Hereditary Peers: By-elections

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have the power to take the Bill in government time, which we would greatly welcome. Some 60 years ago there was not a single female Member of your Lordships’ House; things have moved on and improved since then. This year we are celebrating 100 years since women gained the right to vote in general elections. So is it not a deep-set irony that the only place in the UK that will not have elected a woman in a recent by-election is your Lordships’ House? Surely hereditary by-elections have had their time, which has passed and gone. I know that the noble Lord is very good at keeping a straight face on this issue and I admire him tremendously for that—but the time has come for them to go.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not sure who put the Equality Act 2010 on the statute book, but it does not extend to the hereditary peerage—that answers the first question. On the second, the House of Lords Reform Act went on to the statute book in 1999. The Labour Government had 11 years with substantial majorities in another place in which they could have addressed this anomaly. It is a little unfair to criticise this Government for not making it a priority.

Terrorism: Public Alert Technology

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The meeting I had this morning was precisely because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had a Question, which he put to me. However, the work was in hand and if the noble Baroness looks at the progress report—which I think came out last October, following the noble Lord’s report—it said:

“Engagement is continuing between City Hall, the Cabinet Office and other partners on this work. MOPAC”—


which is the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—

“will continue to work with central government to make the case for a trial in London of the technology suggested in Lord Harris’ review”.

So it is not the case that nothing was happening before the noble Lord tabled his Question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

But, my Lords, I think it is almost a lack of progress report rather than a progress report. I am greatly encouraged that my noble friend Lord Harris put this on the table today; otherwise, the Minister might not have had the meeting at the Cabinet Office this morning. I put it to him that other countries seem to have resolved these issues: the US in 2012, and Australia has had a similar system since 2009, as, indeed, has the Netherlands. I ask him to reflect that this is about alerting people not just to terrorist incidents, but to the lack of an incident. He will recall two incidents last year when there were stampedes at Oxford Street station because misinformation went out. The sooner such information can get to people as quickly as possible, the sooner we can stop disinformation and the kind of injuries we saw in those two incidents. So I urge that we have a progress report as soon as possible, rather than a lack of progress report.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope I was able to reassure noble Lords that progress is now being made. I accept the implied criticism that we could have got here a little sooner. There is the potential, as the noble Baroness has just said, to avoid the sorts of incidents that she mentioned. There is also an opportunity to use technology in a way that it is not used in other countries at the moment, I think, which is why we are looking at a slightly different scheme; for example, in the case of the attempted murder in Salisbury, with a modern system it would have been possible to identify anyone with a mobile phone who had been in an area of contamination at the relevant time and send them a specific message. This is new technology and we want to make sure that if we go ahead, we use all the benefits that modern IT provides.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

That was indeed the point I wished to make, and which my noble friend has made more eloquently than I could. But the noble Lord—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If I may assist the Committee, the House cannot vote on a Motion that has been withdrawn; it can vote only on a Motion that is before the House. The noble Viscount may have some very wise, erudite and sensible comments that the Committee is longing to hear, but would they not be best made on an amendment before the Committee that has not been accepted by the mover?

[Viscount Trenchard]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accepted the amendment, but I was not aware whether other noble Lords had accepted it.

On the regret Motion, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne sought to withdraw it, but in spite of that it was voted on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard]

I thank the noble Lord for his advice. However, of the 17 minutes for which I have been on my feet, I have been interrupted for more than 50% of the time, although with your Lordships’ leave I would like quickly to move to complete my remarks.

It is very valuable that there is more than one route of entry to the House. I do not think that uniformity of mode of selection, whether by prime ministerial support or meeting the approval of an Appointments Commission, improves the House’s capacity to represent the community. In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said:

“Tell us precisely why we continue to replace the 90 hereditary Peers”.—[Official Report, 8/9/17; col. 2153.]


The answer is simple. As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and others have said, the 1999 agreement is binding in honour on those who gave their assent to it. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will say that that no longer applies 19 years on. I disagree. I believe it should still be honoured 100 or 200 years on. Of course, noble Lords have no idea what constitutional arrangements will be in force 100 years from now, but the 1999 agreement—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount, because we are enjoying his speech so much, but is he aware of the principle that one Parliament cannot bind another?

[Viscount Trenchard]

I am aware of that principle. Nevertheless, at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gave a commitment binding in honour that this would remain in force until complete reform of the House of Lords was achieved, however long that takes. I think it was well understood that complete reform means the replacement of your Lordships’ House by a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, as envisaged by the Parliament Act 1911, which restricted the powers of your Lordships’ House until such time as it was replaced by a House selected by popular vote.

Lastly, it is a pity that the remit given to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his report excluded this question, because it is difficult to consider it in isolation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that a piecemeal approach to reform of your Lordships’ House is wrong and believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, should have also considered the question of hereditary membership of the House.

House of Lords: Membership

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The point that the noble Lord has just made was made in the debate. I thought that it was dealt with very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who said:

“We are told that a further list of appointments is about to be published but I do not share the apocalyptic view expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I believe that this can be regarded as a legacy issue arising from the May general election that does not inhibit the adoption of the approach in the Burns report”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2017.]


