards is currently proceeding, with the rules unchanged. No decisions have been taken about the 2012 round. The Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body is taking views on the matter from other parties and in due course will make a recommendation, which the Government will consider.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that there has been some ill informed comment in the public press suggesting that these awards are bonuses? They are not. They are a fundamental part of the salary structure of senior clinical academics and consultants. They were introduced as distinction awards by Aneurin Bevan at the inception of the National Health Service in order to persuade distinguished consultants and academics to give their services to it. If it were to be suggested that these awards would be abandoned, as has been thought in certain quarters, would the Minister agree that that would sound the death-knell for clinical academic medicine and high-quality clinical practice teaching and research in the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in building the NHS that we all want for the future, we need to continue to recognise and reward those individuals who give outstanding patient care and who contribute in a notable way to clinical academic excellence. At the same time, we need to ensure that the system in place to do that is effective, affordable and in line with other public sector reform. It is those questions that the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body is considering at the moment.
Lord Ribeiro
Does the Minister agree with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences and others that clinical excellence awards make an important contribution to the quality and excellence of care in the National Health Service? How will the replacement of these awards by one-off non-pensionable awards, like the proposed surgeon of the year prize, improve standards?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have just said, we believe that financial rewards, in the form of clinical excellence awards, should remain. It is just a question of how that system is designed. We have not said that non-financial recognition should take the place of financial awards. They would operate alongside financial awards; they would not in any way supplant them. However, we think that there is a role for perhaps more imaginative thinking in areas like speciality-based awards or departmental or division-based awards, for example, or indeed ad hoc recognition for outstanding clinical leadership. The DDRB is looking at these questions too.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I commend the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Ribeiro, on doing a really admirable job as the shop stewards for distinguished clinicians—and quite right, too—but I would point out that innovation and excellence cuts across all NHS staff, including nurses, midwives and therapists, who often introduce wonderful innovation at their level. Could the Minister tell us what incentives are in place in the system that recognises that excellence as well?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We do need to incentivise all staff, both clinical and non-clinical in the NHS, to innovate. We can do that in a variety of ways. She will know that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, proposed a number of ways of doing this, including innovation prizes and innovation funds, which are extremely popular. We also can incentivise through the tariff. As she will know, we have protected the research budget, which in the long term will serve us well in driving through innovation in the NHS.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, can I encourage my noble friend, when he considers the 2012 awards, to talk to his colleagues about introducing some more transparency into the awards? Part of the difficulty referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is that no one knows who, or why, or how much. Transparency would be a strengthening as well as a salutary experience for many in the health service.
Earl Howe
I agree with my noble friend. We have identified a number of anomalous features in the current scheme which need to be looked at. He is absolutely right to point out that the current scheme is far from transparent. It enables rewards to continue that are based on historic performance rather than anything more up to date.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, clinical excellence is important at community level as well. Would the Minister tell the House whether any restrictions will be placed on the commissioning groups concerning the payment of rewards to their members?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the pay structure for clinical commissioning groups is a separate issue from clinical excellence awards, which apply only to those holding a consultant’s contract in the NHS. To the extent that anyone holds a consultant’s contract in any of the clinical commissioning groups, they will be subject to whatever new scheme the DDRB recommends and the Government accept.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Would my noble friend accept that one of the real challenges is to make sure that people who are working in clinical practice have the opportunity to engage in research? Research salaries are significantly lower than clinicians’ salaries. What is the Minister doing to try to ensure that there is a seamless progression between research and clinical practice and between clinical practice and research?
Earl Howe
My Lords, those who hold honorary contracts, who are in general clinical academics, are well represented among those who are awarded clinical excellence awards. We are absolutely clear that that should continue as long as possible. We must incentivise those who do not spend the bulk of their day engaged in treating patients so that we ensure that we have a bank of academic excellence driving forward innovation in the NHS.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, what role do Her Majesty’s Government see for the academic health science centres in promoting clinical excellence? In asking the question I remind the House of my interest as a director of the UCL Partners academic health science centre at University College London.
Earl Howe
I believe that, on current showing, the academic health science centres have pointed the way to how clinical academic leadership can promote excellence both in patient care and in translational research. We are encouraged by everything that the AHSCs are doing. We will formally review them in due course, but I am absolutely onside with the noble Lord in wishing to see the progress that they have made rolled out more generally in the NHS.
Schools: Well-being Education
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for well-being education in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the Government take the well-being of young people seriously. Personal, social, health and economic education encompasses personal well-being, covering such matters as physical and mental health, parenting and developing positive relationships; and economic well-being, which includes the world of work, enterprise and personal finance. Good schools take care of their pupils’ well-being because they understand its importance for educational attainment as well as for preparing them for life after school. A review of PSHE is due to start shortly.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, given increasing evidence that a broad education in well-being and life skills plays an important part in helping children to thrive and in improving their academic performance, will he take steps to encourage an expanded PSHE curriculum, with more time allotted to it, including skills in community involvement, citizenship and financial responsibility, and will he reinstate and promote the inspection by Ofsted of schools’ performance in this area?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, we are carrying out a review of PSHE alongside the national curriculum review. That review will look at how we can identify the knowledge and awareness that all young people should acquire, and consider what is needed to support schools in providing high-quality teaching. The current PSHE curriculum includes financial literacy. As my noble friend will know, the important subject of citizenship is separate and part of the national curriculum; therefore, it is being looked at as part of the national curriculum review. PSHE is examined through Ofsted’s programme of subject surveys, with a detailed report published every three years. The planned changes to routine school inspection, where we are concentrating on a smaller number of core subjects for Ofsted to look at, will provide opportunities to pick up aspects of pupils’ well-being in those core areas, as well as to consider their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
What are the precise criteria for inspecting well-being in schools? It cannot be just a catch-all phrase; it must be more specific. Will communities, including parents, be involved in any feedback to the inspectors on the success of the plans?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think that in an Ofsted inspection it would be a matter of course for parents to have an opportunity to make their views known. However, I will check the point and, if I am wrong, come back to the noble Baroness. I shall also look specifically at her point on the terms of reference. By asking Ofsted to concentrate on four key areas, quite broadly drawn, we are providing it with an opportunity to look into these important matters. I very much agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of PSHE, and how it can help prepare children in a whole range of different ways.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, does the Minister accept that although it is not a matter of either/or, in the matter of curriculum design, the fundamental contribution that a school can make to the well-being of pupils is numeracy and literacy?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As the noble Lord might expect, I share that view very strongly. He put it extremely well by saying that it is not an either/or. There are clearly important lessons that children can learn from PSHE but, as we know from all the evidence, if they do not have the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, they will have little chance of well-being. Failure to master those skills, sadly, leads disproportionately to economic failure, to prison and to a whole range of other forms of disengagement. I therefore agree very strongly with the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that well-being ought to be a matter for the schools curriculum, not the national curriculum? Does he also agree, in that case, that it is very important that Ofsted tells parents what is being taught, and how well?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend’s underlying point that, in looking at all these issues, it is extremely important that we leave scope for individual schools to exercise their judgment on the best way of teaching the children in their care. There are elements of PSHE that are part of the national curriculum, but more generally I agree with my noble friend’s point that we do not want to prescribe everything from the centre and do want to leave as much discretion to individual schools as possible.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, although the House will welcome any steps to raise the standard of education in our schools, can the Department for Education be reminded that it is educating tomorrow’s multiracial society—common standards, common values, but different history?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I consider myself reminded, and I very much agree with the point that underlies that. We want to have an education system that caters for all children. To go back to the earlier point, one of the best ways that we can do that for all children is to make sure that they can read and write whatever their background; to have high aspirations for them; and to hope to give them the chance to progress and have as many opportunities as possible.
Privacy and Injunctions: Joint Committee
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider privacy and injunctions, including:
(1) how the statutory and common law on privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions has operated in practice;
(2) how best to strike the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, in particular how best to determine whether there is a public interest in material concerning people’s private and family life;
(3) issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions, including the internet, cross-border jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege and the rule of law; and
(4) issues relating to media regulation in this context, including the role of the Press Complaints Commission and the Office of Communications (OFCOM);
and that the committee should report by 29 February 2012.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, under the terms of reference which the Leader of the House has suggested in the paper before us, will the committee take into consideration the matters of entrapment and false representation?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, perhaps I may also ask my noble friend how this committee is to be chosen and, particularly in view of this afternoon’s debate, what opportunities will be made available for Back-Benchers who wish to be members of this committee to put themselves forward?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the terms of reference are wide and varied. I suggest that the best way for him to make his views known is to write to the chairman with his submission once the committee has been set up. As for my noble friend’s question, the members of the Joint Committee will be chosen in the normal way. The matter will then, of course, be brought to the House, where every name will have to be agreed.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clause 5, Schedule 4, Clauses 6 to 27, Schedule 5, Clauses 28 and 29, Schedule 6, Clauses 30 to 32, Schedule 7, Clauses 33 to 40, Schedule 8, Clauses 41 to 58, Schedule 9, Clauses 59 to 77, Schedule 10, Clauses 78 to 90, Schedule 11, Clause 91, Schedule 12, Clause 92, Schedule 13, Clauses 93 to 97, Schedule 14, Clauses 98 to 100, Schedule 15, Clause 101, Schedule 16, Clauses 102 to 153, Schedule 17, Clauses 154 to 160.
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Committees
That the Report from the Select Committee on Members Leaving the House (5th Report, HL Paper 151) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I shall speak only briefly to explain the process whereby this report from the Procedure Committee has been put before your Lordships.
As noble Lords will be aware, this report arises out of the report of the Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The group’s report was published in January, an interim report having previously been debated on 16 November 2010. I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place, and I understand that he may speak later and respond to any points of substance that are made by noble Lords. I shall not comment on the substance of the report, although I will of course do my best to answer any outstanding questions at the end of the debate. On the same day as the group’s report appeared, 13 January, the noble Lord the Leader of the House published a Written Statement indicating that he would ask the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals to implement the Leader’s Group recommendations. This is what we have done.
The most important parts of our report are Appendices 1 and 3. Appendix 1 proposes text for inclusion in the next edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders describing a revised leave of absence scheme and the new voluntary retirement scheme. Appendix 3 proposes amendments to Standing Order 22, which governs the leave of absence scheme.
Before concluding, I draw the House’s attention to one aspect of the committee’s report that is not found in the Leader’s Group report. It is our recommendation that the Procedure Committee should appoint a leave of absence sub-committee to advise the Clerk of the Parliaments on the operation of the leave of absence scheme. The sub-committee, chaired by the Chairman of Committees, will be made up of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. It will help to ensure that the new strengthened rules on leave of absence are applied sensibly and fairly. It could, for instance, recommend in particular cases that the three months’ notice period for terminating leave of absence be abridged in accordance with what will become Standing Order 22.7.
I hope that the appointment of this new sub-committee will be welcomed across the House. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, the report by the Procedure Committee simply demands that leave of absence be pursued more rigorously, which I am sure will be welcomed in the House but is unlikely to make a noticeable contribution to reducing our numbers. However, the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set up by the Leader of the House, recommended that,
“the House should introduce arrangements to allow Members to retire from membership of the House on a voluntary basis”,
and accepted that legislation would be necessary to achieve this.
The committee further argued that a reduction in numbers would result in an overall saving to the taxpayer and that part of that saving should be used to offer a modest pension. It called for this to be investigated in detail, but this has not yet been followed through. Perhaps in reply we could hear whether the House authorities intend to take actuarial advice on this matter, as recommended by that report. Because we are unpaid, it cannot be a pure pension and therefore requires a new statutory provision. The Chairman of Committees may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill awaiting Committee provides such statutory authority.
When this was previously discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that any such payment,
“would … not be understood by the British people”.—[Official Report, 16/11/10; col. 675.]
Of course, if he is talking about extra money from the Treasury, he is absolutely right, but I suggest that if it is money from savings of expenditure within the House of Lords budget, contrary to that view redundancy pay is well understood in the country at large and accepted as saving money. The current redundancy lump sum permitted tax free is £30,000, which is less than the annual attendance payments for those who come to this House, say, 75 per cent of the time.
Therefore, I hope that in due course, the Government may come forward with a modest payment proposal of a lump sum of, say, £30,000 to those choosing to retire after, say, 10 years’ service or having reached the age of 75, provided that they have had an attendance record of at least 50 per cent in the previous two Sessions. Those in the business world tell me that a modest lump sum of that kind is much more attractive than the financial sum appears. One can imagine Members of your Lordships’ House discussing with their spouses whether they might buy a new car for their retirement or go on a world cruise and listen to lectures by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—or choose another one to avoid that peril.
In any event, that a scheme is needed to get the numbers down is not in doubt. Of course, the Hunt committee was right to suggest that if that were pursued, Members who chose to retire should enjoy the same use of House facilities as former hereditary Peers do. I hope that this matter will be pursued as recommended by the Hunt committee and not simply neglected and brushed aside by this report, which we nevertheless welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I was a member of the Leader’s Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to whom I pay tribute for his leadership of the group. He led it with great distinction and I very much support the conclusions of the group and the recommendations of the Chairman of Committees’ Procedure Committee report before the House today. I also welcome the initial and positive response of the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when the report was first published. We on this side certainly support the Motion before the House.
I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but in rather a different vein. The note in the report to the House says that the Procedure Committee has not considered those elements of the Leader’s Group recommendations, such as the provision to override entitlement to a Writ of Summons, the scheme of associate membership and extension of legislation. Nor has the committee considered the financial aspects of any scheme for voluntary retirement, which, if the House agreed to the report, would be a matter for the House Committee. I do not know if the House Committee will consider this report, but I imagine it will need to consider the implications very carefully.
I return to the issue of the potential for primary legislation. I hesitate to return to last week’s enjoyable debate on reform of your Lordships’ House. I realise that the Chairman of Committees cannot speak for the Government; perhaps we can tempt the noble Lord the Leader of the House to intervene helpfully in this debate. However, I wonder whether the Government have given thought to the potential for primary legislation on the issues to which I have just referred. The Government may take the view that they took last week on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel: since they have published a draft Bill on substantive reform, they cannot contemplate the noble Lord’s Bill. That, in essence, would accept that the Government do not think they will get very far with their own substantive Bill. Having been there myself, I understand the line that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, used last week.
However, it is just possible that, at the end of the work of the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend, the Government might decide to pause on reform. We might not see a substantive Bill before your Lordship’s House in the next Session of Parliament. In that case, there must surely come a point where the matters in this report and the items covered by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, ought to be considered. If we simply carry on in a situation in which Governments cannot contemplate sensible interim changes because they will always have a proposal for substantive reform on the table at some point, the business of this House will become more and more difficult.
All I should like to do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to give some consideration to these matters. It may, in his eyes, be extremely unlikely that the Government will not proceed with a substantive Bill in the next year. However, there will come a point when such sensible interim reforms need to be considered.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, we can wring our hands about the House being too large. We may, unintentionally but unfairly, have made newly appointed Peers feel less than welcome, but until now there has been no serious consideration of what might be done. This is, therefore, a much needed report and a step forward. The real difficulties with which the group has had to grapple are very clear, but at least the issue is now being addressed.
The only feasible option is that of voluntary retirement. However, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Steel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I feel this cannot be achieved in significant numbers in the absence of some form of payment. I recognise that there is a public perception issue here about additional costs. However, we may be looking at a saving. My maths may be somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but the outcome is the same. By my reckoning, if a Peer attends even irregularly—on, say, 100 out of 150 days—at the lower daily rate of £150, the cost over a year would amount to something like £15,000, plus travel costs of around £2,000. We are looking at something like £85,000 over five years.
Why would it not be possible to make the saving and offer something between £20,000 and £30,000 in order to promote and encourage Peers to take voluntary retirement—voluntary is a word that might not always be entirely appropriate here? It would be a major incentive for many Peers who have given years of service, some at the expense perhaps of a full professional salary, and would most probably achieve what this excellent report aims to do. However, for this to be effective there must also be a moratorium on appointing new Members and possibly a cap on numbers for the future.
The House is too large. It will be pointed out that many turn up only irregularly, but perception is important. As long as the media continue to talk about a House of well over 800 we will continue to appear ridiculously overstaffed. For this reason those who rarely attend should be asked in no uncertain terms to avail themselves of the retirement option. As I said before in this Chamber, there are a few among the Cross-Benchers who have not shown their faces for something like 10 years, which is ridiculous. I also feel that those who, through infirmity, are unable to attend might welcome the option of a dignified retreat from this House with the offer of some dining rights plus a lump sum. I think that the Cross-Benchers could be reduced by something like 30 Members, which would be very welcome news to those who think that there are too many of us. The truth is that over the past 10 years there has been a net gain of 55 Cross-Benchers, which is just over five a year. I do not think that that is a flood.
We will have to bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, acknowledge that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Leaders of each of the groups will have to approach those who attend very rarely, or make no contribution to the work of the House, with a firm proposal to take up the option of retirement, but this can be done only, in fairness, if there is to be some monetary compensation.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, in our response to the draft Bill on House of Lords reform, we on these Benches identified the increasing size of the House as one issue demanding particular attention. I therefore welcome this report and hope that many of its recommendations, especially those on voluntary retirement, will be given swift and serious attention. The proposal for some kind of financial remuneration, which has already been mentioned by noble Lords, especially for those who have given much of their working life in service to this Chamber but have gained no pension provision in return is, I think, a just solution and one that is likely to speed the implementation of what would be a voluntary process. Of course, the details of that, as we have already heard, have many ramifications.
Unlike roughly 96.5 per cent of this House I am already able to retire, although under the present arrangements I have no intention of doing so until 14 April 2022. Retired Lords spiritual have access to the House and its facilities and I hope that, in respect of the provisions, that might provide a model for others. I notice also that the report ventures into areas other than the remit of retirement. I would be grateful if at some stage the Chairman of Committees or the Leader of the House would be able to confirm whether the recommendations of paragraphs 64 and 67, which call for limited-term appointments and restraint to be exercised by parties in creating new appointments, will also be given careful consideration alongside the retirement provisions.
Lord Elton
My Lords, if I may join in at this stage, I want to make the simple observation, which needs to be kept in mind, that if one of those invaluable people who come to the House four times a year contributes words of absolute wisdom and infinite knowledge that others do not have and is given £30,000 not to do so in the future, we would be losing in both directions.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just explained why this is actually quite a complicated set of circumstances. However, my question is: whose task would it be were a business case drawn up? Would it be that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt? His committee, whose report we are debating this afternoon, has discharged its responsibilities well—I have no objections; it is an excellent set of suggestions and we should approve it—but it does not answer the question about a House that might, after 2015, consist of 1,000-plus Members. We cannot ignore that, because it has reputational issues for the House.
It is much easier to do nothing. Some of the suggestions might be unpopular; they might be very difficult to sell to the great British public in a period of austerity. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood is absolutely right; if serious and sensitive consideration can be given to it, I am certain that a profoundly robust business case can be made for offering a voluntary redundancy package—with severance pay, emeritus status, visiting rights and all the rest of it—in a way that would be attractive to Members. I am very pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, that there might be as many as 30 such colleagues on the Cross Benches; I am sure that that proportion will be reflected across the whole House.
That would at least demonstrate that we understand the consequences of a House that is overmanned—and it is overmanned, not overpeopled. If we do nothing, we will find that people will start looking at the costs. We have had some very interesting Answers. I do not know whether colleagues have followed the Written Answers that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, obtained on 22 November 2010 about costs incurred on average by a new Member. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, that the report is not antipathetic to new Members at all, but the cost on average of a new Member is £30,000. That has a certain symmetry with the sum that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood mentioned as a potential severance package.
We were also told in a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the same date that the overall cost of the House of Lords per Member who is not disqualified or on leave of absence is £156,000. All sorts of assumptions, averages and difficulties lie behind those figures, and they are not absolutely robust as they are presented. However, my point is: who is looking into this? Who is doing the arithmetic, the calculus and the sensitive consideration of all the different options that would need to be taken into account before we have a saleable package for the public?
Finally, I have one more figure. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, did the House a service in our consideration of reform of the House when he did some arithmetic himself, which suggested that a Lords election would cost £433 million over the course of the next Parliament. Without getting into the politics of reform or party politics, I am concerned about the reputation of the House. I know, as chairman of the Information Committee, that the pressure on the services is becoming inexorably higher. Standards will be diluted unless we grasp that nettle.
It is not easy, it will be a hard sell, but I do not see anyone anywhere in the precincts who is doing any of the work that is essential before we can start thinking about it in a constructive way. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Leader of the House or the Chairman of Committees is: who is being tasked with that work, because it is urgent and we need to start it right now?
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I welcome the report. It is absolutely right to say that there is an anomaly in our membership of your Lordships' House. I cannot think of any institution to which one can belong without having the right to resign. Therefore, it is absolutely proper that the anomaly should be set right and that one should be allowed to resign after a certain period.
My worry is about the way in which people can be persuaded to take voluntary retirement. I may be being puritanical here, but to talk of payment does not accord with the public mood or with the spirit in which your Lordships' House is run. It has been a privilege for many of us to belong to this place. It has been a privilege over the years to propose amendments, to participate in debates and, we hope, to contribute something to the well-being of this great country. Then to be told that in order to leave you must be paid a certain amount of money is like asking: “What is your price to get out of this place?” I, for one, have no price, because I am not for sale.
I should have thought that if, on leaving, Members of your Lordships’ House were to be given access to dining facilities, the Library and research—a great privilege for which people would pay hundreds of thousands of pounds—that privilege would be enough to persuade a person to say, “I am happy to take voluntary retirement”. One can also put it in a more public spirited manner. We are 700 plus. It is necessary to reduce the number. There is no other way of reducing the number than either persuading people to take voluntary retirement or bringing in retrospective primary legislation which says that anyone over 75 or anyone who had been here for 10 years should go.
If people were told it is a matter of public service—the same spirit of public service which brought us here and kept us going—that one should take voluntary retirement after having served in your Lordships’ House for 10 or 15 years, that should be enough to persuade people. I would rather appeal to moral and public spirit than financial incentives. However, if we decide at some point to bring in financial incentives, I very much hope that we will not call it either a pension or a resettlement payment. Neither of these terms applies to the role that we have played. We have not been paid. We have only been given allowances—and only those who wanted to take allowances did so. To be told that when we leave we will get a pension is not only incoherent with the spirit in which we have been here but would also look very bad indeed outside this great House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I briefly point out to the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House that the root of this problem lies in the coalition agreement, which says that members will be appointed to this place in order to reflect the balance of votes obtained at the general election. If that policy is continued the membership of this House will increase to well over 1,000 and if, at a subsequent election, there is another change of government and they apply the same policy, it would grow exponentially.
I make this point because of something I read in the Times today. My noble friend Lord Ashdown, writing about reform of this place repeated something which he has said in our debates—that the political parties have appointed Members to the House in order to obtain a majority to get their legislation through. That is simply not true. This House has always operated on the basis that there should be no party with an overall majority. For that reason, it operates in the distinctive way in which it does.
To those who argue for some kind of financial incentive to leave this House, I respectfully point out that it is a funny way of trying to get and restore trust in Parliament: to inflate the size of Parliament and then ask the taxpayers to find the money to deal with the consequences.
Lord Tebbit
My noble friend Lord Forsyth is exactly right. If we were to appoint people to the House in proportion to the votes cast at the last general election, on my calculations we should have about 24 UKIP Members and also, interestingly, about 14 Members of the BNP and a few Greens. I am not sure that that would be greeted with universal acclaim. However, it is clear that something has to be done.
I am beginning to think that we need a market solution. Perhaps whoever is working out these matters—somebody must be working them out, after all—should arrive at a conclusion as to how many Members they would like to leave this House. Let us say that the number is 100 in the first tranche. They could the issue a notice to tender for redundancy; the tenders would be issued in reverse order so the lowest tender would be able to achieve redundancy with some small amount of money. It would have the added attraction that we could look at each other’s estimates of how much we valued ourselves. I think this would add greatly to the mirth and hilarity not only of this House, but of the nation.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I welcome the report and its limited recommendation. I see it as a positive step forward. I understand the decision to make only changes that do not require primary legislation at this time, but I hope that, as part of the scrutiny of House of Lords reform, or via some other mechanism, further and more far-reaching changes can be made.
I am concerned, especially if we are to remain an unelected Chamber that we respond adequately to the modern expectations people have of us as public servants. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, about redundancy payments and that access to the Library and other facilities is a huge privilege. Because of that, I am disappointed that all Members granted leave of absence and permanent retirement will be treated equally and will continue to benefit from access rights. Attendance and participation in the legislative process is a privilege but it is what we as Peers are appointed to do. To people outside the Chamber, that is our job. Where else can someone decide not to do their job any more but retain the perks associated with it? On access to the Palace and its facilities, it seems wrong to me that those who have not bothered to fulfil their responsibilities to the House will be treated in the same way as those who have served the House well for a long time and have decided to retire for honourable reasons. Will the matter be reviewed again in another forum?
On a separate matter, Paragraph 63 of the Leader’s Group report recommended that,
“in future the honour of a life peerage should not automatically entail appointment to membership of the House, which should be reserved to those who are willing to make a significant commitment to public service in Parliament”.
I wholeheartedly support that recommendation, believing that if we are to remain unelected, there must be a clear set of expectations for Peers both in terms of attendance and active engagement, with penalties if a Peer fails to meet those expectations. Will my noble friend say whether the Joint Committee on reform of the House of Lords will consider options such as this?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I was not going to say anything but I have been slightly provoked into doing so by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. It is very dangerous to talk of membership of this House as being a job. It is not a job; it is a calling to public service. It is also very dangerous to talk in terms of attendance as measuring the effectiveness or otherwise of a Member of your Lordships’ House. There are so many Members in this place—it was a sub-theme of our debate last week that this was the case—who are here because of what they have achieved outside and because of the knowledge, experience and expertise that they can bring to our proceedings. That is the essence of your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords will know that I do not wish to see significant change in the manner of composition of this House. I, of course, accept that the number of Members is an issue and I welcome the thoughtful and constructive comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt and his committee. Clearly these things have to be examined by all of us. It has to be recognised that at some time each one of us should seek leave of absence. It is not retirement, nor should it be provided with a consolation prize of dining rights and Library access, even though it might, as a courtesy, be good to have that. We have to face up to these issues. We certainly should not be dictated to by arbitrary retirement ages. There are those in the House, far, far, older than I, who make a magnificent contribution to our proceedings, sometimes regularly and sometimes less so, but when they speak the House listens. One has only to cite the example of the remarkable speech last week of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to illustrate that fact. This is an issue that must be dealt with extremely carefully and sensitively. Please let none of us be seduced into talking of our presence here as holding a job.
Lord Empey
A few years ago, it was decided in Northern Ireland to reduce the number of councils and to reduce the number of councillors. At that stage, it was advanced that, in order to encourage older members to retire, a financial reward would be worked out on the basis of £1,000 per year of service, or something to that effect. Local government reform was very slow to come about and eventually, about a year ago, it stalled, and that coincided with the financial restraints that we are all facing. The effect of that was that the old councils were re-elected last month, and those councillors who were being encouraged to leave hung on like grim death in the hope that the financial rewards would be forthcoming. My concern is that while the idea that there may be a reward in respect of retirement is out there, who in their right mind, except the most public spirited, is going to come forward?
I have to say to the Chairman of Committees that that issue needs to be resolved immediately because as long as it is possible for people to believe that they will receive a financial reward, there is a high prospect that they will not put their names in the hat. That issue needs resolving immediately otherwise the effect of this discussion will be that nobody will come forward.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
My Lords, no one will be surprised if I say how important I believe this debate is and how warmly I pay tribute to the Chairman of Committees and to the Procedure Committee for bringing forward the subject on which there has always been extensive debate, but very little decision. I say to my noble friend Lord Elton that I have been enjoying myself reading through back copies of Hansard from the 1950s and found some significant contributions on this very subject from his late father Lord Elton. I commend them because they demonstrate exactly why it is so difficult for us to reach a decision.
First, I must pay tribute to the other members of the group that I had the honour of chairing, in particular to my namesake the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We have a wonderful life together because he is constantly being upbraided for comments I have made and, if I may say so, so am I for comments that he has made. On this occasion, we came to a unanimous view.
Much of some of the last few speeches was about the financial implications, but all of us on the Leader’s Group were united that there must be a rule: not a penny more. The public would not accept it if we were to spend a great deal of taxpayer’s money in making sure that people had an incentive to retire. If I may answer some of the questions asked in the debate, the Procedure Committee’s report states:
“We have not considered … the financial aspects of any scheme for voluntary retirement, which, were the House to agree to this report, would be a matter for the House Committee”.
Therefore, I am not sure we should occupy a great deal of important time by debating this issue at this stage because we are not asked to decide it.
What we have come forward with for the first time ever is a scheme to allow Members of this House to retire with honour and dignity. I want to say a few words about that, but I also want to pay tribute to the other members of the Leader’s Group and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Leader of the House my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who initiated this whole debate, to the nearly 100 Members of this House who have spent a great deal of time and effort putting forward their views in debate or in correspondence with the Leader’s Group and to Mary Ollard who did so much fine work in bringing together all that we decided.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral deserves the gratitude of the whole House for the report that he provided as chairman of the Leader’s Group, which has now been turned into a report of the Procedure Committee and has been introduced by the Chairman of Committees.
My noble friend Lord Hunt is entirely correct that, up until now, the only way of leaving the House permanently, if I can put it as indelicately as this, is through death. In recent years, more and more noble Lords have indicated an interest in being able to retire from the House before death. In the course of the past two or three years, my noble friend Lord Steel has championed his Bill, a part of which provides for permanent retirement from this House. My noble friend Lord Hunt has found a way of doing so with honour and dignity and I commend the report to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, quite rightly raised the question of a legal underpinning for what I hope we will agree today. While it is unlikely in the extreme that any Peer who applied for permanent voluntary retirement from the House would ever wish to come back, given the performance that we will go into, there is at least that possibility. Therefore, if a suitable legislative vehicle appears in the next few months or even years, we will take the opportunity to give that legal underpinning.
