House of Lords Reform Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and, indeed, for the courtesy of briefing me before it was made first in the other place.
At a recent meeting of Cross Benchers when, not surprisingly, House of Lords reform was discussed, three phrases came up time and again. They were: independence is good for democracy; form follows function; and it is perhaps too rigid to equate democracy with elections alone, or elections alone with democracy. There are other forms of representation that could be considered to be democratic.
We now have the long-awaited White Paper with draft proposals, and the first thing to say is that the Cross Benchers, on whose behalf I am sure I am speaking, very much welcome the proposed 20 per cent independent element. We cannot but be happy about that and, indeed, about the fact that there is to be a statutory appointments commission. However, it is fair to say that there is concern about the elected way forward for this Chamber. If we agree—and perhaps most of your Lordships do—that the major function of the House of Lords is to revise and scrutinise legislation, an obvious response to the question of how best we can do that is by having available those who have relevant and current expertise in a wide range of areas. This, to my mind, necessarily means a part-time House packed with Members from the arts, sciences and humanities, with writers, film producers, IT experts, legal, medical and social welfare experts, distinguished scientists, philosophers and financiers, and those from the more technical professions to deal with increasingly technical legislation.
It would, I suggest, be difficult to achieve that by elections alone. It is more likely that there would be a greater number of politicians from the parties at the expense of the specialists whom I have already outlined. Although I would certainly not go as far as the late Michael Foot in describing a fully elected second Chamber as a “seraglio of eunuchs”, an elected House would mean more politicians—and, as Sir John Major wisely said, if the answer is more politicians, then the question is wrong.
Surely the outcome of an elected House would be to give it more political power than it currently has, despite what is said in the White Paper. That would be the inevitable result of an elected House or even a partly elected House, and I think that it would eventually result in the power of veto, otherwise why undertake such radical change? What would be the point?
Power is, as we all know, a tricky area and will have to be thoroughly addressed and resolved by the proposed pre-legislative committee. The issue of powers is so fundamental and this is so radical a proposed change that it may be justifiable to rephrase the question of reform to one of whether the House of Lords is in fact necessary at all. What I mean by that—it may not be a view shared by the Cross-Benchers but it is my view—is that I would be much more in favour of abolishing the House of Lords altogether and appointing external scrutiny committees than having an elected Chamber because I cannot be convinced that an elected House would be able to do its work better than the present House.
That said, there will be time to examine the proposals in far more detail. Once again, I welcome the inclusion of an independent element, which I trust will emerge as a truly independent element and not merely one for the purpose of rewarding the great and the good.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this is the first time since the formation of the coalition Government that I have spoken from the Liberal Democrats Benches. The reason I do so is that I want to make it clear that the tribute I wish to pay is on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this House, although I heartily concur with the remarks of the Leader of the House and, in particular, with the Leader of the Opposition in the way she dealt with the torrid time that Michael Pownall had to endure as he piloted us through some of the most difficult times that this House has ever had to endure.
The phrase that comes to mind is courage under fire, because that is what he showed. Because he showed courage under fire, he was able to give steady advice to the various party leaders. Like the Leader of the House, I believe that when this period in the House is looked back on, although it will be seen as a period of turmoil and of some distress, it will also be seen as a period of genuine reform when we put our House in order, and we did so under the wise guidance of Michael Pownall. I will not try to repeat what the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition said, but I appreciated the passion that the noble Baroness showed in her tribute, which was richly deserved.
It is always difficult to find new things to say in this slot, and I usually rely on my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who is keeper of the blessed memory as far as this House is concerned. She brought two facts to mind. She remembers that, when Michael Pownall was secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Denham—who I am glad to see is in a place if not quite in his place—under stress, he would turn to cigarettes. This surprised me. I could not think that there could be any stressful moments being private secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but there you are—you never cease to be surprised. I was also told something even more disturbing: Michael Pownall is a mimic of Rory Bremner-type skill and some of his finest mimicry is, in fact, of Members of this House. I am looking forward to getting him in a private place when he returns and asking him to go through his repertoire. There was another thing I found surprising. It did not surprise me that Michael loves Italy and is a good squash player, but I read that he is a supporter of Luton Town. A Clerk of the Parliaments supporting Luton Town! Luton Town is at the Pukka Pies end of football rather than the prawn cocktail end, but that again shows the depths of the man. Luton Town won 4-0 yesterday, so he should be quite pleased about that.