I hope the noble Lord is reassured by the words of the former Cabinet Secretary.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord’s answers: he has perfect comic timing. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, there is widespread support in your Lordships’ House for the principles and recommendations of the Burns committee to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. We know that for Burns to be effective the Prime Minister has to exercise restraint and a sensible, proportionate approach to appointments. It would be entirely unacceptable for Mrs May to announce a raft of new appointments and only later to accept Burns—I think that that was part of the point that my noble friend was making. I am happy now to make an offer and give a commitment to the noble Lord and to the Government that if the Government are prepared to accept the Burns proposals, including that departures from and introductions to this House should be on the basis of two out, one in and a 15-year term limit, probably from the recent general election, we will abide by that. Will the Government agree to do so as well?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said, the Government are considering the report and will make their views known shortly. But to pick up the point that the noble Baroness just made, in her speech—she made a good speech, if I may say so, as did my noble friend and the Leader of the Lib Dems—she said:

“It is not about giving up patronage or appointments but about showing some restraint, as it used to be”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2105.]


The Prime Minister has demonstrated restraint. Putting on one side David Cameron’s resignation honours, in the past 18 months the Prime Minister has appointed eight new Peers: five Cross-Benchers and three Ministers. I think that is demonstrating the restraint that the noble Baroness has just asked for.

House of Lords: Register of Hereditary Peers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The arrangements that the noble Lord refers to do not just date back to 1999; they were confirmed in 2010 in the Equality Act. This legislation was introduced by the Labour Government and the relevant provisions exempting peerages passed without debate and without amendment in this House in 2010. So it is not a matter of blaming the 1999 arrangement. The House recently had an opportunity to address this matter but, when the legislation went through, it declined that opportunity.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

But, my Lords, we are now in 2017. Some of my best friends are hereditary Peers, but this is not about the individuals concerned; it is about the system. Many “Blackadder” fans in your Lordships’ House will remember the Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election. As Blackadder said, it was half an acre of sodden marshland in the Suffolk fens with an empty town hall, a population of three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin and a small hen in its late 40s. Such rotten boroughs in real places had larger electorates than some of our hereditary Peers’ by-elections and they were abolished in 1832. We all know that my noble friend Lord Grocott has a cunning plan. Is it not time for the Government to support his Bill?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I say to the noble Baroness that her Government had 13 years, from 1997 to 2010, in which to address this issue but they did not do so. They had a further opportunity in 2010, when the Equality Act, to which I referred, was introduced to address it and they declined so to do. So far as the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is concerned, we had a good debate at Second Reading. I set out the Government’s view at that point, and we look forward to its Committee stage when my noble friend the Chief Whip finds time for it. The noble Baroness said that some of her best friends were hereditary Peers; my line manager, the Deputy Chief Whip, is a hereditary Peer.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is always a sense of déjà vu in these debates and, today, I think the prize for originality goes to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for the proposals that he put forward. Some of the speeches that we have heard made a case for radical reform more than others—some, perhaps, unintentionally so. I always think there is an irony that when the Government talk about Lords reform, they often do so in terms of looking at the powers of your Lordships’ House—it was appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, came to the Chamber at that point—yet, when your Lordships’ House looks at the issue, it is often in terms of composition and who should be a member of the House.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as she has obviously given this Bill a great deal of thought. Even though I think there are some confusing outcomes, I have been grateful for her explanations. However, as far as most people are concerned, there is a bit of cynicism about the House of Lords making any great changes. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was making a point about one case as opposed to another. It is just that if you ask different questions, and you ask them in a certain way, people agree or disagree on the basis of the question that is asked. However, when you ask people whether the House of Lords will be reformed, the answer is often, “Well, that’ll be the day”, in the words of the great Buddy Holly, the anniversary of whose death is today. There is cynicism with regard to any great change taking place.

For me there are two key tests. The starting point for any debate on Lords reform is the role of this House in our parliamentary infrastructure. The second point to consider is the role and function of this House. We need to consider whether any change or reform enhances that role or diminishes it. As noble Lords have said, we operate as part of a Parliament, not independently in a vacuum. Members of an elected second Chamber would undoubtedly claim greater legitimacy and authority. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not in his place but I apologise to him again for agreeing with him. He made the point in a previous debate that if he was standing for election to a second Chamber, he would not knock on doors and say, “Please vote for me so that I can take part in debates and advise the House of Commons”. If Members are elected to a second Chamber, they will want the authority and legitimacy which come with that election. The House of Commons has primacy as an elected Chamber. Its directly elected Members of Parliament represent individual constituencies. We have seen the value of that this week in relation to the Brexit vote. The lobbying of MPs was straightforward. The constituents who wanted to make their views known knew who to contact and how to contact them. Indeed, the postbags of most MPs comprised thousands of letters, emails and phone calls.

