Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, criticises the Opposition when in fact the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, got up to say that he does not support the Motion and that—if it were put to vote, which it is not going to be—he would not vote for it. I really cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, started to put it about regarding the noble and learned Lord.

The problem arises—do not make any mistake about it—not because of this Motion but because the Government decided to put two separate matters together in a single Bill. That is the real problem. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may laugh, but he knows perfectly well that if he had been sitting on those Benches he would have been doing exactly the same thing. He would be opposing the bringing together of two completely separate issues.

To make it even worse, the Bill presumes to hold a referendum on a very important constitutional issue—the method of voting—on the same day as the local elections and the Assembly elections. That has already been discussed at Second Reading but, nevertheless, it is a bad thing to do. The issue of AV voting is so constitutionally important that it should have been dealt with on a separate date, after proper examination and proper information to the people of this country.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I take issue with the assumption of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the House of Lords is not, as part of its responsibility, a guardian for the proprieties of passing legislation. It will not do for him to suggest that when we seek to establish whether a Bill is hybrid or whether it is proceeding properly or requires other forms, we are time-wasting, dithering or trying to delay. It is part of the task of the House to establish propriety. When I was a Minister, time and again Members opposite wished on Report to move back to Committee. I could have alleged, with the same force as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did today, that this was time-wasting and impeding of the Government, and that the party opposite was trying to use process to delay important legislation. I would not have dreamt of it, because it was proper and right that, if there was a concern about the propriety of how we were handling legislation, those views should be listened to and, even if it took extra weeks to get the legislation through, we should take that time—and we did. I take it very ill indeed, when the Opposition are rightly reminding the Government of their responsibility to observe the proprieties of legislation, to be accused of time-wasting and hindering the pace of the Government to succeed.

Business of the House

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable your Lordships to have a proper Committee stage of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill rather than just the usual, truncated process with, in effect, only a Second Reading, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Indeed, I thought that the latter part of the noble Lord’s contribution was, frankly, unworthy. I had hoped that he would deal with the issue on the basis of the argument advanced. This is not a wheeze; it is not a ploy; it is not mischief making or opportunism. The amendment would require a timetable in which consideration of the Bill was concluded within one month of its introduction into your Lordships’ House, which in effect means by the time that the Commons rises for Christmas.

The Bill has been certified as a money Bill by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The amendment seeks not to challenge that certification but to deal with the consequences of the Bill’s being so designated. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that we have not sought to do so in similar debates on recent Bills that have gone through your Lordships’ House. Indeed we have not—as he outlined, I participated in such a debate just last week—but this is a different Bill. We are trying to achieve a Committee stage only for the Bill before us.

The noble Lord rightly cited the Parliament Act, but the Companion says:

“If a money bill, which has been passed by the Commons and sent up to the Lords at least one month before the end of a session, is not passed by the Lords without amendment within a month after it is sent to them, the bill shall, unless the Commons direct to the contrary, be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords. This does not debar the Lords from amending such bills provided they are passed within the month, but the Commons are not obliged to consider the amendments”.

Why on earth the noble Lord seeks to pre-empt what we might do—whether the Bill might be amended if we had a Committee stage, and indeed what the Commons’ reaction to that might be—is a little strange. We do not see the Committee process as having no point.

The Bill will do three things: it will stop any further government contributions to child trust funds; it will end the savings gateway; and it will abolish the health in pregnancy grant. It was somewhat surprising to us that a Bill of this nature was designated as a money Bill, particularly given that the setting up of each of these arrangements was by way of separate primary legislation that included all the usual stages in your Lordships’ House. It was also a surprise to our colleagues in another place. A reading of their proceedings will illustrate their clear belief that there would be the opportunity to continue to advance the argument for some changes to the Bill at this end and, in so far as I can tell, the Minister, Mr Hoban, did not offer a contrary view.

The Bill’s being certified as a money Bill denies this House the full opportunity to bring its knowledge and experience to bear on major matters of social policy concerning poverty, family and child welfare and the health of pregnant women. I do not propose to speak in detail to the range of issues that might be raised in Committee, but I will say that that particularly denies the opportunity to develop and amend how the Bill impacts on looked-after children. For example, the position of looked-after children has been the subject of ongoing discussion, initiated by Paul Goggins MP, about the hiatus between the abolition of child trust funds and the promised introduction of junior ISAs. That is very much work in progress. The discussion, involving the Minister, recognised that looked-after children have only the state or their corporate parent to make the equivalent of parental contributions to these savings vehicles.

As we know, it is often the case that issues emerge during the consideration of legislation in another place. Amendments may be proposed, arguments advanced and rebuffed and then reconsidered and reformulated for consideration here. Knowing that there can be a second bite at the cherry—a chance for some reflection, challenge and consensus building—has proved an important element in improving legislation. We know that some stakeholders are particularly frustrated at knowing late in the day that the House of Commons was possibly their only chance to improve legislation. Noble Lords may have heard from Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, Gingerbread and the Family and Parenting Institute. We are seeking the opportunity for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage so that those matters that some consider to be unfinished business can be properly examined. The rules allow it; we know it must be done expeditiously in order not to fall foul of the one-month rule; and we would co-operate in the timely scheduling of the Bill’s stages.