I hope that what has come through is the amazing Clerks we have in this House. They hold this House’s oldest office, yet we attract men and women who are willing to serve this House. Forty years’ service is almost unknown in today’s career paths. Michael Pownall gave 40 years of service to this House including four years of tremendous service as Clerk of the Parliaments during a historic period. I think that again the Leader of the Opposition got it right. Michael Pownall was a great public servant at a time when the term is going out of fashion. He is much appreciated as a public servant and a great servant of this House. Our thanks to Michael Pownall.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I support the tributes already paid by the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. One of the first things that one has to acknowledge about Michael Pownall, or MGP, as we like to call him, is that there is almost nothing that he does not know about the House of Lords both legislatively and procedurally. He, like so many of the Clerks, is a walking Companion to the Standing Orders, in fact, so much so that he is almost a standing order himself. His rise from being a serious young man of 23 in 1971, when one of his first appointments was as private secretary to the Leader of the House, to the culmination of any Clerk’s ambition in this House as Clerk of the Parliaments has been inexorable.
We have all become accustomed to seeing a rather worried-looking MGP speeding along the corridors, but he had much to be worried about, as we have already heard. Two major changes occurred under his watch: the removal of the Law Lords to the Supreme Court and the acquisition and refurbishment of the Millbank site. These seemingly smooth operations have entailed many hundreds of ducks paddling furiously underwater, and Michael was, at all times, their overall leader. We can perhaps repay his and others’ work by persuading some of those still entrenched in fusty corners of this Palace to move into the light, airy offices of Millbank. On behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I thank the Clerk of the Parliaments as was, Michael, for all that he has done, and for all that he is. I trust he will keep in touch with us so that we might all get to enjoy seeing him freed from his clerkly burdens.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I rise to associate the Bishops’ Bench with the tributes already paid to the retiring Clerk of the Parliaments. There is, as your Lordships know, a steady stream of new Bishops entering this House, since we rarely stay beyond retirement. Over the past few years, Michael Pownall has been a welcoming face and voice to many Bishops undergoing their induction into your Lordships’ House; many of them, unlike other noble Lords, arriving knowing almost nobody here and almost nothing about the ways of the House. The Church of England, even with its modernising agenda, has its own peculiarities and particularities, as you may have noticed. They are, however, different, from the peculiarities and particularities of this House. The Clerk of the Parliaments has always enabled those on this Bench to find their feet and even, in time, their voice. The Lords spiritual, to whom I have spoken, have paid tribute variously to his knowledge, compassion, even-handedness, approachability, modesty and courtesy. That is an impressive catalogue of attributes.
From this Bench we thank him for his years of service and pray that his retirement be blessed with health and happiness. Like everybody else, I should mention Italy, but also hope that he will be happy and healthy here at home.
Black Rod
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I should like to associate these Benches with the tributes paid to Sir Freddie Viggers. I endorse everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. Despite the many differences that have surfaced during the past few weeks, there is unanimity in your Lordships’ House about our feelings for Sir Freddie. It is tragic that such a promising start to his role as Black Rod should be cut short by his illness. We wish him a speedy recovery so that he can enjoy his retirement for years to come.
Sir Freddie and I had one thing in common: both of us were often vertically challenged. However, hand on heart, I can say that, unlike many noble Lords, we could chat face to face. Although he performed ceremonial duties, he reflected a warm and friendly personality and a great sense of humour.
We take many issues for granted, including the sense of security felt by Members of your Lordships' House. Sir Freddie not only built sound relationships with the Serjeant at Arms and the Metropolitan Police but he also negotiated the security contract. We thank him for that. Sir Freddie also helped to resolve matters relating to parliamentary passes for MEPs and more liberal filming guidelines. We thank him for his service and he will long remain a friend to many of us for years to come.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has already said, we have both sad and not so sad business before us today. The sad business is saying goodbye to Sir Freddie Viggers who, in a relatively short span of time, endeared himself to us all. His cheery, smiling presence along the corridors, always good tempered and ready for a chat, quickly made him very popular with all of us. That brought added burdens, as we all felt that we could talk to him—we did so, sometimes at great length—and he never forgot the smallest query. All too often, he would pop his head round my office corner to tell me that he had arranged a pass in double-quick time or magicked seats for unexpected visitors or even bent the rules ever so slightly to allow refreshments in the Moses Room.
We have had an anxious year and I know it is with some relief, mixed with great regret, that Freddie has now decided to retire and to continue with his remarkable recovery. Our tributes would, as has been shown, be incomplete without mentioning the constant support, encouragement and warmth that his family has shown and I too would like to add my own special tribute to Jane.
We now have an entirely happy story: the Yeoman Usher, who was catapulted into the Black Rodship, has done such a wonderful job. Utterly conscientious, always there, and undertaking hefty responsibilities, such as the last State Opening, apparently in his stride and with the greatest success. I understand that he spent several years as a logistics expert. In my small experience, logistics really means getting the right people, with the right stuff, to the right place at the right time. I certainly think he excelled in doing that in this House.
