Aircraft: Laser Pointers

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I agree with the noble Lord. There are of course many legitimate uses for laser products in the professional field—for example, in research and construction—and indeed in consumer products, but our primary concern, as I think is the noble Lord’s, is laser pointers, where we agree that the need for powerful lasers is questionable. We will take that into account in looking at legislative options.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Brabazon was first on his feet.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

My Lords, is not the problem that the lasers to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred are in fact not for sale legally in this country? They are powerful, but there is nothing wrong with the not-powerful ones. The problem is that they are bought on the internet. Should we not look at a way of making it illegal to buy them?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend is right: it is illegal to sell unsafe laser pointers to consumers in the UK. Of course, the internet, which brings huge opportunities, also brings problems of control. That is why we have recently been looking across the board at the different aspects—the sale, use and possession—of these dangerous lasers to see whether we need to adjust the legislative framework that we already have in the areas of consumer goods and aircraft.

Parliamentary Privilege

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

That this House takes note of the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (HL Paper 30).

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

My Lords, privilege carries connotations of social exclusivity or of favouritism, so it is important that occasionally we remind ourselves what parliamentary privilege actually is. We, as members of this legislature, are accountable to the people. We make laws. Our colleagues in the House of Commons approve taxation. We hold the Executive to account. To perform those tasks effectively and without fear, we need certain rights and immunities. We need to be able to regulate our own affairs without interference from government or the courts. Above all, we need to be able to speak and act freely in the course of our parliamentary work without fear of consequences. So the existence of some form of parliamentary privilege is a necessary precondition for a free and democratic society. It is not a special immunity that attaches to us personally. It is the freedom of the House itself, the foundation for everything that we, as parliamentarians, do here.

It is important to restate these principles, however self-evident they are, because at the time the Joint Committee which I chaired was set up they were being widely questioned. In early 2010, four parliamentarians—three MPs and one Member of this House—sought to persuade the courts that parliamentary privilege protected them from being prosecuted for false accounting in respect of parliamentary expenses. That case was still being heard at the time of the 2010 election, and the coalition agreement included a commitment to bring forward proposals to ensure that privilege could not be used by Members of either House to evade justice.

The case brought by the four Members was subsequently dismissed by the courts at every stage, culminating in the judgment of the Supreme Court in R v Chaytor. In that judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed something which the two Houses themselves have acknowledged for many years—that a crime is a crime and that Members of Parliament who have committed crimes enjoy no special protection from prosecution. I will quote briefly from the Supreme Court’s judgment:

“for centuries the House of Commons”—

the same applies to this House—

“has not claimed the privilege of exclusive cognizance of conduct which constitutes an ‘ordinary crime’—even when committed by a Member of Parliament within the precincts of the House”.

It follows that a false expenses claim knowingly submitted by a Member of Parliament is fraud, pure and simple—so the main rationale for the Government’s draft Bill had disappeared by the time it was finally published in spring 2012.

What we were left with was, frankly, a bit of a rag-bag. The fundamental question at the heart of the Green Paper, and at the heart of our report, was whether or not we in the UK should seek to codify parliamentary privilege by means of a comprehensive modern statute. That was the central recommendation of the last Joint Committee to consider these issues, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in 1999. However, the Government were against codification and so, ultimately, were we.

There are arguments for and against codification. In its favour is the prospect of certainty and clarity. Against it is the inflexibility inherent in statutory codification and the loss of the possibility of evolution. Accordingly, we did not rule out legislation but regarded it as a last resort. If we ever get to a point where the courts or the Executive interfere with privilege to such an extent that freedom of debate in Parliament is compromised, then, and only then, Parliament may have no option but to legislate once again, as it did in 1689 in the Bill of Rights, to put privilege on a clear and unquestionable statutory basis. But we have not reached that crisis point yet, and I hope we never do.

I shall briefly outline some of the Joint Committee’s other conclusions before concluding by addressing the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House, which is being debated jointly with this report. We were unanimous in rejecting the Government’s draft clauses which would have vested in the prosecuting authorities the power to waive the protection afforded by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, thereby allowing parliamentary proceedings to be admitted as evidence in criminal prosecutions. As the Chaytor judgment clearly demonstrated, a crime is a crime, and membership of Parliament is no protection from prosecution. Privilege exists to protect not Members but proceedings themselves from impeachment or questioning in the courts, which is why witnesses before Select Committees enjoy the same protection as Members. Removal of that protection would have a disastrous chilling effect on free parliamentary debate. I am delighted that the Government, in their response to our report, have accepted our conclusion and abandoned their proposal to waive Article 9 in respect of criminal prosecutions.

Secondly, we considered the penal powers of the two Houses and, in particular, their powers to punish those who, either by refusing to give evidence to Select Committees or by giving false evidence, may be guilty of contempt. I do not intend to speak to this complex issue in detail—chapter 3 of our report speaks for itself—but I want to underline that the existence or not of these penal powers has rarely been an issue for Lords committees, which work best when they engage with willing and co-operative witnesses. I know there have been very rare occasions—one involving the Communications Committee comes to mind—when Lords committees have encountered difficulty, but our focus was very much on the Commons, and we will watch developments in that House with interest.

Thirdly, we considered judicial questioning of parliamentary proceedings. In some countries, judicial interference has been the trigger for legislation: in Australia in the 1980s, and currently, although for rather different reasons, in New Zealand. We are fortunate that in the United Kingdom our judges generally show the utmost respect for parliamentary privilege, just as we, in Parliament, show our respect for judicial proceedings by observing the sub judice rule. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the then Lord Chief Justice, gave particularly valuable evidence to the Joint Committee on this mutual respect. There have been some problems, particularly in judicial review cases, but we concluded that these were exceptions, rather than the rule, and that there was no need for Parliament to take action at this time.

Finally, before turning to the Leader’s Motion, I would like to mention the reporting and repetition of parliamentary proceedings, which is covered in chapter 7 of our report. This is the one area of significant disagreement between the Joint Committee and the Government. The Government say that they are not convinced by our conclusion that the vague wording of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840,

“significantly inhibits press reporting of … Parliament”.

Instead, the Government believe that such reporting,

“has sufficient qualified protection under the common law”.

I cannot agree. The evidence of media witnesses was clear. Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, as amended, refers only to extracts or abstracts of documents published or broadcast by authority of the House, terms which do not appear to extend to general media reports. As a result, the media are genuinely confused over the possible risks they may face in reporting parliamentary proceedings. This confusion was exemplified by the chaotic reaction to John Hemming MP’s disclosure in the House of Commons in 2011 that the footballer Ryan Giggs was the subject of an anonymity injunction.

I was therefore pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, had introduced a Private Member’s Bill seeking to give effect to the Joint Committee’s recommendation that qualified privilege should apply to all fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, a recommendation that we believe would resolve this anomaly. Unfortunately, the noble Lord has been unable to secure a Second Reading for his Bill, and I understand that in the next Session of Parliament he plans to introduce a much narrower Bill, whose scope will be limited to the repeal of Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which allows Members of either House to waive the protection of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights for the purposes of a suit for defamation.

I would certainly welcome the repeal of Section 13, which has created a number of dangerous anomalies, but I regret that the noble Lord is not pursuing the more ambitious proposals contained in his current Bill. As our report indicates, successive Joint Committees —the 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, the Joint Committees on the Draft Defamation Bill and on Privacy and Injunctions and the committee that I chaired—have concluded that the current blend of statutory and common law protection enjoyed by media reports of parliamentary proceedings is inadequate. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that the Government have had a change of heart and are ready to bring forward their own Bill in the new Session. In the mean time, I hope the Government will support the repeal of Section 13 of the Defamation Act.

Finally, I turn to the second Motion in today’s debate, which stands in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I would like to put on record my personal thanks to the Leader for his willingness, as Leader of the whole House, to put his name to it. I shall briefly explain the background. Legislation has over the years created innumerable individual rights in areas such as employment, health and safety, data protection, clean air and so on. Businesses, schools, charities and other organisations across the country have to comply with such legislation, and as a point of principle both Houses, as responsible employers, and as custodians of this great palace, should similarly be bound by it. The problem is that, in 1935, in the case of R v Graham-Campbell ex parte Herbert, the courts decided that they were not. The result of the Graham-Campbell judgment, which was never appealed, was a mess. It came to be a common-law presumption that legislation did not apply to Parliament unless it expressly said that it did.