The Bill proposes a certain model of election but does not address any of the issues of function or the relationship with the other place, or how its proposed changes would impact on our constitutional arrangements with the Commons. I have always found it hard to understand how an elected second Chamber, with the legitimacy and authority that that confers, could then argue that the House of Commons had primacy. I listened carefully to both the Liberal Democrat speakers on this issue. I think there is a contradiction in their position. On the one hand, we heard that an elected second Chamber would better challenge the House of Commons and the Executive. I think that one noble Lord said that we would not be afraid to flex our muscles. I do not think that it is a case of this House being afraid to flex its muscles. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looking at me as I say that because he thinks that we have flexed them a little too much. However, we are an unelected House and that imposes limitations on what we are able to do. It was also said that if this House were elected it would not challenge the primacy of the Commons. It has to do one or the other. It either flexes its muscles or it does not. An elected second Chamber either challenges the primacy of the Commons or it does not. You cannot have it both ways.

I think the issue is about democracy, and we have debated this a little. This House is not democratically elected—that is a matter of fact—but we have a democratic function. Challenge and scrutiny have an essential role in any democracy. Therefore, when we are considering changes of this kind, we have to ask what impact they will have on our ability to challenge and scrutinise. Will these changes improve that democratic function or diminish our ability to fulfil it? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, discussed this issue. I hesitate to contradict him but I suggest that democracy is a process, not a one-off event. We have seen the result of the Brexit referendum where a decision was made. However, that decision on its own does not represent democracy; it is part of the process of democracy. I am extraordinarily disappointed at some of the hysteria that is whipped up when any noble Lord dares to ask a question, make a point or suggest that a minor change could be made to government proposals. The reaction to that seems to suggest that somehow we are not fulfilling our democratic function and that we are a constitutional outrage. If democracy is to be fulfilled as our debates on Brexit progress, it can be done only if there is ongoing scrutiny as part of that democratic process. A one-off decision does not represent democracy; process, scrutiny and challenge do.

I therefore have a few questions directly on the Bill. The first point is on the removal of hereditary peerages. I share the views my noble friend Lord Grocott has expressed eloquently on a number of occasions, that the hereditary Peers’ by-elections are a nonsense, and it brings no credit to this House when they take place. I remember attending a delegation with the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, a hereditary Peer who was elected to this House at a by-election. I said, “My name is Angela Smith, Baroness Smith, and I am an appointed Peer in the House of Lords. This is Lord Courtown, a hereditary Peer, who is elected”. Try to explain that to somebody from another Parliament, amidst all kinds of confusion.

Few in this House now, apart from some exceptions, are aware of who our hereditary Peers are. There are some who are obvious, but we are talking about 92 hereditary Peers. How many of us in your Lordships’ House can now name all of them? I struggle to name the hereditary Peers on my Benches, and the reason is that we do not distinguish. They are here and they do a job of work. But that does not mean that they should in future be replaced by somebody of the next generation. There should be an end to the by-elections.

In Clause 2 the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talks about different classes of Peers. I thought that her example, that we already have two classes because some turn up and some do not, was perhaps not the best one. Hereditary Peers might have been a better example, because all those Peers have equal weight. However, it would be difficult to have different classes of Peers in the same House, with different rights and abilities to vote. I retain the view that all Peers in your Lordships’ House should be equal and have equal rights. That is why I have criticised Peers who have been sent here by the Government, who can vote but not speak on issues because of their employment by the Government.

Perhaps when the noble Baroness winds up, or in Committee, she could explain why she has chosen different voting systems for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We do not elect MPs differently, so I do not understand why we would elect Members of the second House differently. However, my fundamental point is a different one.

I said at the beginning that a test of proposals is whether they improve or reduce the role of challenge and scrutiny. One of the great strengths of this House, as we have heard, is the relative independence of Peers, even within parties, and the role of the Cross Benches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that having been a Whip in the other place and in this House, I wish that Whips had half the power that some noble Lords seem to think they do. The option that the noble Baroness includes in her Bill of having a party list, where the parties choose the candidates, and if you vote for the party, the candidate at the top of the party list will be elected, seems to run against everything this House does. One of its great strengths is the relative independence of Peers. I fail to see how a proposal that introduces a party list system can enhance the role of scrutiny. If an individual wishes to be re-elected or even stand for election in the first place, they are likely to need to please their party hierarchy to get on the list, Therefore I find the party list proposal contrary to what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve in her Bill, which is greater scrutiny and challenge.

I also worry about the role of Cross-Bench Peers. I do not understand how it is possible for them—they can advise me better than I can express it—to stand as a party for election on a party list. They are independent, and on any one occasion they can vote three different ways: abstain, vote for or vote against. There is no Whip or party cohesion, which some of us try to achieve in our own party groups. Because Cross-Benchers would not stand for election—that is not in the Bill, although it is in the Library Note, and the noble Baroness helpfully said that in her speech—instead of replacing them, there would be a long, winding road to their demise, as they gradually stopped being Members of your Lordships’ House.