I know that Ted’s office has had to deal with a huge and sudden onslaught of work and I pay tribute to the dedication of his staff; namely, Joanne Fuller and Nicola Rivis, not forgetting Paul Murphy who spent a significant amount of time in the office of the acting Black Rod. To these three, and most of all to Ted, I offer my profound thanks on behalf of the Cross Benches and so hope that Ted can now relax and enjoy some untrammeled leisure.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, from the Bench of Bishops, I wish to add our expression of gratitude to Sir Freddie Viggers and to express that gratitude in terms of his ministry to us. I use the word “ministry” rather consciously.
At a time of many introductions to your Lordships' House, I want to express my own gratitude for the way in which Sir Freddie prepared those of us who were coming into the House for the first time. The time and effort he took over that was quite remarkable: patient, quality time with those about to go through their introduction. In my case, that was only three days before State Opening and the illness which struck him down. You would have thought that he had nothing on his mind about security or parliamentary procedures as he gave time to a neophyte bishop. We are all in his very considerable debt.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
“hundred or more.(3) A Boundary Commission is not obliged to cause a local inquiry to be held under subsection (2). They may only do so if—
(a) the objection raises substantive issues that might benefit from further comment or representation from other interested parties or individuals; and(b) any counter proposals it makes are prima facie within the stipulations of the Rules for the distribution of seats contained in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.(4) A local inquiry held under subsection (2) must be completed within six months of the close of the consultation period referred to in subsection (1) above.
(5) Once a local inquiry has been held under the terms of subsection (2) above in any given locality, no further inquiries shall be held in that locality under the terms of this Act into the same objection.
(6) In subsection (2) above, “interested authority” and “elector” respectively mean, in relation to any recommendation, a local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendation, and a parliamentary elector for any of those constituencies.””
Baroness D'Souza
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, very much indeed. Before I talk briefly about the amendment, it is unusual for a Cross-Bencher to intervene at this late stage in a Bill, particularly one that has become so politicised. As noble Lords know, Cross-Benchers are independent and not politically aligned. We are very mindful of that and I do not want to lead us in any way on one side or another. However, as many of your Lordships will know, something of an impasse had been reached towards the end of last week and I was encouraged by one or two people to see whether there was any useful role that we might play. I did so in great humility and, given that there seems to be very welcome movement, it is our wish to sink back into the background and again fulfil our role as occasional experts rather than being in the political fray. I say that with some feeling and certainly with some meaning.
The other thing that has moved me and a number of Cross-Benchers to see whether we could do something useful was the shadow, or the threat, of anything approaching a closure Motion in this House, which would have been historic. It has never happened before, and as many noble Lords have said it would undoubtedly impair the role that we play in revising and scrutinising legislation. Many of us felt that it was important to try to avert this threat. That is why I am here.
Last week, Amendment 93, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was discussed in the Chamber. The amendment seeks to reinstate the right to public inquiry on boundary changes, with many limitations, as set out in the 1986 Act. The outright ban in Clause 12 was felt to be unreasonable and possibly even not sustainable. Nevertheless, there was also a very general acknowledgement that a long drawn-out inquiry would necessarily delay the boundary changes that the Bill seeks to enact. The initial discussion on this amendment took place late on the evening of 26 January, and consequently was not brought to a vote. There is a feeling that if it had, it might have had wide support.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, makes it clear that there would be a reinstated right to oral public inquiry only if the Boundary Commission itself thought it necessary, and that the commission would undertake to limit any inquiries in order to ensure that any changes would be finalised by 31 October 2013, thus not affecting the proposed boundary changes for the election in 2015.
The question of oral public inquiry remains pivotal. On it hung the negotiation between the two sides of the House and the further progress of the Bill. Amendment 94A, in my name and those of distinguished noble Lords from the Cross Benches, builds on the original amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and on that moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in that it caps the time allowed for such public consultation to six months by disallowing a second local inquiry. This makes clear the commitment to complete any inquiries well in time for boundary changes to be undertaken.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, agreed to take Amendment 93A away and come back on Report, an offer that was greatly welcomed by all sides of the House. We are still at such a delicate juncture in trying to move forward on the Bill. My own feeling—my instinct, even—is that we need further clarification at this stage from the Minister on whether the Government can accept oral public inquiry in the Bill.
In doing so, I am trying again to underline the need to obviate the shadow of any kind of closure Motion. Additionally, although the amendment points to a rocky path ahead, that is nevertheless a pathway down which perhaps we could all go if there is the political will to do so. I believe that this is what we all actually want. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say anything but a few words more than what the Convenor of the Cross Benches has already said. I agree with everything that she said. Perhaps I could add something about judicial review, a subject with which, in a previous incarnation, I have had a certain amount to deal.