This presumption was reinforced by the fact that some legislation did expressly extend to Parliament. To give a current example, Schedule 1 to the Deregulation Bill, currently in Committee in the House of Commons, contains provisions relating to apprenticeships. New Section A7 in that schedule states expressly that it applies to parliamentary staff. That seems to me to be the right way to go about it, avoiding any doubt or ambiguity. The same approach was adopted in Sections 194 and 195 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to which the Deregulation Bill refers.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, told the Joint Committee, if in one place you say,

“this Act applies to Parliament”,

but in another place you say nothing about it,

“it will be assumed that it does not apply to Parliament”.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. The Joint Committee therefore concluded that, as a point of principle, all legislation of general effect, covering such areas as health and safety, employment or fire safety, should be extended by means of express provision to Parliament. In fact, as the letter from the Treasury Solicitor printed in the appendix to our report shows, this position has also been government policy since 2002, although not always observed in practice. By adopting this resolution today, we will demonstrate the House’s strong support for this approach and, I hope, contribute to clearer and more consistent legislative drafting in future.

Before I finish, I should like to thank the excellent clerks we had from both Houses who helped us produce what I hope noble Lords will agree is a good report. We also had some very good witnesses. I have already mentioned the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but I should also like to thank in particular the clerks of both Houses of the Australian Parliament, the clerks from the New Zealand and Canadian Parliaments and the former parliamentarian of the United States House of Representatives, not forgetting our own Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons.

In conclusion, I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House for putting his name to the second Motion, and I hope that the House will agree it without dissent. I very much look forward to the debate. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for his positive response, and to everyone who has spoken in what I think has been an interesting and informative debate. I hope that this report does not suffer the same fate as the 1999 report, about which I think absolutely nothing has been done. We have at least taken a step in the right direction today because one of our recommendations is being acted upon right now. With that, I commend the report.

Motion agreed.

Procedure of the House

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Filkin]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, because I am sure that the House wishes to come to a conclusion on this quite rapidly. I was slightly troubled by the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said in his excellent speech, as it is almost guaranteed to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will not now vote in support of the Motion. But you cannot have everything, can you?

The points are as follows. If we adopt the proposal on the Order Paper, we are much more likely to be able to have timely debates on issues that the public think are important and we will be seen to be relevant. That is important; it was one of the fundamental issues that the Goodlad report affirmed. Secondly, unlike in the Commons, these issues are not divisible. That is important for our traditions. The Government do not have to fear what they fear in the Commons—that you have a debate on some contentious issue leading to a headline story that the Lords voted X or Y. That would not happen and it is in keeping with our traditions that it should not. That ought to allow the Government and the coalition parties who are signatories to the letter to relax a little bit on this issue. Thirdly, the proposal makes no change to the existing procedure for QSDs. Those who are beloved of ballots will still be able to go in for ballots for a number of QSDs; that is going to continue. Finally, we all know that the Government can ensure that there is a debate on any issue that they judge to be topical and important whenever they wish to do so. Back-Benchers ought to be able to do the same.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

I welcome parts of this report, particularly paragraph 6, which gives us extra time for QSDs, but I am not so keen on this idea of a Back-Bench business committee. I know that it was proposed in the Goodlad report, but not everything in the Goodlad report was gospel. I well remember bringing the first half dozen proposals from the Goodlad report to the Floor of the House when I occupied the position of Chairman of Committees; three of them were voted straight out. So I am not certain one should use that as an argument for the goodness of this suggestion.

I make the point, as have other noble Lords, that balloted debates are the only chance that some noble Lords have of getting their subjects debated. Will this new committee have to give reasons for its decisions? Would it deliberate in public? How does it intend to fulfil its remit, in paragraph 10, to “add transparency and accountability”? I assume that the committee would be set up in much the same way as are most of the other committees in this House. Whether it is elected or appointed, it would still have party balance. Like, I am sure, all committees in this House with party balance, it would tend to rotate the debate subjects around the various parties. I am not quite sure why it would operate in a different way from the existing party debate days, which will continue.

I welcome the proposals in the Leader’s section—option 2 in the report. I welcome the idea of not rolling over debates from one to another, so that you hopefully get a slightly lower number of two-and-a-half-hour balloted debates on the Order Paper at any one time. I agree that there should be an element of cross-party support for the particular subject. I make one further suggestion, which is that the present two and a half hours for each balloted debate—five hours in total—should not rigidly be divided at two and a half hours each. If we were to have a situation where there were more speakers in one debate than in the other, the list might have to close slightly earlier but one debate might get, say, three hours and the other only two. I wonder if the Procedure Committee might look at that proposal.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, my naive noble friend Lord Peston and the Leader of the House may inadvertently have been misleading us in talking about this Back-Bench committee. Like the noble Baroness, I have my doubts about it, but let us be clear that we are talking about experiment here, not an established Select Committee. If anybody reads this report, they will see that we are talking about a temporary committee. I support this strongly, to see how it will work. I am by no means certain. I am as uncertain as I am about economic forecasts; as the Office for Budget Responsibility says, they are usually uncertain.

I am pleased to hear how much the Leader of the House wishes to see more time available for Back-Benchers to hold the Government to account. We still do not know when we are ceasing to sit for Prorogation, or why we had an extra week off for Easter. We could have had a lot of Back-Bench time in that week. We could have more next week. Perhaps the Leader of the House, if he eventually gets up again, might tell us why we were prevented from having some time available then, if he so wishes to hold the Government to account.

If we are talking about the establishment and holding it to account, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is probably more a member of the old establishment than anybody else in your Lordships’ House. I make it clear that when I was part of that establishment, during my five years as Chief Secretary, I very much welcomed the views of the noble Lord, which were always good to hear even if I did not agree with them. The noble Lord was well worth listening to. Perhaps I should also make it clear, as others have done, that I certainly have no wish to be a member of this special committee, although I do not rule out making representations to it—that is for sure.

I hope that the House will agree to set this committee up on a temporary basis to see how it works. That is all that we are being asked to do. I hope that the House will agree even to take it on the nod. Let us have this settled once and for all. That is all that we are asking.

Procedure of the House

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the 11th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 253) be agreed to.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the House Committee.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I would first like to apologise for the fact that the debate has been brought forward by a day. The date was rearranged at the request of the usual channels, in order to avoid disrupting business tomorrow, when I know the House will be keen to make progress on the legal aid Bill. However, the Procedure Committee report has been available for almost two months now, and the Liaison Committee report was published last Wednesday, so I hope that noble Lords will have had ample opportunity to consider them.

I have waited until now to move the Motion on the Procedure Committee report because I felt that it would be useful for the House to be able to debate it alongside any report from the Liaison Committee. The proposals in both reports require extra resources and I am sure that noble Lords will wish to consider their implications in the round. In order to assist the House in considering these proposals, the House Committee agreed to publish its Third Report, which sets out the potential costs of the proposals contained within the Procedure Committee and Liaison Committee reports. The House is not being invited to come to a decision on the House Committee report; it is purely for information. However, I hope that noble Lords will find its contents useful during the course of today’s debates.

I should make it clear at the outset that, although the Procedure Committee and Liaison Committee reports are linked by the common issue of costs, we will debate them separately, as they cover very different areas of the work of the House. After I have introduced the Procedure Committee report, I expect the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to move her amendment. I would then expect that the majority of the debate on the Procedure Committee report would take place on that amendment. After the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness has been disposed of, the House can then take each of the other amendments in turn—without, I hope, further debate. Only once a final decision on the Procedure Committee report has been taken will we turn to the Liaison Committee report.

