House of Lords: Allowances

Debate between Lord Alderdice and Lord Newby

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now as a Deputy to the Lord Speaker, I tend to approach these issues not just from a party point of view but from an institutional point of view, trying to understand the impact of any decisions that might be made on the institutions that we are privileged to be able to serve.

Listening to a number of noble Lords across the House, it is clear to me that there is an increasing loss of trust that the House is being treated properly. Yesterday’s Private Notice Question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the supplementary questions to it gave one example. However, the issue goes back much further than the Covid-19 outbreak—to, for example, suggestions that during restoration and renewal the House of Lords should be shuffled off to York, not in order to pay respect to the people in the north of England but to marginalise the influence of the House.

Recent briefings from 10 Downing Street about cutting out anyone over the age of 65 and moving to electing Peers are not thoughtful, creative comments but simply destructive threats whose purpose is to shut down debate in this place. Indeed, that seems to be the Government’s strategy. Having a very large majority in the House of Commons, it is only in your Lordships’ House that real, meaningful dissent is possible. Holding the Government to account is an essential role of Parliament, and that requires the possibility of not just asking questions of government but, from time to time, saying to government, “No, you’ve got it wrong.” In the case of this Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, it is clear that there have been misjudgments and mistakes, some very serious.

I hear Ministers trying to gloss over such questions by saying that there will be time to address them later. That is true, but the time to learn from the mishandling is not just afterwards in the preparation for the next global pandemic, which we all hope will be as far away as the last one a century ago; no, we need to learn lessons as quickly as possible now to save lives. The Government need to hear the reality of what is going on in the health and care sector and in society as a whole.

In such national crises, the initial posture of society is of course to rally round the Government in the hope of finding clear leadership. However, when things do not go well and we find that the level of deaths in our country is one of the worst and that government promises are misleading or unfulfilled, trust, very properly, gives way to criticism. If that criticism is not heard and heeded—for example, in your Lordships’ House—accountability is not fulfilled. If it is heard and heeded, accountability is fulfilled, but, if not, the criticism gives way to hostility and a breakdown of trust and working relationships.

One thing that emerged when I tabled this amendment was that it was not possible for the Opposition effectively to oppose the Government’s position. We are not able to vote in our virtual sittings, although the suggestion that this is not technically possible is, frankly, misleading. As we in the Liberal Democrat group have found, it is perfectly possible to vote using the reaction feature in the Zoom program if one wants votes to take place.

It was also made clear to me that the House authorities did not want votes to take place in the Chamber, the Lobbies or the Royal Gallery, despite arrangements having been made some time ago, because of anxieties about the health of clerking staff. As a doctor and a psychiatrist, I am of course very alert to such issues, but the result is that it is not possible for this House to vote on any issue or to be clear whether the Government’s position has the support of the House. We are told that it will be at least four or five weeks before that capacity is technically available to us in the virtual sittings.

I am very sceptical. It seems that there is an attempt by the Government’s strategist and senior advisor to ensure that your Lordships’ House is muzzled and sidelined during this time of national crisis, and, as populist and authoritarian leaders around the world are doing, to use this crisis to make permanent changes in favour of an untrammelled Executive. That is why I propose that by the end of June the House of Lords Commission should be required to put forward any proposals that it has, whether to continue the arrangements currently being pushed through or to have a return to more reasonable arrangements for the work of the House.

The noble Baroness and her colleagues may feel that what is being proposed is reasonable and appropriate—although to suggest to people in the world at large that working online is not real work at all is hardly appropriate—but if that is the case, the rest of your Lordships’ House would expect that those who make the decision should change their practices and reduce their allowances voluntarily to reduce their substantial emoluments as an indication of some measure of solidarity. After all, we have had too many examples already of leading figures making rules that apply to other people, but not observing them themselves in respect of the Covid-19 crisis.

This House has changed enormously since I came here almost a quarter of a century ago. Those journalists who do not trouble to read our Hansard or come down the Corridor to familiarise themselves with the House as it now is will not be familiar with the fact that there is now a much wider range of age, gender, ethnic and religious diversity, and, particularly, income. The House authorities ought also to appreciate that those who come from well beyond London and the south-east have particular needs if they are to properly represent the concerns of those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.

I do not agree with the terms of the Motion brought forward by the Leader of the House, but I have no real way of voting against it. I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that when people find that they cannot express their concerns by voting for change, it leads to a breakdown in trust and relationships, without which no institution or society can work harmoniously. That is why I appeal to her to find a way to take on board my request, which does not take away from the content of the Motion but simply requires it to be reviewed when one could reasonably expect that voting would be possible in a virtual sitting. There are various ways she could do this, and I hope that she will find a way.

I believe that the amendment would have the overwhelming support of the House if it could vote and show it. It is the welfare of the future of the House, not just now but in the long term, that is at stake. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think that everybody on the commission and a large majority of your Lordships’ House accepts that during these unprecedented times and with us moving temporarily to a virtual House, it was right that the current allowance system should be changed and that Members should receive a reduced amount. There was disagreement on the commission about how much that reduction might be. I argued for a somewhat larger amount; others argued for a much lower figure. The figure in today’s Motion reflects what might be thought of as the centre of gravity of opinion on the commission.

As I said, I wholly accept that some reduction was appropriate. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of allowances. However, I should point out for clarity that this proposal will, given the constraints on people speaking and the reduction in Select Committee sittings, result in reduction in allowances received by individual Members of between three-quarters and seven-eighths of what people might reasonably otherwise have expected to receive. This is particularly hard on people from Scotland, Wales and the English regions who have unbreakable rental contracts on flats in London. It must, therefore, be seen very much as a temporary expedient.

Any discussion on allowances must be framed against the question: what is the point of your Lordships’ House? Unless we are clear about that we cannot have any clarity about what value to ascribe to it.

Like all institutions, we have a temptation to exaggerate our own importance, but if Parliament ever had a crucial role to play, then it is at this moment in our national history when we are facing a combination of an immediate crisis and, looking forward, a clear need to reassess the nature of our economy and how to better run society for the benefit of all its members. Parliament is the pre-eminent forum for undertaking that role, and your Lordships’ House is an integral part of Parliament.