It is important to note that the amendment as drafted would reduce judicial review to its proper place in the context that we are discussing. The courts should rarely, if ever, become involved in the activities of this House. That is an approach that the courts always wish to adhere to, although sometimes it is impossible because the law as it is developed requires them to consider applications for judicial review. However, the amendment makes clear that the Boundary Commission is not obliged to cause a local inquiry to be held but gives it a circumscribed power to require a local inquiry. With the amendment worded in that way, I suggest to the House that it would be very unlikely that judicial review would be a problem in future.
If the Boundary Commission did not require a local inquiry, I cannot conceive that its decision could be reviewed. If there is a local inquiry, again I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would be possible for there to be judicial review, because, under the clear language of the amendment, the situation into which the Boundary Commission could seek a local inquiry is obviously the sort of issue on which it should properly require the help of such an inquiry.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for his words and for the spirit in which he expressed them. Before I perhaps comment on the detail, I also thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment. One of the major features was the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, when he said that there should undoubtedly be in the Bill some discretion for the Boundary Commission to do what it has to do, because it has a long history of doing some quite useful work.
What the Minister said about ensuring that there will be public hearings for political parties and the public is extremely important and very welcome. Indeed, that was what my amendment was aimed at. The facility and opportunity to express views is something that we should always cherish, and any opportunity to do so should be supported in any way possible.
I am particularly glad that the Minister feels that it is important that this process should kick in right at the start when the initial report is published by the Boundary Commission. That is also welcome. The words from the Minister, taking into account the long hours of discussion and negotiations—pleasant as many of them have been on all sides of the House— suggest that the Government have gone very far in meeting our requirements. I thank Members for their support and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what was said yesterday, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about the procedure being adopted in this House, and I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I think he is being slightly modest about the strength of views expressed by the Constitution Committee on the content and processes envisaged for the boundary review in this legislation. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I think she advocated that an all-party committee ought to look at the constitutional implications of what is happening in this House. That has already been done by an all-party committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was a very distinguished member. I have been in your Lordships' House only since 1994. With one exception, which I will refer to, I have never seen more damning condemnation of government legislation than your Lordships' Constitution Committee’s condemnation of this Bill and the Public Bodies Bill.
To those who are going to get irritated by me if I speak about Lancashire or Cornwall, or by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, speaking about Ynys Môn—and I do not think he would have been speaking for my late friend Lord Cledwyn about Ynys Môn—I say that the irritation should be directed at those who brought forward legislation that seeks to do something that we all agree should be done—to establish much more numerically equal representation—but does it the wrong way, against all the practice of your Lordships' House and of Governments since 1832. I am assured by those who look back at 1832 that the then Government got that legislation through only by packing the House with new Members, a thing that could never happen these days.
I speak to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and support him on his point about Cornwall. At a very early age, I was taught about the importance of Cornwall by my grandfather who lived in Wales. He taught me about the importance of Wales, but his grandfather was a tin miner who had left Cornwall to work in Wales. I support everything that the noble Lord says about identity and the sense of belonging. I am saddened that he does not feel able to extend that sense of identity to other parts of the country. I say to him that every time a noble Lord in this House talks about, and is supported on, the principle of local community mattering—and I support local communities mattering, for example, in Northern Ireland—and every time an exception is made, it leads to a bigger question about why this Government have, for the first time since 1832, decided in advance what the number of constituencies will be at the end. That is what is so wrong.
If an exception is made for Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight or Cornwall, it has numerical implications. If you have determined in advance the final number of constituencies, it is bound to come back and affect the rest of the country. That is my concern.
Where exceptions can be made—for example, for Cumbria, or, if your Lordships wish, for Ynys Mon, and, as your Lordships have determined, for the Isle of Wight—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Government will be honest enough to say that that will have implications for where we end up, otherwise the rest of the country could be penalised.
I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, thinks that this is amusing. It may be amusing in his part of the world, but I can assure him that memories die hard in the north-west of England. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours will tell him that people still resent being taken out of Lancashire in the last boundary review, and that is a long time ago.
I do not want to have to do this in the House tonight. I want to know that the people of Lancashire, Cornwall, Wales and Scotland can make their own case through a tried and tested procedure. The Government are wrong to smash that procedure.
I said earlier that there had been damning reports of two major government Bills. I was on duty as the government Whip when it was deemed in No. 10 that the Lord Chancellor could go forthwith, but the Government of the day had to accept that they did not have the power to do that. I do not know whether the Government have the power to do what they suggest in this legislation but, even if they have that power, they ought not to exercise it by trampling on tradition. I can understand that the Liberal Democrats may wish to interfere with tradition, but the Conservatives?