I now turn to the Procedure Committee report itself, to which four amendments were tabled. The report covers two issues: Grand Committees and Questions for Written Answer. I shall first address Grand Committees, and the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The committee’s recommendations on Grand Committees derive from recommendations made by the Leader’s Group on Working Practices, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. The Leader’s Group recommended, first, that,

“the sitting hours of the Grand Committee should in future be more predictable and longer”,

and, secondly,

“that a rule be established, and included in the Companion, that all Government Bills introduced in the Commons should be considered in Grand Committee, apart from major constitutional Bills and emergency legislation and other exceptionally controversial Bills”.

Finally, the group recommended that some new types of business, including Oral Statements, could be taken in Grand Committee.

The Procedure Committee considered these recommendations along with proposals by the Leader of the House, which varied from them in certain important respects. First, on longer sitting hours, the Leader’s Group recommended, in broad terms, that Grand Committees sit every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, from 10.30 am until 12.30 pm, and from 2.30 pm until 6.30 pm. The Leader of the House, as our report states in paragraph 3, proposed instead that Grand Committees on Monday to Wednesday should continue to start at their present times, but that Grand Committees on primary legislation on these days should sit until 10 pm, with a one-hour break for dinner. Sitting times on Thursdays would also be varied, with Grand Committees on primary legislation sitting from noon until 7 pm, with a one-hour break.

It is not for me to comment on the merits of longer Grand Committee hours. Longer hours will involve additional costs, and the House Committee has examined them and set out its commitment to deliver savings to offset any additional expenditure, so that the overall effect is cost-neutral. It is for the House as a whole, in light of the House Committee’s report, to decide whether the benefits of increased Grand Committee scrutiny of primary legislation justify any additional expenditure. Nor is it for me to comment on the relative merits of morning as against evening sittings. The Leader took the view that morning sittings would be unlikely to find favour with the House as a whole, and the committee, on balance, agreed. The committee also agreed with the Leader’s proposal that, on days when more than one Oral Statement is to be made or repeated, the option should be available to take one of the Statements in Grand Committee, during the dinner break.

I now turn to the committee’s recommendation on the committal of Bills to the Grand Committee. As I have already said, the Leader’s Group recommended that there be a rule, enshrined in the Companion, that government Bills sent from the Commons be committed to Grand Committee, subject to certain exceptions. The Leader argued that the proposed exceptions, constitutional or emergency Bills, or other “exceptionally controversial Bills”, were both too rigid and impossible to define. He proposed instead that there should be general presumption that government Bills introduced in the Commons should be committed to Grand Committee, except where the usual channels agree otherwise. My understanding is that this approach would allow the usual channels to consider a range of factors, such as the level of interest across the House in a particular Bill, in deciding whether it would be in the interests of Members that that Bill should be considered in Grand Committee or in a Committee of the Whole House. However, as now, the final decision would rest with the House as a formal committal Motion would need to be agreed in the usual way.

Finally, I wish to draw noble Lords’ attention to the final bullet point in paragraph 10, which states that the new arrangements, if agreed by the House, would be adopted on a trial basis, for the 2012-13 Session only. It would require a further decision of the House, following a review by the Procedure Committee, to extend them beyond spring 2013.

As the report makes clear, the committee was not unanimous in agreeing its recommendations on Grand Committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, both made clear their preference for the approach recommended by the Leader’s Group, and this is reflected in the noble Baroness’s amendment. This amendment will be called next, and I shall leave it to the noble Baroness and others to debate the merits of the two alternative approaches on offer. My position on this amendment is entirely neutral.

The second amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is more far-reaching in that it would return the entire issue of Grand Committees to the Procedure Committee. No doubt the noble Lord, when he speaks, will clarify what he hopes to achieve by means of his amendment and what he thinks the Procedure Committee should consider further. Again, my position on the amendment is entirely neutral.

I now turn to the second part of the report, which concerns Questions for Written Answer. The committee proposes a new weekly limit of 12 on the number of Written Questions that Members are entitled to table. The committee unanimously supported this recommendation. The background is covered briefly in the report. The number of Questions for Written Answer has risen inexorably in the past 10 years, from an average of 29 on each sitting day in 2003-04 to 60 per day in the current Session.

None of us doubts that the tabling of Questions for Written Answer is a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny of government. However, these Questions come at a cost. The report quotes the average cost to the Government of £159 per Written Question. We did not put a figure on the cost to this House—for instance, in staff time and printing—but a recent report by the House of Commons Procedure Committee suggested that the cost to the House of Commons was around £80 per Written Question, giving a total cost to the public purse of just under £240 per Written Question. Putting these figures into the context of the House of Lords, Written Questions cost the public around £14,300 in respect of each sitting day, rather than the £9,500 quoted in the report.

The committee also bore in mind the huge discrepancy between Members of the House in the rate at which they table Written Questions. The Clerk of the Parliaments provided analysis of all Written Questions tabled from October to December 2011, which showed that just 10 Members of your Lordships’ House tabled 45 per cent of all Questions for Written Answer. Just three noble Lords tabled 27 per cent of all Questions in that period.

Taking these factors into account, the committee agreed unanimously that a weekly limit of 12 Questions per Member was proportionate and reasonable, and would enable noble Lords to continue their essential work of scrutinising the Government, while reducing the scope for what some might regard as abuse of the Order Paper. I therefore oppose the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, intends to move. The committee has considered the matter in considerable detail on the basis of a very thorough analysis of the evidence supplied. We have made a recommendation. The House may agree to it or not, but I see no point in referring the matter back at this stage.

Finally, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would create a new rule that, in weeks when the House was not sitting, Members would be entitled to table up to six Questions for Written Answer. Of course I understand what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. However, I hope that the House will agree that this would be a significant change, which would have cost implications both for the House and for government departments. It could also have a major impact on the staff of the House, particularly the Table Office. I certainly do not reject the noble Lord’s amendment out of hand, but I suggest that we need to give more detailed consideration to the practicalities of his proposal. If he is willing not to move his amendment when his turn comes, I will undertake to put the proposal before the Procedure Committee when it next meets, which is likely to be early in the new Session.

I trust that I have said enough on the report and the amendments. As I have already indicated, my position on the issue of Grand Committees is neutral, given that, as the report states, the committee was not unanimous in reaching its recommendations. On Questions for Written Answer, the committee was unanimous, and I commend the recommendation set out in paragraph 15 of the report to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because, fortunately, none of the points made in the debate on the report require an answer from me. As I said in the first place, the committee was not unanimous on this subject and therefore my position is completely neutral. On the question of Questions for Written Answer, there was not a voice against the proposal in the Procedure Committee’s report.

I must apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I was misinformed that he was going to move the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: he is not going to do so. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for agreeing that we could take his matter back to the committee. I now leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to decide what to do with her amendment, and after that we shall move on to those of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this excellent short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a cogent case and has been strongly supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House. He is right that we must not put ourselves in danger of becoming a regulated House with timetabling. I also note that the noble Lord the Leader said that he hoped we would never lose our freedom not to be timetabled, and I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to keep him to that hope.

Parliament must be able to hold the Executive to account, and time must always be allowed for proper scrutiny of legislation. To do otherwise is to shift the balance of power in favour of the Executive. I note that the noble Lord said that, before a Bill is committed to Grand Committee, there might well be a vote in this Chamber to decide whether it should be so committed or debated here on the Floor of the House. I simply point out that the noble Lord and his Benches have a political majority in this House, and I imagine that on such an occasion there would be a whipped vote. I believe therefore that this would hand power to the Executive.

Presumption is clearly dangerous, as we have all agreed in the debate. I understand the concern expressed around the Chamber about the prescription of the Goodlad committee’s proposals—and, indeed, of my own amendment—and the difficulty of defining “controversial”. Defining “constitutional” is a lot more straightforward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an important contribution—I wish her a happy birthday—and I concur with her comments and those of the noble Lord the Leader about our joint admiration for the bravery and principles of Lord Newton of Braintree, who I believe we are all proud to call our noble friend.