This matter raises a broader issue. As I have made clear, we do not seek to challenge today a certification of the Speaker, but we need to understand it and its possible future ramifications for our deliberations. We understand that this is a money Bill because, although the setting up of child trust funds, the savings gateway and the health in pregnancy grant were matters of policy, a parliamentary measure that only withdraws funding for them is a money Bill, notwithstanding the fact that removing funding involves prioritisation—and therefore policy changes—and will bring to an end these particular policy mechanisms. We fear that such designation paves the way for the Government to rely on the cloak of deficit reduction in a way that would deny your Lordships the opportunity fully to scrutinise swathes of policy, from the withdrawal of education maintenance allowance to changes to the benefits system. That would deny this House what it does best. This is a matter to reflect on both here and in another place.

For today, we simply ask to have the opportunity to have a proper Committee stage on a Bill that has significant social policy ramifications. If we cannot achieve even that, what hope is there for the future? Let me be clear that the amendment seeks not to challenge the Speaker’s decision—the amendment accepts the decision—but to apply to the full, and without expanding, the restricted opportunities available to this House when dealing with a money Bill. The amendment does not seek to frustrate the timetable of the Government. If we do not pass this Bill by Christmas Recess, the Bill will go for Royal Assent anyway. The amendment would not undermine the thrust of the Government’s deficit reduction plan, whatever our disagreement with that plan. This is about us—all parties and none—having a chance to input into important policy changes that will affect the lives of many young people and families. That is, after all, why we are here. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend. I do not want to go over the ground that he has laid out on why, on this particular measure, he is not challenging the Speaker’s ruling that this is a money Bill, even though I find it very difficult to understand why a policy established by primary legislation requiring expenditure could then be revoked under the description of a money Bill. I say this because almost every piece of social security legislation could in future fall under the remit of being labelled a money Bill and therefore not available for debate or scrutiny in this House.

Let me give two examples, in which I suggest that this House has more experience and more to offer on this debate than most other agendas, and probably more than the other place. We know, for example, that there is a question over whether the mobility component for people in long-term residential care will be removed. In previous debates my noble friend Lady Wilkins and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke passionately about that. Such a move would remove money resulting from a policy established in primary legislation back in 1992, by the then Government, which we all supported. Under this precedent, that could be labelled a money Bill, and notwithstanding the expertise of this House in disability matters, about which this House feels very strongly indeed, we would not be permitted to debate it. It not just about this House and about Parliament—hundreds of thousands of disabled people would be affected as a result.

In another example, a week or two ago I led a debate on housing. There were half a dozen of us on these Benches, half a dozen from the Lib Dem Benches, who made very powerful speeches, half a dozen from the Cross Benches, and one person, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, from the Conservative Benches. We analysed forensically the issues associated with changes in housing, and I welcome the fact that the Government appear to be listening to some of those concerns. In future, if this is a precedent, nearly all those issues that we debated would be, and could be, classified as a part of a money Bill and not available for this House to discuss, explore, revise and, if necessary, to ask the other place to think again about.

This is extraordinarily dangerous. There is hardly any piece of government policy that does not involve expenditure. This means that, in theory, almost every piece of policy could be regarded as a money Bill and this House would be denied scrutiny of it. I have given just two examples from social security but it could affect a lot of local government funding as well. I hope that your Lordships will today accept my noble friend’s amendment; and that perhaps consultations could take place between the two Houses to make sure that the other House realises the seriousness of the precedent that could be set, and that we would be walking away from a major part of our responsibility to the public we seek to serve.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am not by any means the longest serving Member of your Lordships’ House but I have been here for 48 years. This is the first time in all of those 48 years that I have heard a challenge to the Speaker’s certification of a Bill as a money Bill. The amendment is quite inappropriate. It seeks to drive another coach and horses through our constitutional protections—so much a feature of the previous Government. The amendment should be quickly withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very happy to answer questions on this from other noble Lords as well, if they so wish. However, I find it very difficult to help the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. It is as if noble Lords assume that I had greater knowledge than I have of what decisions were being taken in another place on the certification of money Bills, or when the decision was taken. My understanding is that it is a decision not of the Government but of Mr Speaker, taken on advice from his Clerks. I dare say that the stage at which he makes that decision is up to the internal procedures of another place. The point about this House is that we have to deal with the effects of the decision that has been taken in another place. We have no discretion in the matter. If it is certified a money Bill, a money Bill it is. If it is a money Bill, whatever we do to it matters not a jot because another place can ignore that comprehensively.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord ensure, not just as leader of the government party, but as Leader of the whole House, that future legislation, such as social security legislation, will not come up here with the imprimatur that means that we cannot discuss disability issues and the like?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is very hard to answer that question as Leader of the whole House without looking back in the mists of time at the reasons for the 1911 Act. The reason we have had the privilege of dealing with monetary and taxation legislation is in the history of 100 years ago. With the best will in the world, I have no intention of reopening that any more than any of my predecessors have done over the last 99 years.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I, too, support the Motion. I declare an interest as a resident of Norwich and as a former leader of the city council. I wish to repeat a couple of points in addition to the excellent speeches that we have heard from all around the House. This Motion is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill. It is certainly not about the merits or otherwise of unitary status. The debate is not even about whether the Bill is hybrid, despite the speech of the Minister, who is seeking to act as judge and jury—if I may put it that way—on that issue. The House is not being asked to decide that. That is a matter for the Examiners, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, put it so well. What we are discussing is a procedural “reasonable doubt” issue.