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I listened with concern to what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her speech. I think I made it clear yesterday that many Cross-Benchers—and I can speak only for the Cross-Benchers—are deeply concerned about the Bill and feel strongly that many elements in it undoubtedly could and should be improved. The point I was trying to make was that the conventions of the House suggest that these concerns should be brought to a head by means of an amendment, which is then called and divided on. Many Cross-Benchers would undoubtedly support such an amendment. The concern for a long time has been that no amendments have been brought forward and that the talk has gone on for far longer than is necessary to convince the Cross-Benchers that an amendment should be supported.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, when I came into this House I was told that it was not a tradition to divide the House too often in Committee and the general view was that we should concentrate our efforts for divisions on Report. I hope that noble Lords on the Cross Benches who have told us privately that they feel sensitive about areas of the Bill will join us in the Lobbies when amendments are moved in the next few weeks or months.
I wish to speak to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle as an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
I would dearly love six parliamentary constituencies in the county of Cumbria but I recognise that there are problems. I want to go into this in some detail because, although we have each personalised areas in the debate, there are principles involved when dealing with boundaries in Cumbria that apply more widely.
Over the years, Cumbria has made a great contribution to British politics. We have provided a large number of Secretaries of State—Edward Short, now the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara; the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham, Lord Jopling and Lord Hutton; Lord Peart, my predecessor; and Lord Whitelaw—all of whom have been members of the Cabinet. We have provided many junior Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Inglewood, Lord Brett, Lord Judd, Lord Dubs and Lord Cavendish, who intervened in the debate today, and a number of other Peers have strong connections with the county.
My noble friend Lord Liddle took us on a quiet canter around the county and explained the interesting characteristics of many of the communities which it comprises. He stressed the very strong local loyalties and community identities that are often incomprehensible to people coming from outside the county. Noble Lords should remember that we are talking primarily about the Lake District and the communities that surround it. These are historic places with a long history of community involvement and identity.
I talk this evening about what I can describe only as a sensitive issue because I was MP for Workington for 21 years. I often say to people who write to me or even stop me in the street when I am in the constituency that I have had my time and I try not to interfere, as do many of us former MPs. We do not interfere in our former constituencies. Therefore, it is with great sensitivity that I venture into the numbers. We are now in the numbers game because this Bill is about numbers not communities. I will take the county as a whole and explain the problem and the possible solution, and how the Bill may well offend lots of people within the county.
At the moment, there are six parliamentary constituencies. Broadly, without going into the actual detail, Barrow has 68,000 electors, Carlisle 65,000, Copeland 63,000, Penrith and the Border 64,000, Westmorland and Lonsdale 67,000, and Workington 59,000, within a few hundred. That makes a total of approximately 390,000 electors across six constituencies in the county. That is an average of approximately 65,000 per seat.
Those who know the detail in the Bill will know exactly where I am going. It means that every seat in the county falls under the requirement in the Bill for 76,000. The actual figure is 64,972 people per constituency. Subject to the 5 per cent leeway or 76,000, we are 14 per cent under the 76,000 target in every seat, so unless there are major changes in the way in which this legislation is implemented, there will be major changes within the county of Cumbria. We will lose a seat.
How do we proceed? On the basis of the 76,000, we can cross boundaries and to some extent destroy the identity that Cumbria has tried to build up over the past decades of being a county with our various district authorities and MPs who do not cross the boundary. That is one way of proceeding. We can cross county boundaries and compromise that principle, or we can settle on five seats, which I will come back to later.
On the basis of the 76,000 target, if we crossed county boundaries and kept strictly to the target, a part of the county—that is to say, 11,000 votes—would have to go into a neighbouring county, which in itself may create difficulties. On the basis of 72,000, which is the 5 per cent leeway deducted from the 76,000 target, crossing county boundaries would mean that 35,000 voters in Cumbria would have to go into another county, which brings us to the amendment that was moved last night when I referred to the problems that might arise in Kendal or possibly in Penrith.
Deaths of Members: Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, we associate this side of the House with the tributes paid to Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. The deaths of both distinguished noble Lords will be a considerable loss to your Lordships’ House. Their contributions to political and public life have been unique.
In the case of Lord Strabolgi, we can dispel the suggestion of a retirement age. He had occupied many senior positions during the time that the Labour Party was in opposition and also when he was in the Government. On a more positive note, the noble Lord was born in a Liberal family and had flirted with the Liberals in his political career. The noble Lord died at the age of 96. It is a sad loss and we send our condolences to his family.
Lord Windlesham also had a unique career. He was a very resolute politician. Many of us remember his confrontation with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, at the time of the “Death on the Rock” controversy, but there was also a very gentle side to his character. I first came into contact with him when he was chairman of the Parole Board. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, the then Home Secretary, had set up a commission under Lord Carlisle of Bucklow to review the parole system. Our first witness was Lord Windlesham. He was proud of a system that provided early release of inmates under licence, and many of his suggestions were incorporated into the commission’s final report.