The other point that I want to raise concerns Clause 10 and the proposed eight-year election period. I am never convinced by long terms of office. I am uncomfortable with the idea of fixed-term Parliaments, as I think they give more power to the Executive than they do to Parliament as a whole. We recall that the Chartists argued for annual elections to improve democracy. I am not sure that I would go as far as that but I consider eight years to be too long, although it is not as bad as the proposal from the former Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, for 15-year election periods, which would have provided no accountability because it involved no re-election.

Finally, I do not think that the transitional arrangements take into account any party-political balance. We are a party-political Chamber in part—we have the Government Benches and the Official Opposition Benches—but there are no guarantees that under the transitional arrangements there would be any recognition of that party-political role and that Cross-Bench Peers would ever be replaced.

None of us should ever consider that this place remains set in aspic and that, if we do nothing at all and just sit back, the question of reform will just fade away. It will not and should not. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke of the value of incremental reform. I think that sensible, genuine proposals for reform that will bring about changes and will therefore be effective will come from this House, and this House has to show leadership in that regard.

There are two issues concerning the current state of your Lordships’ House. One of the most pressing issues for us is the size of the House, and a committee composed of Peers from all sides of the Chamber is currently meeting to discuss that. The second issue is the Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott on hereditary by-elections. I am sure that today the Minister will say something like, “We don’t like this Bill but we’re not against reform”. If that is his message, I make a plea to him to accept an incremental reform by supporting my noble friend’s Bill. It would not bring about great change but would signal that this House understands that it is part of a wider process of change.

Parliamentary Proceedings: Statistics

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate—I am sure that the Minister will say the same. I certainly welcome the confession by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the title of the debate requesting statistics was in fact a ruse to raise a broader and wider issue of some significance. After his many years at the highest levels of the Civil Service, perhaps we should ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has picked up some political tricks in your Lordships’ House or has imported some clever “'Yes Minister” tricks to your Lordships’ House from the Civil Service. Either way, we are grateful to him as this is a welcome opportunity to debate our core functions, role and work and how we could perhaps do it better.

I want to raise three points. The first is about the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, commented that Bills are seen as being absolute when they leave the department rather than when they leave Parliament. Noble Lords who were present for the Minister’s response in the previous debate will unfortunately have seen that in practice.

This House takes its responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising Chamber very seriously. We act within the conventions that guide and inform the role of a second Chamber, although that role of scrutiny and revision is not always welcomed by Governments. The work we undertake is at the heart of a functioning democracy; it is the process of scrutiny, challenge and holding the Government to account. Again looking at the previous debate, scrutiny is not just a tool to provide Governments with a fig leaf of legitimacy for legislation, but neither should it be a Trojan horse for political challenge.

Other noble Lords may disagree or agree on this, but there is a disappointing political trend that some take the view that any challenge from your Lordships’ House is some kind of constitutional outrage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to this on the tax credits SI and Strathclyde. We have seen sabre-rattling around the tax credits issue and on Brexit. We have heard that the Lords should be abolished or suspended and there have been bizarre calls for 1,000 new Peers. I have to admit that I have found this dialogue very frustrating. Debate on serious issues needs perspective and adult consideration, not threats. Let us put on record again, in order to be absolutely clear, that we will always continue to act within the conventions of this House. We value and respect our role as a scrutinising and revising Chamber. We fulfil our responsibilities with diligence. We will not exceed our responsibilities, but neither will we be bullied into abdicating them. We will do our job: no more and no less than that.

We have also looked at who has responsibility for scrutiny. Obviously it is a matter for Parliament. Perhaps we have been little hard on the other place tonight, because this House has a special responsibility in that, unlike the other place, scrutiny is our sole focus without the competing demands of constituency representation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lady Taylor said, the Government also have a responsibility. Too often we have seen badly drafted legislation on which the Minister responsible has been unable to provide adequate information to allow for proper consideration. When we had the Trade Union Bill, there was no impact assessment until after Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, yet it had been through all its stages in the House of Commons. That was clearly against Cabinet Office guidelines. However, we can scrutinise well. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, used the then Investigatory Powers Bill as an example in terms of the scrutiny it received. The parallel Select Committee set up by your Lordships’ House to look at the then Trade Union Bill brought cross-party forensic examination to the most vexatious and politically controversial parts of that Bill.

Can we do better? Yes, of course. In tonight’s debate we have heard that we want to do better within our remit. A number of suggestions have been made. I shall concentrate on a couple in the time available. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested, slightly tongue-in-cheek, I think, stating the time for debate in the Explanatory Notes. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and my noble friend Lady Taylor indicated, time alone is not an accurate indicator of the quality of scrutiny that a Bill receives. We can all think of examples, some fairly recent, where debate has been long but wisdom short—and 10 people making a similar point is not 10 times the scrutiny of only one noble Lord making that point.

There are other examples where a short, focused speech has raised a new perspective or issue. The noble Lord, Lord Ryder, shared his personal experiences in Committee. I was a member on the government side on the National Minimum Wage Bill. The Conservative Opposition tried to prevent the minimum wage coming in and kept us up not just late into the night but through the night into the next day for the longest ever sitting of a House of Commons committee.