I also agree with the noble Baroness that to deal in isolation with the issue of the hours that the Grand Committee should sit and the Bills that should be referred to it sets back both the process and the progress of reform. On the basis that I believe the House will vote in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I am happy to withdraw my own amendment. I hope that his amendment will be passed and that when the matter is referred back to the Procedure Committee—of which I am proud to be a member—it will listen to representations from around the House, so that when a proposal is brought forward in future it truly will be reflective of the views of the House as a whole. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Liaison Committee: Third Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 279) be agreed to.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the House Committee.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, the Liaison Committee’s terms of reference require it to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work, to review the Select Committee work of the House and to consider requests for ad hoc committees. Its terms of reference also include a requirement to consider the availability of noble Lords to serve on committees, which I think we would all agree is not an issue at present. Indeed, one of the objectives of our recent deliberations has been to find new opportunities for a wider group of Members to participate in committee work.

The report of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices has given us a further opportunity to re-examine the committee work of the House. The recommendations in our present report are intended to refresh and rebalance the range of subjects that are scrutinised and, in so doing, to engage a wider range of Members in the work of the House.

Select Committee activity is—rightly—highly regarded both within the House of Lords and outside, and contributes greatly to the reputation of the House as a second Chamber. In our first report of this Session, we concluded that there were a number of general principles that we should apply in considering proposals for committee activity. We concluded that new committees should be appointed for a limited time only and that there was a case for ad hoc committees with narrower and more topical remits conducting shorter inquiries. The report was agreed by the House in June 2010 and we sought to apply those principles in our recent review.

Regular turnover of committee members gives a wider range of Members the opportunity to serve. Short, sharp inquiries should also make it easier for Members with significant commitments outside the House to participate. Therefore, we concluded and recommended to the House that new investigative Select Committees should be appointed for a fixed term of up to one Session to conduct a specific inquiry. It would remain open to committees appointed on this basis to bid for reappointment at the end of their term.

Fixed terms would allow the Liaison Committee to play a more active role in reviewing and adapting Select Committee activity in the future. The resources to support new Select Committee activity would be released at the end of each session, allowing the committee more room to accommodate bids for new Select Committees. I remind Members that they may submit proposals for new ad hoc committees at any time, and I encourage them to do so.

The report recommends the appointment of two new ad hoc committees. One, on small and medium-sized enterprises exporting goods and services, is based on a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and others. The other, on public services, stems in part from the proposal that was initially canvassed in the report of the Leader’s Group and subsequently elaborated in a note by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others. The potential range for a committee on public services is wide, and the Liaison Committee recommends the subject of public service provision in the light of demographic change. We also consider that, once appointed, the committee should consider carefully its call for evidence in order to focus its work in a practical way.

In recent Sessions the House typically appointed one ad hoc committee. Our recommendation that the House should appoint two ad hoc committees next Session means that we are recommending an additional unit of committee activity. We have sought and obtained the approval of the House Committee for the additional expenditure necessary, which is estimated at around £225,000. We also reviewed the existing committee structure, and benefited from oral as well as written submissions from the chairmen of four of the major investigative Select Committees of the House: the European Union Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee, and the Communications Committee.

In respect of the European Union Committee, which currently appoints seven sub-committees to complement the work of the main committee, we concluded that it should remain the focus of House of Lords committee scrutiny. We consider, however, that it would now be appropriate to divert some of the resources allocated to it to support new committee activity in other areas. We therefore recommend that from the start of the next Session the number of EU sub-committees should be reduced from seven to six, and that the European Union Committee should reapportion responsibilities between its remaining sub-committees as it sees fit.

In respect of the Science and Technology Committee, we concluded that from the start of the next Session it should be allocated the resources of a single Select Committee. We recommend that it should, however, retain the power to appoint sub-committees, and the power to co-opt additional members for particular inquiries, but that those powers should not be exercised in such a way as to increase the workload of the committee beyond that of a single committee unit.

The chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, tabled an amendment to leave out the paragraph of the report that recommends a reduction in the committee’s resources. I remind the House, however, that in the Liaison Committee’s first report of this Session, we said that,

“in the event of further demands for committee work requiring redeployment of committee resources we would in the first instance look towards retrenchment of the Science and Technology Committee”.

We received representations from the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee that that committee should be able to appoint its Finance Bill Sub-Committee at an earlier point in the year than at present, following the new approach to tax policy-making adopted by the Government. The chairman, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, assured us that both the committee and the sub-committee would continue to respect Commons financial privilege, and that no additional resource would be required. No change in the terms of reference will be needed to enable this to happen, and we recommend that it should.

Finally, we reviewed the work of the Communications Committee, which is not a sessional committee. We recommend that it should be reappointed on the same basis as at present at the start of next Session. We will review the question of its further reappointment towards the end of that Session.

Our proposed reduction in sub-committee activity by two units—one European Union sub-committee and one Science and Technology sub-committee—would free up resources for new committee activity. Consistent with the strong support of the Leader’s Group for pre-legislative scrutiny, we have reconfirmed our support for pre-legislative scrutiny and believe that some of the resources that would be released by the reduction in sub-committee activity should be reallocated to supporting an additional pre-legislative scrutiny committee.

We also recommend an important new area of Select Committee activity: post-legislative scrutiny. The Leader’s Group recommends a single post-legislative scrutiny committee to manage the process of reviewing up to four selected Acts of Parliament each year. The Leader of the House proposed instead—and we agreed—that it would make better use of the expertise of Members to establish an ad hoc committee on a particular Act or Acts.

In our report we recommended the appointment of an ad hoc post-legislative scrutiny committee to examine the Children and Adoption Act 2006 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and to report in a timely manner so as to allow for evaluation of the committee’s work before the end of the 2012-13 Session. If time allows, the resources allocated to the first post-legislative scrutiny committee could then be made available for a post-legislative scrutiny committee on another topic to be established within the 2012-13 Session.

Finally, we considered two further procedural changes to enable a wider group of Members to participate in committee work. The first, to which I have already alluded, was that the maximum size of sub-committees to the European Union Committee should be increased from 12 to 14 Members. The effect of this would be to provide 84 places for Members on the six remaining sub-committees. Secondly, we invited the Procedure Committee to consider the reduction from four to three years of the rotation rule relating to length of service on investigative sessional committees, in order more frequently to refresh the membership of these committees.

I pay tribute to the valuable work done by all House of Lords committees. The Liaison Committee’s recommendations are intended to revitalise existing committee activity and provide an overall expansion of this activity, thereby enabling a greater number of Members to participate in a wider range of inquiries. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is very difficult to provide a cost-benefit analysis until we have seen the work and the success of the new committees that have been proposed. We are proposing four new committees—they do not exist at the moment—which will be paid for in part by a small reduction—I still say that it is a small reduction—in the amount of money available to the Science and Technology Committee. The best time for a cost-benefit analysis will be at the end of the first or second Session when we have seen how these new committees have worked out.

[The Chairman of Committees]

I will be brief because I know that certain Members of the House want to get on to the next business with rather a great deal of impatience. I shall not take long. I will not be able to name everyone in the impressive list of noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the massed ranks of fellow scientists that he has managed to assemble today.

In what I thought was a very impressive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was right to say how difficult it was to review the committee structure because no one wanted change. Everyone wants to keep exactly the same thing going on—people are always resistant to change—but at the same time they want new committees. That is what we are trying to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House said—

[Lord Winston]

I wonder if the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw that remark about the “massed ranks”. It seems contemptuous of the serious point that we as scientists are trying to put to the House of Lords.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Would the noble Lord also refer to the massed ranks of europhiles who came to the defence of those committees?

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I certainly was not trying to be contemptuous of the noble Lord, Lord Winston—rather the opposite; I was impressed by the number of scientists who had spoken. I am sorry that the noble Lord misunderstood me, or maybe I did not express myself well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, it is a question of resources. We cannot continue to spend more and more money. In this report we have recommended one additional unit of committee activity—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, does not like that phrase but it describes rather well what we do—and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, mentioned how we had followed the recommendations of the Goodlad committee. We are going to have two pre-legislative scrutiny committees, one more than we have at the moment; one post-legislative scrutiny committee—I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about adoption, and obviously if something develops on that we can review the subject later on—and two brand new ad hoc committees on topical subjects. I think that that is what the House wanted. It would be even better if we could just go on with the old committees as well, but it would be irresponsible of our committee to continually recommend more and more.