I was always impressed with his contribution in your Lordships’ House on criminal justice matters. The quiet but resolute way that he put his case to improve our prison system was a lesson for many of us. His book, Politics, Punishment and Populism, is a must for all reformers. We join others in sending our condolences to his family and friends.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross Benches, I should like to add to the tributes that have already been paid to the noble Lords. Lord Strabolgi was 96 years old, and his almost 60 years in this House make for quite a record. We will all remember his familiar figure making its slow but determined way through the Corridors of the House. He was immensely kind, courteous and cheerful, and was always immaculately dressed. When he spoke, perhaps because he spoke so rarely, he was listened to with great respect. What shone through for me was his adherence to the principle of independence, his loyalty to the party that he eventually joined and his ability to hit the nail on the head, which was evidence of a very fine mind.
I have always felt somewhat connected to Lord Windlesham by a series of curious coincidences. He lived in the village next door to me; his cousin, who is a dear friend of mine, lives in the same village as I do; and his wife was the aunt of a close friend of mine. However, I never actually met him until I got to this House. We have heard that he had a distinguished career in various ministries and as principal of Brasenose College. Although he was a somewhat quiet and reserved man, he should also be remembered for having promoted modest reform of the House of Lords, for which the Cross-Benchers will certainly be quite fond of him and will miss him greatly.
The passing of both noble Lords means that this is a sad time for all of us, but I am sure that they will be remembered by parliamentary historians. They will be greatly missed by us.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, I add my tribute to Lord Windlesham and my condolences to his family. I acknowledge his particular contribution as a Roman Catholic to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. As we have heard, his appointment as Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office was described as “inspired”. Without people like him, the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in that province might be unhappier now than they are. We give thanks for him and for his contribution to the House and to the nation.
I also add, on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, my condolences to those who mourn the death of Lord Strabolgi. Reference has been made to his humanity and his untiring service, and these are qualities that we all should want to emulate. I acknowledge with gratitude in particular his service on the Ecclesiastical Committee. We give thanks also for him.
Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I suspect that many of us are going to say almost exactly the same thing, perhaps using slightly different words. The final paragraphs in Appendix 2 of this welcome report contain the key message that any permanent leave from your Lordships' House would require primary legislation, which is, as we know, not an impossible task, but one that does not necessarily lend itself to speedy action, and speedy action may be what is needed.
A wider question has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It is familiar to all your Lordships. It is whether reforms, such as the ones suggested in this report, are to be abandoned in view of the radical reforms that we are promised. I am of the opinion that smaller reforms are urgent and desirable. The rationale for this is that whatever is contained in the Lords reform draft Bill that we are promised for the new year, there will have to be a transitional period. No one denies this, but the question is how long that period should be. Pro-election advocates say, with some irritation, that we have been deliberating House of Lords reform for at least 100 years and that it is high time that we got on with it. However, even they cannot deny that reforms, both radical and incremental, have been taking place. The 1958 Act and the 1999 Act have had a profound impact, and the House of Lords is a very different place because of them. Lesser reforms happen almost imperceptibly. They include changes in how business is handled, such as delaying powers, greater use of Grand Committee, more opportunities for shorter debates and the appointment of a Lord Speaker with the attendant outreach programme, which is having an exponential effect on educating the up-and-coming generation on what this House does. The perception that this is a House shrouded in outdated and outmoded conventions and in need of a thoroughgoing shake-up may not be entirely accurate.
The second point that should be made is that the way in which parliamentary democracy works in the UK is a result of hundreds of years of practice, trial and error, and change and reform. Each change has had to bed down and, in some cases, has been reversed. The essential point is that the unknown and unintended consequences of major changes to the unwritten constitution are only revealed over time.
What is needed is a combination of care and caution when tampering with the legislative process. Profound change over the past 50 years or so and the need for a decent transitional phase from one system to another persuade me that we should be looking not only at incremental reform, but at implementing such reforms as quickly as possible. A House of Lords with an efficient machinery within and without the Chamber that enables it to carry out its major functions better is what we must aim for.
This brings me back to the question of taking permanent leave of absence. I do not think that anyone would seriously disagree that this House is overwhelmingly full. As I have said, this is the largest second Chamber in the world, which makes us liable to ridicule and justifiable criticism on grounds of cost alone. Closer examination shows that perhaps one-third rarely, if ever, attends.
Broad estimates indicate that this House needs about 400 to 450 Members to service the committees as they currently exist, and to take account of the fact that this is a part-time job. We will have close on 800 Members by the end of this year and the political leaders wish to do something—hence this report from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and his team.