The substantive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was about being able to assess whether a Bill has been properly examined. I think he is on to something here. One of the things I would find really useful—the then Housing and Planning Bill is a really good example of this—is that when a Bill comes from the other place to your Lordships’ House, it would be nice to know easily, at a glance, what parts of the Bill have been added on without being debated. A number of clauses were added to the Housing and Planning Bill on Report in the House of Commons which were never debated. Had we had that information easily available, we could have focused our attention and energies on the parts of the Bill that had had no consideration.

I shall make one other very brief point about the consideration of secondary legislation. This is going to be particularly important as we move forward on Brexit. Our committees on SIs are invaluable, and if we are going to have an avalanche of thousands of SIs to give effect to EU legislation, we need to consider how best to do this. If we fail, Parliament could stand accused of being little better than a sausage machine where all the ingredients are tipped in at one end and emerge from the other end wrapped up without any thought or modification.

This has been a useful debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively. We value what we do, we know we can do it better and we would like to do it better.

European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my general welcome to the statutory instrument before us today. It is absolutely essential and I am pleased that the Government acted so quickly to remedy what was clearly a wrong. I hold no truck with those who criticise this, or even try to allege some kind of conspiracy whereby the website was crashed on purpose—that is absolutely bizarre. Clearly, it is right that as many people who have the right to vote are able to do so. That is crucial.

We do not yet know the reason why the crash happened. As the noble Baroness said, I think part of it will be down to those from the last-minute generation. It might also be that some people saw others in their household receive their polling cards and, realising they had not got one, wanted to go online. I would also like to think that the TV debate excited passions about the issue—but I suspect not. That is something to note in future.

I wish that this measure was not necessary and I appreciate that there was unprecedented demand on the night. That is generally accepted. However, it seems strange that there was no back-up. During the course of the website being down, it was still flashing across the TV and information was still going out saying, “Go on to the website and register now”. That will have exacerbated the problem. There was a failure of process somewhere along the line. Now is not the time to look into that, but I would like assurances that it will be looked at in the fullness of time.

The noble Lord said that no one from Northern Ireland was unable to register on Tuesday evening. How does he know that? It seems clear that, because Northern Ireland already has a form of IER, nobody was not on the register because of the transition to IER. I am just curious: how do we know that nobody from Northern Ireland tried to register on that evening?

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned electoral registration officers. This now puts additional pressure on them. The reason for the deadline of midnight on Tuesday was to enable EROs to process all the applications. What consultation has there been with EROs and with the Local Government Association?

The Minister would think me remiss, and that I had gone soft in my old age, if I failed to raise with him an issue I raised yesterday—it seems longer—individual electoral registration. Against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Government forged ahead with it. The Electoral Commission sent briefings to everyone in your Lordships’ House making it clear that it could not be certain that, if everybody had not individually registered by the cut-off date specified by the Government in previous legislation, there would not be people entitled to vote who were knocked off the register. Clearly, the Electoral Commission was right and the Government should not have pressed ahead. We would not be in the position we are in now if the Government had not forged ahead against the advice of the Electoral Commission. We all recognise that that measure passed only narrowly in this House. One reason the Government gave for doing so was that the boundaries review was dependent on the cut-off date being December 2015. Can the Minister tell the House today—if not, I am happy for him to write to me—how many people have been added to the register since that cut-off date? That is quite significant and would indicate whether the Government were correct to choose that cut-off date, or acted with undue haste.

At the time, the Government basically said that the names being knocked off the register were really a matter of fraud. It may well be that it was not fraud but just people who had not responded to the, in many cases numerous, requests. I doubt that everybody who was not individually registered had the nine communications and contacts that the noble Lord spoke of, but there were numerous requests and people still failed to respond. However, that is life and people do not respond to every request they get. These things can be quite difficult.

If the noble Lord can address those points, that would be helpful. As I say, we support this measure. It is essential on an issue such as this that everybody who is entitled to vote does so. I am encouraged that the Electoral Commission is now predicting an 80% turnout on the poll on 23 June. I just hope that the Government are looking at that to make sure they are geared up for it. I remember high turnouts in 1997, when some polling stations were unable to cope and closed their doors before some people had managed to vote. I hope that can be looked at to show that once people have got over the hurdle of registering, they will be able to use their vote on the day.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I begin where I ended and repeat my thanks for the widespread support for this measure. Obviously, none of us wish to be in this situation but, that said, we are where we are.

I shall try to address as many of the points that have been raised as I can. If I fail to address all of them, I will obviously write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, asked about extending the date for postal votes. I am told that to do so would compromise the timing of returning such votes. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for what he said about the scrutiny of this SI. We are obviously in an unprecedented situation and I thank him for his support.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hayward both raised the issue of duplicates. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows a great deal about electoral matters, as does my noble friend. I do not want to get into a deep rabbit hole now but, as I said yesterday, we are considering ways in which the IER Digital Service can be enhanced. I note what the noble Lord said about these points. I am sure that we will continue to debate these matters further. The duplicates issue is one of the things this whole saga has thrown up. We need to look at it as part of the lessons learned process. I absolutely heed the points he made about the experience we have had so far. Attainers is one of these issues to which we come back again and again. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I need to get back to him on the Law Commission point. I am sorry that our minds have been somewhat distracted over the last 24 hours or so. I cannot give a full answer on that.