The most relevant guideline comes from the Speaker’s ruling, also on a local government Bill, which was quoted by my noble friend. I repeat it, because it represents a very low hurdle indeed. The ruling stated:

“I accept the true position to be this, that if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill”—

I repeat, “if it be possible”—

“it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]

I will not explain what the hybrid issue is; the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has done that very well. However, given that there is such a very low hurdle, is it possible, in the words of the Speaker of the Commons, for the view to be taken that the Bill is hybrid? Such a view should clearly not be whimsical or something that I thought up in the bath. In fact, we have the view of learned counsel and of parliamentary agents, Sharpe Pritchard, which has stated that it is strongly arguable that this Bill is hybrid. Others, perfectly properly, may take a different view.

However, we are not asking the House to judge that this afternoon. That is a matter of judgment. We are asking it merely to decide whether the arguments from QCs and parliamentary agents meet the very low hurdle of the test set by the Speaker, when he said,

“if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill”,

it should go to the Examiners. Opinion from learned counsel and parliamentary agents would seem to me not to be frivolous, but a serious one that should be explored by the Examiners.

Counsel’s opinion is, therefore, unambiguous and it seems to me that the Speaker’s ruling applies unambiguously, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, argued. If the House ignored that ruling—and the Clerks’ advice was given in advance of them seeing learned counsel’s opinions to the contrary—that would flout not only the clear ruling of the Speaker and the House would be, if I may say so, behaving in a very high-handed way which all of us have studiously sought to avoid, precisely because we are not elected.

Whatever our views about the Bill—and I fully accept that they will be various—I do hope that we all agree that we should be seen to be meticulous and transparent in our procedures. If not, we cut away further at our distinguished history and that will leave us more exposed in the future. Whatever noble Lords’ views about the merits of the Norwich and Exeter case, I hope that they will support this Motion, because that would show the House of Lords at its most reflective best.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, perhaps I may make two or three points. First, this Motion is certainly not about the merits of the Bill. As far as the Bill is concerned, I was not in favour—and I am still not in favour—of Exeter becoming a unitary authority. On the contrary, as someone who spends a large part of his time down in Devon, it is important that Exeter should remain with the rest of Devon. However, that is not the issue. I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan when he said that it is a simple point—it is. Where are we? What is the dilemma facing the House? It is simply this: on the one hand, we have the Clerks. They have given their respected, respectful and highly considered opinion which states that the Bill is not hybrid. On the other hand, we are now in a position whereby an eminent Queen’s Counsel, who is experienced in this branch of the law, has also given a firm and unequivocal opinion that the Bill is, or could well be, hybrid. How can we resolve that? We cannot.

I am not in a position this afternoon to argue whether or not the Bill is hybrid, but I am in a position—and I hope that the rest of the House will follow me in this—to say that there is a clear argument as to whether the Bill is or is not hybrid. That being so, the procedures on how to resolve that are perfectly clear: the Bill has to go to the Examiners. The Examiners are there to assist the House in coming to a conclusion. It seems to me that we cannot come to a conclusion today, except by ignoring one or other reputable opinion by reputable people. I am not prepared to ignore one set of views in favour of another; I am not in a position to make up my mind. There is a clear issue here and, that being the case, the Bill should go to the Examiners and I shall support the Motion.

Barnett Formula

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. We recognise the force of the arguments and are carefully considering the various reports. There is as yet no consensus on exactly what a needs-based assessment would take account of. In the mean time, the coalition’s priority, as I have said, is to reduce the deficit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, given that the Barnett formula funds on the basis of population and not need, does the Minister agree that it is profoundly unfair to overfund Scotland by the extent of some £4 billion to £5 billion a year, while requiring underfunded local authorities in the rest of the country to make further savage cuts as their contribution to reducing the deficit?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in circumstances where the public sector debt is approaching £900 billion and the PBR forecast for 2009-10 is for net additional borrowings of £156 million, or about 11 per cent of GDP, I am surprised to hear that the noble Baroness thinks that the Barnett formula is a more urgent matter.