On the point about the European Union Committee, we will still have six sub-committees and a main committee so there will be seven committees in action in that area. They will still be better resourced than most, if not all, such sub-committees in other EU national parliaments.

We were grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for coming to see us and explaining things. We had intended to be helpful in telling him roughly what we thought, and we had intended that he would therefore know what to expect and what to argue. We also did not want committees to plan work beyond the end of the Session that they would then have to alter. Indeed, the noble Lord persuaded us not to reduce the size of the EU Committee to five but to keep it at six. I had thought that it was the European Union Committee’s desire that the membership of the sub-committees should go up from 12 to 14; that is the impression that we on the committee were given. If that is not the case, though, it is only—

[Lord Roper]

My Lords, there was some sort of misunderstanding. When I came before the Liaison Committee, I suggested the increase in size as an alternative way to involve more Peers, rather than reducing the number of committees.

[The Chairman of Committees]

I would say only that membership can be up to 14. There is no need for the European Union Committee to appoint 14 on each of its sub-committees; it can continue at 12, as it wants to at the moment.

Noble Lords have made a number of other points but I do not think I can add much more. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the Science and Technology Committee, there is nothing to stop that committee conducting follow-up inquiries in future. Paragraph 47 of the report makes clear that the committee should retain the power to appoint a sub-committee and to co-opt additional Members for particular inquiries. Both those points are already made in the report.

I hope that the House will agree to the report. It will breathe fresh air into the committee structure and I commend it to the House.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government remain committed to policies and structures in the House; and that the Liaison Committee, above all, remains so committed and will support evidence-based policy rather than a slide towards the new, the “breath of fresh air” and the policy-based evidence?

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but I do not speak for the Government.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of the Liaison Committee for his summing up, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. A number of telling points have been made during today’s debate. I am a little disappointed that in the replies from the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee those points were not all fully addressed. However, I take heart from the noble Lord the Leader reiterating the point that he made in a letter that he sent to the Cross-Bench Convenor, and perhaps to others, that the reduction that he envisages in the support for the Science and Technology Committee is a small one, which is very different from my understanding when I read the report that essentially support for the committee was going to be halved. I see a glimmer of hope there and I hope that in further discussion I can understand how small “small” is. I assume that “small” is smaller than what I see as large. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Procedure of the House (Proposal 1)

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wakeham]

I have no idea. I am speaking only on proposal 1; that is all I know about. I have had many years’ experience of whipping and I consider that, like other things, it is best done in private.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I intervene at this point to assure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the paper that we should be referring to is the Procedure Committee report and/or today’s Order Paper—and nothing that has been issued by anyone else.

[Lord Wakeham]

If I may resume, the first point that I was making was that the Leader of the House does not direct the House but offers advice. The second point is that the proposal before us today deals only with which party or group the Leader thinks should have the next turn; it does not deal with the question of two Peers rising from the same Benches.

The third point on this matter, and in my view the most crucial, is that the working party committee completely omitted what is very clear in both the Companion and Erskine May: that the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers have a role to play in the order in the House. That is very important. In my view, in the circumstances when two people from the same party or two Cross-Benchers get up, it should be for the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the government party or the Convenor to advise the House which of the noble Lords he thinks the House should most like to hear. It is these failures to implement self-regulation over recent years that have got us into our present difficulty, and the sooner that we get back to proper self-regulation, the better. In my day, the Leaders of the opposition parties, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is not here, and the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, were both very helpful to the House over matters of order.

Secondly, this proposal is unfair on the Lord Speaker. When we set up the office of Lord Speaker, the House had the benefit of three separate Select Committees manned by some of our most experienced parliamentarians, taking evidence from virtually all the other experienced parliamentarians who were not members of the Select Committee. Those reports were very strong in saying that our unique system of self-regulation needed to be preserved and those conclusions from such an authoritative source should not be overthrown from a report which was based on misconceptions and did not in any case consider many of the issues, nor as far as I can see took any evidence from those with the appropriate experience.

The recommendations that the role of the Leader should be taken over by the Lord Speaker poses this problem for self-regulation: will the advice of the Lord Speaker be capable of challenge as is the advice of the Leader? It is not a comfortable thought. It would be disastrous if it were and the end of self-regulation if it were not. It would produce a regime for this House which is more restrictive than even the House of Commons which deals with these matters by points of order. So we need to think very carefully.

Secondly, we are asking the Lord Speaker to assume responsibilities not just from the Leader but also from the Leader of the Opposition and Convenor that are not even written down or clearly defined. There are also some very practical matters to be considered. I just wonder whether the lonely Woolsack is the right place for a Lord Speaker with these roles. When I was the Leader of the House sitting here, it was the nods and the winks from the Leaders of the other parties, plus, if I may say so, the mutterings of the Clerk, which were very valuable in making sure that I did not make mistakes. Even if we pass this Motion, the Lord Speaker stuck up there will not be in a position to administer it in any fair way. Therefore, my advice to the House is not to pass this Motion, and, secondly, to go back to self-regulation as it should be, because I do not believe that there are many people in this House who properly understand what self-regulation is.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, what an extraordinary debate. I have never seen the House so impeccably well behaved, gracefully giving way to each other without being asked and without any intervention from me or anybody else. If it were like this all the time we would never need to have this debate.

This debate has been in gestation for some years, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, published his initial report, which settled the position for two or three years. It has become an increasingly hot topic and I very much welcome the debate that we have had today and the report of the Leader’s Group. It is important that we have this discussion.

I ought to lay out my cards at the very start of this debate. I do not favour the proposal. If it is called to a vote, and I am sure that it will be, I shall vote against it. Why? I think that the Leader’s Group sought to find a compromise, and in that it may well have created the seeds of doubt. I do not think that it will work. Simply moving the powers that I hold to the Woolsack—and many others have made this point—will not make things any better. If there is a failure in the current way that I interpret the rules, I am not convinced that the Speaker will do it any better. Whether or not we want to change the role of the Chair, it is not the proposal that we have before us today.

Secondly, it is the start of the end of self-regulation. I very much pray in aid the brief speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who said that we should pause and reflect before we let go of the ancient way of self-regulation that has served the interests of the House for so long.

Thirdly, as a result of that, it will lead us inexorably to the Lord Speaker being given the power of calling individual Peers, which in turn will lead us to the system of the House of Commons. I have never been a Member of the House of Commons. I have been to see it from our own Peers’ Gallery and I have watched it on television. Presumably, the House of Commons has its own ways of behaviour, customs and traditions. However, I wonder whether any fair-minded, reasonable citizen who sat in our Gallery and then that of the House of Commons would really believe that the House of Commons is better behaved. I think not.

A number of Peers, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Sharples, said that part of the problem was that I am not up on my feet quickly enough to bring order to the House. I will respond to that. I do not see my role as that of a Speaker bringing order. As others, including the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, said, I see my role very much as trying to guide the will of the House to put itself back in order. However, if the proposal is not agreed and the powers are retained by the Leader, I would not mind having my own little experiment of leaping to my feet with greater alacrity and seeking to guide the House more urgently.

The second criticism of my role was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Campbell-Savours, and others. They said that my role is essentially political as a Minister of the Crown and that these powers should not be vested in someone who is so clearly a politician. I understand the impeccable logic of that, but I still think that it is completely wrong. Ministers in all sorts of roles also have to be able to carry out an independent role of leadership, which is what I very much try to do as Leader of the whole House. I hope that the House can recognise when I am being nakedly political and also when I am representing the interests of the whole House, which is what I try to do at Question Time.

A number of questions were asked about my interpretation of the rules. The usual channels, through the Chief Whips, have decided and agreed that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party at Question Time are treated as one group. Therefore, we take it in turns. That gives an advantage—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, might believe—to the party of opposition. It is right that the party of opposition should have the lion's share of Question Time: after all, it is trying to scrutinise the Government. For instance, today there were 24 supplementary questions, of which 15 came from the Labour Party. I am bound to say that if this power were moved to the independence of the Woolsack and the Lord Speaker, I am not so sure that that arrangement would be maintained. One has only to listen to the speech of my noble friend Lord Alderdice to see that.