There are one or two other outstanding matters, such as the power to suspend Members of this House, for which we also wish to find a legal underpinning. We are very aware of these issues. They may not have the highest priority, but we should look at them.
The second issue that has been raised is that of a financial contribution for Peers leaving this House. I was entertained by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who raised the spectacle of numerous Peers waiting for some sort of handout from the taxpayer. He asked for some clarity on this. Let me be utterly clear: there is no prospect of any public money being made available for Peers wishing to retire from the House. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke with great sense when he said that it is a great privilege to be a Member of this House. It is voluntary to attend. A generous but hardly excessive allowance is made available for Peers who come. If you do not come you do not get anything. If you wish to retire, you do not get anything either. That is the way it is going to be. Whatever business cases are made to me or to the Treasury, they will be greeted with a thumbs down. I urge noble Lords who think that their time has come and they are ready to retire to do so quickly and take advantage of this scheme.
My noble friend Lord Elton also raised an important point about Members who attend the House rarely but when they come make an important contribution. They should be much valued Members of this House and should be encouraged not discouraged. I am nervous of the line taken by the noble Baroness the Convenor, although I understand why she took it. She said that some Members of the Cross Benches had not appeared for 10 years. If they have not appeared for 10 years, they should be encouraged perhaps to take up permanent retirement, but they should not be encouraged to stay away by being given a handout from the taxpayer.
A number of other issues were raised that are more properly to do with long-term reform of the House, which we discussed at length last week. The House of Commons is discussing that today. We have another debate to carry on so I will not add any more save to say that I lend my full support to the report and I thank on behalf of the House my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and his committee for their work.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I think that everything that can be said about this report and a lot not within this report has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, gave a very good summary of it including an example of someone who might well wish to avail themselves of the opportunity for voluntary retirement. The Leader of the House has made the position clear so far as the financial aspects are concerned. Therefore, there is little left for me to say other than that I beg to move.
European Council
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to repeat the Statement that has been made in another place by the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council, which took place this weekend. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's European Council. The main focus of the Council was rightly on Europe's economy. In advancing Britain's national interest I had two objectives. The first was to ensure that Britain did not have to contribute to any new Greek bailout through the European financial stability mechanism. The second was to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and growth to Europe as a whole, while fully protecting Britain's position. Let me take each in turn.
First, on the situation in Greece, as I have always said, Britain is not in the euro, and while I am Prime Minister it never will be, so we should not be involved in the euro area's internal arrangements. Only eurozone countries were involved, alongside the IMF, in the first Greek bailout; only eurozone countries have been involved in discussions about potential further bailouts; so it is absolutely right not to use the EU-wide European financial stability mechanism for future support to Greece. That is what I asked for an assurance about at this Council and that is what I got.
This was not a simple matter. Article 122 of the European treaty is being used to provide aid for eurozone countries that have mismanaged their economies. That was not our choice. It was agreed before this Government took office. We have dealt with it for the future because when the new permanent arrangements—replacing the European financial stability mechanism—come in from 2013, we will not be part of them and Article 122 will no longer be used for eurozone bailouts. That was the deal I secured last December but we still had to deal with the prospect of a bailout under the existing arrangements. Under qualified majority voting this required real negotiating effort. This Government have consistently stood up for the interests of British taxpayers and, as a result, the British taxpayer will avoid a potential liability of billions of pounds.
My second objective was to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and to promote growth across Europe. While we are not in the eurozone, we would be badly affected by a disorderly outcome to this crisis. Why? First, banks across the world, including the UK, hold government debt of all eurozone countries, including Greece. Secondly, the effect on other countries far more exposed to these debts would have a knock-on effect on us. As Sir Mervyn King made clear when unveiling last week’s financial stability report, the present difficulties in the eurozone are,
“the most serious and immediate risk to the UK financial system”.
It has always been a long-standing principle that the British Government do not comment publicly on market-sensitive issues, and I am not going to depart from that very wise approach. What is important is that a solution be found quickly which is credible in the markets and which will address over time Greece’s fundamental problems and contribute to providing stability in global markets and the world economy.
One element of that solution must, in my view, be using the time we now have to ensure banks and banks’ balance sheets are strong enough to withstand any problems and difficulties and that there is full transparency across the financial system. In the UK we are stepping up efforts to ensure our own banking system is resilient to risks originating from the eurozone. This needs to be done right across Europe, it needs to be done now and it needs to be done properly. I argued for this very strongly at the Council and that is reflected in the language in the communiqué. As a first step that means the current stress tests being conducted in the banking sector must be conducted properly and transparently, unlike last time, and that Europe must implement in full, rather than water down, the new detailed Basel capital and liquidity standards.
A key way in which we can help all economies in Europe—including the eurozone—is to promote sustainable economic growth. The best stimulus available for European economies is to make sure we are promoting competition, deregulation, supply-side reform, innovation, structural changes and also using the EU to advance the cause of free trade, both via Doha and, where appropriate, through bilateral deals.
Following the proposals that Britain set out at the last Council and which many member states now support, I pressed in particular for concrete steps to reduce the burdens on small businesses and micro-enterprises, vital to promoting innovation, jobs and growth. The Council agreed that,
“the regulatory burden on SMEs needs to be further reduced”,
and that the European Commission would now assess the impact of new regulations on micro-enterprises and identify existing regulations from which micro-businesses should be excluded. This mirrors what we are already doing in Britain and it is absolutely the right thing to do. For too long, Council conclusions have focused only on what member states should do, rather than on what the European Commission needs to do itself.
Let me briefly turn to other issues raised at the Council. There were three of significance: migration; the Arab spring; and the accession of Croatia. First, regarding migration, Britain does not participate in the Schengen border area and we are not going to weaken our border controls. As an island, Britain has an important geographical advantage in preventing uncontrolled immigration. At the same time, practical measures to strengthen the external borders of Europe are in Britain's interests too. However, there was a proposal ahead of the Council to suspend the measures in the Dublin regulation that allow us to return asylum seekers to the first safe country they arrive in. Together with Chancellor Merkel, I made sure that these proposals were rejected and they are not referred to in any way in the Council conclusions. We will not have our border controls compromised in this way.
Regarding the Arab Spring, on Libya the Council agreed a declaration confirming its full support for UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and the efforts our brave service men and women are undertaking to implement them. There is now real unity of purpose and political will across the European Union on this issue. The wider world is turning against Gaddafi too, recognising that the Transitional National Council is the only credible diplomatic body which can represent the people of Libya right now. The Russians and Chinese have accepted the importance of the Transitional National Council and Premier Wen made this point to me in our meeting this morning. Gaddafi is increasingly isolated. Indeed, today the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Gaddafi is now a fugitive from international justice. The pressure and the time are telling on Gaddafi, and we will not let up until the job is done.
On Syria, the Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression and the unacceptable and shocking violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. At my instigation, we expressed particular, grave concern about what Syrian troops are doing close to the Turkish border. On the Middle East more generally, the Council called on all parties to engage urgently in negotiations and, on the fifth anniversary of his capture, demanded the immediate release of Gilad Shalit.
Finally, let me turn to Croatia. Earlier this month I met Prime Minister Kosor and welcomed her country’s progress towards completing European membership negotiations. At the European Council, we agreed that these negotiations would be concluded at the end of the month. Croatia's success points the way for the rest of the western Balkans, whose aspirations to join the European Union we have always strongly supported.
At this Council, Britain achieved some important objectives. We have protected the interests of the British taxpayer, we have secured agreements to promote and safeguard economic growth and we have protected Britain's borders from uncontrolled migration. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made today in another place by the Prime Minister on the EU Council. I am also grateful for the opportunity of an early sight of the Statement.
On immigration, we support the position set out in the Statement, including on the continuance of the Dublin regulation negotiated by the previous Government. We also support the Government's position on Croatian entry and accession to the EU. However, let me ask the Leader of the House some questions about Libya, Syria, the eurozone and the wider European economic situation.
On Libya, the noble Lord will know that we on this side of the House welcome the Council's continuing commitment to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. We are clear that we must keep up the pressure on Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime, and we of course welcome the issuing of an arrest warrant. Those expressing doubts over the mission should remember that, if we had not taken action, this European Council would have been discussing not the conduct of our campaign but, in all likelihood, our failure to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi.
Yet beyond immediate military and diplomatic developments, experience of past conflicts demonstrates that post-conflict planning is crucial to a successful long-term outcome. Can the Leader take this opportunity to clarify the position on this? The Foreign Secretary told the other place on 7 June that Britain was in the lead on post-conflict planning. Will the Government now explain why it is Britain, not the United Nations, that is fulfilling this role and what progress is being made? Why has the Foreign Secretary said that such planning is only “embryonic” when we are 100 days into the conflict? Further, why have the Government said that they have no Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence civil servants working full time on post-conflict planning in Libya?
In the context of the Arab spring, will the Government now publish the review of the strategic defence and security review that the Prime Minister told the other place at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week had been conducted?
How can we continue to step up the pressure on Syria, including at the United Nations? We have consistently said that Britain, as a supporter of Turkish membership of the EU, should be saying to the Turks that the potential refugee crisis on their borders will only grow unless they put more pressure on the Syrian Government. Will the Government update this House on conversations between themselves and the Turkish Government on this issue?
Turning to Greece, we agree that it is right that the primary responsibility for addressing the situation lies within the eurozone. As the noble Lord the Leader will know, the UK made no direct contribution to the previous Greek bailout, agreed on 2 May 2010 under the previous Government. I congratulate this Government for sticking to our approach. Indeed, the Economic Secretary issued her famous 15 July 2010 memorandum on the European bailout mechanism, admitting that the measure in Article 122 had been agreed by cross-party consensus—something that the noble Lord did not mention in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement today. However, the truth is that we have an interest that is far more than the level of our direct contribution, because of the potential exposure of our banks, because we are contributing indirectly through the IMF and because of wider interests in growth and jobs here in Europe. While I understand issues of market sensitivity, will the noble Lord confirm that a full analysis is being done of the impact of any restructuring of Greek debt on UK taxpayer-owned banks?
We also have an interest in the durability of the bailout. The Governor of the Bank of England has said:
“Providing liquidity can only … buy time”,
and that this will never be the answer to a problem. Does the noble Lord the Leader have confidence that the right balance is being struck in demanding a further round of austerity against the need for growth? We must not forget the impact of any restructuring on the people of Greece.
After the European Union Council and the noble Lord’s Statement, it remains unclear what that Council and the UK Government regard as the long-term sustainable solution to the Greek crisis. Instead of saying that we are on the sidelines and winning points here at home, do not the Government need to engage more with our European colleagues to get a solution that will last, in the interests of both the eurozone and the UK?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am grateful for what I think was the broad welcome by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for the Statement and for what she said about the Dublin protocol migration, which she rightly understood as being extremely important to the United Kingdom. It remains fully intact and in place and it is right that it should not be meddled with.
The noble Baroness then asked a series of questions on overseas countries, particularly in connection with the Arab spring and the Middle East. I shall try to deal with them but, if I do not tackle them all, I shall write to the noble Baroness and make that letter available in the Library.
Post-conflict planning is extremely important and it is important to get it right, as the Foreign Secretary said to another place on 7 June. The United Nations will no doubt take the lead when we are ready, post-Gaddafi, but we are very much involved in the planning and will continue to be, along with many other countries. We very much hope that there will be no gap between the fall of Colonel Gaddafi and the new regime taking over.
On Syria, the noble Baroness is correct in seeing just how difficult a situation this is. We will continue to work with our international partners in Europe and beyond. We will increase pressure until there is, we hope, an end to the violence. All political prisoners should be released and the Syrian population should be allowed to protest peacefully. We have called on the Syrian Government to engage substantively with the legitimate demands of the protesters. It must be right for the Syrian Government to meet their people’s legitimate demands and the violence must stop. The Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression and violence by the Syrian regime against its own citizens and expressed its determination to hold those responsible to account. The EU is applying targeted sanctions to an additional seven individuals and four entities that finance the Syrian regime. The sanctions include three Iranians, in response to clear evidence that Iran is involved in providing equipment and support to help to suppress protests.
The noble Baroness was right to raise the question of the eurozone, which is an extraordinary unfolding story. As I repeated in the Prime Minister’s Statement, it would not be right for us to comment on market-sensitive matters. I understand why the noble Baroness argues that the agreement struck on Article 122 was done with cross-party agreement. Equally, she will know why we must agree to differ on that explanation. If we had been the Government at the time and my right honourable friend had been the Chancellor, I am sure that he would not have signed up to it.
There are clear difficulties in the eurozone and it is in our interest that these should be resolved. We are all committed to a growth agenda to help to stimulate our economies. Equally, it is right that the members of the eurozone should understand the nature of their problem. We believe that, when you have overborrowed, the thing to do is to cut the spending. That might lead to austerity but it is considerably better than the alternative, which is why we are carrying out the same medicine here in the United Kingdom. It must be the fervent wish of us all that the eurozone crisis will be resolved in the coming weeks and Statements will be made to this House either by me or the Treasury Minister.
Lord Newby
My Lords, with regard to the Prime Minister’s objective of supporting efforts to bring stability to the eurozone, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware that over the weekend the Chinese Government made it clear that they are prepared to play a bigger part in supporting the euro and the eurozone. Do the Government support this initiative and did the Prime Minister raise the matter in his discussions with Premier Wen earlier today?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot help my noble friend in his extremely up-to-date question about what the Chinese premier said today to the Prime Minister. The Chinese Government have indicated that they would be willing to support the eurozone, which is very much to be welcomed. The Chinese population has as much of an interest in long-term financial stability in Europe as we have. We very much welcome their interest. I do not wish to overspeculate but I am sure that their help will be extremely useful in stabilising the eurozone.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, is there not a need for more honesty in public utterances? Through our membership of the IMF, we are already contributing to the Greece plan. If we are to have the financial stability and growth that the Prime Minister wants, we need to engage positively so that we stabilise Greece and ensure that contagion does not spread to Spain in particular. Is there not a case for us engaging with Germany and other countries that are designated as rich to ensure that the rich countries help the poor to restabilise the euro? We could all then look forward to increased growth and prosperity.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, of course we are engaging in stability and growth. One of the conclusions of the Council was to do many of the things that the United Kingdom has been practising for some time. They include the encouragement of free markets in goods and the single market in services—particularly the digital economy—and new rules and regulations for micro-enterprises, which I know the noble Lord will be most interested in. It is very difficult to see how countries of the eurozone will get themselves out of the state that they are in by continuing to borrow in ever increasing amounts and not tackling the fundamental problem that underlies their economies, which is that they are spending considerably more than they can afford and that the international markets are growing nervous and are increasingly unwilling to lend to them.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, while it is clear that we do not have the same obligations as members of the eurozone—nor should we—and while it is also clear that the interests of the British taxpayer need to be defended, does the noble Lord not agree that, since the consequences of things going wrong in the eurozone could be very grave for us, as the Governor of the Bank of England reminded us last week, it would be a great help if we could hear rather more about what the Prime Minister is doing to assist in finding a solution and to safeguard this country’s interests in terms of the contingency arrangements being put in place? It is difficult to believe that British interests are maximised by standing on the touchline, which seems to be the principal thrust of the Prime Minister’s Statement as repeated in the House by the Leader today.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right in saying that we are standing on the touchline so far as the problems within the euro are concerned and that we see the countries of the eurozone needing to deal with that internally. However, my noble friend would be wrong if he thought that we had an entirely neutral view on the future of the eurozone as an entity, which we do not. He is quite right in saying that our economic interests and those of the eurozone are extremely closely tied. Something like 40 per cent of our exports go to eurozone countries. We wish to see stability and growth, which is why a large part of the Council was given over to a discussion about growth right across Europe and not uniquely in the eurozone countries.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I cannot help but be struck by the number of negatives in the Statement: the word “not” is in almost every sentence, certainly on the front page. Following up the general assessment made by my noble friend Lady Royall, could the Leader of the House not go so far as to say that we have to be engaged in quite a significant way? The alternative of a collapse of the Greek negotiation is difficult to contemplate with any equanimity. Will the noble Lord go one inch further and say something that is not in the Statement, even though Greece has its own sub-heading, which is that we wish the Greek Prime Minister well and hope very much that he wins his vote tomorrow in Athens?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if that was the tiny inch that the noble Lord wanted, I can easily give it to him. Of course we wish the Greek Prime Minister well in winning his vote and, indeed, in succeeding in the policy of trying to reduce the budget deficit, bringing long-term benefits to the Greek economy and stabilising the eurozone. These things are in all our interests. I do not wish to give the impression that the British Prime Minister was standoffish in this Council—quite the contrary. That is why key conclusions on fiscal policy, on job creation and burdens on business, on Doha, on the European stability mechanism treaty and on development were all issues that were profoundly debated and, quite rightly, very much supported by the British Prime Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, perhaps I may press the Leader of the House to try to summarise what I think is the ambivalence that Members of the House feel about the Government’s stance, which seems to be that it is in our interest to support the stability of the eurozone but not in our interest to do anything much towards that beyond speaking from the sidelines. My second question is more direct. Is it necessarily in the interests of the Greek people to stay with an overvalued euro and not to revert to the drachma, which would enable them to manage their economic affairs more flexibly in the years to come?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that really is not an issue for the British Government; it must be an issue for the Greeks, for the European Central Bank and for anybody else who is involved. We want to see a successful and stable eurozone. The European currency union is very substantial and, as I said a few moments ago, it is very important to the British economy, given the amount of our exports that go into the eurozone. While it is in our interest for the eurozone to be a successful monetary union, it is not necessarily in the interest of the British taxpayer to be seen as a lender of last resort. That is the difference that we have made in this Council, which is why we are very glad that Article 122 will no longer be used if there is a bailout.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has said that Article 122 will no longer be used in future for bailing out other countries. Is it not true, however, that Article 122 was used illegally? Indeed, Article 125 of the Lisbon treaty precludes Article 122 or any other article from being used to bail out other countries within the European Union. In that case, the Commission broke the law. Should not the Government in fact be referring that breach of the law to the European Court of Justice to see exactly what went wrong?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is always first to pick holes in an argument of this kind and, rightly, to see when illegality is going on. We take no particular view on this. We know that some controversial decisions have been taken on the basis of these articles, but we are very glad with the results of this Council and the communiqué, which we believe has come up with the right solution.
Baroness Ford
May I press the noble Lord just one more time on this question of standing on the sidelines? I draw his attention to a report in the Financial Times this morning showing the massive exposure of Lloyds bank to Greek sovereign debt. Is it not the case that we simply do not have the luxury of standing on the sidelines where international capital markets are concerned?
Lord Strathclyde
We have independent regulatory regimes that look into these matters. The exposure of British banks to Greek sovereign bonds is substantial, but it is considerably smaller than the exposure to other European countries.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, it is always my deepest pleasure to defer to the kindness and remarkable wisdom of the independent UKIP former Labour Member who sits so graciously on our Benches. It is even more of a pleasure to defer to one of my own colleagues. In repeating the Statement, the Leader of the House mentioned the Arab spring. I welcome the statements by the Foreign Secretary and others about the need to follow the revolutions taking place in the Middle East and north Africa with support for development of the democratic processes in those countries, but is the Leader aware that at the same time the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is putting the squeeze on the finances of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and bodies that exist specifically to ensure that that kind of work is extended and developed? How does he reconcile this? Will he have a word with his noble friend sitting next to him, and with the Foreign Secretary, and say that it is vital that the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other bodies promoting democracy is increasingly supported as we see the developments taking place in the Middle East and north Africa?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is obviously a much valued organisation with a tremendous reputation and a long lineage over the past 20 years of explaining democracy to many countries that have come to it in a new way. It is also true about the Arab spring. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has kindly reminded me that it is his view that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy got an increase in its budget this year. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is vigorously shaking his head, which means that there is a disagreement between them. I admire them both greatly in their respective ways, so I shall make it my business to find out the answer. Whatever the truth, we all know that bodies of this kind have had a bit of a squeeze put on them as an inevitable consequence of the economic considerations that we have. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is a highly valued body and I shall write to the noble Lord about its funding.
Defence: Reform
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
“Last August I asked the noble Lord, Lord Levene, to undertake a fundamental review of the way in which the MoD is structured and managed. Today, I am publishing the independent report led by him. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank him and all members of his steering group both for this excellent report and for setting us all an example by delivering it early. The group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has recommended a radical new approach to the management of defence and I am pleased to say that I agree with it, as do my ministerial colleagues, all the Chiefs of Staff and my Permanent Secretary. We have already taken some of these forward.
No one in this Government was under any illusions about the scale of the challenge we inherited in defence. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, confirms this. We have already introduced changes to budgetary control, reform of procurement, export promotion, SME development and change to our Armed Forces. The SDSR sets a clear direction for policy and will deliver coherent, efficient and cutting-edge Armed Forces fit for the challenges of the future. As a result, Britain will remain in the premier league of military powers. But the vision of SDSR cannot be achieved without tackling the drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability in the way that defence is managed. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, provides the blueprint for the necessary transformation.
Before setting out his recommendations in more detail let me first acknowledge the great strength that resides within our people. They are professional, committed and often frustrated by a system that all too frequently lets them down. Among other things, the report describes a department bedevilled by weak decision-making and poor accountability, where there is insufficient focus on affordability and proper financial management.
The steering group of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, proposes a new, simpler and more cost-effective model for departmental management—with clear allocation of responsibility, authority and accountability—that builds on the strengths of the individual services, and does so within a single defence framework that ensures the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is underpinned by a number of core themes.
First, to date, individuals in defence have been asked to deliver defence outputs, but not given the means with which to do so effectively and efficiently. Authority must be aligned with responsibility. Budget holders should have the levers they need to deliver. They should then be held robustly to account. In the past, the decisions that should have been made centrally have been ducked, and head office and Ministers have delved into tactical. The Defence Reform Unit recommends a strengthened decision-making framework for defence, centred on a new, leaner defence board, based around the Defence Secretary, who chairs and makes the decisions, supported by the Permanent Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff, who will bring to the meeting the views of the single service chiefs. I have already established this new board and chaired the first meeting last week. This new group will offer the kind of decisive and focused strategic direction that has been so lacking in recent years.
Secondly, financial management must be tightened, and a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level of the MoD. The review recommends a new planning and financial model. Within that framework, we will empower the chiefs to run their individual service. Our single service chiefs are the custodians of their services—the fundamental building blocks of defence. Sadly, they are currently forced to devote far too much of their time trying to influence policy and haggle over funding in London. This is a pointless waste of time and talent.
In the new model, the service chiefs will get clearer direction from the defence board, will do the detailed military capability planning across equipment, manpower and training, and propose how best to deliver that strategic direction. Once that is agreed, they will then be given greater freedom to veer and haul between priorities within their own service to deliver what is needed by defence, and they will be held robustly to account for doing so. Allowing the chiefs to spend more time with their service reduces the requirement for commander-in-chief appointments and these will be phased out as part of a general reduction in senior posts. We will work closely with the Treasury on how to deliver this major change, but I am confident that when properly supported, trained and directed, it is our people at the point of delivery who are best placed to run their business, and not those at the centre.
Thirdly, the service chiefs have an established role as advocates for their service, but powerful single-service advocacy can sometimes be at the cost of joint or cross-cutting capability.
The report has recommended that we create a new joint forces command. It will also manage and deliver specific joint enabling capabilities and set the framework for other joint enablers within the single services. It would include the Permanent Joint Headquarters and be led by a new 4-star commander. Joint forces command will therefore be an important organisation in its own right, but it is also has symbolic purpose reflecting our view of how conflict will develop and providing a natural home for some of the capabilities of the future, such as cyber, as well as reinforcing joint thinking, joint behaviours and the new joint generation of officers within defence. It offers a new opportunity for career progression right to the top and a challenging and intellectual career for those who otherwise may not have been attracted to defence. It may also be a way for service personnel who are injured on operations and unable to serve on the front line but are still determined to serve their country.
Fourthly, the report rightly challenges us to consider whether we maximise that talent across defence. Be it in promotion, the development of key skills or helping our people choose the right career path, more can and should be done. The report has concluded that we must pursue more vigorously the principle that posts be filled by the right person with the right skills for the right length of time. Buggins’s turn must not interfere with the promotion of the right person for the job, nor can we have the musical chairs of the past. The noble Lord, Lord Levene, has therefore recommended that we move to a system where most senior civilian and military individuals stay in post for longer than at present; as a rule for up to five years. This will allow our people to establish themselves in their roles and invest the time they need to make a real difference to defence and be held to account for their performance.
To ensure that we maximise delivery at the front line, the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has recommended that we review all non-front-line posts across defence, beginning at senior and management levels, including an assessment of the most cost-effective balance of regular military, reservists, civil servants and contractors. We are top-heavy and that must end. Most significantly, he recommends that we adopt a new, more joint model for the management of senior military personnel in order to make promotion and appointment processes more transparent and standardised and to encourage the development of officers with strong joint credentials.
The report by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, covers far more than I have been able to address here. It is a thorough and compelling analysis that repays close examination. I am confident that when the people within defence review the recommendations they will recognise this work not as a criticism, but as a constructive critique of a department in need of reform and that they will relish the challenges that it presents”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State. I have not yet had time to read as carefully as I would wish the report that has been presented on the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence, but we add our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and his colleagues for the work they have undertaken. Support for our Armed Forces is vital and acknowledged by us all. They protect our national security and the security of others, and are prepared to put their lives on the line to do so. An effective and efficient Ministry of Defence is a key element of that support.
The Statement addresses reform. Based on the details in the Statement, we welcome the widening of the pool of promotion, making service chiefs more accountable for spending and, in principle, some of the changes in Ministry of Defence structure. We agree with measures to streamline the higher levels of the military.
Clearly, we will need to examine the detail but, from what we know so far, we support the introduction of a joint forces command. There are arguments in favour of the new Defence Board in minimising interservice rivalry. Are the Government of the view that the strategic defence and security review was adversely affected by interservice rivalry and differing interservice objectives?
Some will note that this proposed change involving just the Chief of Defence Staff being on the board, not the three service chiefs, comes just after the Prime Minister was quoted as saying last week, “I’ll do the talking, you do the fighting”, and wonder whether the Prime Minister's view is now being confirmed in the future structure of the Ministry of Defence.
The report, as we understand it, is not primarily about finding ways to save money or an exercise in how to improve the procurement function; it is a report about the management and structure of the Ministry of Defence. Bearing that in mind, it would be helpful if the Minister could give examples of what recent decision-making processes or activities would have been improved or been more effective had the new structure now proposed been in place, and why. Would it, for example, have led to a better strategic defence and security review, devoid of rushed decisions? Would the new structure have avoided what appears to be a considerable black hole between the declared intent of the strategic defence and security review and the amount of money available to deliver it, as the Government seek efficiency savings that they have not found and are engaged in events that they did not forecast?
How long is it anticipated that it will take to implement the new structure and management arrangements in full? Bearing in mind that we are currently fighting two wars, how will the Government ensure that the attention of those senior personnel involved is not deflected, to the detriment of the actions in which we are engaged, by having to implement a reorganisation?
The change in structure would appear to have an impact on the workload of the Chief of the Defence Staff, as the occupant of that post will be required in future to keep closely in touch with the service chiefs, who will not, as we understand it, be based at the Ministry of Defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff will be responsible for co-ordinating, determining and putting across the views and position of the Armed Forces at the new Defence Board. Is the Minister satisfied that one person can effectively undertake that role, and what level of support staff will the occupant of the post require?
The change in structure indicates a more hands-on role for the Secretary of State for Defence and other Defence Ministers, as the Secretary of State will be chairing the new Defence Board, which will presumably be meeting not infrequently. Does that mean that as a result, any functions currently undertaken by defence Ministers—in particular, the Secretary of State—will no longer be undertaken by them?
The report indicates that increased length of time in office by the most senior personnel would help. It would presumably assist in ensuring consistency of decision-making, as well as greater depth of knowledge of at least recent past events and the reasons for the approaches and decisions adopted and commitments made. It would also mean that some of those responsible for decisions were more likely to have to see them through to fruition and completion. Do the Government intend to act to ensure greater length of tenure in office for senior personnel, including defence Ministers?
The new Defence Board, chaired by the Secretary of State, will apparently be responsible for strategy. Will it also be responsible for ensuring that resources, including financial resources, will be provided over the whole timeframe for the strategy that has been determined? Does that mean that if the money is not there to deliver the agreed strategy, the responsibility rests with politicians, and the Secretary of State in particular, who will be chairing the board?
Do the Government see the changes set out to the structure and management of the Ministry of Defence as increasing or decreasing the involvement of Ministers in defence decisions and strategy? Do they see the changes as increasing or decreasing the involvement of service chiefs in those decisions? Could the Minister also say who, under the new structure, will assess future threats and scenarios? Will it be the Ministry of Defence at, say, the Defence Board, or will it be the National Security Council? We should bear it in mind that last week the Prime Minister referred to the current role of the National Security Council’s weekly sitting, asking whether we have the right resources and the right strategy. Have the Government, as part of their consideration of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, considered the relationship between the restructured Ministry of Defence and other government departments and bodies whose decisions can impact on defence policy?
The Minister will accept that no change in structure, roles or responsibilities can achieve anything in itself. At the end of the day, any structure is dependent on the people who have to make it function. Only time will tell if the changes being made in the Ministry of Defence will deliver the objectives the Government have set in the light of the Levene report.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am conscious that the noble Lord fired lots of questions at me. I was not able to keep up with all of them—I do not write quickly enough—but I will write to him about the questions that I am unable to answer here, and I will put a letter in the Library.
