Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, that is, on the face of it, a compelling argument. However, I am trying to put it to the House that the Charity Commission’s own advice here is faulty. It admitted as much in our conversation this morning and said that it would circulate a letter forthwith.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

Which it has not done.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Which, of course, it has not done. I suspect the reason is that when the person I was speaking to went back to the chief commissioner and the chief executive, they said, “My goodness, we can’t go into print admitting that we’ve made a mistake”.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, in order that we might use the time for reflection to best effect, would it not be highly desirable if the opinion which I understand has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hart, or others of the group pressing the amendment, was made available to us? We could then take that into account along with the advice given by the Clerk. Is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware whether that might be enabled?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, might I answer that point? I shall ask my noble friend whether he will agree to place the opinion of counsel in the Library of the House alongside that of the Clerk of the House.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She mentioned 23,000 offences. Do they include minor offences?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I would like to be able to answer the noble Lord but I regret that I cannot. I will come back to him in writing.

The statistics and the lack of evidence for the Government’s proposals mean that Amendment 1 is essential.

I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Rosser. Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying serious offence should have their DNA and fingerprints stored for six years. This replicates the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed by Parliament but never brought into force. The six-year limit is based on Home Office analysis and reflects a proportionate response to the ECHR decision. As I mentioned earlier, the three-year figure comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no analysis of risk to public security. That is why Amendments 2 and 3 are essential. They will ensure a six-year rather than a three-year limit for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. I beg to move.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, this is an important occasion. It is far from the first time that this House has considered its own future, but it is the first time that it has considered a substantive piece of legislation on that subject—what used to be known as second-stage reform. What a pity that, as a substantive piece of legislation, the draft Bill in front of us is such a bad one.

Getting this House right is important, important to us all here as Members of your Lordships’ House but important too to our legislative process, our Parliament, our politics and our constitution. At the same time we need to remember that reshaping our constitution, though undeniably important, does not rank high in the priorities of what the public want us as politicians to do. The public’s concerns need to remain our concerns, such as jobs and the economy, health and education. Many of the Government’s Bills that this House either is scrutinising now or will have before it soon concern these areas. Whatever else the outcome of the alternative vote referendum last month showed, it showed that the public have little interest in the kind of constitutional reform proposed. In our debate on these issues over the next two days and beyond, we would all do well to keep that important calibration in mind.

This House must not be obsessed with itself. The House of Lords needs to be about much more than House of Lords reform. This House is sometimes castigated as resistant to reform and its Members are characterised as roadblocks to reform, but I do not believe that that is true. This House has in fact seen real, repeated reform, in 1911 with the removal of the fiscal powers and the shifting of its right of veto to a right of delay; in 1949 with further changes to its delaying powers; in 1958 with the introduction of life peerages; in 1963 with changes to peerage succession; in 1999 with the removal of the majority of hereditary Peers; and in 2004 with the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, with the ending of the Lords as the final court of appeal and the establishment of the new Supreme Court—evolutionary change over a long period of time, but regular repeated reform.

For some, that rate of reform is too slow. They want further and faster reform. I understand that, but reform is difficult and takes time. My party has long been committed to reform. In our 1945 manifesto, for example, when a great reforming Labour Government were swept to power by a popular vote, we said,

“we give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people’s will by the House of Lords”.

In 1964, when we were again returned to power, our manifesto said,

“we shall not permit effective action to be frustrated by the hereditary and non-elective Conservative majority in the House of Lords”.

In 1997 our manifesto said:

“The House of Lords must be reformed”,

and proposed both an initial self-contained reform to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote and a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to propose further reform. In 2010, we proposed further democratic reform to create a fully elected second Chamber, to be achieved in stages with the promise to put such proposals to the people in a referendum. That was the case I argued as a member of the committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister which, following the outcome of the general election last year and the formation of the coalition Government, was charged with bringing forward legislation on further reform of your Lordships’ House.

We believe that it was right to take part in that process, but I want to make it absolutely clear that what we have before us today—the latest attempt at reform in the shape of the Government’s draft Bill and White Paper—is not a product of that process. The Leader of the House was right to issue a correction to his Statement in the Chamber recently that the Clegg committee met as many as nine times; it did not—in fact, it met seven times. Not only did the last meeting of the committee take place six months before the White Paper and Bill were finally produced, at no point did the Clegg committee ever see anything other than policy papers. It saw no White Paper, it approved no White Paper. It saw no draft Bill, it approved no draft Bill. The draft Bill and the White Paper are not a product of that committee. It is a stand-alone Bill—a coalition Bill. Indeed, given the lack of support for the Bill on the Conservative Benches in both Houses, it is a Liberal Democrat Bill.