It is not so much a question of, “If it ain’t broke, don't fix it”; there is always room for improvement and for doing things better. In the first year of coalition, we had a substantial increase—more than 100—in the number of Peers in the House. There was a difficult sense of assimilation. There were certainly Members of another place, on all sides of the House, who thought that they had arrived in a House of Commons without any rules. That was not the case; it is not the case. As the first anniversary kicked by there was a sense of settling down in the House. I have noticed that the House seems to be happier in its skin, with new Peers and the coalition working together. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was quite right in pointing that out.

The most difficult decision at Question Time is what to do, if I can put it as politely as possible, with the Bishops and the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, who clearly represent a view—not the Bishops; I must not confuse the Bishops with the noble Lords—that is live outside this House. As an act of great courtesy, and rightly, the House always gives way to the Bishops. I think that we should maintain that, but I am not sure that this proposal allows for that.

I have learnt a lot from listening to this debate. I think that we have had a very good opportunity to air all the grievances and potential problems, and, I hope, also the benefits of the system that we already have.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, if no other noble Lord wishes to intervene, I beg to move that Motion 1 be agreed to.

Procedure of the House (Proposal 5)

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

To resolve that where a statement of exceptional length has been made in full to the House of Commons and made available in the Printed Paper Office before it is due to be repeated in this House, the Minister in this House may (with the agreement of the usual channels) draw the attention of the House to the statement made earlier without repeating it; and proceed immediately to the period for exchanges with the Opposition front benches;

That the text of the statement should be reproduced in the Official Report;

That the guidance in the Companion to the Standing Orders on backbench contributions on oral statements should be amended, to indicate that “ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate.”

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am afraid that this proposal does not really make sense in practice. When a Statement is coming, it is normal practice that the Printed Paper Office does not release it until the Minister or Prime Minister in the Commons has sat down after making it. Under pressure of business in your Lordships’ House, the time between the Minister sitting down in the Commons and a Minister getting up here to repeat the Statement is often extremely limited.

Many of your Lordships who want to contribute by asking questions may be in other parts of the House and do not know when the Statement is coming—it is “at a convenient time” after whatever piece of business has been decided. By the time one gets here and gets into the Printed Paper Office to get hold of the Statement to read it, the Minister is very often several paragraphs down the track. It is rather useful to have the Statement from the Printed Paper Office to catch up with what the Minister has said that one has missed because one did not know it was coming. The monitors over at your Lordships’ House no longer ring the bell when a new piece of business is there, so if you are working in the Royal Gallery or wherever you happen to be, you have to keep a beady eye on the screen to know when the Statement is coming.

I do not feel that this proposal really works. I cannot see why yet again we cannot go on with the existing position. It cannot be taken for granted that, if one wants to contribute to the debate, one will have been able to have absorbed the Statement.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Report from the Select Committee on Members Leaving the House (5th Report, HL Paper 151) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, I shall speak only briefly to explain the process whereby this report from the Procedure Committee has been put before your Lordships.

As noble Lords will be aware, this report arises out of the report of the Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The group’s report was published in January, an interim report having previously been debated on 16 November 2010. I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place, and I understand that he may speak later and respond to any points of substance that are made by noble Lords. I shall not comment on the substance of the report, although I will of course do my best to answer any outstanding questions at the end of the debate. On the same day as the group’s report appeared, 13 January, the noble Lord the Leader of the House published a Written Statement indicating that he would ask the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals to implement the Leader’s Group recommendations. This is what we have done.

The most important parts of our report are Appendices 1 and 3. Appendix 1 proposes text for inclusion in the next edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders describing a revised leave of absence scheme and the new voluntary retirement scheme. Appendix 3 proposes amendments to Standing Order 22, which governs the leave of absence scheme.

Before concluding, I draw the House’s attention to one aspect of the committee’s report that is not found in the Leader’s Group report. It is our recommendation that the Procedure Committee should appoint a leave of absence sub-committee to advise the Clerk of the Parliaments on the operation of the leave of absence scheme. The sub-committee, chaired by the Chairman of Committees, will be made up of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. It will help to ensure that the new strengthened rules on leave of absence are applied sensibly and fairly. It could, for instance, recommend in particular cases that the three months’ notice period for terminating leave of absence be abridged in accordance with what will become Standing Order 22.7.

I hope that the appointment of this new sub-committee will be welcomed across the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the report by the Procedure Committee simply demands that leave of absence be pursued more rigorously, which I am sure will be welcomed in the House but is unlikely to make a noticeable contribution to reducing our numbers. However, the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set up by the Leader of the House, recommended that,

“the House should introduce arrangements to allow Members to retire from membership of the House on a voluntary basis”,

and accepted that legislation would be necessary to achieve this.

The committee further argued that a reduction in numbers would result in an overall saving to the taxpayer and that part of that saving should be used to offer a modest pension. It called for this to be investigated in detail, but this has not yet been followed through. Perhaps in reply we could hear whether the House authorities intend to take actuarial advice on this matter, as recommended by that report. Because we are unpaid, it cannot be a pure pension and therefore requires a new statutory provision. The Chairman of Committees may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill awaiting Committee provides such statutory authority.

When this was previously discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that any such payment,

“would … not be understood by the British people”.—[Official Report, 16/11/10; col. 675.]

Of course, if he is talking about extra money from the Treasury, he is absolutely right, but I suggest that if it is money from savings of expenditure within the House of Lords budget, contrary to that view redundancy pay is well understood in the country at large and accepted as saving money. The current redundancy lump sum permitted tax free is £30,000, which is less than the annual attendance payments for those who come to this House, say, 75 per cent of the time.

Therefore, I hope that in due course, the Government may come forward with a modest payment proposal of a lump sum of, say, £30,000 to those choosing to retire after, say, 10 years’ service or having reached the age of 75, provided that they have had an attendance record of at least 50 per cent in the previous two Sessions. Those in the business world tell me that a modest lump sum of that kind is much more attractive than the financial sum appears. One can imagine Members of your Lordships’ House discussing with their spouses whether they might buy a new car for their retirement or go on a world cruise and listen to lectures by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—or choose another one to avoid that peril.

In any event, that a scheme is needed to get the numbers down is not in doubt. Of course, the Hunt committee was right to suggest that if that were pursued, Members who chose to retire should enjoy the same use of House facilities as former hereditary Peers do. I hope that this matter will be pursued as recommended by the Hunt committee and not simply neglected and brushed aside by this report, which we nevertheless welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral deserves the gratitude of the whole House for the report that he provided as chairman of the Leader’s Group, which has now been turned into a report of the Procedure Committee and has been introduced by the Chairman of Committees.

My noble friend Lord Hunt is entirely correct that, up until now, the only way of leaving the House permanently, if I can put it as indelicately as this, is through death. In recent years, more and more noble Lords have indicated an interest in being able to retire from the House before death. In the course of the past two or three years, my noble friend Lord Steel has championed his Bill, a part of which provides for permanent retirement from this House. My noble friend Lord Hunt has found a way of doing so with honour and dignity and I commend the report to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, quite rightly raised the question of a legal underpinning for what I hope we will agree today. While it is unlikely in the extreme that any Peer who applied for permanent voluntary retirement from the House would ever wish to come back, given the performance that we will go into, there is at least that possibility. Therefore, if a suitable legislative vehicle appears in the next few months or even years, we will take the opportunity to give that legal underpinning.

There are one or two other outstanding matters, such as the power to suspend Members of this House, for which we also wish to find a legal underpinning. We are very aware of these issues. They may not have the highest priority, but we should look at them.

The second issue that has been raised is that of a financial contribution for Peers leaving this House. I was entertained by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who raised the spectacle of numerous Peers waiting for some sort of handout from the taxpayer. He asked for some clarity on this. Let me be utterly clear: there is no prospect of any public money being made available for Peers wishing to retire from the House. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke with great sense when he said that it is a great privilege to be a Member of this House. It is voluntary to attend. A generous but hardly excessive allowance is made available for Peers who come. If you do not come you do not get anything. If you wish to retire, you do not get anything either. That is the way it is going to be. Whatever business cases are made to me or to the Treasury, they will be greeted with a thumbs down. I urge noble Lords who think that their time has come and they are ready to retire to do so quickly and take advantage of this scheme.