The noble Lord started by pointing out he had not had a chance to read this document properly, and I am conscious there is a lot to absorb. If there is interest from noble Lords, I am happy to organise a briefing in two or three weeks’ time. The noble Lord, Lord Levene, has undertaken to answer any questions from noble Lords, which I think would be helpful.
The noble Lord pointed out that historically there has been inter-service rivalry. In any large organisation, there will be some friction between different parts of the business, not least over resources. This is exacerbated in difficult financial times, which we are going through at the moment. However, the services have a long and successful record of operation alongside each other on operations and elsewhere—a number of the noble and gallant Lords in the House are witness to that. The proposed model seeks to harness their respective strengths even more effectively.
The noble Lord then asked when the recommendations will be implemented. Work will begin immediately and will proceed at pace. Implementation will be overseen through the defence transformation programme. Some of the recommendations are already being implemented, in particular the introduction of the new infrastructure and corporate services models and the creation of the new smaller Defence Board. However, some of the proposals, such as the introduction of the new model for capability planning and financial management, clearly need to be planned in detail and have key enablers in place.
The noble Lord—I hope I heard him rightly—said that the chiefs will be leaving London. That is not the case; we are not taking the chiefs out of London. We see their primary focus as leading and running their service. The focus of their time and effort will therefore be on their command. However, the report is clear that they have a continuing role within the head office, in particular through the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and will need to maintain office space and a smaller support staff in London. Following the fundamental principle of delegation of responsibility, the chiefs will have to decide for themselves how best to manage their time and location.
The noble Lord asked me whether they are getting less power. They are not being sidelined or downgraded; they remain custodians of and advocates for their service. They are being given increased delegation and empowerment to develop and generate their services to provide the forces’ defence needs within the agreed budget. Under the new model they will continue to play an important role in advising on the employment of their service and on the wider management of defence, but their focus will be on the delivery of their service.
The noble Lord asked whether the responsibilities of Ministers are increasing. The answer is definitely yes. The Secretary of State will chair the Defence Board, and there will always be another Minister on it, which was not the case in the past. It has not been decided who that Minister will be—whether it will be the MinAF or a rotation of Ministers—but he will get more responsibility. The National Security Council clearly has overall responsibility, as the noble Lord pointed out, and I confirm that the Secretary of State and the Chief of Defence Staff attend. When the Secretary of State is unable to do so, the duty Minister goes to the National Security Council meetings.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions but, as I say, if I have been unable to answer them all I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I very much welcome this report, which has been a long time coming. Parallel to the restructuring that is talked about in the report, should we not also look at the financial aspects, particularly the relationship between the Treasury and the MoD? When one is talking about programmes of the length that run in the MoD, there should be some certainty of finance. Should we not move towards a situation in which ideally there is some cross-party agreement on the percentage of GDP spent on defence? Should not the Treasury give some sort of 10-year commitment to funding so that this report can be sensibly implemented parallel to the procurement process?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point about the Treasury agreeing to 10-year funding and cross-party agreement on it. This question is very much above my pay grade and I will let my noble friend know. Clearly a lot of the financing of defence was looked at in the SDSR, and it is vital that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, and the reforms that we bring in are properly funded.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Can I focus on the responsibilities that a single service Chief of Staff will have for the funds allocated to him? The Statement talks about his ability to “veer and haul” within that funding. Will all that veering and hauling have to be put to the Treasury bit by bit, or will the Chief of Staff have freedom of manoeuvre, without which he will have no advantage whatever?
Lord Astor of Hever
The noble and gallant Lord makes a very important point. I am very much in listening mode today, but it is my understanding that initially the Treasury is sympathetic and that the chiefs will have a great deal of power on their budget.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I certainly welcome the Statement, and anything that improves the operational efficiency of the department is to be most welcomed. I well remember when I was a Minister in the department discovering by chance that I had not seen a report meant for my attention. When I asked my officials about it, they were surprised that I knew of it and I subsequently discovered that the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Civil Service were all looking at the report separately rather than collectively, and were going to make separate submissions to me. I thought that that was somewhat inefficient but it was the norm rather than the exception.
What precise steps will the Government put in hand to ensure that the implementation and outcomes of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, are closely monitored? Without monitoring implementation outcomes, the efficiencies that are being sought will simply not be achieved.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about the monitoring of implementation. I have quite a lot of briefing on that with which I will not tire the House, but I assure him that we will take that very seriously. We want it to succeed; we will monitor it and watch it very closely.
Lord Bramall
The report on defence reform by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, is yet another chapter in the steady evolutionary process of the higher organisation of defence going back some 47 years to the Mountbatten reorganisation, in which I had some direct involvement. I even recognise some of the same cries and aspirations.
I want to ask two questions, but before I do, having had a chance to read the report and based on consideration experience I must say that I consider it to be a well considered, logical, sensible and helpful report that will give very good guidance for the future, although whether it will achieve the aim, to which I heartily subscribe, of making the Ministry of Defence a smaller action headquarters capable of delivering effectively, economically and on time what is required to support and sustain the national strategy that has been agreed by the National Security Council will, as has already been said, depend on the attitudes and actions, to say nothing of the calibre, of those who have to implement the reform.
My first question is: does the Minister agree that if the CDS alone is to represent the overall military view at the Defence Board with sufficient strength, substance, urgency and authority to ensure that operational policy and what is practicable and realistic in combat do not get out of step, he requires the manifest support and ready advice of the heads of those services who have the responsibility of carrying out that policy? The Chiefs of Staff in committee with, where necessary, direct access to the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the Prime Minister during operations still have an important part to play. Otherwise, the operational and military requirements that may make all the difference between success and failure, if we have to deploy forces, may not get taken care of quite as enthusiastically as the political and financial ones, which have wide and urgent representation. Some reassurance on that point would be welcome.
Secondly, although the head of each service is still called a chief of staff, because he is responsible to the Secretary of State and has now gratifyingly been given more power and flexibility to run his own service, will we not be asking too much of one man if he is to be expected to combine his overall policy functions in that respect with the day-to-day geographically extensive command and administrative responsibilities of a commander-in-chief?
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wonder whether I can catch the attention of the Whip, whose responsibility it is to police the House.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I was aware of what was going on, and I believe that the noble and gallant Lord has concluded.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, particularly—
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I think the Minister has got the message and has the answers for the noble and gallant Lord. We have to give other noble Lords the opportunity to come in in the remaining 14 minutes. It is only fair to other noble Lords.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his support. I agree with him that it is an excellent report, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the rest of the team who did this excellent work.
The noble and gallant Lord asked whether I agree that the CDS alone represents the overall military view at the board. While the CDS will be the sole military representative on the new Defence Board, the advice of the single service chiefs will continue to inform the successful decision-making of the department. Their prime role will be running their services, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee will sit in a new Armed Forces mode to allow the CDS to draw on the environmental advice of the chiefs in formulating his advice to the Defence Board. The CDS should not be constrained by that advice, but this forum will ensure that there is a clear mechanism for the views and advice of the chiefs to be articulated. The Chiefs of Staff operations committee will continue as now so that the single service chiefs’ advice is still heard on operation issues.
The noble and gallant Lord asked whether the CDS having more power would be too much to ask of one man. In the new model, the role of the CDS will be clarified and strengthened. However, in making the recommendations, the steering group has been mindful of the need for a balanced model in which the CDS and the PUS would continue to jointly lead defence and ensure that the CDS is not overloaded. His prime function will continue to be as the principal military adviser to the Defence Board, Ministers and wider government, and as the strategic commander of operations. It was because of the heavy loading on the CDS post that the steering group recommended continuing with a deputy for him, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, even though some of the VCDS’s responsibilities are being transferred to the joint forces command.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend the Minister very much for repeating the Statement. I will not delay the House as long as I intended because the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, put the points that I was going to put far more eloquently and with far more experience than I—although it is a pity that the House was prevented from hearing the conclusion of his remarks.
I have one or two further questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, I am not quite sure about the joint forces command. Is this an additional command similar to land, air and fleet? Where will it be located and what kind of operations will it undertake? Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the Defence Board. At present, the balance on the Defence Board is seven civil servants to five military personnel—the chiefs and the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff—and it will be seven to one. That is an extraordinary change in balance. Like the noble and gallant Lords and other noble Lords who have spoken, I wonder whether the Chief of the Defence Staff really can represent the interests of all three services, let alone the interests of the three services in relation to the civil servants.
Thirdly, on the role of the Defence Council, I understand that in law it is not the Defence Board but the Defence Council in which the statutory authority to control defence is vested. I understand that there is no intention to remove the Chiefs of Staff from their place on that.
Lastly, does the Minister think—
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, we are about to have a debate to deal with these abuses.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is trying to remind us that there is a House full of people wishing to start the next debate. I know that the noble and gallant Lord and others see this change in organisation at the Ministry of Defence as also highly important, but I remind the House that during Statements,
“although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for immediate debate”.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours that questions and comments should be brief.
Viscount Trenchard
Briefly, my final question is whether the Minister thinks that the fact that the chiefs will spend more time with their services, and presumably in cars going to visit each other, and less time in offices next door to each other will lead to more “jointery” rather than less.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his questions. On the first, the joint forces command is an additional command and will have a new four-star commander. We have not yet decided, but it will probably be located at PJHQ, which is relatively accessible to the head office. However, we are still working on that. As to how the JFC will fit into the defence structure, PJHQ will sit within the JFC but the Chief of Joint Operations will continue to report direct to the Chief of the Defence Staff on the conduct of current operations.
As to whether chiefs driving around will lose of control of their services, I do not think they will. We believe that it will strengthen their position if they spend more time with their services. They will obviously be able to come to London from time to time, but we feel that they will probably want to spend much more time with their own services.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister will be aware that there are 19 grace and favour residences and that lavish expenses are provided to senior officers in all three services, which sits ill in the budget when people in the front line are being asked to make cutbacks. Has the noble Lord, Lord Levene, made any recommendations in relation to this and, if so, what is the Government’s response?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has made any comment about, as the noble Lord says, lavish residences. I have been to some of the lavish residences the noble Lord mentions and I can confirm that the chiefs use them in an important way for defence, particularly for defence diplomacy, which is a very important part of our objective at the moment.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, within the single service boards and the Defence Council, the single service chiefs are currently responsible directly to the Secretary of State for the efficiency, morale and fighting effectiveness of their services. Can the Minister confirm that this constitutional arrangement will be unaltered by what is proposed?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I believe that it will be unaltered. We are looking into this issue at the moment, but I do not think there will be any change.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, will the restructuring of the MoD deal with what I regard as a very serious problem—namely, that when major contracts are let for equipment, ships or whatever, invariably there are changes as they go along, and it seems that the contractors can then charge whatever they like for the alterations?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We now have a CDM who I confidently expect to get on top of all our procurement issues and, in doing so, save the defence budget a great deal of money.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, much has been made about the greater flexibility that the Chiefs of Staff will have as a result of having more money and resources to play with. As things stand at the moment, most of that money is tied up in salaries and fixed costs that do not have much flexibility—probably 5 or 10 per cent of their budget. Can the Minister indicate how much more money they are to be given to play with for equipment and how that will be managed when, for example, a significant amount of equipment is used across all three services? How will that be arbitrated?
Lord Astor of Hever
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that question. It is too early to give a specific figure. We received the report of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, today and we are considering it. We have not come up with any figures on that issue.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, is the Minister implying that the three single service headquarters—land, air and naval—are being removed and replaced by this joint forces command, or are they going to stay? If so, what will be the relationship between them?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the joint forces command is a new command with a four-star commander. We are not forcing the chiefs out of London; they can still have a base there. We expect them to continue to keep a base in London, with a smaller staff, but to spend more of their time with their own services.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, 43 speakers are signed up for the debate today. If Back-Bench contributions are kept to five minutes, the House should be able to rise at around the target rising time of 10 pm. As ever, that is an advisory speaking time. The House, of course, decided some while ago that it wished as a normal matter of course to rise at 10 pm, but the rising time is as ever in the hands of the House.
House of Lords: Working Practices
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, last July, I appointed a Leader’s Group to consider the working practices of the House and the operation of self-regulation, and to make recommendations.
Under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Goodlad, the group prepared the report that was delivered to me at the end of April and is the subject of this debate today. On behalf of the whole House, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Goodlad and the other members of the group, as well as the staff who supported them, for their contribution to this review of the working practices of the House. My intention in leading this debate today is to provide an opportunity for noble Lords on all sides of the House to comment on the group’s recommendations.
I am conscious that 68 Members of the House took advantage of the opportunity to make a written submission to the group. But as was observed in the report, an average of 452 Members have attended the House each day since last year’s general election. By implication, fewer than one in five of those Members have made their views known so far. I am conscious that there are Members around the House, including many of those participating in today’s debate, who wish to make swift progress on the majority of the group’s recommendations. I assure them that I am fully seized of your Lordships’ appetite for urgent, incremental reforms—in this area as in others—and I believe that the report from the Leader’s Group offers ample scope for such progress. It contains many straightforward ideas that could be implemented immediately should they find favour with the House. I therefore intend to ensure that a large number of the group’s recommendations are considered promptly by the relevant committees of the House so that the House may take a view on them at the earliest opportunity.
However, it is my responsibility as Leader of the House to take account of the views of the whole House, including the large number of Members who do not take a close interest in our working practices but whose contributions are no less valuable for their lack of frequency. That is why today’s debate is an important milestone and why I should like to take this opportunity to encourage noble Lords who did not make a written submission and have not put down their names to speak today to consider making their views known to me.
The Leader’s Group has structured its recommendations around what it concluded were the House’s three core functions: holding the Executive to account, scrutinising legislation and providing a forum for public debate and inquiry. In respect of each of these functions, there are specific challenges and dilemmas that I hope that noble Lords will address in their contributions today.
Conduct in the Chamber, particularly at Question Time, has for some time now been a matter of concern to Members all around the House. The Leader’s Group confirmed that successive Leaders of the House had acted with complete impartiality in their role of advising the House on matters of procedure and order, including at Question Time. I am nonetheless conscious that some Members wish to see a greater role for the Chair at Question Time and that the Leader’s Group has made recommendations in this area which I hope will attract comment from noble Lords over the course of the afternoon.
There is also the wider question of whether we can make better use of time in the Chamber—for example, by making it a presumption that the Committee stages of Bills will take place in Grand Committee, or by taking second and subsequent Statements off the Floor of the House. A good example of the time spent on Statements could be seen this afternoon. Although there are trade-offs involved—for example, the ability to divide in Committee—these are recommendations that may commend themselves to your Lordships.
I am also interested in views from around the House on whether items of business, and particularly those items of business that are led by Back-Bench Members of the House, are sufficiently topical, varied and of general interest. The Leader’s Group has suggested that a sifting mechanism for Back-Bench business might serve the House better than the ballot and first-come, first-served systems through which topical Questions, balloted debates, and Questions for Short Debate are selected at present. A sifting mechanism might of course erode individual Members’ current ability to bring attention on the Floor to subjects that they alone have chosen, but your Lordships may take the view that that trade-off is warranted.
There has long been much hand wringing around the House over the volume of legislation that the House is asked to consider and the level of preparation and consultation that have preceded the introduction of specific Bills—in the past I have myself been known to indulge in that well-known lament. I regret that, when presenting figures on the number of Bills published in draft—which is paragraph 79 of the report—the Leader’s Group did not include the record of the current coalition Government since May 2010: five Bills have already been published in draft, and four Joint Committees have now either been set up or are in the process of being set up to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny on: the draft detention of terrorist suspects Bills, the draft defamation Bill, the draft House of Lords reform Bill and the draft financial services Bill. Our record thus far should demonstrate that this Government do take pre-legislative scrutiny seriously and are matching words with deeds.
As regards post-legislative scrutiny, I am well aware of concerns that once legislation is passed, insufficient attention is devoted to its implementation and effects. It is of course already open to committees in both Houses to examine and report on the post-legislative memoranda published by the Government, but the Leader’s Group has suggested that this House may wish to approach post-legislative scrutiny more systematically. Whether that should extend to a standing post-legislative scrutiny committee is a matter on which noble Lords will no doubt comment today. My own instinct is that our Liaison Committee is well placed to perform that strategic function and that we might make more targeted and flexible use of the expertise and experience of Members of the House by setting up ad-hoc committees whose membership is tailored to the Act under scrutiny.
The Leader’s Group has also considered whether there might be scope to take evidence on Bills introduced in this House and make recommendations in that respect. We already have procedures that allow the House to send Bills for evidence-taking—to Special Public Bill Committees or to Select Committees—but we have thus far used them sparingly, not least because wider use of these procedures would detract from the principle, which I value, that every Peer can contribute to scrutiny and amendment at every part of every stage of a Bill. Although I believe the Leader’s Group was right to explore ways in which the House might enhance the way it conducts scrutiny of legislation, I doubt it will come as a surprise to noble Lords if I suggest that government support for such measures is likely to hinge on whether they extend the overall length of time a Bill spends in this House.
It should be clear by now that there is a theme underpinning many of the recommendations in the Leader’s Group report; namely, the extent to which Members of the House are prepared to trade off certain aspects of self-regulation in pursuit of other objectives. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible will address that question in their contributions today.
Before opening the Floor to those contributions, there is one consideration that I should like to draw to the attention of the House. The Leader’s Group has quite rightly attempted to cost the implications of its recommendations. Noble Lords will be aware that, under instruction from the House Committee, we are attempting to keep our resource costs constant in real terms. It is my strong preference that overall the recommendations that we take forward should allow us to adhere to that principle. That does not mean that we cannot take forward recommendations that have resource implications, rather that where we do so, we should examine whether those additional resources can be freed up elsewhere.
As I made clear at the outset, I intend to arrange for the relevant committees of the House to consider specific recommendations in the report. I envisage that in due course the House will have the opportunity to approve or reject more detailed proposals for implementing individual recommendations based on reports from those committees. I thank again my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his group. I very much look forward to this debate and I shall give answers to as many contributions as possible at the end of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, it is a rare pleasure to follow the Leader of the House and particularly to welcome his commitment to a swift response to the report from the group of which I had the privilege to be a member. It was an harmonious committee and we benefited hugely from the inclusive and incisive leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. Very distinguished members of it from all across the House are flanking me at this very moment. I see this report, informed as it is by the views of your Lordships, as a timely contribution to the current debate on the future of this House as an effective, indispensable revising Chamber.
Before I turn to the few key elements of the report, I want to focus on myself. I have to declare a second interest, which is now as a member of the Joint Select Committee which will look at the reform of your Lordships’ House. This is a very great honour and responsibility. I should also say that, after the many good wishes that were offered in the debate last week, it is beginning to feel like winning a place on Sir John Franklin’s expedition to the Arctic. Without wishing to recall the rollicking style of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as he wound up, our great helmsman, my noble friend Lord Richard, who I think is in his place, will bring us safely into harbour. Our little craft will also benefit enormously from the clarity, historical reference, political wisdom and objectivity of the views of your Lordships in the debate last week.
What we did not hear in that debate was the sense that nothing must change. In fact, there were many references to the need for change—including references to the work of this committee. Indeed, in sharp contrast with the White Paper on Lords reform, our committee started with first and fundamental principles: the functions of this House as a revising Chamber, which assists without threatening the primacy of the other place, and how best to improve on them. I hope that we have been able to show that by modernising our working practices we will reinforce this proper role of the House and strengthen Parliament as a whole.
In contrast to the White Paper and the House of Lords reform Bill, we did not start with a best guess about what should be done and did not specialise in heroic assertions. Instead, we identified how we could more effectively bring collective experience to interrogate Ministers and policy and how we might improve our scrutiny of legislation and extend our influence by the urgency and content of our debates. In doing that, it addressed some of the systemic issues in the relationship between the Houses, not least in the inherent difficulties that the other place has in challenging and changing premature and often, frankly, unworkable legislation.
As we know, too often it is left to this House to dig the Government out of a pit of their own making. This is not to make moral or political judgments about the other place. It is simply a fact of history, time and its procedures. Finding ways to strengthen that, rather than damage the alliance between the two Houses, is the task of this generation in this House. But if we are to continue to win the compelling case for ourselves as an expert and independent revising Chamber, we have to address all the aspects of the working practices of our House which make us less relevant, less effective, less visible and less heard than we could be. This has been done before in this House in many different ways, but in this report we bring together a greater narrative of what it will mean to make use of all our resources: our time, our space and our unique range of expertise. This is urgent at a time when the House is larger and therefore fewer expert voices find opportunities to be heard.
Let me start briefly with that part of the report which deals with opportunities for better debate, especially Back-Bench debate. The question we sought to answer is: when we are supposed to be so expert, why are the opportunities to challenge or explore policy issues so limited and frankly so random? The recommendation we make for the Back-Bench committee is self-evident. That committee should now manage the time and topicality of Back-Bench debates, when that experience can be better deployed. That is also why it is right, uncomfortable and difficult though it might be, that the House considers its working hours, to make more room and space for Members to be heard.
I hope that in the same spirit the House will also look kindly on the recommendations for two additional Select Committees. Our Select Committees are masterclasses in how expertise can be made accessible but there are whole areas of policy that we do not touch, and we not have a cross-cutting facility to enable us to consider whether or not the Government are internally contradicting themselves.
The test will be whether we can have a greater impact on the quality of legislation. However, there is a prior step. Ministers need to acknowledge that much legislation leaves departments unfit for purpose and sometimes contradictory to purpose. The spectre of the Public Bodies Bill is the worst, but by no means the only, example in this Session alone of legislation conceived in haste and abandoned in humiliation. That is why the committee recommended a legislative standards committee that would require Ministers to get a grip on the legislative process inside their departments. That may seem like a counsel of perfection—I have some experience of this—but it is significant that Ministers have never been challenged to show, for example, why legislation is the only course possible. Is that not a revolutionary idea?
I hope that it will be hard to argue against that innovation in principle and impossible to argue against the next, to which the noble Lord has already drawn attention to. I refer to pre-legislative scrutiny. Although that habit is growing, we could have avoided some car crashes this year, notably on the Health and Social Care Bill. From there, it is a small step to make the case for post-legislative scrutiny, which is long overdue. For too long, Ministers have got away with thinking that the Bill is the end of a process rather than the beginning of the impact on individuals and communities. We would do communities a great service if we were to look systematically at that.
My final point is about self-regulation, a fundamental point that runs through the report as a seamless argument for the genius of this House in the way that we conduct ourselves. However, it is under strain because of the sudden expansion of the House and the new geopolitics of coalition. It was in that context that the question of the limits to self-regulation and the role of the Speaker was raised by the committee itself, and its importance was confirmed by the fact that it was on this subject that we received the majority of responses. The committee rehearsed the options thoroughly because we know that self-regulation is a rare prize that should not be compromised lightly. I believe that we have put forward an honourable compromise for a trial period. I hope that it is something that the House can agree with.
I know that many noble Lords will not agree with many of the recommendations—maybe some will agree with none of them—and, because personal circumstances differ, life could be made more difficult for some of us and for Ministers. In fact, I am partly in favour of making life difficult for Ministers. Ultimately, though, I hope that the main recommendations will be accepted because your Lordships need to take control of their future, to recognise and enhance what we do best and to make an irresistible case for this Chamber as a continuing, revising part of Parliament. I believe that the report does that, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to support it.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, this is a comprehensive, imaginative and authoritative report, and the group is to be congratulated. If only half the recommendations were implemented, they would transform this House, making it more effective in getting business through, making better use of the talents of the Members and meaning better scrutiny and more opportunities for all Members to contribute. It is quite an achievement on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and indeed the group.
The broad themes of the report are saving time, ensuring that the Back-Bench voice is heard, more accountability on the part of Government and better scrutiny. I understand that many of the recommendations contained in the report could well be implemented in the near future, while others will require more discussion and even legislation.
I shall speak briefly about the reforms about which I trust there will be less dissent and which might thus go ahead speedily. These are about providing more opportunity for scrutiny and thus enhancing accountability. More specifically, I am referring to: pre-legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny; a legislative standards committee; and the setting up of two cross-cutting Select Committees on domestic policy. These three recommendations are all concerned with ensuring that legislation that comes before the House has already undergone a fair degree of scrutiny—in the case of post-legislative committees, the lessons learnt will also feed back over time to legislative drafting—and that some contradictions at least will have been resolved.
Furthermore, the main task of a legislative standards committee, as envisaged by the group, would be to assess the technical and procedural compliance of government Bills with the standards of best practice in Bill preparation. The recommendation has force because it would also allow the House to decide whether or not a given Bill was granted a Second Reading, and that is a pretty strong force. Another striking feature of that recommendation is that it would involve the public in providing evidence. This could of course slow down legislation but surely it is preferable to the current system, which tends to foster prolonged and sometimes bitter arguments in the Chamber, which is extremely time costly and not constructive. Nor would a check on the torrent of legislation necessarily be a bad thing.
Pre-legislative scrutiny takes place already, of course, but much less so than was promised in 2003. Today the average number of Bills subject to pre-legislative scrutiny is three, compared with 10 in the 2002-03 Session, though I hear what the noble Lord the Leader has said about very recent arrangements.
Recommendations 14 and 15 of the report make it clear that all Bills embodying important changes of policy, especially constitutional Bills, should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The recommendation goes further in making it a requirement, if there has been inadequate public consultation, for the Government to justify any decision not to produce a Bill in draft. There is, after all, ample evidence that such scrutiny has proved a very useful tool for both Ministers and officials.
I shall take a brief look at committees. The report proposes two additional sessional Select Committees and sets out criteria, among which are that they be cross-departmental and composed of Members who have particular expertise and that they complement the Commons departmental Select Committees. I earnestly hope that that will not be a controversial recommendation. It would require additional resources but I really think that the return on any investment would be substantial. Scrutiny of domestic policies is not well catered for and cross-cutting inquiries even less so, yet most domestic issues are cross-cutting. Day in and day out we debate in this Chamber policies and Bills that touch on myriad interests, to the extent that many Bills could be viewed as hybrid. For example, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill incorporates local funding, decentralisation, foreign policy, security, the disabled, transport and licensing laws, to name but a few areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has argued in the past for three cross-cutting committees to cover public service, national infrastructure and welfare. His rationale is that the cross-cutting nature of the committees would enable broader inquiries than are presently undertaken by the other place, and he indicates that a public services committee would encompass public service employment and recruitment policies, the application of market mechanisms and devolution within public services, accountability processes and the role of local government across the public services. In the noble Lord’s view, the reports resulting from those committees would provide valuable material for subsequent topical debates and questions from the Floor of the House. I wholly agree.
I believe that additional committees with undoubted experts and sufficient resources would result in reports of immense value to this House, the Government and the other place. I very much hope that the Government will agree that this is not a controversial matter and could be implemented very soon.
The report, which addresses how the House deals with legislation, is of paramount concern and priority. When it is implemented, this House will be far more effective in its chief role of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. I sincerely hope that this will happen in the near future.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, there was a remarkable degree of consensus in what was a very enjoyable series of meetings, and when there was not consensus, our Chairman tended to move us on with the comment, “Let’s see what it looks like on paper”. That is a line that I shall use myself on future occasions. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and the clerks who supported us so well and effectively.
As has been said, we covered a lot of ground, with underlying principles which boiled down to intelligibility and openness to the citizens whom we serve, and making the best use of what the House has available to it. That includes the experience, expertise and knowledge of our Members and the officials who advise us. We should use those to the maximum—not in a “random” way, to use the term used by the noble Baroness.
We criticise the Government—every Government—for not joining up, but so should we as a House take a joined-up approach. Cross-cutting committees are well overdue; we have some but we need more. Cross-cutting issues are the most difficult, so they are the most important to tackle. It takes two to tango, but the more we can work in conjunction with the House of Commons the better. We might think, too, about developing links with other spheres of Government. The Centre for Public Scrutiny—I am on its advisory board, I should say—put in evidence suggesting this.
We all say there is too much legislation, it is not good enough, and there is frustration all round. It must be very frustrating for those who are not Members of either House—stakeholders, if you like, and normal people—who have little opportunity for dialogue. We owe so much to the NGOs, individuals and all the organisations who contribute. Lobbying has a bad name, but what they do is more than poor lobbying and it is often very informative.
Public Bill Committees in the House of Commons have arrangements for taking evidence. From my reading of Hansard, I have often wondered whether anyone comes away from those completely satisfied, either Members or witnesses, because so much is crammed into such short sessions. I hope that in this House, we look at building upon the Commons experience in considering Bills which start here. The evidence from the Hansard Society talked about building on that experience and mentioned, for example, the role of the Chair, how witnesses are selected and how questions are chosen. All of this could be developed.
I join those who support the move to pre-legislative scrutiny, because it seems to me that at that stage positions are not as polarised, as inevitably they must be once the Bill has gone beyond the draft stage and is introduced to either House. By that time, defences are often up, over both substance and style. Of course, drafting is more than style, and a legislative standards committee might even—who knows?—advise whether legislation is necessary, which is something that post-legislative scrutiny might also reveal. I also support systematic arrangements for this.
Legislation is sometimes an occasion for grandstanding, but I think that we need to be very workman-like about it. The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to the time taken. I think that the Grand Committee has a great part to play in this. The physical arrangements are actually very helpful for the work one has to do in Committee—there is a lot of paper—where one needs the modern physical arrangements. A lot of money has been invested in the Moses Room and on rooms in the Committee Corridor. Some years ago I took part in a Committee stage upstairs, and I think we should use the facilities better, including having more than one Bill in Grand Committee on one day.
One small recommendation is supported by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who has e-mailed me to say he cannot be here but he thinks the report is superb—I will pass his e-mail on to the Leader. His recommendation is that a response that cannot be given at the time from the Dispatch Box should be printed in Hansard so that it is on the record, available and accessible.