We as a Labour Party are committed to reform of this House; that is a long-standing policy. However, following our general election defeat and the election of a new leader of our party, we are undertaking a fundamental review of all aspects of policy. Labour members and supporters are entirely able, if they so wish, to argue for a review of our party’s support for an elected House. That is their right and their opportunity. Within the present policy position there are certainly differences of opinion on the Benches behind me. Many observers will expect my Benches to be divided on the issue, as are the two parts of the coalition on the Benches opposite. Indeed, many Labour Peers—almost certainly a clear majority—are opposed to direct elections of this House. I acknowledge and accept that. It is not my personal opinion, I am in favour of election and I have voted that way, but I recognise that many of my colleagues believe that further fundamental reform of your Lordships' House, and especially the introduction of direct elections, would damage the House, politics and the constitution. These are genuinely, often passionately, held views. They are not my views, but like my party, I respect them and those who hold them.

We on these Benches have our differences but the main issue on which these Benches are completely united is in our belief and judgment that this is a bad Bill. That is the fundamental difference between these Benches and the Benches opposite, because the Benches opposite are fundamentally divided. The Leader of the House argues the Government’s case for reform. He has done so in his speech today; he did so when publishing the Bill; and he has done so in media interviews given since its publication, though in some, such as last weekend, he seemed to give slightly different messages. However, the words “Conservative” and “Lords reform” do not sit easily in the same sentence. It is transparently clear that in setting out the case for reform the Leader of the House does not have the support of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Peers and Conservative MPs, or perhaps of Conservative Party members and Conservative supporters.

The only reason the Conservatives are able to pay lip service to the notion of reform is because essentially they do not believe that Lords reform and, indeed, the Bill before us today will actually happen, particularly in the light of the outcome of the AV referendum. The Conservative position is fundamentally divided from that of their coalition partner. The Liberal Democrats, and the Liberals before them, have long supported further fundamental reform of this House—indeed, a fully elected House. We all thought that we understood that. We all thought we knew that that was their position but now we find, following the survey by the Times newspaper, that that is not the case. Indeed, we find that, according to the survey, far from unanimously supporting a fully elected House—their party’s policy—Liberal Democrat Peers are split right down the middle over whether this House should be elected at all. Further, we find that the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party—the Deputy Prime Minister—is not supporting his own party’s policy either. In putting forward this draft Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister is not arguing in favour of a 100 per cent elected House but an 80 per cent elected House, as set out in the draft Bill.

For those of us not in the Liberal Democrat Party, these are deep and murky waters—waters so impenetrably deep and murky that the rest of us may not, sadly, be equipped to comprehend them fully, or indeed at all. No doubt, if you happen to be a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, all is clear to you. The rest of us await elucidation with interest. I suspect that the debate—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way, but I cannot resist asking her, what are the differences between the splits on her Benches and the splits on these Benches?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have explained that I fully accept that there are splits behind me, and everyone knows that. We have been totally open about that, but we are united in our view that this is a bad Bill. That is where the difference between my Benches and the noble Lord’s Benches comes.

The debate will also demonstrate that the clear and united view on these Benches is, as I have said, that this is a bad Bill accompanied by an inadequate White Paper. Even for a Government who are making it their specialist subject to bring forward bad Bills, this is a very bad Bill. It is a bad Bill because it is badly done and because it is not up to the task that it is addressing. The Government can, for example, assert to their hearts’ content, as they do in Clause 2, that nothing in the Bill,

“affects the primacy of the House of Commons”,

as the Leader of the House explained earlier. Ministers can, if they wish, assert that the moon is made of green cheese. They can even put such an assertion in the Bill, should they so choose, but however eloquent such an assertion is, and however well drafted such a provision is, it makes not a jot of difference in fact, because the changes to the House as it is currently constituted, and its replacement by an elected senate, will automatically affect the primacy of the House of Commons. The fact that needs to be faced is that further reform of your Lordships' House is not so much about the House of Lords but the House of Commons. The real impact of Lords reform is not in this place, but in the other place. With the publication of the draft Bill and the White Paper, this Government have put the primacy of the House of Commons into play.

There will be many other areas on which to focus. Difficult issues have not been addressed to date. They have not been considered or resolved. This is a bad Bill because it does not answer the key questions on the issue. What is the role of the House of Lords? What should be the role of the second Chamber? What powers should a reformed House of Lords have? What powers do the Government want a reformed House of Lords to have? What will be the conventions that govern relations between the two Chambers? What happens to the current conventions that govern the relationship between the two Chambers? Should that relationship be codified? These and others are big questions that will have to be properly addressed, properly considered and properly resolved before any Bill to reform fundamentally your Lordships’ House is enacted by Parliament. These are questions with which constitutional reformers have grappled for years. They are questions that successive Governments have considered for years. They are questions that were considered in depth by the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling—the conclusions of which included that the conventions would need to be considered again if substantive proposals on composition were brought forward, as they have been in this draft Bill, and approved by all parties in both Houses.