Several solutions are listed in the report and I should like to put forward three non-mutually exclusive suggestions that again have been adumbrated by previous speakers. First, primary legislation should be introduced to allow those who wish to take permanent leave to do so. The second would be to stop appointing new Peers of whatever grouping: just put a moratorium on the whole process. While one is at it, why not disassociate the conferring of a peerage with an automatic seat in this House? The third, as has already been said, would be to introduce different categories of Peers such as associate Peers. If we can agree that perception is important if not all, perhaps we could have a system of categories such as working Peers, regular attendees, non-working Peers such as those who attend, say, less than 10 per cent of the time, and retired Peers who have not attended at all, let us say, within the past 12 months, with, of course, suitable exceptions for those who have been temporarily infirm. Again, I have said in this House that more than 30 Cross-Bench Peers have not attended in the past two or three years. I would be extraordinarily happy to write to these people—sensitively, nicely and politely—to ask, “What’s up?”.
All the above, including, as has been said, associate Peers, could have varying degrees of access to the Library and Dining Rooms, and attend the Chamber, perhaps by sitting on the steps of the Throne but not by actively participating. This would be a start and would at least indicate to the sceptical public that not only is this House aware of the torrent of Members but that it is doing something about it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and all those on the committee for looking at this problem in such a constructive way and for allowing the maximum opportunity for consultation.
Royal Engagement
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, from this Bench I should like to express our great delight at this wonderful news. We wish His Royal Highness and Miss Kate Middleton our very best wishes and assure them of our prayers not only today but in the months to come.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Benchers, I, too, would like to associate myself with the congratulations being offered. We also send our warmest good wishes to the happy couple.
Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, support the Motions. These are serious matters—serious for the Members involved, serious for this House and serious for Parliament, politics and the public beyond. We should not forget either that a number of parliamentarians, including two Members of your Lordships' House, are currently facing criminal charges to be tried in court on similar serious matters. But important though the matters before us today unquestionably are, it is important to remember that these are matters that relate to a different moment. When allegations on a number of issues were first made last year against Members of your Lordships' House, we were, in retrospect, in a poor position, our machinery outdated, our procedures similarly so, and our systems not suited to modern scrutiny.
As has been said, on these issues we have come a long way. No system is ever perfect. Any system or procedure is of course capable of improvement. We must not be complacent, but at the same time we now have a new procedure for making complaints, a new system for considering complaints, a new code of conduct against which complaints can be considered, and a new system of financial support for Members of this House. All of that has been reviewed, considered, examined and adopted within a relatively short space of time. Perhaps it was not at the speed which some outside this House would have wanted, but we have done it and what we now have—what this House has itself brought into play—is a whole range of new machinery and new procedures. Getting to this point has not been easy, but whatever we have been able to do has been right.
Today is again another day which is not easy or comfortable for anyone in your Lordships’ House. I feel great sadness. But I believe that the committee has come to the right conclusions on the cases before us and on the report from the sub-committee, and the House should support the Motions before us. The sub-committee did indeed face a very difficult task in dealing with the matters before it, and I, too, thank the members of the sub-committee and their staff for their work. At the same time, however, I believe that the main committee’s judgments in relation to the sub-committee’s report, including where it has diverged from the sub-committee’s recommendations, are right. I believe that the language of the sub-committee’s reports was in part misplaced. I believe that its inclusion of untested hearsay evidence was incorrect and that the penalties proposed by the sub-committee were not appropriate.
As a member of the full committee, I believe that we are right to make the recommendations we are putting before the House today. I welcome especially the proposal for the new Commissioner for Standards to examine issues relating to process that have arisen in the course of bringing the committee’s report before your Lordships’ House and, in particular, to addressing the question of the means by which all relevant evidence can be taken into account in our procedures. That shows that we are ready to examine, and examine continually if necessary, our procedures to make sure that they work and continue to work and to ensure that they are just. This is the right way forward for this House.
On the explicit sanctions before this House today, some may suggest that we were wrong, for instance, to alter the penalties proposed by the sub-committee, but I do not believe that we were wrong to do so. I believe that the approach taken by the full committee is the right one. The committee has judged that the three Members of your Lordships’ House did wrong and we are proposing stringent penalties in response. Just as last year when we took the decision to suspend members of your Lordships’ House for the first time since the age of Cromwell, so today we are proposing that we impose penalties of a severity never seen before in either House of Parliament. That is a tough action to take and a tough action for Members of this House to bear. Although they did wrong, as the report before you correctly concludes, I do not believe that this House will not feel sympathy for the Members involved. I know that I do. However, being aware of their difficulties and indeed, sympathising with them as colleagues in your Lordships’ House, should not for a moment pull us away from our responsibilities. We have a duty to this House, the Members of this House, to Parliament and to politics as a whole to right the wrongs where we find them and to take action as necessary to put our House in order. I have no doubt that this House will do so today.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, this is a most uncomfortable and disagreeable business, but one from which this House must not, indeed cannot, shirk. I add my thanks on behalf of the Cross Benches to all officials and Peers alike who have been involved in bringing these reports to your Lordships’ House.