The debates that we have in this House have a number of functions, and I support very much the proposal for a Back-Bench business committee to bring greater transparency and accountability. I welcome recommendations about making the work of the usual channels more accessible to the House as a whole, including the role of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the chair of the Back-Bench committee, should we have one.
We can be less arcane in our working methods and our language. We can operate in a way in which the world outside operates in the 21st century without losing what is good and works well among what has accumulated and developed over so many years. I hope all of the recommendations will find their way into the way in which we work.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, for his detailed and comprehensive report, and for his chairmanship of the Leader's Group. In the usual circumstances the response from these Benches would be from our Convenor, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester. He was here for two days last week for your Lordships’ debate on the Lords reform Bill, but he has had to return to duties in his diocese.
The debate today falls very much in the light of those two days of debate last week. As my colleagues on these Benches have often said, reform of your Lordships’ House is long overdue. The report of the Leader's Group is a timely reminder that reform of this House is an ongoing and incremental process, a gradual evolution, ensuring that in each new era the Lords adapts and adjusts, keeping the best we can with the demands and expectations of contemporary business and Parliament as a whole.
As my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester said, we on these Benches would not wish to see either the principle of self-regulation or the revision and scrutiny function of this House impeded through any changes to working practices. An additional concern is how such changes might help those many Members who have significant responsibilities outside this Chamber, but who nonetheless also want to be enthusiastic and effective participants in the life and work of this House.
In both these respects, there is much to welcome in this report. There is a clear desire to simplify procedures so that they might be more understandable, not only to outsiders but also to parliamentary novices such as myself. The suggestion that there be reserved Question Times for matters relating to this House, and to future Secretaries of State from this House, also sounds sensible.
Perhaps because we are not Peers but Lords Spiritual and are not part of the usual channels, I can see the benefits mentioned by the noble Baroness—not just for ourselves—of there being more openness about the processes that govern these practices. I note with interest the suggestion that Ministers from either House might in future answer to Members of the other in limited circumstances. As our current deliberations over the draft Bill on Lords reform have shown, there is a real need to increase the appreciation and understanding of our work here by those at the other end of the Corridor. It is good to hear that debate of this kind is happening at the moment.
I would also like to offer a broad welcome to the report's proposals for pre and post-legislative scrutiny, and for a new legislative standards committee. For those of us who are not able to be full-time attendees at this House, but who wish to involve ourselves with the scrutiny of Bills in Committee, the suggestion that memoranda be prepared by the new legislative committee to show which parts of Bills arriving from the other place have not been subject to scrutiny seems extremely helpful.
The most common difficulty for a Lord Spiritual in attending to the business of your Lordships House is wrestling with the competing demands of the diocesan diary. Business that goes on until late in the evening means that those of us who live outside London and the Home Counties have to knock out nearly two days of work in order to travel to and fro and participate in business in your Lordships’ House. For example, Grand Committee meetings in the morning would be a welcome step, as is the suggestion of starting 30 minutes earlier three days a week. We shall hold out for more regular morning sittings combined with earlier finishes, while not holding our breath.
One of the great defining features of this House is its ability to get through by self-regulation. Such a set up appears to me to be part and parcel of that spirit of independence and distance from party control that membership of this House is meant to foster. We have already heard from the noble Lord the Leader of the House about activities at Question Time during the past few months. I note recommendation 51’s implied reminder to us all that self-discipline is a partner and guarantor of self-regulation. I wonder whether it might not be a small admission of defeat by this House if it concluded that it lacks the self-discipline required to control itself without appointing a permanent referee, even if that person is as admired and respected as our Lord Speaker and her deputies.
There is a significant problem for some of us in the House over access to slots for parliamentary Questions. Those of us who live and work outside London are disadvantaged when it comes to getting Oral Questions on the Order Paper. The innovation of a Back-Bench business committee, already mentioned, though unlikely to help immediately in that respect, is interesting. Whilst supportive in principle, I wonder whether the need for Members to submit or to attend to give supporting evidence might create a further obstacle for those who are not able to be here every day.
I am also slightly concerned that one of the leading criteria for the Back-Bench business committee’s decisions, suggested in recommendation 44, might be the influence brought to bear by external organisations, NGOs and the like. This reads to me as though it might offer undue advantage in terms of access to parliamentary time to those individuals and organisations that are better resourced and are able to amplify their voices the loudest.
I finish with some words about the Lords Spiritual and Prayers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, as our Convenor, has listened to the views expressed by some Members about the desirability of making some minor modification to our daily routine of Prayers. In relation to introducing communal saying of the Grace, and some seasonal variation to the Collects, my right reverend friend is persuaded that some change would be welcome. He will take this forward in the appropriate way with the Chairman of Committees, and the House will be informed in the usual way when there are some changes to announce.
Lord Goodlad
My Lords, it was a great privilege to chair the group. On its behalf, I express gratitude for the kind words which have been uttered. We agree with Adlai Stevenson that flattery is harmless provided it is not inhaled.
The shadows are lengthening and I shall be very brief. We were extremely grateful to all noble Lords who gave written evidence, which is summarised in the reports. We were equally grateful to the noble Lords who gave verbal evidence, which was reflected in our deliberations. In Microcosmographia Academica, FM Cornford described his frustration as a don at Cambridge at his inability to walk from Trinity Street to the Mill Lane Lecture Rooms without having his elbow taken and his ear bent by colleagues urging their points of view on him. The process was known as squaring. Well, members of the group, for several months, had the same experience when trying to proceed from the Printed Paper Office to the Library. I have to tell your Lordships that if you had been squared by certain noble Lords, however square you were before, you would become squarer and, indeed, you may stay squared. However, it was a worthwhile process, and I agree with my noble friend that more comments would be welcome.
I should like to thank, too, Sir Michael Pownall and the present Clerk and his staff, particularly those who advised the group, for their invaluable help; those who work here, particularly in the Library and the Doorkeepers, for their contributions; and those outside bodies who submitted evidence, which is set out in the report. I also thank personally the members of the group for their forbearance, encouragement and patience during what was, for me, a very enjoyable experience.
Sir Barnett Cocks, when Clerk to the other place, said that a committee is a cul de sac down which ideas are quietly lured and then strangled. Elsewhere, a committee has been described as a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done. Times have now changed. There is not all that much that is original in the report before us today—many of the recommendations are similar to those made previously, particularly in the report of the royal commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham—but I hope that we have rehearsed the options open to your Lordships the better to serve public interest.
The House has the opportunity, if your Lordships so wish, to reform by self-regulation. I know that noble Lords take it as seriously as the group, most of whose members are in their places today. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has asked me to apologise for her absence. She is unable to be here today, but we hope to see her back again soon.
When Montagu Butler was the master of Trinity College, Cambridge, he summed up a meeting of the fellowship at which all his proposals had been unanimously rejected in the following terms: “Gentlemen, I thank you for the expression of your opinion, and shall adopt the course I propose with the utmost regret”. I hope and believe that my noble friend the Leader of the House will not follow the Montagu Butler precedent, but will take account, which I am sure he will, of everything that is said, for, as we know from his repeated assurances, he is a committed democrat.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I greatly welcome the report. It is extremely insightful and makes a whole set of useful recommendations about pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny as well as about Question Time. Therefore, I shall concentrate not on what I agree with but on five or six areas where the report is either silent or does not go far enough.
I start with something which is extremely simple. It has to do with the quaint and sometimes arcane language in which we speak about ourselves. If I had the choice, I would propose to your Lordships' House that that the expression “your Lordships' House” could easily, and should, be got rid of. It is a mouthful and it is time-consuming. I am told that if we were to drop it we would save about nine and a half minutes a day. It is also incorrect, because it is not simply your Lordships' House; the speaker is part of it.
I would also propose to the House that we dispense with such expressions as “the noble and learned Lord” and “the noble and gallant Lord”. Everyone is gallant in his or her own way and everyone is learned. At one level, ever since I came to this House, I have thought that we academics who write huge tomes are no less learned than lawyers, QCs and judges, but we are not included in the expression “noble and learned”. My simple suggestion is that it might not be a bad idea to simplify our language and to make it more relevant to our times.
My second suggestion has to do with debates. The topics of debate are by and large a matter of party choice, chance or first come, first served. Sometimes, some extremely important issues, either because they are topical or because they are reflective and deal with the long-term trends of our country, get neglected. If I had the time, I would list half a dozen topics on which I would like to see major debates in this wonderful House.
I therefore greatly welcome the idea of a Back-Bench business committee. However, such a committee could easily monopolise the job of selecting topics. Therefore, if it is going to be set up, as I think it should, it should be bound by clearly laid down rules. The report mentions one of them: that those who have not asked a Question for Short Debate in the current Session or ever before should be given preference. The committee should also be required to choose topics of debate from those that are proposed by Members, rather than suo moto.
Many of us spend a lot of time trying to think through subjects for debate and make constructive suggestions. It is therefore very disappointing not to get well considered responses. Even when a response is made in the winding-up speech by the Minister, it is made in passing, it is fleeting, and is disposed of in about 10 or 15 seconds. It is very important that the Minister should be required to make a considered written response to all the substantial points made, and that these should either be published in Hansard, or made available in the Library.
I sometimes find it very disappointing that the debate is limited to either two minutes, or sometimes even to one minute. I ask myself what on earth one is doing speaking for about a minute, composing no more than 10 sentences. There must be some way in which we can have proper debates in which a minimum of at least three minutes is given to the speaker. That could be achieved in several ways: the number of speakers could be limited, or those who have written out their speeches and are going to read them out might simply submit copies which would be published in Hansard, but need not be orally delivered in your Lordships’ House. If they are easily available they can easily be included in Hansard.
My third suggestion is to do with Select Committees. It is very important—and I can say this from some experience on the Select Committee on Human Rights—that no one should be able to serve on a Select Committee for more than three or a maximum of four years. I have seen Select Committees where people have been there for five, six or seven years, and the result is that they tend to get dominated by one or two members, and there is no circulation of fresh blood and fresh ideas.
My fourth suggestion has to do with the State Opening of Parliament. We have been talking a great deal about the primacy of the House of Commons. That primacy is not reflected in the State Opening of Parliament. I and many people outside your Lordships’ House find it very strange that someone as dignified as the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, at the time of the State Opening of Parliament, has to stand without the Bar and listen to the speech being delivered. There must be a better way of doing things. For example, the State Opening of Parliament, at which wearing robes should not be required, could take place in Westminster Hall.
My final suggestion, which, although it might appear rather trivial, is emotionally quite important, because it bonds our House. I would have said “your Lordships’ House” but having criticised the expression I will say “our House”. When a member of your Lordships’ House dies, it is simply mentioned as a news item. I think that this is unfortunate. We must find ways of observing at least a minute’s silence. I am told—by no less an authority than the Leader of the House—that there is one death every fourteen days. That would mean that a maximum of 22 or 23 deaths a year would be announced, and 23 minutes of standing for your Lordships’ House is not too difficult an exercise to undertake. I should also suggest that before a minute’s silence, it should not be too difficult for the Leader of the House to pay tribute on behalf of the House. There is always a memorial service, but that memorial service is organised either by the family or the party to which the deceased belonged. No collective tribute is paid by your Lordships’ House, and it is sad that when someone who has served this House with distinction for umpteen number of years, disappears simply unmourned, unnoticed and unrespected.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, as a member of the committee, it is not my intention to express wide views about the recommendations, which I broadly agreed with, but I do want to express my appreciation of the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Goodlad, who was wise, patient, perceptive, and seemed to me to pull together quite a disparate group in reaching a consensus, which I hope will commend itself to this House.
Of the two points which I wish to animadvert upon briefly, the first is the proposed establishment of the legislation standards committee, which I hope will commend itself to this House. It would make sense to have a joint committee to consider legislation which is brought forward by the Government, some of which originates in another place and some of which originates here. That would depend upon agreement with another place, and it might be worth while considering establishing such a committee to deal with Bills which originate in this House, which would fortify both the ability of the Government to justify what they are doing, and of those who are scrutinising the legislation to judge whether or not it meets the required needs. As legislation increases in volume, and as it becomes apparent that some departments of state consider that legislation is the only way in which they can seriously draw the attention of the public to their urgent need to do something, there is a risk that the quality of legislation will decline. The purpose of the legislation standards committee is to put a block in that direction. It would look at the matters spelled out in paragraph 94 of the committee’s report, such as giving a clear justification for why legislation is the appropriate means of dealing with a problem, and also looking at the effect it has on other legislation, whether or not new criminal offences are created, and how it would fit into the wider system of justice. These are just some of the reasons why such a committee should be established. I believe that it would be an important part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and one which would encourage people to look rather more before they leapt. I very much hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give a favourable response to that proposal. I think it would bring together the Executive and the legislature in a most helpful way.
The second matter that I wanted to consider was the recommendation regarding the consideration of the executive role in relation to this House. The matter has been considered over some time, but we have not yet reached a very satisfactory position. The royal commission, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham recommended in 2000 that there should be a sufficient number of Secretaries of State and Ministers of State in this House. That number has fallen off, and is particularly low in this Parliament. If the Executive are going to take full note of the spectrum of views, and the individual contributions that are made by this House, not only to legislation, but to policy generally, it would make great sense if the responsible Minister were required to give the Statement to the House himself, to answer the questions himself, and, I would say, although this goes beyond the report, conduct the legislative process. Too often, one has the impression that those who are answerable for the policy are not answering to those who are raising the questions. Some of the less well conceived legislation of this Session would have greatly benefited from having the responsible Minister here and hearing the arguments early in the debate. Time could have been saved and minds could have been moved; I very much hope that that will be given due consideration. The committee recommends that that issue should be considered by the two procedure committees of the two Houses. As the Commons Procedure Committee in the Session 2009-10 recommended in its third report, if Secretaries of State are in this House, ways should be found to enable them to make Statements and to answer Questions from another place. I very much hope that that will be given the attention that it deserves.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, the report on working practices is an excellent piece of work. The chairman and the members of the working group deserve our profound thanks and gratitude for their thoughtful and well considered report. I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House for setting up the group. I agree with the majority of the recommendations. Taken collectively, they will enable us to engage more meaningfully with the public, make us more open and accountable, increase our effectiveness in holding the Executive to account and increase our efficiency.
I wish to comment on the sections of the report which deal with the scrutiny of legislation and explain my reservations about the working party’s recommendation that,
“consideration be given to conferring upon the Lord Speaker the role currently performed during question time by the Leader of the House, for a one-year trial period”.
The recommendations relating to pre-legislative scrutiny and legislative standards are fundamental to our core function with regard to legislation. In recent years, the quality of our legislation has not been of the expected standard. That is partly due to the volume and the speed with which Bills are introduced. These pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations are eminently sensible and will help to improve the quality of legislation, illuminate the thinking and the policy underpinning any draft legislation and provide a more effective and meaningful way of engaging with the public.
As someone who has worked in different capacities to help implement legislation, I agree in the strongest terms possible that the case for post-legislative scrutiny is compelling. We pass legislation and then do not allow ourselves the opportunity to examine how it is working; what, if any, have been the unintended consequences of the legislation; what lessons can be learnt; and what changes, if any, are needed. Lack of this opportunity means that legislation which may not be suitable continues to remain on the statute books and there is a danger that some of it even falls into disrepute. I regret that the response to the recommendations of the Law Commission’s report in 2006 was so weak. I agree with every word of the working party’s rebuttal to the Government’s response and the recommended way forward in paragraphs 128 to 141.
I am also attracted by the recommendations in paragraphs 178 to 181 for a House of Lords Back-Bench business committee to be established and for it to be charged with selecting types of Back-Bench business. This is attractive for two reasons. It will strengthen self-regulation and, coupled with the interim recommendation in paragraph 221 that,
“evidence of support from outside bodies, such as non-governmental organisations … be adopted by the Backbench Business Committee as one of its criteria in selecting subjects for debate in the House”,
will enhance openness, accountability and transparency in decision-making.
I am uneasy about the recommendation in paragraph 38 of the report, which would confer,
“upon the Lord Speaker the role currently performed during question time by the Leader of the House”.
I agree with the concerns expressed both by the working group and those Members who gave evidence. I also note that this has not been an easy issue for almost a century. Yes, there has been a deterioration in our behaviour but conceding to this recommendation would not be the answer. We would be setting a dangerous precedent, which would be a slippery slope.
We are rightly proud that we are a self-regulating House but self-regulation means that we must all take responsibility for our behaviour and respect the working practices and conventions of the House. As the report says in its introduction:
“Self-regulation and the accompanying freedoms enjoyed by individual Members are essential to the conduct of business in the House of Lords”.
Self-regulation creates an obligation on all of us. Improving our working practices is part of the answer. We need to pay equal attention to our behaviour because democracy is not just about an elected House of Lords. It is also about how we conduct debate and dialogue, deal with dissent and listen to arguments, engage with each other and, occasionally, change our minds following discussions. That is democracy at work.
Inappropriate behaviour in Parliament has contributed to public cynicism. If we want to win back respect and trust from the public, we not only need to adopt working practices which will enhance public involvement, as so admirably recommended in this report, but we also need to model the behaviour which embodies the working principles of a democracy. We should not, therefore, implement the recommendation in paragraph 38, even for a trial period of one year. Instead, we should strengthen our resolve to make self-regulation work better. If we slip towards even a semi-regulated House, we will start losing our responsibility. This excellent report rightly reaffirms the fundamental principle of self-regulation but this one recommendation, in my view, is the thin end of the wedge. Let us not go down that road. We need to implement the core recommendations of this report as soon as practicable and at the same time take steps to strengthen self-regulation. None of that should be delayed because we must take control.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
My Lords, there is a great deal in this report, some of which is comparatively minor and much of great importance. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his committee on giving us this menu. I want to concentrate on those points which recognise the experience and expertise of this House, and which strengthen our ability to make use of them in a way which is certainly complementary to the other place—soon I hope that I can say “the House of Commons”—and perhaps add a dimension appropriate for us to make but which is in no sense confrontational with the other place.
I shall be broadly supportive of the report and its recommendations but I begin with two comparatively minor points with which I disagree; that is, starting in this Chamber at 2 pm and morning sittings on often important matters in the Moses Room. Many of us have outside jobs or other commitments of a voluntary nature—indeed, it is those which strengthen our experience and expertise—so as much as possible we plan our diaries on this basis. Many of us attend working lunches close perhaps to the Houses of Parliament but to have to leave at 1.30 pm in order to attend proceedings in this House would defeat the object of the exercise. Although I would not go to the wall on this, I would urge caution.
On the major recommendations, a thread is running through much of the report, which I suspect partly reflects the fact that four former Members of the other place were on the committee. The report continues to recognise the expertise and experience of this place, and the time that we can give to matters. In the other place, Members of Parliament often have much to do every day. The report refers to their constituency work, but it is a lot more than that. Particularly in this internet age, the workload on Members of Parliament is very much greater than when I was in the other place. In Select Committee work, there is not the same party political, confrontational or partisan aspect that inevitably occurs in the Commons.
What is interesting about many aspects of this report is that this House can have the time, the expertise and the non-confrontational approach to produce excellent work, which is in no sense to detract from what goes on in the House of Commons but adds to it. I turn therefore to pre-legislative scrutiny, of which I have long been an advocate. Recently, I had an interesting example on the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, which has just reported on this year’s Finance Bill. We looked, to quite a large extent, at the new budgetary approach of the Government in producing draft Finance Bill legislation.
This year was a mixed experience. We had evidence from a large number of expert bodies outside Parliament in this area. A common thread running through their remarks was that this House often has the expertise and experience to look not at the policy or the rates of tax and so on but at the technical details of legislation, which so often go badly wrong and went badly wrong this year on the Finance Bill. Many of them recommended that this House should look at draft financial legislation in detail, not after the Bill has been published but beforehand, and bring that experience to bear. That is a very good example of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was not for our committee to make a recommendation that we should do this, but we have put the suggestion forward and hope it will be considered by the House Committee.
Post-legislative scrutiny is also extremely important. It is disappointing that the Government’s initial reaction was that departmental Select Committees should do this. I strongly believe that it can be done in this House. The key question that the committee raises is on the role of the Lords in that regard.
We all know the arguments about the defects in parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. There have been various attempts by Governments, through primary legislation, to extend the use of delegated legislation, often substantially. We have seen recent evidence of it, to which this House has rightly and successfully objected. In paragraphs 155 and 156, the committee puts forward a well thought out and far from revolutionary set of proposals to make good progress on this matter. As the committee says in paragraph 152:
“We also consider that such an approach would be more consistent with the House’s role as a revising chamber ultimately respecting the primacy of the House of Commons”.
That is extremely well argued and takes forward some of the objections that so many of us have raised as to the inability of either House to deal with delegated legislation.
On a separate point to do with scrutiny, I also welcome the recommendation in paragraph 128 concerning clauses or parts of a Bill that were not debated in the other place. We see that happening rather more often these days. I say to my noble friend the Leader of the House that this recommendation would hardly add to the costs of this House. Because of guillotines in the other place and the other pressures to which I have referred, we now see that much legislation is not properly looked at in the other House. That is becoming much more common. It is also further justification for the complementary work of this House, which is increasingly recognised in the world outside as being where we can add value. I hope, therefore, that that small but important recommendation can be taken forward quickly.
I have always felt that Select Committees are one of the great strengths of this House. They are also read or listened to by outside bodies. A very good recent example was our Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which produced a report on the oligopoly of auditors today—a subject that has not advanced far, despite many good intentions in recent years. The committee’s main recommendation has now been taken up by the OFT, when many thought that it would not be. I hope that many of our other recommendations will be pursued in the relevant quarters. In the section on Select Committees, the report is admirable for highlighting some of the contrasts between the ways in which the two Houses deal with Select Committee work. Therefore, I also hope that the recommendation to have two further Select Committees can be agreed to fairly soon.
In short, the report has produced practical recommendations for how this House can add value in several very important areas, but these in no way threaten the primacy of the other place.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, Clement Attlee once said:
“The House of Lords is like a glass of champagne that has stood for five days”.
I have some sympathy with that remark. I suppose what the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his committee have done is to produce a superb report that could put some fizz into our work—or put some in for the first time. It builds well on the three papers from the cross-party informal groups that preceded it. It does not go quite as far as I should have liked in rescuing this parliamentary House from the predations of the Executive, so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, last week in the debate on Lords reform. However, if we grasp the nettle, the report provides several opportunities to improve the governance of this organisation as a scrutinising and revising House of Parliament.
I like all of the report and would like to see its recommendations implemented as soon as possible. In particular, I like the improved role, in pilot form, for the Lord Speaker in playing a role in the Chamber at Questions; the proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny; and the most important proposals for a legislative standards committee, which would not half sharpen up what arrives on our doorstep. The increased use of Grand Committee and the proposal for a Back-Bench business committee are also very welcome.
In the past seven years as a Member of this House, I have often pondered why I have felt so underutilised and not able to use my modest skills very effectively. Conversations with colleagues suggest that I am not alone in my disappointment. In my field of interest, which is broadly health, welfare, social care and education, in my time here we have never had a serious discussion on future health policy, examined international trends in health or social care or considered future policy in education. I can jockey for a two-hour stand-up debate every now and again—it is interesting that I recently won my Cross-Bench debate on dementia in a lucky straight vote against South America—but there are no cross-cutting Select Committees to look at the effects of public sector policy across the House. The report makes an admirable suggestion on this, which we should take up.
I have my policy discussions in these areas outside this House with other policy wonks like me. That cannot be right. Therefore, I would like an opportunity to serve on such a Select Committee. Therefore, I very much welcome the idea of a Back-Bench Select Committee that would steer the business of this House. The proposals in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, would greatly improve life for Back-Benchers. If and when the House becomes an elected House, as I hope it will one day, these changes would add greatly to the House’s ability to perform its functions well.
I return briefly to the unsatisfactory governance of the House. I used to think that this House should be like a well conducted symphony orchestra, but I have come to the conclusion that its governance will always be more like improvised modern jazz: the outcome is heady but unreliable. Parliament is bound to be dominated by politics, I have no quarrel with that; it is probably right that it should be even more the case. However, the running of this House should surely be independent of the urgencies and compromises that dominate party politics. We need continuity of governance in managing the business of the House, separate from the negotiating machinery of day-to-day business. This is why we have so much trouble managing the irritations of difficult minor matters. It would be a start to think about the role of our Lord Speaker, and to have some recognition that our Speaker speaks for us. Ours could then truly be a self-governing House, rather than the poodle of the Executive.
The report is truly excellent and I hope that its current recommendations will be implemented very soon. However, we need to go further.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I spent part of the weekend reading last week’s two-day debate in which I was unable to take part. One thing that struck me was the number of noble Lords who referred to the fact that many outside organisations—voluntary bodies, NGOs, trade associations and so on—find it much easier to make their points to noble Lords in this House than they do at the other end of the Palace. That applies particularly to legislation. Therefore, in my few minutes I shall reinforce what has already been said by other noble Lords.
There is the question of how we could deal better with legislation. The first proposal, which has already been discussed and I can deal with briefly, is that we should have a more settled process for pre-legislative scrutiny. I was intrigued by what my noble friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate: more draft Bills have been introduced in the past year than for some time. I welcome that, although I am not sure that I welcome the House of Lords Reform Bill. However, the fact remains that this is a very important process.
I say this with the experience of having served on what was not technically a pre-legislative committee but a committee on a Bill in draft. That Bill was originally called the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. Anyone who served on that committee will recognise the enormous value of hearing expert evidence from a variety of sources, which enabled us to make some very important recommendations on the Bill—not least those that persuaded the Government to abandon one part of it. It was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough—Phil Willis MP, as he then was—and was an extremely effective process.
That is the way to do it. The other place might find hearing evidence for a day or so just before Second Reading useful; I found this pre-legislative or draft Bill process to be much the most effective process and I hope that we might do it. I am moved to suspect that, had we done that on the Public Bodies Bill, a very different Bill would have finally been presented to Parliament by my noble friends.
Secondly, on legislative standards, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was a member of the group and will be speaking later. I suspect that he might have had a good deal to do with the proposal as it has found its way into the report because he and I were both involved with Sir Christopher Foster’s Better Government Initiative, of which this was a very important part, which tried to make sure that legislation that comes before Parliament is much more fit for purpose than it so often is. The main purpose of having parliamentary scrutiny on the lines spelled out is that it will sharpen the minds of those who prepare Bills in government departments when they realise that this is what they are going to have to put before Parliament. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, has to say about that later. I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Maclennan that it should of course be considered by a Joint Committee, as indeed was the Bill that I referred to a few moments ago.
Finally, it has become apparent, and there is very wide acceptance, that post-legislative scrutiny is now essential. It is not just “motherhood and apple pie”, as the report quoted; it has become absolutely essential to see not only whether legislation has achieved its purpose but, almost more importantly, that no unintended consequences have flowed from the Bill, which so often do the damage. Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord MacGregor that this activity must be a joint one. This House must be involved; it cannot be left to the departmental Select Committees at the other end, because we look at these things. This point has been made by a number of noble Lords. We are complementary. We have a different perspective, often a longer-term one that is not so immediately pressured by the immediate political pressures that one is under in the other place. This will be hugely important.
To finish, I have tabled an amendment to the Localism Bill that will provide a measure of post-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I must say that I have been enormously encouraged, as I guess other members of the committee have been, by the friendly and positive remarks that have been made about it so far. We were quite a diverse group but we produced a unanimous report, which was important, and we are clearly getting quite a lot of support here today. The fact that our report was unanimous was in no small measure due to our chairman, Lord Goodlad. There are not too many laughs around when you discuss parliamentary procedure, but if there were any, Lord Goodlad normally managed to find one.
I shall confine myself to three or four points that come under the broad heading of making this House more user-friendly. By that I mean user-friendly to the public, to the people we serve and to the people who work here and who help us do our job, and that includes of course the staff who serve us. Number one is the enhanced role of the Speaker. Well, no; the language is wrong there. It is not an enhanced role as such; the role currently fulfilled by the government Front Bench is being transferred to the Speaker. This does, I suppose, enhance the role of the Speaker, but it does not give any more powers—it is very important to note that. This is long overdue and I appeal to anyone who doubts this to please watch a recording—I obviously have not seen it, because it will not have been produced yet—of the first Question at Question Time today. There can be no more serious issue for this House to be exchanging its views on than disability hate crime. There is wide experience across the House—indeed, people we know have personal experience of the subject—and there is a shouting match to get involved. Really, the role must go to the person in the position of every other chairman in every other body, worldwide and historically: the person in the middle who can see the whole Chamber. It is ridiculous, frankly, that it lies anywhere else.
The other aspect of user-friendliness is something which, if I may say so, I feel particularly proprietorial about. The report, in paragraph 38, insists on—or reminds the Government about the importance of—our target rising times. No Government have a perfect record—I am quite sure that figures could be found to show that the previous Government did not do wonderfully well—but we are supposed to finish at 10 pm. I doubt whether we will finish at 10 pm tonight and it is the Leader’s report that we are discussing. There has to be some irony there somewhere. It is the Leader’s responsibility, ultimately, to ensure that the rising times are met—as well as that of the House as a whole. A debate with 44 speakers, which has been known about for some time, was scheduled following Question Time and a Statement that we knew would have to be taken today on the report on the Brussels summit, so we knew we would be short of time today. I simply implore the leadership, the Leader of the House and his colleagues, not to put the clock back on that. It was hard enough getting target rising times in this House.