My noble friend Lord Hayward and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to working closely with EROs. We have been working extremely closely with EROs. As I said yesterday, we will certainly honour our commitment to cover reasonable costs. We are very grateful for their hard work. We will continue to remain in touch with them as time proceeds.

I will need to get back to my noble friend on the specific points he raised about postal votes. However, I can confirm that postal votes are opened only at the close of play of the referendum.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about promoting and communicating the decision. I thank him for the time he gave me this morning to discuss this matter. I need to remind your Lordships that obviously, the Government are prevented from publishing material that is,

“designed to encourage voting at the referendum”,

by Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As the noble Lord knows—I mentioned it to him this morning—that provision obviously does not apply to the Electoral Commission. Since this morning, I have been in touch via my officials with the Electoral Commission, which obviously—although I put it on record again—is an independent body. I am assured that it is taking several steps today to make the public aware of the extension to the registration deadline. I have a list of things that body is doing: for example, promoting the message across social media; sharing communications and messages with regional counting officers; continuing its paid advertising promoting the EU referendum; and pointing people to the About My Vote website. The proof of the pudding will obviously be in the eating. Before I rose to speak, I looked at the number of people who are registering. That is running at about 2,000 who are online now, as far as I can see. Therefore, it is clear that the message is continuing to get out. We shall see how things progress during the evening and when the debate takes place this evening.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister but I want to check a point. It does not affect support for the regulations in any way, but he said that postal votes would definitely not be opened until after close of poll. In most elections there are two stages and, in local and general elections, the postal votes are opened before the close of poll for verification that they are valid but are not counted until the close of poll. There are numerous reports of postal votes being opened as they come in, at the verification stage. If the Minister could check that point it would be helpful.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I will certainly check that point and I am sorry if I have created any confusion.

The noble Baroness said that she was surprised that there was no back-up with regard to what happened. We are very clear that lessons need to be learned regarding the technology and the legislation, and what steps might need to be put in place were this kind of thing to happen again. The noble Baroness is absolutely right.

I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point, but it is my understanding that people in Northern Ireland cannot register online. As regards how many people have been added to the register since October 2015, I will need to come back to her. We are not in a position to say right now, as there have been those registering in the last few days and we do not know whether those applications have been fully processed or how many duplicates there have been. She will forgive me for not going down the other rabbit hole of rehearsing all the arguments over IER and carry-forwards. I have a lot of brief that I could entertain your Lordships’ House with on this, but I simply say that I disagree with her position, I am sorry to say, on that point.

The noble Baroness also raised the very valid point of whether, given the considerable—and very welcome—upsurge in public engagement in the referendum, there will be sufficient resources at polling stations on the day. The Electoral Commission’s guidance for counting officers at the referendum makes it clear that:

“Voters who at 10pm are in the polling station, or in a queue outside the polling station, for the purpose of voting, may apply for a ballot paper”.

The commission’s guidance also states:

“Good planning and flexible staffing should minimise the risk of there being queues at polling stations”.

The guidance advises counting officers to,

“ensure that polling station staff are monitoring turnout throughout the day and providing progress reports”

to polling. This is obviously a matter for the Electoral Commission, but my understanding is that it has taken steps to prepare for this.

I have just been alerted to the fact that postal votes are opened but not counted. I think that is the point that the noble Baroness was raising. I thank your Lordships once again for their support.

Motion agreed.

EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and for updating the House on more recent developments.

I understand that the Minister has a good memory, so I ask him to cast his mind back to 27 October last year—the date on which, against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Government forged ahead with individual electoral registration. On that day, nearly nine months ago, he assured your Lordships’ House that,

“people have been given ample opportunity to register on the new system”.

He added:

“The Government believe that we are past the tipping point. Remember, 96 out of every 100 electors have successfully registered”.—[Official Report, 27/10/15; cols. 1123-27.]

Clearly, that is not the case because, as the Minister has just said, there were 1 million such people in the past week and 4.5 million over the past few months. We had the chaos last night of the Government’s own website being unable to cope. Does the Minister now regret persuading your Lordships’ House, despite all warnings to the contrary, to rush the introduction of individual electoral registration, on which the new constituency boundaries will be redrawn?