My noble friend Lord Elton also raised an important point about Members who attend the House rarely but when they come make an important contribution. They should be much valued Members of this House and should be encouraged not discouraged. I am nervous of the line taken by the noble Baroness the Convenor, although I understand why she took it. She said that some Members of the Cross Benches had not appeared for 10 years. If they have not appeared for 10 years, they should be encouraged perhaps to take up permanent retirement, but they should not be encouraged to stay away by being given a handout from the taxpayer.

A number of other issues were raised that are more properly to do with long-term reform of the House, which we discussed at length last week. The House of Commons is discussing that today. We have another debate to carry on so I will not add any more save to say that I lend my full support to the report and I thank on behalf of the House my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and his committee for their work.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I think that everything that can be said about this report and a lot not within this report has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, gave a very good summary of it including an example of someone who might well wish to avail themselves of the opportunity for voluntary retirement. The Leader of the House has made the position clear so far as the financial aspects are concerned. Therefore, there is little left for me to say other than that I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of Lord Paul (4th Report, HL Paper 37) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the fourth report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct be agreed to.

The House is being invited today to agree three reports from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and three consequential suspension Motions. We are debating these reports together, which I hope will be convenient for the House, but I should emphasise that these are three separate reports, relating to three separate cases, and the Motions are entirely free-standing. On the other hand, the three suspension Motions are consequential upon agreement to the relevant reports, as they simply implement the committee’s main recommendation in each case.

This is a difficult day for the House, and the task before us in considering these Motions is not one that I—or, I am sure, any noble Lord—will relish. It is made no easier by the fact that the contents of the reports now before your Lordships’ House were leaked to the media over the weekend in advance of publication. I can assure the House that we took all reasonable steps to prevent any leak, and I deeply regret that there was a leak, particularly in so far as it caused any distress to the three noble Lords who are the subjects of the reports.

The three reports all relate to claims for expenses made under the Members’ reimbursement scheme. In each case the Member concerned designated one or more properties outside Greater London as his or her main residence and, as a result, claimed money under the night subsistence and travel expenses headings in the scheme. The key question in each case, which both the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct have considered in turn, is whether the Member correctly designated the property or properties in question as his or her main residence.

I wish at this point to pay tribute to the members and staff of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct. They have taken on a vital, hugely difficult and, frankly, painful task. They have done their job with efficiency, rigour and fairness. I put on the record my personal thanks to the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and her colleagues on the sub-committee.

In the three cases before us, the sub-committee concluded, in each case, that the noble Lord concerned had wrongly designated the property in question as his or her main residence, and had wrongly claimed sums varying from £27,000, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to £125,000, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. In each case the sub-committee concluded that the noble Lord concerned had made these claims in bad faith. All three noble Lords appealed against these findings to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which I chair. We considered the appeals on Monday 11 October. Our reports speak for themselves but it may be useful if I briefly summarise our most important conclusions, first on points of principle and finally on the specifics of each of the three cases.

First, on the points of principle, we accept entirely the sub-committee’s conclusion that in each case money was wrongly claimed, and its calculations as to the amount of money wrongly claimed. However, we regard the repayment of this money as a matter of restitution rather than sanction, and therefore concluded that the length of suspension should not be linked to repayment. Secondly, the appeals contained a number of complaints as to the procedural fairness of the investigations. Although the sub-committee acted entirely properly throughout, and in full accordance with the procedure agreed by the House, we accepted that the procedure itself presents some difficulties.

As we say in our report on the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, there is a tension between ensuring that noble Lords under investigation enjoy appropriate procedural safeguards and preserving the informal and parliamentary nature of such proceedings. I believe that the House would not wish to turn internal disciplinary hearings into full-blown, adversarial court proceedings, with prosecution and defence lawyers and the cross-examination of witnesses. In fact, the House has explicitly agreed, more than once, that proceedings should be kept relatively informal. On the other hand, we need to ensure, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, that all evidence is properly tested and that no noble Lord is found guilty on the basis of hearsay.

I should at this point remind noble Lords that these three investigations were all initiated in the previous Parliament, and so were conducted in accordance with the procedures agreed in December 2008. They are the last investigations to be conducted under these procedures. We now have a new Code of Conduct and a new set of procedures. The independent Commissioner for Standards, Mr Paul Kernaghan, will conduct any future investigations and present his findings to the sub-committee, which will, where appropriate, recommend a sanction to the main committee. This is, I believe, a better and clearer procedure. It separates the investigative and sentencing functions, and allows for an appeal against both elements to the main committee. The commissioner will have considerable freedom of action, and will be able to test all relevant evidence thoroughly. At the same time, I am sure that the sub-committee, along with the commissioner, will wish to reflect on the findings in these reports in the coming weeks, and consider whether our procedures could be improved still further.

I now turn to the three cases. In each case we found that the so-called “main residences” designated by the noble Lords were not appropriately designated. They were properties outside London, designated as main residences by noble Lords who, before, during and after the periods in question, resided substantially inside London. They did not reflect any natural interpretation of the term “main residence”. No entitlement to public money should have been claimed on such a basis.

In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, we disagreed, on the balance of probabilities, with the sub-committee’s conclusion that he had acted in bad faith in wrongly claiming amounts under the expenses scheme. However, as paragraph 8 of our report states, noble Lords have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that any money claimed from public funds is properly payable. We consider that the noble Lord, Lord Paul, was grossly irresponsible and negligent in this regard. For that reason, and bearing in mind that he repaid a total of £42,000 to the House at the start of the investigation, we recommend that he be suspended from the service of the House for four months.

In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, we dismissed his appeal and upheld the sub-committee’s finding that he wrongly claimed over £27,000, and that in so doing he did not act in good faith. In judging the relative severity of sanction in the noble Lord’s case, we took into account the relatively short period within which he made his claims, and the fact that, after receiving the sub-committee’s report and shortly before the committee met, he repaid the money to the House. However, he has not apologised or acknowledged that he acted wrongly. We therefore recommend that he be suspended from the service of the House for eight months.

Finally, I turn to the sixth report, on the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. I have already indicated our concerns over the status of untested third-party evidence, such as the statements made to the police by her neighbours in Maidstone. We decided, after careful consideration and without intending any reflection on the quality of the evidence, that it would not be fair in her case to attach any weight to it. We then considered the noble Baroness’s own evidence, her letters, written statements, oral evidence and her appeal. It was clear to us that she had not advanced any reasonable interpretation of the term “main residence”. As the sub-committee points out, in so far as she attempted to offer an interpretation, it was one in which the word “main” had no meaning. She chose, over a period of years, to designate as main residences properties which she repeatedly described as “bolt-holes”. A bolt-hole is not a main residence, and the noble Baroness’s designations were wholly unreasonable. We therefore upheld the sub-committee’s finding that she wrongly claimed just over £125,000 over a four-year period, and that she should repay this money to the House. It will be for the Clerk of the Parliaments to arrange repayment.

We further found that in making these claims, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, did not act in good faith. She has not acknowledged that she claimed the money wrongly; nor has she apologised in terms. In view of the length of time over which these claims were made, and the sums involved, we recommend that she be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the current Session of Parliament—in other words, until Easter 2012.

In conclusion, we cannot ignore what has happened in these cases. It is clear that there was abuse of the Members’ reimbursement scheme and that the House has a duty to act in those cases where such abuse occurred. I therefore commend these three reports to the House.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees. As the noble Lord said, we find ourselves on an extremely difficult and sad day for this House. The allegations made against the three Members of this House were serious, and the findings of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are serious. Their recommendations and the reports speak for themselves.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in expressing gratitude to the members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for the thoroughness with which they conducted their investigations. I should also like to express my thanks to the Clerks of the House for the exemplary service given to the sub-committee and to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.

As a member of the Privileges and Conduct Committee, I believe that all three Peers concerned fell short of the standard of conduct that the House and the public are entitled to expect, and we must as a House act decisively. The public expect us to react with firmness and unity to demonstrate our abhorrence at wrongdoing.