That also applies to giving the House firm recess dates. That was almost won through blood, as was matching, normally, the recess dates for the Commons. Since we are a bicameral legislature, we should both sit at the same time. Obviously not precisely, but broadly speaking, that should be the case. It was extraordinarily difficult to reach that position and I fear that we are slipping very badly on that. There is not much excuse. I am not going to criticise the Government, because these issues are always very difficult and no Government are perfect, but this Government have a two-year Session. That is a world record—certainly a parliamentary record since World War II—and we should not be sitting late a year before the end of a Session. We have late sittings towards the end of a Session because Bills are jammed, but, please, let us start respecting again—this requires no change of procedure—the target rising times that are laid out in the Companion and the deal about recess dates. I was flooded with gratitude—I am not exaggerating, I really had no end of gratitude from the staff who serve us—when I, or rather the previous Government, initiated the business of announcing recess dates in advance. People are entitled to book their holidays. We can be flexible—we have the enormous honour of being here—but the staff are entitled to know and we should reinforce that.
The final thing about user-friendliness that I want to mention again relates to the public. It should not really be necessary to argue this too much because we could do it ourselves, but I must mention the arcane and only randomly used different titles that we give to one another. I cannot remember half of them myself, but I know that almost the first thing one is told when one arrives in this place is to make absolutely certain that one knows the difference between “gallant” and “learned” and all the rest of it. Well, I roughly do, but I routinely ignore it. I was advised to do so by one of the great parliamentarians of this House—indeed, of any House, in my view—Andrew McIntosh, who said he would never refer, for example, to “the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad”. He did not say that personally, but he would simply refer to “Lord Goodlad”, as I did at the start of this contribution. The heavens did not fall in; I did not hear anyone shout, “Order, order”.
I do not refer to “the other place”; I refer to the House of Commons. What a revolutionary concept: the House of Commons. I say simply that this is only a trivial change, not a big change. We could do it tomorrow. Why not start today, in this debate, and see what happens? Within a very short time we would all wonder why on earth we troubled ourselves with that kind of thing in the past. Just call people by their names. You can inject all sorts of emotions into a simple referral of the name, whether you approved or disapproved of what has been said, or found it boring, but let us stick to the names. Those are my observations, but I say finally: let us do it quickly, because none of these procedures could possibly survive the introduction of a fully directly elected House.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I, too, think that the report is masterly. I congratulate the committee and its clerk and endorse its recommendations.
I will concentrate on the section on delegated legislation and what the group has proposed. On first reading that section, I confess that I got the wrong end of the stick, so I thought that I would use my speech to try to unpack it a little—as much for my benefit as anyone else's. I hope that in doing so, I am not teaching my collective grandmothers to suck eggs, but here goes.
The whole purpose of that part of the report is to encourage the House to be bolder if it really does not approve of a particular instrument. The House is, perhaps understandably, squeamish about voting instruments down, and has found all kinds of ingenious ways around taking that fatal step. I myself have tabled reasoned amendments of a “regrets” nature on which I have called a vote, and the opposition Front Bench has become particularly keen on that course of action.
The reason why the House is so weak-kneed about voting down instruments is that if the Government lose the vote to approve an affirmative instrument or on a prayer to annul a negative instrument, that instrument is dead. It does not hover between life and death, it is dead, even if it has been passed by the other place—which we must now call the Commons, fair and square, if the report is agreed to.
The report, as I understand it, suggests that we all need reminding of what can happen next if an instrument is voted down. Although that is the end of the story for that particular instrument, the Government are perfectly within their rights to bring back another very similar or even identical instrument, the very next day if they want, to try their luck with that one. It would certainly be inconvenient for them, because both Houses will have to find time to consider the new instrument, but the Government do not have to wait for a new Session. Although the original Motion was fatal, it does not mean that the door is slammed in the Government’s face for that particular policy. One would hope that such a defeat would mean that, if the Government were intent on going ahead with the policy, the instrument would be redrafted with a change reflecting the debate, and perhaps with an interval of at least a few weeks to allow for that reflection.
The report suggests that the House passes a resolution asserting three things: first, the House’s freedom to vote robustly on the Motion to approve the instrument in the first place; secondly, that the purpose of the use of the fatal power is not necessarily to do more than to make the Government think again about the policy; and, thirdly, that if the Government, having considered the matter again, worked to lay a substantially similar instrument that had been passed by the Commons, the House would not vote the instrument down a second time.
In some ways, the last matter appears to be a curious one to concede, because one can foresee circumstances in which the House may be giving too much power away. If, for example, the previous Government were furious that the Lords had voted down the instrument allowing a super-casino to be built in Manchester a few years ago, all they would have needed to do was to introduce a broadly similar instrument a few weeks after the fatal Lords vote, put it to a compliant Commons, and then wait until the Lords passed it without a murmur. In that case, the Government of the day could have used a broadly similar instrument, but they chose not to. I guess that, with the recession looming, they were relieved that the Lords had saved them the considerable embarrassment of having a half-built super-casino at the height of the recession in a poor part of Manchester.
The Government did not take that course of action, and the only time it was taken in recent memory was when the House voted down the instrument to bring in sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in 1968. When the Government re-laid a broadly similar instrument a month or so later, the House passed it, although talks on Lords reform broke down as a result of the shenanigans. The House has never turned down a second instrument that anyone can remember. That means that the power that the House would sacrifice has never been used, to anyone's knowledge.
I believe that the House should take the risk of taking the steps suggested in the report. I cannot see that that would result in all hell breaking loose and the Order Paper being littered with lots of “decline to approve” Motions. After all, Governments change and there is usually inbuilt caution before an Opposition decide to take such a drastic course of action, because they know that it could be used against them sooner or later.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, pass on my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his team for an excellent report and to the Library for its fascinating historical note on the many changes to working practices which, like the Lords itself, have evolved over the years.
I find that there is a lot to agree with and one or two things to disagree with. I give pre and post-legislative scrutiny my total backing and agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, about the earlier sittings. There is so much that one needs to do—not least, cope with the flood of e-mails—whether you go out to a lunch or not.
I shall concentrate my remarks on just two aspects of the report. The first is a general point on the timing for implementing some of the proposals; the second is to welcome the change of approach suggested for House of Lords Select Committees. On timing, the issue is the uncertainty surrounding the future of the House of Lords combined with its current size. That makes me really doubtful whether, quite apart from it being relevant in future, now is the right moment to remove this House’s civilised system of self-regulation and self-discipline and replace it with rulings by the Lord Speaker.
Currently, presumably by agreement, the political parties decided to flood the Lords with proportionate political numbers of additional Peers with little or no regard to the effect that that overcrowding would have on how the second Chamber conducts its business. The result, as most noble Lords would agree, has been, to put it mildly, fairly disastrous. Whether that situation was anticipated—I certainly hope that it was not deliberately planned— the effect has been an increasingly tense atmosphere in the House, as Members either give up trying to be heard or bad temperedly compete for opportunities to contribute. That is certainly the case at Oral Questions, and today was a good example of that. Even at Second Reading of Bills, the limit of 15 minutes is now reduced to something like a “suggested” eight minutes. More general debates are often limited to two to three minutes and, as we have already heard, in one case it was as little as one minute per person. Surely, now is not an ideal time to test a change to a House of Commons style Speaker in charge of questions.
I turn to a more enthusiastic comment. I was delighted to see that the report suggests a change of approach to the appointment of Select Committees: that they should in future be allowed to cover the same ground as Select Committees in the Commons and that they should be able to choose their chairmen, rather than, as now, having the usual channels making that important decision for them. When I think of the battle we had to get the Lords Select Committee on Communications set up after the Communications Act 2003 became law, it is worth reminding ourselves that that has been a step in the right direction. With that Select Committee's history, there should surely be no bar to these committees covering the same area as the House of Commons Select Committees. Equally, they should work across government departments as well when that makes sense.
I certainly hope that the Communications Select Committee will continue to exist as what goes on in this constantly evolving media world of ours is now of crucial importance to all citizens. This House was particularly lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with his journalistic experience and expertise, as its first chairman. Much more valuable work can be undertaken by that committee and, indeed, by other Select Committees that can now, I hope, be set up under the proposed new terms.
Again, my thanks to the noble Lord and his team. I think we have a lot of work to do to get all that is workable onto the statute book.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, as a new face in the Chamber, I am hesitant to voice opinions in the debate. However, having read this truly excellent report—I congratulate everybody associated with it—I felt that there are two or three points I can make drawing on experience from three other Chambers in which I have served in the past.
First, I welcome the recommendation to sharpen the focus of Oral Questions. Is there any way in which they could be made more contemporary? Could Questions perhaps be tabled 14 days ahead instead of a month ahead? Could supplementary questions be briefer to include more participants? If they were called by the Speaker, perhaps judgment could be used as to whether to use the full seven minutes on every occasion. Perhaps there could be more than four Questions on the Order Paper.
I warmly welcome recommendation 13 that Ministers from either House could answer in the other Chamber. Surely what we need is the most expert and authoritative answer to Oral Questions. Sometimes, one bleeds for Ministers who are trying to answer questions on matters on which they have not been fully briefed. I also strongly support recommendation 14 on the presumption to have pre-legislative scrutiny. It is before Bills are cast in concrete that the experience of this House can really make a difference and Governments can take ideas on board without the fear of losing face. Some recent Bills would have greatly benefited had this taken place. I also ask whether there is some way in which a degree of pre-legislative scrutiny can be formally facilitated for the National Assembly for Wales to consider those aspects which affect it—for example, cross-border issues which seem to arise more frequently these days.
Incidentally, while reviewing the workings of this Chamber, might there be a wider role for our second Chamber, however it is composed, to bring together the co-ordination necessary between the Administrations and legislatures in other parts of these islands to avoid unnecessary confrontation and misunderstanding? While the UK is clearly not a federal state, growing numbers of quasi-federal dimensions are emerging. Perhaps in the future this House might have a role to play in that dimension.
I also support the way the committee has called for an end to the current petition system in this Chamber and is open to a new system, provided that there is an understanding of the role of the Commons and this Chamber. There are lessons to be learnt from the experience in the National Assembly for Wales with regard to petitions. It was, for example, a petition from the people that came before the Assembly that led to a new policy concerning charging for plastic bags. One may agree or disagree with that but it was clearly a matter that had public support, and the system lent itself to that approach. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas in the Chamber. He played a significant part in the development of these systems in the Assembly.
With regard to statutory instruments, I also welcome the attempt in the report to establish a more significant and relevant system. I fully endorse recommendations 27 and 28, re-establishing the practice that the House can refuse to rubber-stamp orders with which it disagrees. I believe that they should be amendable on occasions. I also welcome the proposal to create a Back-Bench business committee—recommendations 29 to 32. This could create a more transparent system and it would certainly be beneficial to people like myself, who are outside the large parties.
There is a chapter heading on time-saving. There is one omission from the report—I do not know whether it was discussed—and that is to pay attention to modernising the way in which we vote. Walking around in circles, quarter of an hour at a time, is surely the least productive way of spending valuable time which could be used for addressing other issues.
Finally, I welcome the proposed simplification of the manner in which we refer to each other. Quite clearly, there is a role for improving the understanding of the people outside this Place as well as ourselves. I believe a change in nomenclature would help. I thank the Leader and all those who worked on this committee. I hope their efforts will be turned into reality very soon.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, as a member of the leader’s group, I join the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, who was brisk enough to lead us through a mountain of ideas—many contributed by your Lordships and others—but liberal enough to allow sufficient discussion to enable us to feel that we had done these ideas justice and also to guide us away from some of the zanier ones.
I also pay tribute to our Clerks, led by Christopher Johnson, who are always efficient, always expert in advice and skilful in drafting. I will not say more about the purposes of safeguarding the self-governing traditions of the House, or of using our time and resources better in contributing to the work of Parliament as a whole because that has been very well said by others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was very kind in attributing to me credit for the proposal for the better legislative standards committee. He was too generous. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has been a champion of it, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, championed it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and, indeed, all Members of the Committee. It is not surprising. With great respect, I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in only one respect—when he said there was a danger of the quality of legislation declining. It is widely regarded that the quality of legislation has declined. One only has to quote in aid the 70 or so Home Office Acts passed under the last Government—many of them amending deficient previous Acts and many containing provisions which have never been brought into force. Even worse, all too often, the Government do not explain why legislation is necessary, what its objectives are, what it will cost and what consultation the Government have had in preparing it. It is common ground among observers—not just the Better Government Initiative, but also the Hansard Society and the Institute for Government—that action is needed to deal with this problem.
Parliament cannot itself make good these deficiencies in the preparation of legislation but it can, through a committee, put pressure on the Executive to go through those processes. That is the purpose of a legislative standards committee. I emphasise that the role of such a committee would be not to deal with the policy in individual Bills but to be a gateway for all legislation introduced, I would hope, in Parliament but certainly in this House, to test whether the Government have gone through the necessary steps to prepare legislation properly and have provided the necessary information to show that they have done so.
Such a better legislation committee would report to the House before Second Reading debates, just as the Merits Committee reports on statutory instruments now before they are considered by the House. I believe that the knowledge in the Executive that such questions would be asked would improve the rigour with which legislation is prepared and presented to Parliament.
Secondly, there has been considerable reference in the debate to the proposals relating to the House's consideration of statutory instruments. As has already been said, the House can pass a fatal Motion against a statutory instrument but it does not do so because it would sink that statutory instrument completely. I commend the proposals in the leader's group report that would enable the House to fulfil its role of causing the Government to think again, while stopping short of destroying a statutory instrument.
Next is the Back-Bench business committee. Here the House would be following a recommendation of the Wright Committee in another place, which has been implemented and has been successful. I believe that it would increase the topicality and profile of our debates here. I particularly hope that here, as in the Commons, some debates would be on a specific Motion that would enable the House to express an opinion on a topical matter. Also on government business, to which not much reference has so far been made in the debate, I hope that the House can make the scheduling of business more transparent by including the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers, the chair of a Back-Bench Committee, and, if I may say to the Leader of the House, providing an opportunity for the House to let off steam from time to time by the Leader periodically submitting himself or herself to a period of questions. Such changes would help to avoid the rupture in relations which occurred on the Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
I join others in hoping that the committees to which these recommendations will be referred will consider them positively and report back to the House in time for those which find favour to be implemented in the near future.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend, Lord Goodlad, and the members of the Leader’s Group on producing what I regard as an excellent report. It is wide ranging and constructive and, in my view, acts as an essential road map for the reform of this House.
In the time available, I, too, wish to focus on the legislative process. When I had the honour to chair the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, we published a report in 2004 on Parliament and the Legislative Process. We looked at the legislative process at that, encompassing pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny as well as how a Bill is considered, once introduced. This report builds on and reinforces our recommendations and I wish to reiterate what needs to be done. Once a Bill is introduced, Ministers tend to be rather wedded to its contents. For Ministers, success in legislative terms is Royal Assent rather than the effects of the measure, once implemented. Parliament needs to focus more on pre-legislative scrutiny before Ministers’ minds are made up, and on post-legislative scrutiny, to determine whether an Act has achieved what it was intended to achieve. We have made some progress with pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, but we need to do much more. This report embodies some essential proposals.
On pre-legislative scrutiny, I commend the recommendations of the group. The group endorsed the Constitution Committee’s view that pre-legislative scrutiny should be the norm and not, as now, the exception. Many of the reasons given by government for avoiding pre-legislative scrutiny do not hold water. I have made the point in the House before that, if a Bill is not to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the Minister in charge of the Bill should be required to make a Statement to the House explaining why not. Even if we cannot compel pre-legislative scrutiny, we can at least ensure that Ministers justify their actions. We need to work on government to get Ministers away from the mindset that they must rush to legislate. There is a culture of legislating almost for the sake of it. We need more rigorous mechanisms in place to limit the urge to legislate.
Once a Bill is introduced, it should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny than is presently the case. We tend to think that our scrutiny is better than that of the other place. When it comes to taking evidence, the Commons is way ahead of us. I very much welcome the Leader’s Group recommendation that Bills should be amenable to scrutiny by a Public Bill Committee, similar to that employed in the Commons. I would be somewhat more radical than the Leader’s Group. The Constitution Committee recommended that every government Bill should be subject to examination at some stage during its passage by an evidence-taking committee. I think that it should be the norm for a government Bill starting life in this House to be examined in a Public Bill Committee. That applies even if it has had pre-legislative scrutiny. Committee scrutiny may be necessary to see to what extent the Government have taken on board recommendations made at the pre-legislative stage and to examine what new material, which may be substantial, has been included by government. I think that sending all government Bills to Public Bill Committees should be the default option, with reasons having to be given on why a Bill should not receive such scrutiny.
The Leader’s Group recommends, as we have heard, the appointment of a legislative standards committee. I think that its reasons for so doing are persuasive, but I wish to link the recommendation with that for more rigorous post-legislative scrutiny. In the light of the Constitution Committee’s report, progress was made in respect of post-legislative scrutiny, or rather post-legislative review. We need to build on that to ensure effective scrutiny by Parliament. The existing mechanism, as the report recognises, is inadequate. The Law Commission recommended a Joint Committee to undertake post-legislative review. If we cannot get a Joint Committee, I would establish one in this House. What I would propose, though, is merging it with the proposal for a legislative standards committee. This would enable us to make more efficient use of our resources and enable the committee to maximise expertise in the legislative process. We could thus have a committee that considers the form of legislation and advises on best practice, both in terms of the construction of Bills and post-legislative review, as well as undertaking substantive inquiries on particular Acts.
I attach great importance to these recommendations. They would allow the House to play to its strengths and enhance the scrutiny of legislation. They are proposals that are essentially within the gift of the House. We can move quickly to establish a legislative standards committee, resolve that government Bills shall normally be referred to a Public Bill Committee, and require Ministers to explain why any Bill introduced without pre-legislative scrutiny should be considered by the House. I therefore commend these proposals. I think that the other recommendations of the report merit serious consideration. It is an excellent report. Reform is necessary and urgent.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I, too, welcome the proposals of the group and, like others, extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his colleagues, on such a comprehensive review. I also extend my gratitude to the Leader of the House for keeping to his word and establishing the Leader’s Group. Some of us thought at one time that we might lose it but he has happily redeemed himself.
I will say little on the legislative processes because previous speakers have said far better than I ever could how best the recommendations can be taken forward, but I will comment briefly on working time. The Leader opened the debate by saying that we must make better use of our time. We all like to develop evidence-based policy but one of the issues that struck me was that I do not know how we use our time. I know the number of days that we attend in the year. My noble friend Lord Grocott, probably from his previous government experience, knows about the number of hours that are worked overall, but I do not think the House knows. When we come to review how we are working, we ought to know the number of hours we work and an attempt should be made to divide the number of hours that go to the Government, Back-Benchers and party politics. That would help us to ensure that we are developing evidence-based policies that we fully understand.
Speaking from an opposition point of view, I would say that one of the few things we have is time, or an opportunity to try to influence the way in which time is used, in the Chamber, Grand Committee, and so on. We need to have better knowledge on that. In this instance, I am not sure whether the Government or Back-Benchers are the major gainer, or whether the Opposition lose. The Opposition now seem to be prepared to accept that more legislation should go into Grand Committee but I recall the Leader, when in opposition, being very reluctant indeed to let more legislation go into Grand Committee. He was fearful of losing the opportunity to have Divisions, and I suspect that a similar problem may arise again if we let that go too easily. I would like more facts when we come to address these topics.
On the role of the Lord Speaker, I broadly agree with the experiment we have before us, but I fear that unless somebody is prepared to have a look at the fundamental problem that is causing difficulties in the Chamber, the Lord Speaker, whoever they may be, will be in trouble in the future. We need clarification and we need to get back to the former practice we had when we were in government, where you had a government speaker, then someone from the Opposition and then, if they wanted to come in, someone from the Lib Dems and then a Cross-Bencher. We now have the problem with the coalition Government that there is a misunderstanding, certainly on this side of the House, about whose turn it is next. Should the Government have one speaker or two speakers? My view is that we should go back to the past practice and there should be one speaker only for the Government. I believe it is important that clarity on this is secured fairly soon in this experiment; otherwise, the Speaker, whoever he or she may be, will be in trouble with the House. I earnestly hope that the usual channels, or whoever may be appropriate in this instance, will take an early decision on this.
This is a minor issue, but I welcome the proposal that Select Committees should elect their chairman. I am sorry that the group has not gone a stage further. I would have thought that, having taken that democratic decision and given confidence to the chairman, the chairman should have the role and responsibility of answering directly to the House, on the Floor, whenever the committee produces a report. The chairman should respond to any questions that might arise during the course of the debate on the committee’s reports.
Of course, that would mean that we would no longer need the Chairman of Committees to perform the functions he performs at the moment. Do we really need a Chairman of Committees in the changed circumstances that we are moving into? Should the committee or the usual channels have a look at whether we will need the Chairman of Committees in future, given that we have not done the job we should have done on the Speaker’s role by examining fully what they are doing and where they may go in the future and recognising that there are opportunities for the Lord Speaker to take on more duties in the areas where the Chairman of Committee undertakes a number of functions at the moment? I hope that those issues may be looked at.
One benefit of those proposals would be that we would save a minimum of £150,000 a year. I looked at the section dealing with costs. It is a nice saving for the Leader of the House to secure, if he so wishes. That £150,000 could go towards using what is the most innovative piece of work—if we get it put into place—which is the introduction of post-legislative scrutiny. That would be a major breakthrough for the House in parliamentary terms, and I believe that if we do it, before long, the Commons would, in due course, endeavour to follow on similar lines. It should also be linked with deregulation, which would certainly make the business case for its effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness.
Those are my comments on the report. Overall, I am very pleased with it, but I hope that the two or three points that I have made will be looked at urgently.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. He has made an important speech, and I agree with most of what he said. I am really encouraged by the tone of the debate so far. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to this earlier. I think it is right. For the first time, certainly since I arrived here in 2005, we are beginning to get a sense that there is a desire for change. I welcome that, and I think it is largely down to the way that this report has been put together, the vision that the Leader had for the need for this report, and the setting of a serious man, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, to do the job, which has been done in a way that has done great credit to the committee and a service to the House.
As a direct result, I want to say that I think and hope that this is a process, not an event. I was encouraged when the Leader opened the debate by saying that his ears, if not his door, or maybe even both, are still open. Therefore, if people have ideas and if new issues emerge, we have some method of considering them and responding sensitively and reasonably quickly to change. That way, we will become a much more relevant, up-to-date, modern and understandable institution that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, more user-friendly to the public.
Some colleagues, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Howe, and, to a lesser extent, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, have raised concerns. I agree with the noble Lord about the issue with the 2 pm start for those trying to get to important lunches by pressure groups and others. The key safeguard is that for the first time we have the concept of trialling some of these suggestions. I think that should be a comfort. I am for all of this. I want it all, and I want it now. I am for radical change, and I want it immediately, but I am not stupid, and you have to carry colleagues with you. Therefore, the trialling process—and, if a trial is to be worth anything, an evaluation process—must be built into what we are discussing this evening, so that if some colleagues are a bit more nervous about moving too quickly and losing some of the important culture and traditions, which I understand perfectly well, I will stand full square with them at the evaluation if the processes have not worked properly. We then need to be sensible about what we do in the long term. These recommendations are all worth trialling, and I hope that the committee will go ahead, but we need to be able to give comfort to colleagues who think that there are dangers ahead by saying that the trial is for real, it is meaningful and we will get an evaluation at the end of it.
The Leader of the House specifically asked for suggestions and opinions about paragraph 38 on the role of the Lord Speaker. I support everything that has been said, although one or two colleagues took a slightly different view. I think that if we do not get the shift in the role, I am much more comfortable with a Lord Speaker whom I have a chance of electing, and that quite soon. I am looking forward to that. If I get a chance to elect somebody, I have more confidence in them than I have as a Back-Bencher with the government Front Bench dictating things, although, as has been properly said, it has done it perfectly properly in the past.
There are a couple of other points that have not been drawn out. I have said that I am in favour of everything so—except on the Lord Speaker’s role—I do not have to go into any more detail. We should consider information technology in the process of changing the ways we work, partly because it is the way that the modern world works and partly because it can provide us with some of the saving that the Leader of the House rightly alluded to. We cannot go around creating new structures that have manpower, capital and revenue expenses involved without being careful about how we can make savings. On the appropriate use of technology, again there have to be safeguards because some colleagues will not be comfortable with technology, but information technology can be used in a sensitive way to make progress in future.
We also need to pay close attention to style and language. It is a barrier to understanding. Public involvement, which has been alluded to earlier, is so important, but it can be made more difficult by the style, format, tone and language that we use to one another, so I hope that that will be looked at.
For me, it is very important that the Leader appears at the Dispatch Box monthly. That is a very good suggestion. I think the usual channels need to be a bit more transparent about the way that they discharge their business. I know that they do the best they can to try to get information spread as these changes are made, but as a Back-Bencher, I can foresee increasing pressure—this is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy made—in trying to get opportunities to participate in future. Finding more time and ways and the usual channels respecting the honourable and traditional role of Back-Benchers’ opportunities in this place are extremely important, but more than anything else, I exhort the Leader, nobly and ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, to keep up the momentum and sustain the energy that is necessary to get these recommendations in front of the appropriate committee and get them crystallised, brought back, voted through and started. The sooner, the better, as far as I am concerned.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, it is very gratifying to have had support, so far, for this report. All of it is due to the able and excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his 11 soldiers. I thank the Leader of the House because in setting up this group we have been able to face some challenging, demanding and quite intellectually robust issues and it was very enjoyable. My observations about the running of the committee are twofold: first, I miss the weekly Wednesday mornings and, secondly, there are an awful lot of human beings off the Floor of the House.
The introduction to our report gives the reasons the Leader deemed it right to have this inquiry, and all are valid. However, the big elephant in the room is not actually listed, and I appreciate why not. There has been a marked deterioration in the general behaviour of the House, in the Chamber—not in Select Committees or the constant ongoing discourse in the corridors, the Peers’ Guest Room or at the Long Table. However, the only chance for the general public to see the House of Lords at work is on TV or visiting the Chamber. Radio broadcasts do extend the reach, and the amusing, trenchant and somewhat biased political commentators in the press supposedly extend information of the workings of this House to the general public. The elephant in the room is that the reputation of this House has suffered severely during the last couple of years, both by the extension of the opprobrium resulting from the expenses scandal in the other place and by some decidedly less than acceptable behaviour here. Whether we acknowledge or deny it, our reputation among the general public has suffered a knock. All of us are mired in it and feel diminished by it. Now is the opportunity to restore that confidence, built up over so many years. The Leader’s Group quite rightly decided to eliminate this factor from our deliberations because it was viewed as a one-off or something that would right itself. I hope so.
Now that we are some months removed from the publication of the report, I have looked again at all the recommendations in chapter 6. All are pertinent; all were subjected to both evidence and forensic scrutiny. Inevitably, some are more urgent than others. Some, of course, have been greeted by some fairly negative comments from Members of the House away from the Chamber. As a member of the group, I am not going to push hard for all of the recommendations, although I agree with all of them. I guess we will not get them all. However, I will push very hard for those that I think are more important and in particular will resonate with all Members of the House.
The recommendations that truly—and rapidly—need to be implemented fall into six categories. The first concerns recommendations 1 to 3, on Oral Questions. The current situation gives very little credence to our claim of being a Chamber full of people with experience and expertise. Sadly, too often the session is hijacked by Members with good basic general knowledge on many issues and/or the ability to digest press comments on topical issues rather than giving space to those who are all recognised as having great experience and detailed expertise in certain fields. A bit of self-denying ordinance is called for and the three recommendations would probably do the trick. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has already spoken forcibly on this point.
Secondly, recommendations 14 and 15 concern pre-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, who is not in her place, has already given all the reasons why these could be so valuable.
My third recommendation concerns post-legislative scrutiny. This recommendation would be so useful in improving the overall business of legislation. It would grow in importance and impact, in that those who drew up the original legislation would have to think very carefully of how it could look a few years hence. Of course things change and even with all the pre-legislative scrutiny and threats of post-legislative scrutiny in the world, mistakes will be made. However, the likelihood of mistakes would be lessened substantially if they did go through proper post-legislative scrutiny. My experience in post-investment scrutiny leads me to believe that implementing this recommendation could be very worthwhile indeed.
My fourth category has not been mentioned so far tonight: simple language, which is covered by recommendations 39 to 41. Oh, for a lucid, easy-to-read successor to the Companion—I am averting my gaze from the clerks at the Table.
Fifthly, recommendations 45 to 48 deal with committees, committee chairmen, the mode of appointment and the Chairman of Committees and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. All these recommendations are so important and should be implemented as soon as possible. They are of fundamental importance to Members of the House who want to feel included and that they have a say.
Sixthly and finally, business management and self-regulation are covered by recommendations 51 to 55. Again, these are all very important, but if I had to choose the one that I would go to the stake for it would be recommendation 52, on making the work of the usual channels more accessible to the House as a whole. The oldest trick in the book is to ensure that management knowledge remains in the hands of the favoured few, and here there is a feeling that there are some who are very favoured and very few. We have to encourage every Member of this House to give of their best. If they feel excluded they will probably exclude themselves physically. We must not give up on our task of holding the Government to account, scrutinising all legislation and giving advice based on our experience and expertise—not that of just the loudest people. I hope that this report will be accepted in full.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, there is much I agree with in the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, but a few things I do not, as he well knows. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Kirkwood, will not agree with me, but here goes.
I ask those of your Lordships who would like to dispense with our traditional appellations and our convention of addressing other noble Lords in the third person to consider this. If you address people in the second person, that is as “you”, it is not difficult when you are angry or irritated to be quite rude to them. It is much more difficult to be rude to somebody when you have to address them in the third person. It is worth the time and the effort, simply because it cools things. Make no mistake, we do our work just as well when we are courteous and friendly to one another—in fact, we do it rather better than when we are ill-tempered because it is easier to work together to try to find a way forward.