The deadline of midnight last night was made for a reason—and we welcome the extension. Is the Minister now satisfied that the system is robust enough to cope with any applications made between now and midnight tomorrow? Can he assure your Lordships’ House that support and resources will be provided to local government to ensure that they can process all those applications, so that nobody loses the right to vote?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

First, I begin by thanking the major parties in both Houses for their support on where we are now. The Government are extremely grateful for that. I understand the considerable passions raised in this House last year about the move to IER and our removal of carry-forwards. I remind your Lordships why we did so. Those removed from the register in 2015 had failed to respond to nine contacts from their electoral registration officer encouraging them to register individually before 2015. Not removing them would have led to an inaccurate register, which would have distorted the boundary review, this May’s elections and, potentially, the referendum. The register used for the boundary review was, as set out in the legislation agreed by both Houses, the register as at 1 December 2015. That was following a full annual canvass, and in a general election year. It is necessarily a snapshot, and the register has always continued to change while the review is taking place.

As to whether the system is robust enough, that is a fair point. We are looking urgently to ensure that it is because, clearly, we want to avoid what happened last night. Forgive me—I have forgotten the noble Baroness’s final question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My final question was whether there were resources and support for local government to process the applications.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That is another fair point. We are indeed going to ensure that we cover reasonable costs for the EROs.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I served on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which he chaired in a consensual, conciliatory and characteristically subtle way. I use those words in a complimentary sense, but I also think that his amendment is deceptively subtle. Ultimately, it is a wrecking amendment and I shall explain why I say that.

The background to the amendment is the report produced by the Select Committee. One of its conclusions—this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—was that the principle of opt-in should, in effect, be accepted for all members, the only difference being over when and how it should be introduced. A second conclusion was that we were very clear that the transition period for change was far too short and should be extended. The amendment extends the transition period, and I support that.

The amendment is 50 or so lines long and I agree with about 49 of them, but I disagree with the very first line because it takes out the new section that would extend opt-in to existing members. The amendment deals, quite properly, with the transition period for new members. But by taking out the new section that deals with existing members—a proposal which was a manifesto commitment by the Conservatives and was not dependent on party-funding reform—their position does not change and they continue to be able only to opt out. Therefore, although it is deceptively persuasive, it is a wrecking amendment because it strikes at the heart of the Government’s manifesto commitment and I am afraid that I cannot support it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for having a somewhat croaky voice. My noble friend Lord Collins tells me that I sound like a House of Lords version of Fenella Fielding but, as the only film I can remember her being in was “Carry on Screaming!”, I hope that the voice is as far as any similarities go.

We return to the issue of the trade union political levy and whether members should opt in to or opt out of contributing to trade union political funds. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his explanation of the amendment. To try to cut through the political rhetoric, your Lordships’ House agreed to our Motion to set up a Select Committee, its primary remit being to examine both the detail and the likely impact of the Government’s proposals. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who chaired the committee, and to the members and support staff for the way in which they have dealt with these issues. Both the report and the evidence transcripts show detailed and forensic analysis, which was possible only because of the commitment of the committee members and their support team.

As other noble Lords have said, a week ago we had an excellent debate in this House on the report. It featured contributions from many noble Lords, including those who served on the committee. When the Minister replied to the debate, she was unable—not unreasonably, given the timeframe—to respond fully to the Select Committee’s recommendations. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, both she and the Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, have indicated that they are in listening mode and that the Government may be willing to make some changes. There was some hope that we might hear more about that before Report, but—we never know—perhaps the Minister will surprise us tonight and soothe us by saying, as I hope she will, that the Government are able to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, or at least the spirit of it.

In establishing the Select Committee, we set it a tough task. Because broader party-funding issues had been raised, we asked that the Government’s proposals be examined in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and that the committee look also at whether new legislation was needed in the interests of balance. However, the committee did better than that. It used the remit to go beyond political views and opinion and to dig deeper than any political differences in order to interrogate and analyse the facts. It also sought to find a way through that would recognise the intention of the Government’s manifesto commitment that we have heard about tonight. It is made quite clear on page 49 of the manifesto that the Government will seek a “transparent opt-in process” for union subscriptions to political parties and, in the very next sentence, will seek,

“agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”.

That is all without placing unreasonable and unrealistic demands on the trade unions in meeting that commitment to ensure that opt-in would happen rather than be made too difficult.

I think we all accept now that, although clumsily and inaccurately worded, what the manifesto meant was not trade union subscriptions per se but the process by which union members pay into their political fund. I think it was helpful of the Select Committee to affirm that of the 163 unions, only 25 have political funds and, of those, just 15 are affiliated to the Labour Party, with an average political levy for each person of less than £5 a year, or around 9p a week. That fund may be used for a variety of political campaigns; for example, against violence or discrimination or to promote safety in the workplace. That fund may also be used to make contributions to or affiliate to a political party. The main political party that currently has affiliated membership of this kind is the Labour Party.

In our debate last week I provided evidence that the Government’s impact assessment was inadequate, including the bizarre claim on page 74 that:

“Our main estimate is that there will be no change in the number of members contributing to the political fund. We do not have reliable data to estimate any changes in the proportions contributing”.

So although the Government admit that there is no evidence, they still draw unsubstantiated conclusions from that lack of evidence on the impact. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to that point again today.

Fortunately, the Select Committee was more thorough and took evidence from a number of sources. It concluded that the proposed change from an opt-out of the political levy to an opt-in could have,

“a sizeable negative effect on the number of union members participating in political funds”.