However, the Bill ducks those questions because, to Liberal Democrats, such questions and those who raise them are roadblocks to reform. They believe that those who pose such questions are just anti-reformers slipping into constitutionalist disguise. However, we on these Benches do not accept that. These are real questions and genuine constitutional problems. We certainly wrestled with them when we were in Government and wanted to proceed with Lords reform. Other Administrations have done the same. What is simply not adequate or sufficient is to do what this Bill tries to do—just to put the questions aside as though they do not matter. They do matter and they—

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, the noble Lord made much the same point before the dinner break. If he looks back over some of the legislation that he introduced, he will find that it is peppered with considerations and language of that kind. You cannot legislate without using general terms. The amendment that I have put forward has a long-stop protection in that it is capable of being judicially reviewed. If the noble Lord were to suggest that that is the very evil against which more precise language would guard, I would have to tell him, first, that more precise language cannot be used in a situation such as this and, secondly, that to give a controlled guided discretion to the Secretary of State is a device used in every Bill in every month of every year in this place. I am confident that it will work in this case. You have only to look at Clause 1(6), which refers to,

“pupils who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated”.

You could argue till the cows came home about what “mainly” means and what,

“the area in which the school is situated”

means. As I say, at times legislative language must, and can only, resort to generalities. I think that the amendment I have produced is capable of being used practically and to effect. The alternative would be to have nothing in the Bill, which I suggest would be the worst of all worlds.

Given the backdrop that I have described, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment, which does not apply, of course—I have specifically excluded it from doing so—to maintained schools converting to parallel academies, which will be by far the larger number. However, there would still be a significant number of new free academies, which must surely also be expected to serve the higher purpose of educational justice for all, not just their own pupils. A big society, surely, must be an equitable society, particularly towards its most needy. My amendment may not be perfect, but something like it must be in the Bill if we want to end what Mr Gove called in his Statement today a “segregated and stratified” school system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, Amendments 191 and 114 are intended to probe the Government’s view of the long term of this reform and speak to concerns expressed elsewhere in this debate. In answer to questions about the Statement on free schools, I think that the Minister spoke of pilots, although I may be wrong. The amendments to which I speak ask the Government to pilot the Bill’s approach in limited areas, or initially to cap the numbers of these new academies so that the effect on nearby schools can be considered in the light of experience. It seems reasonable to me that if the effects that have been forecast of the disruption and funding shortfalls for vital services transpire, we will know that proceeding further along this road would be an error. Other amendments in this grouping discuss the need for openness and the consideration of the wider effects of this policy when proceeding with changes of status on this scale.

Amendments 119 and 177 relate to the criteria for acceptance of an application for conversion to an academy. Crucially, they relate to the need to consider the local impact of the change in the round and to consider the impact on community cohesion of the change to academy status. These constitute very real concerns. The amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke also addresses the local impact of these schools. I support the amendment. Questions need to be answered in relation to the example that he gave of a school in Suffolk.

Amendment 76A seeks to introduce a requirement for academies introducing new or significant sixth-form provision to consult existing providers of sixth-form courses, including sixth-form colleges and FE colleges in the area. It also seeks to ensure that academies are part of regional and subregional planning groups for 16 to 19 provision. This will ensure that there is no duplication of existing provision within an area and avoid inefficiency.

Local authorities currently act as commissioners for courses for 16 to 19 year-olds funded by the Young People’s Learning Agency. They engage with all providers across local authority boundaries to ensure that courses are provided which meet the needs of students and provide the best value to taxpayers. We would need to be assured that that process would continue with academies, because there needs to be an overview.

Amendment 92A seeks to introduce a fair funding element to 16 to 19 year-old provision in academies to ensure that 16 to 19 year-olds are not treated more favourably than existing providers of education for 16 to 19 year-olds. Currently, if an academy provides or introduces new 16 to 19 year-olds’ education, the funding is top-sliced from that which is given via the YPLA to other providers in the area. This funding is provided on the basis that all the places offered by the academy will be filled.

That is not the case for other providers, which are funded on the basis of the places that they have filled in previous years. It can also create an anomalous situation whereby, if places are not taken up at an academy, but the students instead choose to go to a sixth-form college, it is still the academy rather than the college that receives this funding for those places. That creates a financial incentive for academies to offer courses for which there is no or little new demand. I am not an expert in these areas, but when I was alerted to these specific issues, it seemed that these were the very issues that we should be probing and seeking answers on from the Minister.

These amendments are not designed to shackle the Secretary of State and they do not prevent him continuing with his plan. They merely seek to assure those who have perhaps been unnerved by the speed with which he is pursuing an end to any form of community accountability for schools.