The report at Chapter 6, paragraph 40, recommends giving up our traditional forms of address: the noble and gallant Lord, the noble and learned Lord—there are not many of them about nowadays. The correct forms of address matter too, for the same reason, as you may have to pause and think, and that does none of us any harm. While I am on the subject of conduct in the House, there is something—not in the report—which has happened on a number of occasions lately, which never used to happen, and that is constant interventions when a Peer is speaking in debate. This is quite out of order except to ask for clarification on some point, as is made quite clear in Chapter 4, paragraph 29 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. Interruptions in order to argue are not acceptable. On one occasion recently it was done to the point where it was as if a cabal had decided to torment the Peer speaking. They were like sharks that had smelt blood. I ask Peers to go and read the Companion. This kind of behaviour is customary in another place, but that is one of the ways in which we are different from another place, and I hope we shall continue to be so.
Turning back to the report, Chapter 6, paragraph 5 contains a totally nonsensical recommendation. It wants to scrap the formula:
“My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper”
—all of 17 words, some of them very short, and substitute:
“My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government”,
followed by the Question in full, which admittedly should not be more than 40 words. That makes 50 words altogether—and that is supposed to save time. I do not see the logic of that one.
The idea of sitting at 2 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays horrifies me. Will the Dining Room start serving lunches at noon? What about the committees that sit in the morning? Will they rise half an hour earlier? Then they would probably have to sit half an hour earlier. That would mean that not only the Peers sitting on them would have to get here earlier, but so would the clerks and the doorkeepers and probably all the rest of the staff too. However much your Lordships want to make life tougher for other Peers, who do not matter, it is not right to make life tougher for the staff, who do. When is it envisaged that the party meetings would take place?
Have any discussions taken place with the Director of Facilities or whoever is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the Palace of Westminster about the House sitting for a fortnight in September? I have always understood that it was essential that those responsible had at least 10 weeks clear and uninterrupted in order to do the maintenance work necessary. If we return in September, they will not get this. When and how is this essential work going to get done?
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, after 41 years in Parliament and nearly 24 years in this House, I should be used to finding myself in the kind of business management mess that we are in today. It is a mess that proves the need for urgent action. Much of what is required is set out in the important report prepared by my noble friend Lord Goodlad and his committee.
Here we are today, a Motion debated without a list, two Statements and then this debate with more than 40 speakers asked to comment in five minutes on the many details of a long report. It is not a sensible way of going about our business. Substantial improvements in the conduct of our business could be achieved by observing rather than ignoring the guidance given in the Companion, a subject well covered in the report except for two recent breaches of our conventions—speeches delivered after the Motion that the Bill do now pass has been moved; and, last week, amendments moved at Third Reading after identical amendments had been tabled and withdrawn on Report.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I know that the noble Lord is referring to me. I moved the only amendment at Third Reading. It was done with advice from the Public Bill Office. It was clarificatory and the debate had not been held before.
Lord Crickhowell
I carefully did not refer to the noble Lord by name, although I warned him that I might address the subject. The Companion is quite clear on the matter and I suggest that it should be referred to the Procedure Committee to consider whether there could not be firm and enforceable rules. As I say, what is convenient for some may cause inconvenience for others. More generally, I think that the Government Front Bench could have been more robust than it has been in the recent past in reminding the House of the conventions. The previous Government quite rightly did so frequently and effectively.
This brings me to the report’s recommendations on the possible role of the Lord Speaker at Question Time. It is suggested that the Lord Speaker is physically better placed than the Leader to interpret the will of the House. However, I am told that it is impossible for anyone on the Woolsack to see many Members at the opposite end of the Chamber. I fear that it will be necessary for a clerk to stand beside the Woolsack to identify noble Lords—and then we are getting close to the practices of the other place and a move away from self-regulation. I would be against that. Reluctantly, I am prepared to see what lessons are learnt by an experiment, but they could be learnt quite quickly; a period from September to the Easter Recess should be ample.
I doubt the need for a monthly Question Time dedicated to Questions on House of Lords matters addressed to the Leader. I fear that we would soon find ourselves in a Lords version of Prime Minister’s Questions with the subjects raised going far wider than House matters. The proposals about Statements head us in the right direction. Fifteen minutes should provide ample scope for the Opposition spokesperson to make a response and put questions. If we are to have a more liberal interpretation of PNQs, the congestion of business will be made even worse than it has been today unless the proposal about second Statements being taken in the Moses Room is accepted as a general rule.
On the scrutiny of legislation, the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, will place a report before the House very shortly about the process of constitutional change, which will include a number of proposals about strengthening the role of Parliament and dealing with such matters as pre and post-legislative scrutiny. Its conclusions will reinforce the conclusions of the Leader’s Group. The report we are debating attempts to define what constitutes good effective scrutiny. I would add seeking to ensure that the established constitutional conventions are observed. I support the recommendation to appoint a post-legislative scrutiny committee but I hope it will review more than four Acts each year. We need to submit a more rigorous and demanding process for post-legislative scrutiny applicable, certainly, to all significant constitutional legislation.
I part company with the Leader’s Group about the proposals for sitting times. I am completely opposed to the suggestions about sittings in Grand Committee starting at 10.30 am, which I believe would alter the character of and seriously damage the effectiveness of the House. A large number of Lords have other occupations, and they include a high proportion of the younger Members of an excessively elderly Chamber. Those Peers need to earn a living. Many make distinguished contributions outside Westminster and we need their contributions here as well. The effectiveness of the other place has been substantially undermined by similar changes. There are other objections. Many of our Select Committees meet in the mornings. Is it seriously suggested that all the hard-working members of those important committees are to be excluded from playing their part in scrutinising legislation? I hope not.
What is proposed is a disastrous move in the wrong direction. The pressure on our business timetable has developed because we have too much legislation, much of it ignoring clear guidance given by committees of both Houses, rushed and often badly drafted and almost all of it inadequately examined by the elected Chamber. Morning sittings would remove a discipline on government and make all these faults even worse.
I turn to the proposals I can support. These include those asserting our freedom to vote on delegated legislation; I like the idea of a Back-Bench business committee. Some of the suggestions for the use of simpler language are sensible, but I would regret it if we were to abandon the appellations that are used because I believe that they are helpful in maintaining courtesies that seem to be under threat.
Finally, I agree that it would be helpful to make the work of the usual channels more accessible if it is coupled with a recognition that the Government of the day are entitled to get their business in reasonable time and that it is in the interests of everyone to have a sessional programme that is seriously disrupted only rarely and for good reasons.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this is an excellent report and my comments are essentially tinkering. I particularly welcome the proposals for transferring the monitoring of self-regulation in Question Time from the Government to the Lord Speaker. The report sets out the new role in principle, although in application we need more detail. An implementation recommendation should make it clear that when the Speaker rises to guide the House on which Bench—and, if necessary, occasionally, which individual—should be heard, Members should immediately take their seats. Furthermore, the Lord Speaker should be able to guide the House towards Members who are unused to the rough and tumble of political debate and rarely rise to ask supplementaries due to the intimidating nature of Question Time.
I turn to the issue of supplementary questions, both in Question Time and on Statements. I support the 40-word limit proposed in paragraph 48. It will help those outside understand the background to Questions asked. However, the report fails to establish a procedure for the enforcement of a more disciplined approach. I am afraid that some Members, out of ignorance or inflated ego, hog Question Time and abuse our procedures with long, rambling supplementaries. We need clearer guidance, which should be based on no more than two questions during the course of a single supplementary. The Lord Speaker should be empowered to write to Members, either collectively or, if necessary, individually, drawing attention to abuse.
As for Statements, I support the proposal for curtailing the repeating of Oral Statements in the House. However, I have a reservation about the use of the terms in the report. It states:
“To avoid speech-making, and with a view to increasing the number of Members who can intervene on statements, we recommend that backbench contributions should be limited to questions to the minister”.
In theory, that means curtailing long preambles. In practice, it will not. This all needs tightening up. Prolonged preambles are an abuse. On two occasions to date, in conditions of some embarrassment, I have personally intervened to seek enforcement of the Companion. One Member once took nearly five minutes to ask a question. Such selfishness denies others the right to speak. I suggest a one-minute limit on questions on Statements. That is not as restrictive as during Question Time. It is generous and would put an end to the abuse.
On draft Bills, greater pre-legislative scrutiny is welcome. However, I am much opposed to reliance on Commons Select Committees doing this work. Commons Select Committees often include Members who have no interest in Bill scrutiny. MPs may be bright, but it does not necessarily follow that they are good at questioning on areas where they have little interest. A Member who is first class on criminal justice may be completely uninterested in areas of constitutional reform—both MoJ functions. The best forum for pre-legislative scrutiny is in Joint Committees, where interested people apply to join.
On the handling of legislation prior to prorogation, in paragraph 90, the report states:
“In the last Parliament the Government tended to avoid confrontation in the spill-over, preferring to accept Lords amendments rather than risking loss of an entire bill”.
That is an aspect of the Lords’ role that has worried me over the years. It provides conclusive proof of the fact that Commons primacy can on occasion be a myth. The report fails to deal with this problem. It almost suggests that such a problem arises out of deficiencies in legislation. That is not my view. The problem arises because opposition parties have realised that time is a weapon in the Lords and wash-up can be used to amend Commons decisions irrespective of the merits of argument. That happened under the previous Parliament.
I welcome the delay mechanisms in the handling of SIs. They deal with the concerns I raised with Labour Whips over the use of fatal amendments.
Finally, I turn to paragraph 258 on self-regulation. The report states:
“The House is self-regulating: the Lord Speaker has no power to rule on matters of order. In practice this means that the preservation of order and the maintenance of the rules of debate are the responsibility of the House itself, that is, of all the members who are present, and any member may draw attention to breaches of order or failures to observe customs,”
to which I referred before. The facts are that the House does not carry out this function. It is just too embarrassing. The principal occasions when attempts are made to enforce the Companion are when we are dealing with controversial legislation—most recently the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Those enforcement interventions are invariably for political partisan advantage.
The abuse of our procedures and the Companion are far more widespread. They are routine and there is a need for proper enforcement mechanisms. The House needs seriously to consider whether the person in the Chair should be given the same powers as that enjoyed by persons in the Chair in the Commons, particularly in the handling of legislation.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I am of course a new Member of the House and therefore hardly an expert on our procedures. However, what I hope to bring to this debate are some first impressions of how the current system is working and something from my own experience elsewhere.
This House is a giant exercise in corporate self-control. The problem is that not all individuals manage to exercise that self-control. As other noble Lords have said, Question Time is particularly shambolic and undignified. I endorse many of the comments made in evidence to the Leader’s Group and I endorse its recommendations. The group recommended, as a start, that the responsibilities of the Leader in Question Time be transferred to the Lord Speaker. It seems much more appropriate for the calling of speakers to be given to someone who is, by definition, outside party politics. If the Lord Speaker were firmly in charge and following agreed rules we would get through at least another supplementary question to each Question on the Order Paper.
I may be new here, but I come with experience of 12 years in the National Assembly for Wales. There I was a member of the Business Committee for nearly six years and for four years I chaired that committee. In that role, I visited other legislatures to study the operation of their procedures and their own business committees—in Scotland, Northern Ireland and several in Canada. I also chaired the committee that rewrote the Assembly’s standing orders when it gained legislative powers. From my experience, I strongly believe that a business committee would greatly improve the efficiency of this House and would increase, not diminish, the dignity and courtesy of proceedings and improve the confidence that individual Members have in the fairness of our proceedings.
Briefly, this is how it works. The business committee needs to reflect all sides of the House fairly. It is particularly astonishing that the Cross-Benchers, who last week were repeatedly lauded for their outstanding contributions to this House, are not included at all in the usual channels. That is unacceptable.
Business committees usually meet in private but they publish their minutes. That would increase the transparency of decision-making on timetabling of business here. I would envisage that the first task of any such committee would be to agree certain basic principles on the allocation of time for government and non-government business and crucially, the conventions governing the order in which speakers are called. My long experience of such a system has been that, as long as the rules are based on the application of proportionality, when they are applied they are accepted, virtually without question. The end result is that Members argue about the issues in hand not about procedures. That is much more dignified. The only time that scheduled business is argued about is when the usual rules are departed from.
I would go one step further than the Leader’s Group, which recommends a Back-Bench business committee. I believe that the business committee should have oversight of all business and proceedings. That does not mean that it would dictate government business, but it would take account of government business and would be the forum where allotted timescales were agreed and then published. The Leader’s Group suggests that the committee deals with balloted debates and QSDs. It could sensibly also deal with the scheduling of ministerial Statements, Select Committee reports and indicate the time limit for speeches based on the number of Members who wished to speak and so forth.
Such a committee, chaired by the Lord Speaker, whose independence is not questioned, would transform our proceedings with only minimal change needed to the conventions of debate. It should be an invisible calming influence.
We pride ourselves on our self-regulation. We already have rules. The problem is that it is not clear whose job it is to enforce them. A Lord Speaker in charge of the proceedings would do that.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I very much enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—she was very interesting. I congratulate the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and the committee. It is a first-class report.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made a good point. She is quite right. When someone uses the term “you”—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is here and was the Deputy Speaker, and I wish I had a penny for every time she stood, as the occupant of the Chair, and told people to be careful of using the term “you”. Using “you” puts some heat into the situation. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also makes another good point. We should go carefully about throwing some of our old traditions away. These traditions are valued not only by us but by the public who come here and are made very welcome indeed.
It is right because of the bad-tempered and perhaps shambolic nature of our Question Time that we should have a trial of putting the burden on the Lord Speaker. I use the term “burden” carefully because it will be a burden for the Lord Speaker to pick who shall be called on a supplementary. We should be careful because we keep talking about an overly powerful Executive; if there is anyone with power to call someone, an Executive will try to make approaches—“Call Lord such a one before the other Lord”. The Lord Speaker has got to resist that. No Member of the House of Lords should approach the Lord Speaker before Question Time to say they would like to get in Question 4 or Question 3 or fall out with the occupant of the Chair because they do not get called. That happened down the Corridor and I would not like it to happen here.
I would welcome the monthly business of the Lords because our Government, for good reason, have said we will have to cut back. As we speak, some of our dedicated staff, cleaners and ancillary workers, are being faced with redundancies. Why should we not have a monthly Question Time to find out how our staff, who look after us so well, are getting on? I have expressed an interest in apprenticeships and training and I want to know more about it. Also, about three years ago this House jointly with the other House invested £8 million in refurbishing the Press Gallery. I would like to know whether that money was well spent because I said when I opened the gallery that we had had not one bit of bad publicity about this matter. In fact, we have had no publicity at all. We could ask whether the £8 million has been money well spent.
On Oral Questions, once again I go back to what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said: it is time-wasting to read out the Question verbatim. Visitors to the building, watching the proceedings, can have the Order Paper we have and online. The organisation we have broadcasting is, I think, called PARBUL—at least, that is what it used to be called, and it was chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons. PARBUL can make arrangements when our Questions are being televised to include the words of the Question. There is no need for the Questions to be read out. It is sufficient to say Question 2 or Question 4.
Also, it is a bad practice for noble Lords to read supplementaries into the record. How do they know what the Minister is going to say before they read the supplementary? In other words, they are indicating that they are not interested in what the Minister has to say—they are reading into the record and it makes it look good in Hansard. It is not good, it is artificial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, initiated a wonderful debate. I sat here and listened and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was about the female agents who went into occupied France. It was excellent. Each speaker had only three minutes. That debate was a tribute to those wonderful women who sacrificed so much—some of them their lives—for us so that we could have this democracy we enjoy today. Had it been any less than three minutes there would have been no proper tribute at all. Thank you for listening to me.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, I dare say I shall not endear myself to my noble friend the Leader of the House when I say that last week that two-day debate depressed me completely because I thought that if the Bill that was in draft form were actually implemented it would be the complete destruction of this House as we know it. Today I am much more optimistic. I believe that we have before us a most far-reaching and excellent report which gives us real, practical suggestions which we can work on and will make the working of this House very much better. That is the way we should go—gradual changes, gradual improvements. In 1958 the life Peers were introduced, again gradual if you like, but it made for good changes and that is the way we should proceed.
Turning now to the report itself, I agree with the idea of the Lord Speaker helping in Question Time but I believe it is a more modest proposal than some previous speakers have suggested. My understanding is that the Speaker would intervene only when the Front Benches would have intervened; in other words, when there was disagreement as to who should speak and nobody sat down. I hope I am right; if that is the case, the Lord Speaker has a far greater opportunity to see than anyone on the Front Bench. I know how difficult it is turning around on the Front Bench compared with when I am sitting on the Woolsack. It is at least worth the experiment that is suggested. I am all for experiments where there may perhaps be controversies.
With Statements and Questions, it is very wise to tighten up the proceedings so that somebody has to ask a Question without the so-called brief comment. We had wonderful examples this afternoon—I mention no names—where the brief comment and several questions ensued. When there is a time limit on Back-Bench contributions this is very difficult indeed and it certainly needs tightening up. I also welcome very much the idea that when Statements are of immense importance there should the opportunity for a lengthier proceeding. I think 30 or even 40 minutes were suggested, rather than our usual 20.
I turn to the question of the greater extent to which Grand Committees will be used. I share some of the misgivings already expressed about a burden placed on Members who have outside jobs if there are many more morning sessions, bearing in mind that there may be Select Committees as well as the Grand Committee. I urge a little caution on that.
This is another issue which will very much affect the Deputy Speakers. At the moment we are on the Woolsack or in the Chair or in the Grand Committee to some extent. The workload is going to increase enormously. Either we shall all have to agree to do a great deal more or we shall have to increase the number of Deputy Speakers. There are some practical implications there which need looking at. I would suggest that we might proceed with rather greater caution on morning sessions for Grand Committees until we see how they work and what the effect is going to be.
I am very much in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny and was very interested in the very pertinent and interesting suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, as to how this might be carried forward. I know from my own experience of serving on the Joint Committee looking at the draft Bill that finally became the Mental Capacity Act that it was an excellent way of proceeding. We had some wonderful evidence. It was also an opportunity for Members of this House who were not on the committee to give expert evidence. I am thinking here of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and I call in mind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who gave some wonderful evidence to that committee. That could be extended to others. It greatly increases the range of opportunities, which would be extremely helpful. I remember hearing about this being done in Sweden many years ago when I was in the other place. I thought what a good idea it was and I am sorry that it has taken so many years to catch on.
Equally, post-legislative scrutiny is very wise. It is so easy to pass legislation and anything which deters Governments from doing too much is to be recommended. There is something of “Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width” about how many Bills have gone through, and that should be greatly discouraged. Finally, no doubt there will be an evaluation if, as I hope, the report is accepted but I believe that there needs to be a re-evaluation at intervals as things change. That should be built into the system.
Lord Desai
My Lords, first, I join many others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, on producing an excellent report. Having said that, I am going to disagree with it—but only with one aspect of it, about which I care passionately. I shall disagree with paragraphs 29 to 42, which relate to Question Time and the Speaker’s powers in the Chamber. I was a member of the Speaker's Committee when we were first asked to formulate the duties of the Speaker. I think it was understood among the members of all different parties—the noble Lord the Leader of the House was a member of it—that if we were going to preserve self-regulation, we could really have only a Speaker with minimal duties in the Chamber.
Unlike many noble Lords, I am not distressed that occasionally at Question Time we have a bit of a kerfuffle. What has happened is that, first, in the past year we have had many new Members who are eager to make a contribution, which is a perfectly good thing. Question Time is more crowded than I remember in my 20 years here. Secondly, there is a structural problem. The coalition is a new thing and because it is new to the coalition itself, not only to the rest of us, it did not quite make up its mind whether it was one party or two. When it comes to holding the balance between different groups about who gets a turn, it is a difficult thing for the Government Front Bench because within those behind them there are two views on whether they are two parties or one. We on this side very much wanted to enforce the idea that it was only one party so that each time a noble Lord opposite got a chance, we had to have a go—as, of course, did the Bishops and the Cross Benches. I think things will settle down.
As I have not come from the House of Commons, I am not at all enamoured of its culture in this matter. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said with his experience as Mr Speaker but I do not want us to get into that culture at all because what will happen is that there will suddenly be 10 people standing up to attract the attention of the Speaker. It is like a Mexican wave in the House of Commons; every time something happens, 15 people get up. I do not know why they do. What do they mean to accomplish by that?
There have been difficult times for the House but, usually, the noble Baroness who is the Chief Whip or the Leader of the House have managed to calm nerves down and we have had business done. I am not one of those people who want to hurry us, even gently, towards having a more powerful Speaker within the Chamber. If we do that and adopt the recommendation of the Goodlad committee, I very much hope that after the one year of experiment we are given a genuine option to reject. We should not blindly go on renewing something like that because that way lies the thin end of the wedge, and very soon we would have the Speaker intervening in Statements and debates and so on.
Self-regulation can be preserved. During the debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the House got into a very bad mood about filibustering and this and that but then it came back from the brink and re-established itself as a self-regulating Chamber. I very much hope that we trust the House to do its thing. We hope that the newly arrived Peers will get a bit more mentoring and that we will all get better manners and calm ourselves down. I hope that we do not begin to lose self-regulation and boost up the Speaker. I can see noble Lords shaking their heads because they come from another place and they want to bring that old heaven on earth here, but I say no. I have lived on this flat earth and I want to go on living on it for a long time.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I must start by apologising profusely to the House for being a few minutes late in arriving for this debate. I hope that it will still be permissible for me to make a few quick comments. Like so many noble Lords before me, I found this report to be absolutely excellent. It was so clear. It was well written and well argued, and it drew on the evidence. For me, as a newcomer to the House, it fulfilled a very helpful function. Frankly, so many things which I had found so baffling about this House finally fell into place. It was such a key part of my induction that, for me, reading this report was—I think this is the term—a light-bulb moment. I should like to focus on a few aspects of it.
I found the proposals on the scrutiny of legislation compelling. Taken in the round, the three key recommendations on pre-legislative scrutiny, the establishment of a legislative standards committee and the proposed focus on post-legislative scrutiny would very much strengthen the House’s role in undertaking that function. I was particularly taken with the recommendation for a post-legislative scrutiny committee—I think it is recommendation 26—to see whether legislation is having the effect for which it was originally designed and whether sufficient thought was given to its implementation when the Bill was being drawn up.
Over and above that, lessons could be drawn up and shared as to the essential characteristics of successful legislation. Given the vast experience and expertise this House possesses in its function of scrutiny, it seems almost bordering on the criminal for that expertise not to be used for wider educative purposes for policy makers in both Westminster and Whitehall. I recognise, of course, that everything that has been proposed has cost implications. I was pleased to see that those cost implications are set out in Appendix 1 to the report but my overall stance would be to say that less but better drafted and scrutinised legislation would be very much in the wider public interest and, in the longer term, a more cost-effective way of implementing public policy.
Like so many others, I very much support the proposal for a Back-Bench business committee, the proposals for the use of simple language and, indeed, that for simplifying the titles by which we refer to each other. I think we could still do that while observing the normal courtesies. For me, my first experience of Question Time in the Lords was, frankly, quite a revelation. I would simply say that it was not at all what I was expecting. We have heard a lot in the debate today about the reasons for that and about some of the underlying tensions and frustrations. I strongly support the recommendation of a trial period for the Lord Speaker to take on the role currently performed by the Leader of the House. I feel that that would be enhanced if the existing conventions about the allocation of supplementary questions to the various political parties and other groupings were clarified. A number of speakers today have explained the need for that, and I think that it would help.
I would like to say something that I know will be slightly controversial. I have listened carefully to previous contributions that have put other points of view, but I would like to see a corollary added to the effect that should matters not improve during the trial period, however long it might be, the Lord Speaker should be given the power to call supplementary speakers, as happens in most other legislatures around the world. As others have said, I think that that would speed things up and we would get through more business, which I think everyone would find more satisfactory.
I turn to the House’s other key role in public debate and inquiry. The report makes a strong and very welcome case for the establishment of two additional sessional Select Committees. As others have said—I particularly welcome the eloquent words of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on this point—there remain large areas of public policy that are neither scrutinised nor debated. I would greatly welcome more opportunities to scrutinise government policy that is not connected to legislation. I shall finish by giving my two reasons for that.
First, if my almost 20 years in Whitehall taught me anything, it was that the big challenges facing this country are generally of a cross-cutting nature and do not fit neatly into departmental silos. The really difficult, often deeply intransigent issues that bedevil Governments of all colours—sometimes called the “wicked issues”—require, frankly, a long-term cross-cutting response. Be they about meeting the needs of an ageing population, tackling poverty and social disadvantage, climate change or perhaps resilience and emergency planning for major disasters, these things all need a multifaceted response.
This House, possessing a vast amount of expertise that is not primarily departmentally based, is very well placed to scrutinise government policy at a strategic level and look across the piece. This would help to ensure complementarity with the work performed in Select Committees in the other place, to which I also hope we can soon refer as the House of Commons, that generally are departmentally based. It should also help to provide continuity. The less partisan nature of the scrutiny would also fit better with the longer-term perspective that is much needed to tackle some of those issues.
Secondly, I suspect that many Peers in this Chamber—we have already heard this today—often feel frustrated at the lack of opportunity to use their knowledge and experience, and as a newcomer I count myself among their number. I was very surprised to read in the report that one of the reasons why additional Select Committees were not set up a few years ago was that it was thought there would not be enough Peers to fill the places. I think that the reverse would be the case now, and the difficulty would be in selecting whose expertise would be the most relevant. The work of the House and the value that it provides to the country would be greatly enhanced if we could have the two additional Select Committees that the report proposes.
Baroness O’Loan
My Lords, the report is indeed a useful document and I am happy to endorse many of its recommendations, particularly those in relation to pre-legislative scrutiny, post-legislative scrutiny and the rescheduling of some of the work of the House. However, the House should continue to be self-regulating. It is one of the great strengths of the House that, for the most part, we can respectfully manage our business. When I have been engaged in Lord Speaker’s outreach, I have been very proud to point to the courtesy with which, for the most part, we manage our business. We do it for the most part without jeering, barracking, shouting or sneering, and there is something profoundly important about modelling the behaviour that we would ask of society. We can be very proud of ourselves when we can be respectful, listen and still have a proper debate.
Electronic recording of access to the Chamber and voting could save quite a lot of money. That is something that we should think of. It has seemed to me, in contemplating what we do here and how we do it, that we should consider not just our own perspective of our understanding of what would make us more effective, but also that of the public and those who provide services to them in the exercise of powers, duties and responsibilities created by Acts of Parliament and governmental action.
I want to address the simple issue of Written Questions. There is no question but that they serve a very useful function in allowing Members to hold the Executive to account and to participate in the forum for public debate and inquiry, which is such an important part of the work of the House. In raising this issue I fully acknowledge the importance of the Parliamentary Question in calling to account not only Government but those in public office, and of placing issues on the public agenda. I also welcome the use of PQs to inform decisions about, for example, calling for a Question for Short Debate. However, there is very little reference to the issue of Written Questions in the Companion or in the Leader’s Group report, and the Cabinet Office Guide to Parliamentary Work contains probably the most useful information.
Very often a Parliamentary Question is asked as the result of a genuine desire to secure information. That is entirely proper, and the public bodies that I have known and in which I have served have been fully respectful of and responsive to questions asked by noble Lords. However, there is no process to address the issue of the use of the Parliamentary Question process in what I would describe as an unnecessary manner. In the wider public domain there is perhaps a tendency to judge us by the number of Questions that we ask, but that does not reflect the work of the House when you contemplate the content of this report.
The report states that the House should make the best use of all available resources. It would be good if we could consider the resources not only of the House but of those others to whom Parliamentary Questions are directed. HM Treasury estimates the cost of dealing with a Parliamentary Question at £154 but that does not reflect the cost to the organisations outside Parliament and Government. Some 9,000 Parliamentary Questions are asked each year, and my guess is that we are talking well over £2.5 million for answering them. We could argue that that is a proper use of public funds, and in many cases it is, but there are occasions on which one asks oneself why the questioner is not capable of looking up the answer or, in appropriate cases, asking the very helpful Library and research staff here to find it. For example, I was asked in a Parliamentary Question who my accounting officer was, and I was asked under what law I operated as police ombudsman. I have also known of organisations being repeatedly asked the same question in different forms. It happens sometimes to such an extent that one begins to wonder what the purpose of the question is. Why is so much money and resource being used to provide the answer to questions that could easily be answered by the questioner? It can be simple to approach the organisation concerned and ask the question. We also now have extensive freedom of information laws that enable one to get access to information. I wonder whether it would be possible for the House to consider the inclusion of further guidance on the use of the Written Question process in order to avoid a situation in which public money might be wasted. I think it is a matter of both integrity and probity. At a time of economic and financial difficulties, it is important that as a House we are seen to act properly in the exercise of our powers and the use of our resources.
I want to address briefly the consequences of the change of method of paying Peers allowances on the working practices of the House. We recently moved to a single payment, consequential upon the difficulties resulting from previous abuses of the expenses system. It is not impossible that we have not quite got it right. By paying a single sum of £300 a day to all Members, we have created a degree of inequity. Those Members who must pay for accommodation while in London inevitably have less money to procure research assistants and so on to enable them to fulfil their parliamentary duties than Members who live in London. In an era in which we seek to establish wider membership of the House than existed hitherto, the current situation will not facilitate that.
I want to consider the issue of debates which stretch over more than a day. The House of Lords reform debate was one such example. I wanted to speak in that debate, and I put my name down, but as the timetable was not available at the time, I had other appointments on Thursday morning in Northern Ireland. Many other people have said they had a similar experience. I sat through much of the debate on the first day and on the second day I would have been happy to sit all day. I had to leave at 6 pm to get the last flight back. The debate finished at 10 pm that night so I could not speak. You could say there were sufficient speeches anyway to deal with all the issues, but I did want to speak. Our convention that we must be present at the beginning and the end meant that I had to withdraw. It is not a unique situation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham averted to this also.