Adherence to the code of conduct is a weighty personal responsibility. We in the Privileges and Conduct Committee have been obliged to judge our colleagues—a task that all of us would have preferred to avoid. However, the cases before us affect us all in many different ways. We are undoubtedly tainted by evidence of wrongdoing. The reputation of the House is at stake, which in turn affects the work that we do. The press, grossly duplicitous as it has been in some methods of investigation, has allowed—encouraged, even—the wider public to perceive this House and its work as redundant at best and unworthy of public funds at worst.
We have to face these charges. We must acknowledge and never underestimate how we are now regarded; and we have to do something to redress the balance. Much has been achieved in recent months but part of the long journey back is how we respond to the report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct before us today and the evidence contained therein. In arriving at our conclusions, the committee relied almost entirely on the evidence directly gained by the sub-committee’s, and our own, questioning, and not on press reports. Our findings uphold the sub-committee’s main conclusions with some adjustments to the recommended sanctions. In particular, we found that any acceptable or natural meaning of “principal” or “main” residence did not and could not apply in these cases no matter how generously the criteria are interpreted.
Distasteful as it is, none of us here can ignore such evidence painstakingly developed by the sub-committee on noble Lords’ conduct, nor can we by our decisions minimise the culpability or impact. To do so would be to deal with these cases less robustly than warranted and, in effect, pull up the drawbridge and refuse to take account of public anger. We have chosen to invoke serious sanctions which I believe are entirely justified by the sub-committee’s report. In so doing, the intention is not only to apply standards that prevail in the world beyond this House but to strengthen the code of conduct and to help restore public confidence in this House.
House of Lords: Allowances
Baroness D'Souza Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, it has indeed been a long journey but we are very nearly there. The two resolutions tabled by the Leader not only clearly define the parameters of legitimate claims but take us into new territory by granting all Members of your Lordships’ House an equal allowance. As has been said, but is worth saying again, this single move will deter accusations of fraudulence—if Members of this House attend, they are entitled to an allowance. It is very simple.
I know that there is discontent among some Members, particularly as regards travel. However, as has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, no system can be perfect. Nor should anyone doubt the struggle by the Wakeham group to achieve a reasonably fair and transparent system while taking Members’ concerns into account.
I am somewhat reassured by the tentative suggestions in conversations outside this Chamber that in time special cases could be looked at when for example, a given Member is unable to attend due to infirmity and suffers, or is likely to suffer, genuine hardship as a result. That is an avenue that needs to be explored. Perhaps the fact that a maximum of 40 days of secretarial allowance is offered for the two months of August and September is some compensation to those who more than regret the abolition of this allowance.
As has been said, the Motion assumes that this level of allowances will remain in place for the duration of the current Parliament. However, that should not rule out—it does not do so, according to the last paragraph of the House Committee’s report—the possibility of a review at an earlier stage should the economic climate change significantly.
The IPSA rules in the House of Commons have caused some Members hardship. The new allowances regime in this House will do likewise. However, in these days of stringency, we cannot do other than expect and accept cuts. All in all, I suspect that many in the House are relieved that the rules are now clear and that the matter of financial support is settled. I will therefore support the Motions in the names of the Leader of the House and the Chairman of Committees, and I thank all those involved in forging this new regime.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to contribute on behalf of my colleagues to this important debate. I shall be brief.
Let me say straight away that we support the Motion. I am delighted that it has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, from the Opposition. The matter of allowances paid to Peers has been discussed by my party on a number of occasions. My noble friend Lady Scott participated in the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. The present system is cumbersome and my colleagues often felt uncomfortable about claiming allowances which were often not backed by proper receipts. I am also aware that there have been various interpretations of what constitutes a main residence. Many new Peers have relied on the advice of other colleagues, with the result that we have subscribed to a system which would not be accepted in any other institution.
It is therefore right that we subscribe to a system which is simple to operate, clearly understood and commands the confidence of both the public and Parliament. I well recollect my discussions with my noble friend Lord McNally as early as 1997, when I was introduced into the House. He then advocated a system of per diem allowances, and I am glad that we are referring to that matter today.
However, there remain anomalies in the proposed system. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will look at this to see what we can do to iron them out. I am uncomfortable that there would be two types of allowances—£300 and £150. The administration of a system which allows discretion would be difficult to operate. A uniform allowance system for all noble Lords is appropriate, and it should be left to individuals if they wish to claim or not. We do not wish to be in a position whereby the newspapers can prey on who claims what. There have been examples in the press whereby reporters have waited outside the railings of the House of Lords to count how long a noble Lord has been in the House. This is not something that I welcome.
On the two amendments in the names of my noble friends, I say that there is substance in what is recommended, and I hope that we will look seriously at their comments on the amendments.