House of Lords Reform

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, as has been said, constitutional Acts affecting this House include the Life Peerages Act 1958, the House of Lords Act 1999 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. That legislation has had a profound effect on the work and composition of the House of Lords—very much for the better, as almost all would agree.

More recently, a stringent Code of Conduct has been agreed and implemented, a commissioner for standards has been appointed and we are about to have a new and transparent financial support scheme. We have on the table a raft of small but important further reforms, such as those in the so-called Steel Bill which, if enacted, would address retirement, sanctions, the House of Lords Appointments Commission and hereditary by-elections.

The Leader of the House has referred to a group on retirement and is setting up a group to consider further the recommendations put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Butler, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on strengthening Parliament. These would encompass greater pre- and post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation; better legislative standards; public evidence hearings for government Bills; improving lines of accountability and transparency in all our work; and measures to make the planning and execution of business more efficient.

So reform is clearly taking place. The above measures are aimed at enabling this House to do better what it already does well. Why do we need an elected House to do what this House does well and for which it is widely respected? In other words, why fix what ain't broke? What would elections add to the process? How would elections strengthen the functions that this House undertakes? Those are genuine questions, and it is difficult to find answers.

Let us take the important question of democracy. This House, it is said, lacks legitimacy because it is undemocratic, and will continue to do so until it is fully elected. Let us consider how far elected representatives will be able to deliver the relatively impartial and independent scrutiny that this House specialises in. One of your Lordships said at a recent meeting that in order to do our job, Members must somehow manage to stay out of the pockets of Whips, but the proposed reforms would be precisely to deliver us into the hands of the Whips. Democracy, which I shall define for the moment as freedom to say no to the Government of the day, would surely be eroded—possibly in a short period.

Once again, the role and functions of this House are quite different from those in the other place. Certainly a fully elected House would in one sense be a strengthened House, in that it would have the same legitimacy as the other place. If this House is elected, it will inevitably behave like an elected Chamber. Is that what the Government want? Do they want to legislate for tension and possible stalemate between the two Chambers? What would then be the point of such a second Chamber?

Let me briefly say something about the proposed mechanisms for achieving reform, which have already been addressed in some detail. The Deputy Prime Minister courteously called me to tell me in advance about the announcement that he was about to make in the other place two weeks ago about the Cabinet drafting committee to be set up, for which I am extremely appreciative. However, I asked him why I, as representative of almost one-third of this House, was to be excluded. The answer, which I think is worth repeating verbatim, was “I want a clear and explicit political consensus which I would not get if you were on the committee”. I appreciate the frankness, but I wonder what consensus means or what kind of consensus is concerned with talking only to those who already agree with your plan. That is no way to rewrite fundamental parts of the constitution of this country.

There is an area of further contradiction and confusion. It concerns the seemingly endless march of new Peers into this House—all of them extremely worthy and welcome—when on all Benches we agree that a smaller House is not only desirable but imperative. That is coterminous with an almost deafening call for a fully elected House. Do the Government believe that such actions command public respect?

Your Lordships would expect me to express those views—being, for the moment, Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. It is, after all, an aspect of my task to extol the virtues of an independent element in this House, and I do so willingly, but the issue is so much wider. We are heading at dangerous speed towards a major constitutional change by relatively undemocratic procedures. Once done, it cannot be undone. We have before us a much needed programme of rolling, incremental reform. This House would be the better for many of those reforms but, as they show, we do not need an elected House to achieve them.

Financial Provision for Members

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I add to the thanks already expressed to the Wakeham ad hoc group for its report, which I know has taken a great deal of time and may have caused a few more grey hairs. It is particularly helpful that the proposals put forward by the SSRB have in large part been accepted, thereby holding true to the resolution in this House last December to accept the principles and architecture of that report. One or two of the more strange recommendations have been ironed out, such as the need to separate man and wife when travelling in a first-class railway carriage.

I say this in anticipation of the debate which is due to be held tomorrow on House of Lords reform. Let no one say that this House does not undertake reform. In the space of less than a year we now have a stringent code of conduct, an active sub-committee on privileges and standards and greater financial transparency.

There is of course room for further adjustment, which is why the suggestion of a review in a year’s time is welcome. The Leader did not actually suggest that in his speech, but I think it is in the air. One area that continues to cause some concern is that the daily allowance is tied to presence, and this may affect disabled peers where daily attendance would in fact reduce productivity rather than enhance it. I again ask that there be some flexibility in the implementation of allowances.

The Government have now put forward a variation on the Wakeham proposals; namely, a fixed daily allowance for all attendees. As we have heard from all sides, the chief advantage of this proposal is that it would immediately lighten the burden on the finance office: no invoices, no verification measures and no end-of-term adjustments. Another advantage is that adoption of this proposal, as has also been stressed, would for ever pre-empt any accusations of fraudulent claims.

I can see the attraction of this simpler payment system and agree with the government proposal, but I also have some sympathy with those who live outside London and who stay in London for the purposes of attending your Lordships’ House. These people will be penalised to the extent of anything up to perhaps £700 per month, receiving only £300 per sitting day rather than £341 for a receipted overnight stay.

There will be those who argue that an allowance structure will inevitably invoke questions about tax. I feel that the sum of £300 per day to cover all secretarial, office and subsistence costs is not unduly generous, and that any further reduction would seriously deter some Peers from attending at all. It would be helpful for those Peers who live in more distant parts for a distinction to be made, in any publication of costs incurred, between the actual total allowances for a given month and the travel costs, since these expenses are paid directly and thus are not part of any allowance.

The stated aim of the SSRB recommendations was to restore public confidence. I suspect that public confidence will ultimately rest upon more than the size of a daily fee; it is to be hoped that this House will be judged on the work that it does in improving legislation. That said, the changes put forward in the SSRB, the Wakeham report and the noble Lord the Leader’s Statement are all to be welcomed.

Afghanistan

Baroness D'Souza Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I thank the Leader for repeating this constructive Statement. I add on behalf of the Cross Benches to the tributes already paid to those who have died in the line of duty.

It has been persuasively argued by long-term Afghan experts that the war against the Taliban is unwinnable for many reasons, some of which have been listed by the noble Lord. One of them is that the training camps supplying fresh batches of suicide killers for export are now based largely in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which are on the whole outside the reach of the Pakistan authorities. The link between the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is almost negligible now. Nor is the Taliban centrally involved in exporting terrorism; it is concerned much more with domestic control. It would seem that the justification for the surge looks increasingly thin. Does the Minister therefore agree that a different, perhaps more limited, strategy is called for? I suggest, for example, as have others, that a strategy which focuses on protecting the main cities, together with maintaining a highly trained, mobile force to take out any remaining training camps, is possible, desirable and therefore to be recommended.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers, makes some important and valid points, but it is the view of the Government that the key area for us to spend time and money on is the reintegration and reconciliation process of dealing with Taliban leaders. The noble Baroness rightly said that it is an unwinnable war if the only means at our disposal are military. It is not a war that can be won simply with guns and arms; it needs to be part of an overarching political process. That is why we are very glad that the peace Jirgah that took place early in June was a success. It was part of what we believe to be the inclusive political settlement, which is so necessary in restoring the peace and security in which prosperity can increase. We are trying to support the emergence of a strong and stable Afghanistan state. There will be parliamentary elections in September, all part of the process of creating that strong and stable state, and a great deal of work is ongoing to ensure that those elections are a success. The Prime Minister himself will see President Obama in July, when no doubt this will be uppermost on the agenda.