There is a solution to the problem, which would be in appropriate cases to split the issues encompassed by a topic into two separate days’ debate, inviting contributions on particular elements of the issue on a particular day, and allowing for any additional conclusions at the end of the second day. I have no doubt that noble Lords would always wish to be here and to participate throughout, but circumstances do not always permit. For those who live a considerable distance away, such flexibility would enable greater participation. I welcome the report and the increased efficiency and effectiveness to which it will inevitably lead.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I want to comment on a few of the proposals in this wide-ranging and valuable report, on which I congratulate my noble friend and his committee. I agree with a great deal of the most important matters dealt with in the report, on pre- and post-legislative scrutiny and legislative standards, but there are some aspects with which I do not agree.
I strongly believe that we should not increase in any way the role given to the Lord Speaker. I do not believe that our system of self-regulation is under critical strain. It is a remarkable system—an admirable one and a source of pride for the House—and I agree with what the right reverend Prelate had to say. Incidentally, our system has outlasted that of the House of Commons. Until the 19th century, the House of Commons also had this system, but with the disaffected Irish Members in the House it had to be abandoned. What happened in the Commons, I suggest, shows that to give powers to the Speaker is a slippery slope and there is no climbing back.
We have not reached anything quite like that situation here. In so far as a strain has recently been placed on the system, one of the factors causing that, in my opinion, has been our excessive numbers and in particular the fact that so many new Peers were created within a short period of time. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, added some other factors and I agree with him that the House has come back from the brink at which it stood and that we should continue to give self-regulation a chance.
We should concentrate now on reducing our numbers. We should change our practices to the least degree possible until we have done that. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend, Lord MacGregor, I do not think that we should increase the number of our permanent Select Committees—the most expensive proposal in the report. That would put obstacles in the way of reducing the number of Peers in your Lordships’ House by creating new vested interests. We should not create more jobs for Members unless they could be maintained by a House of the size that we would like to see—say, 500.
There are other things that we could change, but I would not change the sitting hours, either in the Chamber or in Grand Committee, save that I do not see why the Grand Committee cannot start on Thursdays at the same time as business in the Chamber. The chief function of the House of Lords is, and should be, legislating, whether revising or taking Bills first. This is far more important than expressing opinion on the latest topical subject. Therefore, I would not be in favour of the recommendation that the Lord Speaker should interpret the criteria for allowing PNQs more liberally. Ways should be pursued of limiting, not increasing, the time spent in the Chamber on Statements and PNQs.
If there is to be a Back-Bench business committee—I can see the appeal of it and it would not be particularly expensive—I would not want it to be issued with recommendation 44, to consult outside bodies when selecting subjects for debate. We should be masters in our own House.
As for styles of address between Members, I follow what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I would be careful about changing them. They are there as a precaution to ensure civility. I am not so sure that it would be safe to abandon them. I am also sorry that there was not a sentence in the report to remind noble Lords that they should not address each other in the second person. There are today still notable offenders in that regard, even on the Front Bench.
Every decision on our working practices should be taken with a view to ensuring that they are suitable for a House two-thirds if not one-half the size of the present House. How to achieve that outcome is the principal task that we should set ourselves.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his committee on an excellent report. Perhaps I may couple that with my apologies for not having submitted written evidence. It would normally have been my practice to do so. The honest truth is that I found the subject such a wide one that the task I found too daunting. All the greater, therefore, is my admiration for the comprehensive nature of the committee’s report. Frankly, I have been surprised at how wide it is and how radical some of the solutions proposed have been. I do not think that we shall see all of them, but I hope that we will see most of them, and very quickly.
Perhaps I may open up and unfortunately disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on the issue of the Lord Speaker. All that we are talking of here is removing the artificial constraints that we have put on the role. Going back in time, I think that this can be dated to the House still smarting from the cack-handed attempts made by Tony Blair to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor and subsequently to remove it from the House of Lords and put it into the House of Commons. For that reason, we probably had a feeling that we did not want to give the newly created post of Lord Speaker too much power. I am against giving it too much power, but it is ridiculous, and particularly unfair to Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, that somebody on the Front Bench—unless they have eyes in the back of their head, which most politicians should have—cannot see who is clamouring to speak. The sensible way to do it is to leave it to the Lord Speaker.
I support the committee’s proposal to transfer the power presently residing with the Leader or Government Whips to the Lord Speaker rather than the idea which found most favour among members; that is, the Lord Speaker calling Members. I do not like that. In a funny kind of way, in the House of Commons, it always strikes me as “Who has done the deal beforehand?” It all looks to be more like a stitch-up. I would be much happier with the Lord Speaker simply adjudicating between the rival claims of the different sides of the House. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke that we have to face up to the issue and make it clear to all sides of the House whether we are dealing with one party on the other side of the House or two parties, because a lot of the fundamental problem stems from that.
I warmly welcome the idea of taking Statements as read. It really is a waste of time to have a Minister reading them out. The only point on which I would disagree with the report is relegating a second or third Statement to the Moses Room. Frankly, if a Statement is important enough to warrant repeating in this House, it should be before the whole House. Let us take today’s Statement as an example. The idea of a defence Statement being made in the Moses Room is just not right.
I warmly welcome also pre-legislative scrutiny. I make a plea that this be done by Joint Committees of both Houses. That is good for Parliament; it gets both Houses together when there is very little opportunity for them so to do. It would also be very good for the public and for the interests affected by legislation. The great problem is that White Papers nowadays are so glossy that they are like election manifestos. People do not get excited until they realise that Clause 4(2)(c) of a Bill could effectively put them out of business. Then they get to work and start lobbying people. Pre-legislative scrutiny would give us the chance to harness the lobbying industry to the service of Parliament rather than the other way round. I would also give the committees the power to take evidence. Post-legislative scrutiny, too, is long overdue. If cars need an MOT, so does legislation.
On taking Committee stages in the Moses Room, I am not particularly uptight about that. I realise that there would be a loss of the power to call Divisions, but that still exists on Report. I find the atmosphere of a smaller room more conducive to constructive committee work rather than adversarial committee work, which I hope we could avoid. However, I am in profound disagreement with the committee’s suggestion that its working hours should be 10.30 am to 12.30 pm, and then 2.30 pm to 6.30 pm. Most of us here have solved the problem of bilocation, but trilocation is one step too far. The fact is that a lot of people are involved in Select Committees, particularly in the morning. It is quite wrong that you should miss out on something you might be interested in, simply because you are doing your duty as a member of a Select Committee. I would rather have the Moses Room sitting from 3 pm till 10 pm, for example,. With an hour’s break for dinner that still gives you six working hours; that is exactly the same as the committee’s proposal, and I think it would be a more helpful solution.
For all that it sounds good—that the Commons will flag up issues that it has not discussed—it will find a way of giving the impression that it has discussed everything. We are talking about issues it has not really debated, which will be quite difficult to define. Broadly, however, this is a very good report, and I hope that we will see some action on it.
Lord Geddes
My Lords, it is comparatively unusual, in recent times, for me to take part in debates in your Lordships’ House. This is because I have a marked aversion to wasting the House’s time by repetition, which is why I did not take part in last week’s debate on the abolition—and I use the word advisedly—of this House, despite having strong views on the subject. Had I spoken, I would have strongly supported the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I have equally strong views on a number of recommendations in the report that is being debated, and this time I will risk repetition.
I have had the very real privilege of being a Member of your Lordships’ House for 36 years, for 11 of which I have been a Deputy Speaker. I have also sat on nine committees, chairing one of them for three years. I hope, therefore, that I can claim to have some knowledge of how this House has worked and is working, and have views on how it should or should not work.
First, I believe most strongly that we should continue to be a self-regulating House, and I therefore disagree equally strongly—and here I use chapter 6 for reference purposes—with recommendation 1: the increased powers of the Lord Speaker at Question Time. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, got it absolutely right: if we can just get clarity on how the system should work, then—dare I use an old-fashioned word—manners should be able to allow us to cope with that problem. Like my noble friend Lord Reay, I regard that recommendation as the start of a very slippery slope, and I do not like it.
In the interests of brevity, I shall only instance other recommendations with which I disagree. It can be assumed, therefore, that I am either neutral or in favour of such recommendations that I do not specifically mention. Like the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I do not care for recommendation 5 on reading out questions. It seems to me to be counterproductive. Nor do I like recommendation 12, for the same reason that I do not like recommendation 1, on the Lord Speaker’s role during Oral Statements. Nor do I like recommendation 40: the change of appellations. I declare right now that if that should be agreed, I shall continue to use those currently in practice. As far as I am concerned, a right reverend Prelate shall ever be a right reverend Prelate.
I disagree with recommendation 20: all government Bills to be considered in Grand Committee. I have been in the Chair of countless Grand Committees, which are, to put it rather bluntly, no more and no less than talk shops that serve to push our normal procedure one down the line, so to speak, with Report becoming Committee, and Third Reading becoming Report.
Even less do I agree with recommendation 22: Grand Committees to sit at 10.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Like other noble Lords, Thursdays I can accept. In the latest House of Lords Committee bulletin, I note that two European sub-committees, the Science and Technology Committee and the HIV/AIDS committee currently meet on Tuesday mornings. A further two European sub-committees, the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill currently meet on Wednesday mornings. Presumably, all those would have to change their days and times. Ministers, clerks, Hansard writers and, dare I say it, chairmen would be required for such Grand Committee morning meetings. As other noble Lords have said, we are a part-time House with many Members able to pursue their non-parliamentary business only in the mornings. Like other noble Lords, I do not like recommendation 55: that the House should sit at 2 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Like the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I particularly would not like sitting at 2 pm on Wednesdays when three Back-Bench group meetings are at that time.
Finally, I strongly disagree with recommendation 48: the election of the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. In 2006, the House decided on an election for the Lord Speaker, with which I have no quarrel, but, from experience, I submit that the skills required from the Chairman, and perhaps even more from the Deputy Chairman of Committees, must complement each other and the Lord Speaker. It is much more likely that the individuals chosen by the usual channels, and then approved by the whole House, will be of the right calibre to serve the House, rather than those chosen in the somewhat random shot of a secret ballot.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and his working group for the comprehensive, very perceptive and occasionally downright ingenious report. I have no problem with 50 of the 55 recommendations. Fifty-five recommendations in a main report of 62 pages tests one’s mental digestive system, but it remains a very good and challenging report. This leaves me with five recommendations against which I have either questions or exclamation marks, thus indicating a need for clarification, caution or rejection. But to a few of those of which I approve, I say a very loud hallelujah indeed, particularly the proposal for a legislative standards committee, for pre-legislative scrutiny and for the establishment of a Back-Bench business committee and two additional sessional Select Committees.
Let me focus on the five recommendations about which I have some questions. Recommendations 1 and 12 ask us to consider conferring the Leader of the House’s role at Questions and Oral Statements on the Lord Speaker. Some object to this on the grounds that this is a slippery slope leading to a Commons-style Speakership. I have never signed up to the slippery slope argument because a properly self-regulating House does not have to go anywhere it does not want to go. It simply says, “So far but no further”.
My concern is over any reduction in the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. He or she is the Leader of the whole House and needs to be seen as such as much as possible. I would hazard a guess that if and when, God forbid, this Chamber is abolished and replaced with an all or partly elected Senate, the powers and duties of the Speaker of that Chamber will be very different from those enjoyed by the Lord Speaker in this Chamber. I suspect that this recommendation will be adopted for a trial period, which is quite right, but I hope that the effect on the role and standing of the Leader will be as carefully assessed as the effect on the conduct of Questions and Oral Statements.
In recommendation 5, Members are asked to read out the text of their Oral Questions with a 40-word limit on them. That is not a bad idea, but why is this proposed under the heading “Saving Time”? The present formula is only 17 words long—some time saver. While we are talking of time saving, to have the House sit at 2 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays strikes me as very ill-advised, to put it politely. I share the view of the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, that the benefits of creating up to two additional hours of business per week are far outweighed by the inconvenience caused to those who have jobs outside and have far to travel. For many of them the 2.30 pm start provides valuable time to prepare for any afternoon’s business in which they may be involved. By the way, have the originators of this proposal never heard of Parkinson’s Law?
Recommendation 48 raises the most doubts in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has already addressed this. The preceding recommendation—recommendation 47—which would charge our Select Committees with electing their own Chairmen, seems eminently sensible, although it raises, as elsewhere, the question of party balance. I come to that in the context of recommendation 48, which recommends that the Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees be elected by a secret ballot of the whole House. I declare an interest, having occupied the Principal Deputy Chairman’s office from 2002 to 2008. In paragraph 247 of the report, the working group acknowledges,
“that further thought may have to be given to the means whereby a system of election can be reconciled with achieving party balance among the House’s three elected office-holders”.
On the face of it, this is a circle that cannot be squared. If the objective, which I am convinced is right, is to elect to these three offices the persons judged most capable of discharging them to the standards that we have a right to expect, something has to give. Either we abandon the concept of party balance or we trust to luck that the elections will come as close as possible to finding the right people for the offices with the appropriate party labels. I doubt that the abandonment of party balance will prove acceptable to this House, however beneficial it could be to its functioning.
We are therefore left with the alternative, which is to come as close to balance as possible under a secret ballot system—but how do we do that? My first recommendation is to hold the election of the Chairman of Committees by a secret ballot of the whole House ahead of the election of the Principal Deputy Chairman. If the party already holding the office of Lord Speaker exercises restraint, as I am sure it would, and discourages the candidacy of its members for the office of Chairman of Committees, we will, following that election, know which of the three parties has so far missed out on gaining an office. There would follow an election for the office of Principal Deputy Chairman.
There is of course no guarantee that the party that has so far missed out will have a successful candidate; nor should it have such a guarantee. That third office also carries the chairmanship of the European Union Select Committee. Nine years after my selection by the usual channels, I can speak with some objectivity on this. For as long as the EU Committee post is linked to the office of Principal Deputy Chairman, which makes few demands on the holder but carries a salary that reflects the full-time work of chairing the EU Committee, election to these twin posts is not best determined by a ballot of the whole House. If Select Committees should, according to the report, elect their own chairman, why should the EU Select Committee not do so?
I go further; I should like to see the EU chairmanship voted on in a secret ballot not only by the Select Committee members but by the membership of the Select Committee and its seven sub-committees. That would mean an electorate of around 85 Members of your Lordships’ House, all of whom would know what was expected of the chairman. Maybe 90 per cent of the chairman’s working hours will be spent on managing the committee and participating in its varied work, with 10 per cent being spent on the limited functions of the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. Moreover, I believe that the party that missed out in the elections for both Lord Speaker and the Chairman of Committees would be perfectly capable of fielding experienced candidates for the EU Committee’s chairmanship from among the membership of the Select Committee and its sub-committees.
Once again, I congratulate the working group and its chairman on giving us such rich food for thought. I am sure your Lordships will find many of these proposals fit for early implementation, which will in turn contribute greatly to the incremental reform—rather than the abolition—of this House. However, I offer a word of caution; instant implementation is a popular cry, but let us be sure that there are no unintended consequences. There are 55 separate recommendations. Most, but not all, will be implemented, but we must be sure that those that are fit together in a comfortable, coherent and mutually reinforcing whole.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, half of today’s speakers participated in last week’s two-day debate, yet the mood and tone are totally different. I confess that my wife, having witnessed last week’s debate, wondered why I was spending this evening here, rather than celebrating our 41st wedding anniversary with her.
In passing, I must say that we should be careful about how we present our arguments. I have heard noble Lords suggest that truncating our lunch hour is what the move to starting at 2 pm would mean. That is not a serious issue. I recall that I used to advise—not as a Member of either House—environmental groups about lobbying Members of either House that any MP or Peer who had time for lunch was probably not worth talking to. I am still of that opinion, so we should be careful about how we present that argument.
Not only the Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Goodlad, but the Leader of the House deserve all our thanks for moving smartly on these issues and bringing forward these particular concerns. I particularly take on board my noble friend the Leader of the House’s point that there is clearly an urgent need for incremental reform. Some might see that as a contradiction; I do not. I think this is very much the mood of the House now, as has been apparent from all the contributions. Self-regulation, which is of course the key to a lot of the discussion we have had today and to a lot of the discussion in the report, is to my mind something of an illusion if we do not understand precisely what it may mean in practical terms.
I used to be part of the usual channels in another place, in a very minor role—I suppose I was the usual gutter. Of course, we need something there, but we should recognise that a great deal of what happens in your Lordships’ House is not self-regulation at all. It is by careful discussion between the parties—it used to be very binary; it is rather less so now, I am glad to say—and the Cross Benches, but it is not self-regulation. A theme of the discussion today has been moving responsibility—on occasion very tactfully when it looks as though the House wants to hear from a particular Peer—from the Front Bench to the Woolsack at Questions or at Statements. That is not the end of self-regulation; it is the fulfilment of self-regulation. That is what we elected a Lord Speaker to do and I think it absurd that the chief representative of the usual channels, the government Chief Whip—she is not here, I am glad to say; I hope that she does not read what I say, because I am a great fan of hers—the disciplinarian responsible for getting the Government’s business through, should be put in the invidious position of deciding who should be questioning the Government and scrutinising the Government’s actions.
That would be a very sensible move, on a trial basis—I entirely endorse what has been said on many sides of the House. I notice that people who have great experience in the House, far longer than me, and who have had great responsibility in the House, think that there are both practical and political reasons for such a move. That is the theme of the Leader’s Group. It is practical, it is pragmatic; it is not doctrinal and dogmatic. That is why its recommendations have had such a very warm welcome from all sides of the House today.
It is also significant that the initiative for this process, which stemmed from the process in the Commons led by Dr Tony Wright, started with a seminar that brought people from outside as well as from all sides of your Lordships’ House under the aegis of the Lord Speaker. It did not result from any party initiative, let alone a government initiative. While I give full credit to my noble friend the Leader of the House for taking this a step further, we owe a debt of gratitude not just to the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, but to the Lord Speaker herself, to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who has spoken today, and to the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Filkin, who led some very careful analysis of different aspects of the work of your Lordships’ House.
I am very sympathetic to the general trend of the recommendations. I cannot think of any that I completely object to. I understand, of course, that there is a need to work them through, but they are a package; the approach is holistic and it would be a pity, therefore, if we were to unscramble them, to take them all to bits again. I hope that in looking at them in the various committees, there will be a feeling that this is a coherent and cohesive approach to the work of our House and that it can certainly improve our game. The people who have been involved in this, if I may spare their blushes, are scarcely revolutionaries. The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, cannot really be described as a hot-headed radical. I hope I am paying him a compliment.
Last week I felt that there were rather too many people in your Lordships’ House who were adopting the early attitude of St Augustine: “Make me virtuous, but not yet”. This evening the mood, the tone, has been quite different—more positive, more forward-looking—and I welcome that.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I am not sure that I can quite follow my noble friend in describing the excellent report as holistic. It seems to me that it has many different facets which do not all tie together.
At this time in the debate, one throws one’s speech away and tries to cull some comments from what has already been said. Some people have concentrated on relatively minor matters—such as whether we should start at two o'clock—but others have taken a much more in-depth approach. I take as my theme what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, which was that the standard of legislation had already deteriorated—not that it was in danger of doing so. In pursuing that theme, I introduce a note of caution. We have to be careful about what we can achieve and what it might be going a step too far to think that we could. The thrust of this debate, if I may be so bold, has been—along the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell—about pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, about the legislative standards committee and a slice about secondary legislation. I am sure that we will hear a bit more about the latter shortly.
This House does not command any of those things. Chapter 2 of the report of my noble friend Lord Goodlad is entitled “Keeping the Executive to account”—or something closely approaching that. I submit that the only time that the Executive is called to account in any meaningful way is at a general election. For the rest of it, we cannot really look at the accounts. Accounts, such as the European Union's accounts, are supposed to be an accurate record of what has happened. Accounts are not about what will happen next. That is much more difficult. You cannot measure it; you have to wait to see what actually happens. Except with pounds and pennies, the measurement of what has happened is extremely difficult to achieve.
What was said about pre and post-legislative scrutiny, about standards and about secondary legislation is absolutely admirable, but I introduce a note of caution: can we deliver that in this House, or are we really looking for something that is different? I suggest that we are. First, we want half about as much legislation as is routinely put forward by Secretaries of State. It seems to be a badge of honour that you must have a Bill enacted. If we look at the number of criminal justice Acts, to take but one example, we are clearly submerged in the flood of legislation. Not only that, a lot of it is in secondary legislation. That is no doubt as advised by Permanent Secretaries—with the greatest of respect, again, to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who knows about Permanent Secretaries. They will say, “Well, Minister, I think that I would put that into secondary legislation if I were you. If we have a framework Bill, an enabling Bill, you can retain the flexibility. You can either do this or not; you can do it in various different ways. Of course, their Lordships will never throw it out and, down the other end of the Corridor, they will not even consider it for more than about two minutes”.
My note of caution is that I think the issues are much more complicated and lie at a much greater depth in our public life than has been illustrated, if I may be forgiven for saying so, by the debate or even the excellent report.
Lord Laming
My Lords, as has been mentioned several times this evening, last week your Lordships spent two long days discussing the future of this House, as outlined in a document in which, to be frank, I could find little merit. In stark contrast, we have today before us a document which I believe is of great value and, at the outset, like other noble Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and the other members of the group. I believe we are indebted to them for producing such a helpful document. The report has the merit of being very well researched; it is clearly expressed and is both practical and timely. I mean it as a tribute to its authors when I say that it is a good read because it is very persuasive.
My Lords, this House has a long record of change and development. Those who doubt that will be confounded if they study the evidence in this report. But the report goes further by setting out a number of reasons why more change is necessary and, helpfully, providing guidance on the best way of achieving those changes. The report puts before us a range of very practical measures to secure greater efficiency and effectiveness in the way we conduct the business of the House. Many of the recommendations could be implemented very quickly, and I urge the House that we do just that.
Clearly, the main objective of our work is to hold the Executive to account—despite what Viscount Eccles just said—to scrutinise legislation and promote debate on key issues that confront our society. I have always been hugely impressed by the vast range of expertise and experience throughout the whole of your Lordships’ House so, without any hint of complacency, I believe that we are well placed to fulfil these functions. But the report sets out a numbers of ways in which we could do a great deal better and we have to take that seriously.
For example, I understand the frustration that is often expressed regarding Oral Questions, but in addition to the recommendations in the report we must also address aspects of our own behaviour, as has already been touched on this evening. The remedy to some of this frustration is in our own hands. Self-regulation depends to a large degree on self-discipline. It would be of enormous benefit both if it could be generally accepted that the opportunity to ask a Question is actually to put the Question rather than to introduce a mini debate and if Ministers would recognise that their sole task is to answer the Question rather than to outline the general policy of the Government. If that were to happen, our time would be put to much better use.
I do not tweet on Twitter, but I am attracted to the suggestions in the report about limiting the number of words because I am told that important matters can be conveyed in few words by means of Twitter. The frustration caused by long questions or tedious replies can sometimes provoke what might be called, by the standards of this House, unseemly behaviour. I hope that, in addressing these issues, we will attach considerable importance to retaining the courtesy which is a tradition in this House and which sometimes has been allowed to slip.
Regarding the scrutiny of legislation, it is clear that too often legislation comes to the House, not well considered in another place. It demands the time and energy of this House to address those matters more carefully and more thoroughly. At times it may be irksome to the Government, but it would be extremely helpful if we could follow the Companion more closely and ensure that Second Reading speeches are confined to Second Reading and do not follow through into every other aspect of Lords business.
It is important that we take these matters seriously and move forward in a positive way with the help of this document, and that we recognise that the contribution of Members of your Lordships’ House is not to be measured by column inches in Hansard. Everybody in this House is fairly bright—perhaps not me, but even I can generally follow the thrust of most of the points raised in your Lordships’ House.
I agree with the report very much indeed. I hope that it can be taken seriously and speedily implemented.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I must be the 40th speaker to say that this is an excellent report but perhaps the second to say that it was very fairly introduced by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I am glad that it will clearly receive the proper consideration that it deserves.
I have three particular favourites: voting on delegated legislation is one. It is time that we took a step in that direction. We may have to turn the screw a little tighter and start to involve some delay in that. It is a question of what it takes for us to be taken seriously by the Government. At what point do they start to listen to what we are saying, rather than reversing it in the Commons in two minutes and expecting us to behave? I am very glad that we are doing post-legislative scrutiny. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that there should be ad hoc committees, and I like the little recommendation 42. It is important that key letters coming from the Government to people who have taken part in Committee or debate are recorded in Hansard both in the bound version and, perhaps more importantly, online, to provide a full picture of what is going on for people outside this House.
I have some grouses, the principal of which is the proposals for Grand Committee—particularly putting all Committee stages in Grand Committee. This House is about its Committee work. I know that we all enjoy the other aspects of it, but how much effect do all those other theatrics have? How many Starred Questions have resulted in the Government being held to account effectively? I can remember one in 1992 but I am hard put to think of a second one. How many debates have resulted in changes to government policy? I can remember a few. On how many occasions have we dealt with a Statement that resulted in changes to government policy? I cannot think of any. However, it is extremely hard to think of a Committee stage that has not had an effect on a Bill being debated. That is the principal point of our effectiveness in this House.
There were 50 speakers at Second Reading on the Education Bill. How will we fit all of them into the Moses Room? The answer is that we will exclude most of them. They will not feel like coming. They will think that they have had their say at Second Reading and go away. The Chamber is the theatre in which we ought to be handling Committee stage. It is open to everybody and has lots of room. There are plenty of chances for people to drop in to listen to the points they are interested in and plenty of chance for Members to form an opinion about points that are being pushed in Committee. If one looks at the Bills taken currently in the Moses Room, Report stage rarely results in real turnovers for the Government because the House has had no chance to develop an opinion and Report stage is far too formalistic for that. If we want a House that is really effective we have to have an open Committee. Taking that away from this Chamber will be a great mistake.
I also think that morning sittings are a great mistake. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Sittings of Committee stages are entirely unpredictable. I have a life to live and want to be able to plan when I am meeting people, going up to the midlands, or whatever I want to do. If that might get hit by a change of date in a Committee stage, that renders my whole participation in Bills in this place extremely difficult.
My noble friend raised the question of cost control and implied that some of the recommendations in the report were expensive, so to keep the budget balanced, spending more money would mean spending less elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, drew careful attention to what that might mean in practice. I have a simple solution for my noble friend—reduce the numbers in this House. Take out 100 Peers and save £1 million. That is about the measure of it.
I come back to the suggestion I made in the previous debate of offering 100 hereditary peerages. There were two people 400 years ago who earned the peerages that I have and they are remembered by me. Is it not a great prize to offer someone? You will be remembered 400 years hence by at least one person. It costs nothing. I hope my noble friend was listening when the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made her suggestions. She should be co-opted immediately on to his cost control committees. On the idea that we should impose a measure on the Written Questions we ask and whether they are they really worth while, perhaps sharing the savings with the departments could produce an income.
Automatically recognising our presence in this Chamber and quicker methods of voting as ways of saving money and time would cause problems only when there were identical twins involved. Lord Thurlow used to share his seat with his brother, but I am not aware of any present Peers doing so.
I was very attracted by what my noble friend Lord Kirkwood said about technology. There are things we can do to reach out to the grass roots. We think the idea of aping the Commons and getting people into a bit of pre-leg is high-tech. No, it is not. We can reach out much further than that. We can really involve people out there in having a say on what is going on in a Bill. We can condense it and control it through modern technology. We really ought to explore that because it is not expensive.
The last thing I want to press upon my noble friend is the need to look at this report to see if we can find more ways of generating Back-Bench influence. With 870 Peers in this place, no central organisation can know what we are all capable of and interested in. The creation of a Back-Bencher committee is all very well, but it will not really be any better informed than anybody else in the House, even if we have elected the members. We have to find ways of flowing information into the committee. On the question of debates, how is it to know which debates we all want? We have to find a way of indicating that to it with a sheet we can sign up on or whatever.
When it comes to the membership of committees, earlier today, we approved a committee on privacy and related matters. How does anybody in the usual channels know where the expertise and interest is in this House? They will know a few of the obvious suspects, but there are far too many of us for the usual channels to have a proper influence on that. There must be some way of us registering that interest and knowledge when an opportunity comes up. I am not suggesting that we should have the selection, but there should be a way making these things known so that the usual channels or the Back-Bencher committee can take sensible decisions. I think that is a great idea.
I very much hope that the Back-Bench committee expands its influence but, echoing something that my noble friend said, I would hate to lose the randomness of balloted debates. Otherwise we will merely get the consensus debates, the ones that everybody likes and the off-centre—something that is really important that none of us understands or knows about—will never come before us, and that would be a great shame.
Lord Filkin
My Lords, it has been a real pleasure to hear the debate and to get the sense that there is a broad measure of support across the House and across party for some of the most important recommendations. That was how we worked as a group. We were superbly and subtly led by our chairman. It is not the first time that he has heard that. All the members of the committee worked together, and we were extremely well guided by Christopher Johnson and Susannah Street in the way that they supported us. They were a delight.
In part, that helped us to bring in a consensual report on difficult issues on which we all had strong opinions. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to one of the origins of this report, which was that it was very much the Lord Speaker’s initiative to have a proper, discrete reflection, in the wake of the destruction of this House’s reputation, about whether we could do our job for the public better. That has been a central question before the committee. It has not simply been about whether we like to start at 2 pm or 2.30 pm, but about how do we do our job for the public for whom we are charged with scrutinising legislation, holding the Government to account and being a proper forum for debate. Those questions are the leitmotif that we have tried to bring throughout the report.
For many of us, the central clutch of recommendations is about trying to scrutinise legislation better. Again, it has been an enormous pleasure to hear almost universal support for pre-legislative scrutiny, a legislative standards committee, post-legislative scrutiny and for the subtle change in delegated legislation for which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, so clearly and cogently expressed the rationale. I thank her for that because it is easy to think that this is the end of the world.