When the Select Committee said that, it is was without the obstacles in Clause 10 that make that opt-in more difficult; namely, that it had to be done in three months, in writing on paper, and then renewed every five years. The Select Committee was optimistic that the Government would negotiate on these terms—and as my noble friend Lady Drake referred to, the Government should negotiate on these terms. My noble friend also said that not only did the Government give businesses two years to deal with bringing in the plastic bag levy, but in today’s Budget the Chancellor announced a sugar tax on the drinks industry and gave it two years to prepare for that to be brought in. The trade unions, however, are being given just three months. It is almost as if the Government’s plans are designed to make opt-in as difficult as possible.

The Government claim that they want the process to be “transparent”, but these measures are likely to make it invisible and, therefore, virtually impossible to put into practice, let alone work. Just to make it even harder, the Government want to make it retrospective—that is, as well as applying to new joiners of a trade union, all existing members have to go through the same process, in writing and within three months. That is some bureaucratic exercise: to contact more than 5 million people and get them to respond, and all for just 9p a week.

In terms of the costs involved in switching to the new system, the Government’s impact assessment is again terribly deficient. It assumes, unbelievably, that trade unions will have a 100% success rate in contacting members by letter and getting responses. Then, when 100% of members have replied in writing, it will apparently take just 30 seconds to process each new application—it takes me longer than 30 seconds to open an envelope. Ask any charity or organisation in this country, however worthy and important its communication, what the mailing success rate is. Is it 10%? Is it 5%? Some will tell you that it is even less. Many companies, including insurance companies, where renewal is crucial and often a legal requirement, write more than once and make follow-up phone calls. We have all had those calls, multiple times, reminding and reminding and reminding us to respond to a letter. So that £4 million-plus that the Government estimate it will cost takes us into a world of fantasy and fiction. To do it properly will take much more than a couple of letters, and the overall cost in time, resources and money is likely to be far higher.

I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quote the evidence from USDAW. That struck me also when I was reading through the evidence, and it was particularly compelling on this point. USDAW said:

“In that three-month transitional period we would have to communicate with 440,000 members. It would be a huge task to get them to fill in forms to respond … We have a turnover of between 70,000 and 75,000 members each year; about 20% of the union leave and join”.

After that, as one by one all those hurdles have been negotiated and members have opted in or out, unions will have to go through it all again just five years later. Can anything have been so deliberately designed to make it as complicated as possible?

We have had some welcome indications that Ministers are in listening mode. The Minister and Minister Nick Boles have both assured Parliament and the Select Committee of this. That indicates that the Government now accept that the plans are disproportionate and that Ministers are willing to consider changes. I certainly hope that that is the case.

As I admitted during last week’s debate on the committee report, and if I am honest with your Lordships House, this amendment does not provide for all the changes that the Labour Benches would want to see. Even the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as I am sure the committee will recognise, will cause difficulties for both the trade unions and the Labour Party in the medium and longer term. It is certainly not pain free.

I remain strongly of the belief that this part of the Bill is fundamentally flawed and that without broader measures on party-political funding, as recognised by the Select Committee, it will have a disproportionate and unnecessary negative impact on trade union political funds. The measures proposed by the Government to bring in the opt-in go far beyond any transparency requirements and are highly unreasonable. In turn, that will, as now evidenced by the committee report, have a major impact on Labour Party funding. Therefore, we believe that this matter should be addressed in the context of party-political funding as previous reports, including that by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have recommended.

However, we on these Benches also consider that the Select Committee approach brings great credit to your Lordships House. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues have brought a logical, almost scientific approach to this issue. I am sure that we can all find parts of the report or recommendations with which we agree or disagree, but that in no way detracts from what is a thoughtful, intelligent and very practical approach. More than just being analytical and critical, the Select Committee has proposed a route map that removes much of the unreasonableness and unfairness, while still fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment of transparency and providing that trade union members should have to opt in rather than opt out. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made the point that that also includes progressing talks on party funding as the other part of the manifesto commitment. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others offers all sides in this debate a compromise and a sensible way forward.

I have already quoted from the Government’s election manifesto, but there is another quote on the same page about the role of the House of Lords, which is highlighted. It says:

“We will ensure that the House of Lords fulfils its valuable role as a chamber of legislative scrutiny and revision”.

And—dare I agree with the Government?—that is our role today. It says much about your Lordships’ House that through our Select Committee and the related debates we have examined this issue in such detail and have this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and colleagues before us today. We all know that in the other place there were not such detailed debates, at this or any other stage of the Bill, on this specific issue. I have reflected with other noble Lords on why this would be the case. I wonder whether it is because we in this House—a point made, I think, by the noble Lord—are not constituted as a wholly political Chamber. Therefore, we are not so party political or, indeed, partisan. We have examined this issue in a completely different way: we have put facts first and then judgment. It is because of our respect for that process, and the exemplary and thoughtful work of the committee, that we are prepared, in that spirit of compromise, to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the whole of his amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to match that commitment today.