The only voice against was of great concern to me, that of my good former colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I think he was arguing that we should not overreach our hand or overview our power and influence. Of course, he is right. We should always have a sense of modesty—perhaps not always the House’s best skill. However, the argument that we cannot make it perfect is not an argument for not trying to make it better. The test of those changes in terms of legislation is: is it more likely that chipping away, challenging, questioning, having proper processes will mean that legislation will be better done? I believe it will be.
Of course, legislation should sit on a proper bedrock of good policy and reflection and public consultation on that policy. Often it is; too often it is not. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, put it beautifully: many of us are sad creatures who are really interested in public policy but we have to exercise that secret sin elsewhere because there are so few opportunities to do it here. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, no doubt will say something on that. It is a phenomenal waste of this House’s talent that it does not address major cross-cutting issues of public policy. It is unbelievable to the thoughtful general public that we do not do that. Therefore, after very careful consideration, we recommended two additional Select Committees—because one sounded trivial but we should not be silly and go too far because things do have a cost. I very much hope that the House will treat this seriously and the authorities and powers-that-be will put it into practice because we have the strength and resources in this House to add a lot of value and benefit to the public if we scrutinise unscrutinised areas of public policy.
For many of us, the dog that has not barked in this debate is: what happens next? We know in theory what happens next: the usual channels will refer some things to various committees and eventually they will bring back recommendations and the House will decide. That is what we will be told and it is true. Of course, what the House will decide will partly depend on what is served up to it, and what is served up to it can colour the form of debate and the form of decision-making, because that is the way in which we work. Some of us have great concerns about ensuring that we look at these issues.
I give the greatest thanks and respect to the Leader of the House. He has continued to surprise me on this agenda by being more open-minded in process than perhaps his good soul naturally feels and allowing us to play and to have a good chairman and bring in some pretty thoughtful but at times radical recommendations. I hope that he will continue with that stance because he is earning our respect and admiration for doing so.
What worries me is “cost neutrality”. With the greatest humility, I suggest a slight emendation: “cost neutrality in time”. It is an Augustinian concept. I say this for about four reasons. The first is that these costs are trivial. They are trivial in our costs: they are 1 per cent of this House’s costs. I will not make the cheap joke about the number of Peers; you know what I mean. Secondly, they are utterly microscopic in public expenditure terms. Scrutinising a Bill better or challenging a piece of government policy—again I will not mention some pieces of public policy; I do not wish to be contentious—would help the Government and force them to think better. The yield on that expenditure would be phenomenal and we must have the confidence that we have the skills and ability to do so.
The third reason why cost neutrality is an insidious argument is that it massively favours the status quo. It basically says that the existing cost base of this organisation is sacrosanct and that any bit of additional expenditure has to make the case for change. If we are going to make the case for change, it should be on all expenditure being scrutinised, not just on the new expenditure at the margin. We will not review everything, so we should not fetter these recommendations with the shackles of saying they have to have cost neutrality immediately. I am sure it was not so intended but that phrase is at risk of killing the report.
I look forward massively to seeing where we go next. Of course, the biggest way in which we could reduce the cost of these recommendations is to have a proper discussion with the other place—the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lord Grocott would encourage me to say—because if we could do some of these processes jointly the cost would suddenly reduce substantially, at least to this House. I look forward enormously to hearing how the Leader of the House is going to lead us forward to the promised land that we hope we will move towards.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, as the evening has unfolded I have become increasingly pleased to be able to say that I, too, was a member of the working group so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. I would like to think, in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that I was the hot young radical but there may be others who will lay claim to that. I can see them looking at me now.
Early in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that this report and this debate were an opportunity for us to take control of our future. This evening the House has seized that opportunity. We know that there are many observers outside the House who are looking at us to see whether we are so transfixed by the debate on the future of the House, its form and its membership that we have lost the appetite to reform our own procedures, and maybe even lost the appetite to stimulate and influence debates of national importance. This evening’s debate has provided a resounding answer to those sceptics. Like many others, I feel much more optimistic than I did this time last week.
The report has tried to answer two very important questions: first, can we be more effective at scrutinising and revising legislation; and, secondly, can we be more successful in stimulating those national debates? It reaches the conclusion that we can be more effective in both respects but only—I stress only—if we make better use of the talent, experience and expertise that exists in this Chamber. I found it interesting that during the course of the working group’s existence several recent entrants to the House approached me—perhaps because I was the newest member on the working group—to say how quickly they had become committed to the work of the House, but also how frustrated they sometimes felt at not being able to contribute in a really meaningful way, particularly those who continue to have important responsibilities outside the House.
We now have a number of new Members who can make a contribution and the capacity that they bring with them can help us to do three important things: first, to set up the two additional Select Committees; secondly, to set up a legislative standards committee; and, thirdly, to set up a post-legislative scrutiny committee. These will exploit the talent better and they are urgently needed. Properly managed and effectively deployed, Select Committees of this House can and already do make a major contribution to the national debate. Yet, as has been said by a number of Members today, very few are in the field of domestic policy, notwithstanding the fact that so many Members of the House and the House itself have so much to offer. We need these two new Select Committees. They do not need to clash with what is going on in the House of Commons, because, as has already been said, the Select Committees in the other place are there to shadow individual departments. This House has long acknowledged that the problems and issues in the real world do not organise themselves satisfactorily around Whitehall bureaucracies. We have long been theme-based and the new Select Committees, too, should be theme-based.
I was initially sceptical about the need for a legislative standards committee. I thought that perhaps there were some other ways in which we could achieve that within our existing arrangements. With some regret, however, I have to say that every hour that I have spent on these Benches has convinced me that we need something to raise the standards of draft legislation. In the recent past, some Bills, frankly, have not been fit for purpose, with little pre-legislative scrutiny and some pretty embarrassingly poor drafting. That does not allow the House to use its ability and resources effectively and that needs to be addressed. A legislative standards committee could do that.
Finally, it is surely time for our parliamentary system to give more systematic attention to post-legislative scrutiny. After all, we spend days in this place considering legislation. Should we not spend some time considering whether it is effective or whether, as another noble Lord said earlier, it is having some unwelcome side effects? Select Committees in the other place have not been able to give that a priority. We could break new ground by setting up a post-legislative scrutiny committee. With great respect, I must say that this is an area where I do not agree with the Leader. This should not be left to ad hoc committees to achieve. We need a committee that can give it focus, build expertise, be effective and develop a coherent strategy for post-legislative scrutiny in this House.
I hope that the overwhelmingly positive response tonight can now be reflected in action—considered action certainly, but urgent action too. I rather hope that we can find some way, maybe by reporting back to this House on occasions, of following how the 55 recommendations have fared rather than only looking at them individually from this point on.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, this has been an excellent and enjoyable debate. Just last week, we debated for two days the role, function, powers and composition of your Lordships' House: what we do and why we do it. Today, we have debated the working practices of this House: how we do it. Both are important and we need to get them both right.
Working practices are challenging, but they are not an impossible subject. In the other place, the issues looked daunting, but thanks to the work led by Dr Tony Wright, the Commons has brought in a significant series of reforms to help make the Chamber work better. What is before us today is broadly the equivalent for this House—a set of reforms to improve our working practices. One of my Back-Bench colleagues, who has long championed such changes, said that they were beyond what could conceivably have been hoped for when the discussions that have led to today's report first began.
Of course, there are reasons for how far and how fast these issues have moved—the decline of trust in politics and politicians, disengagement with traditional politics and perhaps especially with parliamentary politics, the burgeoning numbers of Members in this House—all these and more have led to pressure for change, for reform of the way that Parliament works.
I, too, pay tribute to those whose hard work and application has brought us this far—to the Lord Speaker, to those who chaired and served on the Lord Speaker's discussion groups, to those who served on the Leader’s Group whose report we have before us today, to the Clerk and especially to the excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and to those among us who have pressed for this kind of reform to your Lordships' House for many years.
We have before us separately the proposals from the coalition Government on further large-scale reform of your Lordships' House, which have now been referred to a Joint Committee for scrutiny. We do not know what that Joint Committee will produce but we believe that whatever happens to the Government’s wider proposals we should proceed with the broad programme of reform set out in the report before us today from the Leader’s Group.
We on these Benches welcome the report from the Leader’s Group. It is a very good report and makes sensible and constructive proposals that offer a clear way forward for this House. I am delighted that there has been such a positive response this evening, but clearly not all Members of your Lordships' House are as enthusiastic about or as comfortable with some of the reforms proposed. Indeed, on these Benches, we do not necessarily agree as individuals with each and every recommendation contained in the report. I was of course pleased to hear that the ears and door of the Leader were open. This should, as one noble Lord said, be a process, not an event.
So many proposals have been raised today, including the new one from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Parekh in relation to responses which come from the Government after a debate. I very much welcome that specific proposal. The Leader of the House is right to take the report forward through the range of means and mechanisms available to us including both through the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee and he is also right that this should be done promptly.
I would like to touch on a few of the recommendations which seem to me to be of especial merit. There are many, of course—for example, the role of the Lord Speaker in relation to the role currently carried out by the Leader of the House or the recommendations on delegated legislation or the recommendations on Private Notice Questions. I would like to mention three issues in particular, all of which have been well discussed this evening already.
First, I agree with all noble Lords who believe that the proposal for a legislative standards committee is a very welcome development. Regardless of whichever party is in power, all too often in this House and in the other place we see legislation being brought before us which, at times, is barely finished and requires extensive amendments, not by the Opposition but by Government, who have on occasion introduced legislation before it is in fact ready to be introduced. Those who have been in government know why and how this happens. The pressure of events sometimes makes it inevitable but it happens too often for what should be a proper and considered legislative process.
The establishment of a legislative standards committee, as recommended by this report, in setting agreed criteria against which government legislation would be measured in terms of technical and procedural compliance rather than policy, would be a considerable step forward for the standards of government legislation, for the legislative process itself and for public regard of the work that we, as politicians, do. We believe that the House should move as quickly as possible to establish such a committee and we commend the recommendation to the House. While agreement on the committee with the other place would of course be preferable, in relation to Bills starting in this House we believe there is a strong case for this House proceeding with this reform alone if necessary, as the report proposes. Allied to that, we very much welcome the group’s recommendations for extending pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, but I do so with one reservation, to which I will return.
Secondly, we very much welcome the proposal for new sessional committees. My noble friend Lord Adonis has argued cogently that the House of Lords’ committee structure does not provide for proper scrutiny of whole areas of government policy and that new committees should be set up to fill this gap, especially dealing with a range of cross-cutting issues on areas such as infrastructure, welfare, or public services. We have had that argument put very strongly this evening. We are glad that the Goodlad group has taken up this idea and is recommending its adoption in the form of two new sessional committees. We believe that the House should again move as quickly as possible to establish these committees to harness the knowledge, experience and ability of Members from all sides of the House to scrutinise what otherwise can very often be overlooked areas of government activity.
The report does not specifically recommend a review of our current system of committees, though my reading of the report suggests to me that the group thinks it has done so. However, the intention of the Leader’s Group is clear from the report and we would strongly support such a review. At the same time, I hope that the Liaison Committee will look at innovative ways of working to ensure that the recommendations for the various new committees can be met.
Thirdly, the Leader’s Group report makes a strong case for a Back-Bench business committee to take on the responsibility for debating days currently assigned to non-party Back-Bench business—that is, the one Thursday each month currently allocated to balloted debates. I hear what noble Lords have said but I believe that making the case for what it calls “intelligent selection”, the Leader’s Group points to the establishment in the other place of such a committee. This has been a successful innovation in the other place and we on these Benches believe it would prove equally successful in your Lordships’ House.
Good though it is, the Goodlad report does not dispose of all the issues about reform of our working practices and some difficult issues still remain. For example, many Members on my Benches who are not in their places this evening have drawn my colleagues’ attention to the Leader’s Group’s proposals for the increased use of Grand Committee and in particular to recommendation 20, as detailed in paragraph 122 of the report. That proposes that all government Bills introduced in the Commons should be considered in Grand Committee, apart from Bills in three specified categories: major constitutional Bills, emergency legislation and what is termed “other exceptionally controversial Bills”. We have concerns about what constitutes such concepts and how they would be defined and deployed. Given that much government legislation by any political party in office is often inherently controversial, any threshold of controversy would have to be sufficiently high so as to ensure that this Chamber was able to consider such legislation.
We also have concerns about proposals on the timing of Grand Committee sessions, especially among Members across the House who work outside it, as they are entitled to do. As has been pointed out this evening, there would be conflicts with committee work. One suggestion might be for Grand Committee sessions to be in the evenings rather than the mornings. While we value both the opportunity to take legislation to Grand Committee and the work done there, we believe that fuller and further consideration needs to be given to this proposal and to the exceptions—and definitions of the exceptions—that are proposed. We believe that the issues involved need to be considered with care before any move is made in this area. Indeed, if there were more Committees taken in Grand Committee, consideration should perhaps also be given to more amendments at Third Reading.
I mentioned earlier our approval for increased pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, mentioned the committee which considered the draft Bill on human fertilisation and embryology. I did not sit on that Committee but, as one of the Ministers who steered the Bill through this House, I benefited enormously from the pre-legislative scrutiny process. Yet I also have a reservation. The recommendation that all Bills embodying important changes of policy, particularly constitutional legislation, should be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny is a good one and we support it. I acknowledge that the coalition Government have introduced pre-legislative scrutiny for many Bills, but still not enough—and not for the important constitutional legislation that we have had before us. The way that this Government have introduced important constitutional legislation has been, to use as neutral as possible a word, deficient in many ways. Any process which would help to prevent any repetition is indeed to be welcomed.
There is a question about the mandate that this coalition has for many of the actions it has taken, but we recognise that a Government who have been voted in by the electorate want to get on and put into place legislation that they believe people have voted for. We did that in 1997 with our own programme of constitutional reform so, while we wish to have pre-legislative scrutiny for each and every Bill, we understand the reservation that the proposal on this issue from the Leader's Group might place restrictions on a new Government that might not sit appropriately with the swift discharge of their electoral mandate. Again, this proposal perhaps needs fuller and further consideration on that point. I also wonder whether the noble Lord might consider the current problem of pre-legislative implementation in which enormous changes are introduced, for example to the health service or in abolishing RDAs, before legislation has completed its parliamentary process.
On current working practices, we particularly welcome the report’s reaffirming not just that there should be changes for the future but that some of the House’s current practices should be fully reinstated and properly adhered to. In particular, it stressed that the minimum intervals between stages of a Bill should be properly respected, that the House should have reasonable time to consider government business and that the firm convention that the House rises by 10 pm should be respected.
This is a good programme for reform. It needs working through and some of it needs further and fuller consideration but it is a very good way forward. We must all now work to try to ensure as high a degree of consensus as possible on the direction in which this report points. Our principal focus should be on giving full consideration through the appropriate committees to all the issues involved in working towards implementation as soon as possible. We on these Benches look forward to working to make that happen.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her speech. As I made clear at the outset, my intention in leading this debate was to provide an opportunity for noble Lords of all sides of the House to comment on the recommendations that the Leader’s Group has made. Forty-three speakers have taken that opportunity. It is now my job to try and respond to them. There have been a lot of speeches and a lot of points made in each speech, so this may not be as neat a wind-up as noble Lords might like. Because I do not mention a recommendation, it does not mean that I am either against it or for it. However, there needs to be a process for moving them on from here.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that there was a broad measure of support for these recommendations, and I agree with him. It is a testament to the committee that that is the case. My noble friend Lord Tyler said that the report was pragmatic and not doctrinal. He was right about that; it crosses party lines. Even in this debate, different Members have taken different views on some of the details, but the broad thrust has been basically supportive.
Even the Leader’s Group recognised at paragraph 9 of its report that only a subset of its recommendations could be implemented with immediate effect but, as I made clear, I believe that a good number of the group’s recommendations fall into that category. That is why I intend to ensure that the House has the chance to approve or reject proposals for implementing a range of the group’s recommendations on the basis of reports from the relevant committees of the House at the earliest available opportunity.
There are of course other recommendations from the Leader’s Group that could not be put into practice without further detailed consideration being given to their practical ramifications, including costs and possible unintended consequences. The noble Baroness herself just mentioned one or two of those. While I am on the question of costs, I was impressed by what my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said about that issue. That is what I mean: around the House, the clerks, the House Committee and the other committees can look at our priorities. If we want two new Select Committees, we should look at how we can shave some costs elsewhere. It may be only 1 per cent off the total cost of the House but that does not mean that we should not search for efficiencies. I would not want cost to stand in the way of doing some of the very good things that have come out of the report and which the House clearly wants.
I was amused by my noble friend Lord Lucas’s suggestions on hereditary Peers. However, I am thrilled that as from today my noble friend will be able to write to the Clerk of the Parliaments, taking permanent retirement. That would save us some money, and he would be leading by example. Others may be following in his footsteps, although he would not know that when he wrote his letter.
It is only right that the House should not be invited to take a definitive view of all the recommendations in one go until they can each be presented in their full context. That is not about delay; it is about practicality.
What has changed in the House? There has been change over a long period of time. I do not think that anything immediate has happened, apart from some things that are obvious—the general election, for instance, and Labour going into opposition. I think that some 75 per cent of the Labour Party in the House of Lords had never known opposition in this House, so inevitably that is a bit strange. Coalition has thrust up a whole bunch of challenges, such as how we deal with Questions. In fact the greatest benefactors of that have been members of the Labour Party; they get between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of Questions at Question Time. I do not mind that because one of the features of good scrutiny is that the main party of opposition should be in the vanguard of that scrutiny.
There are many more former Members of Parliament who are now Members of this House. What I have found about former Members of Parliament is that they are so used to the firm smack of discipline from the Speaker that they find it quite odd coming here—but more of that in a moment.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of Peers, more than 100 in the past 12 months. There have been issues of assimilation. There is a great deal of expertise. A lot of people have high expectations when they come into this House and there are a lot of high expectations of them among outside groups, but of course when they get here it is all a lot more difficult. We have also had a more substantial and far more active Cross-Bench group. These are all good things, and of course Peers want to justify why they come here so they want more activity. One of the best things that has come out of the report is that we are going to give Peers more opportunities to get involved, to speak in committees and to take part in pre-legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny and a whole bunch of other things. That is one of the reasons why I think that we have to change.
The noble Baroness the Convenor of the Cross Benches said something good at the start of her speech: if only half the recommendations were implemented, that would transform the House. I am sure that we will do far better than half, but that is a sign of what can be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked about statistics. My understanding is that the really wonderful annual report of the House of Lords, which has clearly not been required reading by the noble Lord, has an enormous amount of statistics on all the kinds of questions that he asked.
I was surprised that the issue of the Leader’s Question Time did not come up more often. I think the House knows how much I enjoy being at the Dispatch Box. It is only because I do not want to hog it selfishly that I am not here far more often.
The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, raised a question about redundancy. I am glad to be able to tell him that no member of the House of Lords staff has been made redundant due to savings cuts. However, those are not really matters for the Leader. They are quite properly matters for the Chairman of Committees—
Lord Martin of Springburn
I was referring to the whole Palace of Westminster, and my understanding is that there is a 60:40 split. There are staff in this Palace who have been made redundant, but I am glad that, so far, no one in the House of Lords has been made redundant.
Lord Strathclyde
I hope they will not be, but it would be for the Chairman of Committees to answer those kinds of questions. I am not sure that I would answer in terms of my own responsibilities, as business management is done by the Chief Whips, but that is another idea that could be looked at.
Some noble Lords have welcomed the idea of getting rid of the second Statement and putting it into a Moses Room. There is some merit in that.
On the question of Grand Committees, morning sittings have not found a great deal of favour—they are quite controversial. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, made the suggestion of having them at night. I think that is a rather good idea. If we are going to have Grand Committees, there is no reason why they should not sit until 9 or 10 pm. The Procedure Committee can look at that suggestion, which is something that is very good that has come out of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that I had been opposed to Grand Committees when they were much extended by my very eminent predecessor, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He was right about that, but I conceded the point when we introduced the 10 pm cut-off because I realised that you could not have both: you could not have no Grand Committees and a 10 pm cut-off—the one forces the other. Prior to that change, we regularly sat in Committee at midnight or 1 am, and Lord Williams of Mostyn rightly made the point that we should not make legislation at that time, as 10 pm is late enough. I agree that, if we are going to have the 10 pm cut-off, then we have to have business off the Floor of the House. As more Peers wish to play a part in the business of the House, it means more Bills have to go off the Floor of the House. The House of Lords cannot pride itself on revision and then not actually get enough done to maintain its very excellent reputation.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, highlighted the issue—I wrote “Shameless!” on my piece of paper—of the 10 pm closing time. Having been a government Chief Whip, which is a very eminent post in this House, he knows as well as I do that the Opposition decide the times of Bills. There is a recommendation in the report that the government Chief Whip should stand up at the beginning of business to explain why we are going to sit beyond 10 pm, but it should, of course, be the opposition Chief Whip who should stand up at 10 pm to explain to the House why they have spent so much time on an amendment. However, we shall fight that one out on the Procedure Committee.
Lord Grocott
On the word “Shameless”, the reason why the House sits longer than it needs to is because of the size of the Government’s legislative programme. No one could sensibly suggest that in one short year you should, for example, have two major constitutional Bills and one huge constitutional proposal without having any effect on the capacity of the House to legislate. What the Leader needs to do—let us have a private conversation about this—is occasionally to suggest to his Cabinet colleagues that maybe one or two of them could possibly postpone one of their Bills until the next Session, and then we would not need to have all these late night sittings.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I very much look forward to that private conversation. I can assure the noble Lord that, as a Government, we are not moving any faster than previous Governments have done.
There are so many aspects to the issue of self-regulation, but I was very much impressed by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said. He observed that self-discipline is the corollary of self-regulation, which is at the heart of everything that we try to do. We have too many lengthy speeches, too many interventions, too many amendments at Third Reading and too many speeches on Bill do now pass. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, had it right that we break the rules far more than we stick to them. Part of that is lack of knowledge; part of it is that people think that they can get away with it—but that was mentioned by so many noble Lords.
My noble friends Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Jenkin, the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Hamwee, Lady Murphy, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and so many others talked about pre and post-legislative scrutiny. We all want it. This Government’s record so far has been good, given that we are into only the second year of office—I mentioned that when I opened the debate. I am very keen on post-legislative scrutiny, partly because, after 13 years of Labour Government, there seem to be so many opportunities to go back and have a look at what was done in our name and whether it was right.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said about an expert committee on post-legislative scrutiny as opposed to an ad hoc committee. I have leant towards an ad hoc committee because I want experts to be involved—for example, charities to look at the Charities Act or experts on gambling, I suppose, to look at the Gambling Act. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others have taken a slightly different view, which needs further consideration.
Another big issue in the debate was the legislative standards committee. It was mentioned by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, my noble friend Lord Maclennan and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I think that I know what the fundamental problem is here. It was my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield who said that we should have less and better drafted legislation. I agree with her; I have thought that for a long time. I have not quite got to the bottom of why that does not happen, because people want it and it makes perfectly good sense. The previous Government wanted to do it and failed. We, too, want to do it and I accept that we have not got it quite as right as we would have liked. I have been ambitious in this and it has not quite worked.
A legislative standards committee needs further investigation. I do not give the idea full marks, although I give its underlying intention full marks. Why is that? Well, I listened with interest to what noble Lords said about it. There is a tension between the House’s role as a revising Chamber, which many noble Lords have stressed today, and the idea that one of its committees, composed of a small group of Members, should have the right to “block”—the term of my noble friend Lord Maclennan—the progress of a government Bill. The idea that the Government need to present a business case for their legislation calls into question the basic constitutional principle that a Government with a majority in the House of Commons can expect to have their programme considered by Parliament. It would be a bit odd to have a group in the House of Lords which said, “Well, actually, we don’t like the way this has been drafted”. Presumably, it is not about policy; it is about how it all hangs together and whether a Bill is a skeleton Bill.
Lord Filkin
All that the report says is that in principle we should apply to primary legislation what already happens to secondary legislation. In the case of secondary legislation, a set of standards for good legislation is defined by the Cabinet Office and a check is then made as to whether they have been complied with. The Butler report is clear; most people say that those are good standards. All the House would do is say whether they had been complied with. It would not look at policy; that would not be its job. Nor would it have the power to say no. It is a decision for the House—it is most unlikely that it would use it—to deny a Second Reading.
Lord Strathclyde
Denying a government Bill that had already passed the House of Commons a Second Reading would be an extraordinary thing. There would be another problem. For Bills that started in the House of Lords, if this were not a Joint Committee—I think that there is much more merit it being a Joint Committee than a House of Lords Committee, which I know was the recommendation of the committee—the business managers would seek to avoid starting Bills in the House of Lords. As Leader of the Lords, I think that would be a very bad thing. There are issues here that need to be explored further. There are downsides too, but the basic aim is a good one.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Before my noble friend leaves that point, would he perhaps give us some indication of who is best placed to give consideration to this core recommendation of the report and the sort of timeframe that he would have in mind for that consideration?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, first, I think that we should invite the clerks to come forward with a proposal. The proposal should be put to the Procedure Committee and of course within this we need to decide whether it should be a Joint Committee or a House Committee. If it is a Joint Committee, there need to be discussions with another place and we would have to find out about how it felt about such things. I have no idea about a timescale, but we could get an initial view relatively quickly, and I think that that is what we should do.
The role of the usual channels got a bit of a battering; I think the usual channels and how it operates needs clarifying. Perhaps the most interesting part of the debate concerned the role of the Lord Speaker. The report has trod carefully between self-regulation, Leader’s powers and Speaker’s powers, and has come to the conclusion of an experimental period, simply to shift the Leader’s power to the chair. I am not entirely convinced that that is a solution to the problem. What has happened is that more and more people try to get in at Question Time. It is an immensely important part of the day. The House is full. The leaders, Chief Whips, Convenor—everybody is here. The Lord Speaker is in the chair. It is a focal point for the start of our day. It is Peers wanting to get in and ask their question that creates the problem.
I increasingly think that we do have to make a choice on this, and I think we ought to have an early vote and make a decision. Part of that is that you cannot have both a firm chair and self-regulation. We have to choose between one and the other. Noble Lords have said, “Well, you can have a little bit of direction from the chair and that doesn’t affect self regulation”, but I think that it does. I do not think that that is a bad thing. One noble Lord said that this House is the only legislative Chamber that does not have a firm chair. It may be that that era of self-regulation—of politeness and giving way—has moved on, for a whole variety of reasons. It is that the nature of the House and the nature of the way we do legislation have simply changed. That is the decision that I think will face us. If we move the Leader’s powers to the chair we will very quickly get into names being called. Some noble Lords are concerned about behaviour in this House. I always remind people to go a couple of hundred yards down the corridor and see a House where there is very firm authority from the chair and to really take a view. Is there better behaviour in another place? It is worth doing.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord is not offering an alternative solution.
Lord Strathclyde
That is why the House has to decide, and I am not sure that there is an alternative solution. You either push power to the chair or you do not. Perhaps more assertiveness from me and the government Dispatch Box may help and encourage. Noble Lords might like a firm smack of authority from the Dispatch Box. I accept that there is a difficulty and a problem. When I first came to the House, Members would regularly give way.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I wonder whether it might be helpful to have clarification as to the way in which at Question Time the right to ask supplementary questions moves around the House. Is the order Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Cross-Bench, or Conservative, Labour, Cross-Bench et cetera? That would be helpful to the House.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Baroness is right; it is an art and not a science. Since I have been doing it, it looks a lot easier from the other side of the House than it does from here. It slightly depends on who is speaking. When I first came here, Peers would give way to Peers who they believed were more senior to them or had more authority or more knowledge. There is much less of that now and a certain order is quite hard to impose.
With the coalition, there has been broad agreement that we do not have a Conservative Peer followed by a Liberal Democrat Peer. Whoever is next—the Cross-Benches or the Labour Party—rather depends on the question. It all goes wrong when a right reverend Prelate speaks but that is not what I meant. It really all goes wrong when another Peer, such as a UKIP Peer, speaks, which upsets the smooth flow. I am not offering any solutions. There is tougher authority either from the Dispatch Box or from the Woolsack. You cannot have both.
On the usual channels, I felt that there was again a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of this House. That might be borne of the fact that many Members come here from another place, where the Executive are powerful and have a majority. The Executive in this House have no majority. Therefore, the usual channels, in my long experience as being a part of them, work very much in the interests of the Back-Benchers. They try to put the Back-Benchers’ interests first because the usual channels know that at any stage something can be rolled over by the Back-Benchers. That is how it works.
I believe that there needs to be more clarity about how the usual channels operate. Huge advantages and privileges are given to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I understand why that should be. I will discuss with the noble Baroness ways in which we should clarify how the usual channels work, what part the Convenor, the Liberal Democrats and the Back-Benchers and so on play, and what role the Private Secretary to the Leader and the government Chief Whip play in managing the business. It is a bit of a jigsaw puzzle, but once you understand how it all interlocks it is much simpler than many people believe. I am going to ask the clerks for a list of new Peers who have not been on an induction course and who therefore do not understand how the House works, yet have very strong views on how the House should be reviewed. I shall write to them to encourage them to go to an induction course.
I have completely lost my place in my speech as a result of all that, so I will move on swiftly by saying that this has been a wide-ranging and timely debate. I have probably given the impression that I am less keen on some of these proposals than I gave at the beginning. I have picked out some of the more difficult ones. This has been an immensely useful exercise, in part because my noble friend Lord Goodlad has found the kitchen sink of procedure and process in the House of Lords. He has put it all out and there is something for everyone. I thank noble Lords for their different strands of opinion. There is now a great deal of work for the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee and the other committees to do, but it is right that we should do it. I hope that we will have an early opportunity to have a report back with a substantial number of these recommendations on which the House can take a view and therefore see that real progress has been made. I beg to move.