The one light in this sorry situation is that the House has already taken decisive action to reform an outdated system of expenses. As from the start of October, we introduced a new transparent system of daily allowance based on attendance. I firmly hope that, as a result, this will be the last time that we as a House find ourselves in this position.

The committee’s findings are disturbing and the conclusions reached are grave, but they are, in my judgment, fair and just. I commend the reports to the House and hope that noble Lords on all sides will join me in supporting the Motions before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, I, too, want to say a few words, but they are rather different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. This is a very sad day for me personally, because the three Peers are all Asians. When you are a member of a minority and you read in the press that three members of the same minority have been found to have cheated on their expenses, it is hard to bear. I do not say this to suggest that the committee and sub-committee behaved in any way incorrectly; I do not mean that. I have looked at the reports and I have no complaint to make.

What I want to say is how distressing it is for me personally to find the 80th richest man, the noble Lord, Lord Paul, saying that he did not understand what “main” and “residence” meant. When I made my submission to the SSRB, I said that perhaps he did not understand the English language and the meaning of “main” and “residence”. Those words are fairly straightforward; we all know what they mean. If we do not, I suggest that we should not be sitting in this Chamber, as all the proceedings are conducted in the English language.

The noble Lord, Lord Alli, says that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has been treated badly and that things have not been looked at properly. As far as I remember, the Chairman of Committees said that she had herself admitted that the two places that she called her main residence were bolt-holes. The basis on which the decision was taken was possibly what she herself admitted about that.

We ought to let this matter rest. I think that it is very sad. Frankly, I do not have any sympathy for the two very rich gentlemen, the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul. I do have sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, but this is how things have come out. I have looked at the reports fairly carefully. They are clear and readable and they answer nearly all the questions for me.

We call ourselves “noble Lords”. When I came here in 1990, the behaviour of Members of the House of Lords was expected to be above this kind of thing; we were not expected to do this sort of thing. I remember clearly that, if I did not understand anything, I went to the finance department or to the clerks to the Parliament and asked them what I should do. They were always available to us to give advice. If we are in doubt, clearly we should take advice. We should not just carry on and say that we did not understand. I do not accept that someone cannot understand that, if they never stay somewhere, that place is not their main residence.

I am disappointed and distressed and I am sad that this involves three Asian Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, said something about Indian culture. I do not know which Indian culture he was speaking of; I do not know of that culture. The only Indian culture that I know of in this regard is buying honours, which certainly is Indian culture. I hope that it does not apply to him.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, asked me a number of questions, to which I hope I can reply and give him and the House some assistance. He asked whether the findings of the review would be published. Indeed they will be. Any changes to the procedure that were agreed by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct would of course require a report to the House and the agreement of the House. I think that that answers that point. He also referred to the letter in the Uddin report from the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh. I refer him to the letter that followed from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, which is on pages 216 and 217 of the report. I and the other members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee were satisfied by that letter.

The main question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was why these three Peers were referred to the sub-committee for investigation whereas most other Peers facing allegations of wrongdoing were cleared by the Clerk of the Parliaments. Under the procedure agreed by the House in 2008, the Clerk of the Parliaments investigated complaints about alleged abuses of the system of financial support, resolving them himself where possible. He was able to do so in the vast majority of cases. However, the House also agreed that he could request the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to assist him in investigating a complex or serious complaint. The Clerk of the Parliaments took the view that cases that had been subject to formal police investigation were, by definition, of a serious nature. This is why he referred the cases of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to the sub-committee. In addition, the House Committee in January discussed the extent to which the Clerk of the Parliaments in conducting these investigations should rely on written assurances from Members. The committee agreed that he would be,

“justified in relying on explicit written assurances”.

In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, no such written assurances were provided, and the Clerk was therefore unable to reach a conclusion on the case. He therefore had no option but to refer the case to the sub-committee. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that it was not in the least bit because the three Peers were Asians. I do not think there is anyone on the committee or the sub-committee who would not endorse that completely. I hope that helps the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on the points that he made.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords: Allowances

Lord Brabazon of Tara Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, I support the recommendations and fully recognise that colleagues on all sides of the House are not only entitled to but are justified in making their comments, especially from their own experience. I have been a Member of this House for more than 25 years, and until the past 18 months I never dreamt that there were different interpretations of the rules. I am not an expert, but I was told what I could claim and I have claimed it. Yet I have been astounded to find that colleagues, whose integrity I do not impugn, have interpreted the rules differently.

Colleagues in the House have gone through the past 18 months fearing that they will accidentally find themselves in trouble when they are not trouble-makers—and I very much sympathise with my noble friend Lady Symons. That is in part due to the various anomalies and blemishes in our arrangements, as has been explained by various experts and keepers of our conscience, from the Clerk of the Parliaments downwards. I pay full tribute to all my colleagues around the House. I look at the Leader; he and I have sparred for 25 years. None of us has lost any weight, we are still standing, and we are still here. From the Leader downwards—I say that with no disrespect to anyone—colleagues have had not only to wait until today but to grapple with finding a solution. What we have before us is their idea of a solution. I am sure that the Leader and his colleagues will understand that there will be a need to revisit the issue in light of what has been said by a number of colleagues.

As far as I am concerned, I am not wedded to either the past or the future. I accept that what we are looking at is the product of our good friends who help to lead us in one way or another. However, we are entitled to dignity and respect from outside the House for what we try to do. We know that it is terribly difficult to measure who is a good Member, who is not and who attends every day. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he is able to give 60 or 70 days a year here and, when he is here, he makes his presence felt. But others are able to attend more or less every day. We are all on the same level as far as integrity is concerned, and we are all entitled to weigh up our responsibilities in light of the great honour given to us by our party leaders, et cetera. The one thing that sticks in my craw is that collectively colleagues from all around the House, who without exception are good and honourable, have had to carry the burden of a nasty campaign waged through the press. At the end of the day we know that, whatever decision we take, we will be subject to exploitation and criticism by the press and others.

We are here to look at the benefits of the proposals and the extent to which our colleagues are saying, “This is what we think is a fair and equitable system”. I respect very much the point of view put by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and others that noble Lords will lose out. As far as I am concerned, we will all be winners if we accept the Leader’s recommendations, and I wish them well.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, before the Leader of the House concludes today’s debate, I wonder whether the House might feel that it is time now for me, on behalf of the House Committee, to attempt to address those points which noble Lords have addressed to the committee’s report rather than to the Leader’s two resolutions. I shall attempt to deal first with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. As the noble Lord described, that amendment would extend the £150 allowance for certain types of mandated business in the second category in Annex A of the report while away from Westminster on the days when the House is not sitting.

The House Committee took the clear view that now was not the right time to expand or uprate the entitlements on business away from Westminster. Therefore the range of entitlements is exactly the same as at present. For the types of business in category B, I point out that up until a few years ago, when they were reviewed by the House Committee, there was nothing paid at all. Category B was then included; it includes such things as CPA and IPU business. Members are currently reimbursed the relevant categories of expenses only in respect of days when the House is sitting. This sort of activity has been quite clearly distinguished from travel as an official representative of the House or a committee where Members are acting on our behalf. The noble Lord is asking for the current policy to be expanded, and on the grounds of cost and principle the committee does not support such an expansion at this stage. I emphasise that these categories and rates were reviewed relatively recently by the House Committee and that they will probably be reviewed again in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made an interesting point about all-party groups—particularly on all-party country groups. Those have never been included in any category for allowances. It could be limitless if we were to include that sort of thing and, as I have said, we felt that this was not the right time to expand the entitlements and that we should try to keep them the same.

[Lord Grenfell]

The noble Lord says that this could become limitless, but I am not sure that that is really a fair argument. The question is whether, when Members of this House visit another capital on an exchange visit to other parliaments, the effect of that is the same as if they were going there representing the House. I am not quite sure why the noble Lord feels that this might be a limitless affair. It should be treated the same as when one is going to represent the House of Lords.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

If the noble Lord travels as a representative of the House of Lords, he would be able to claim an allowance under the first category in the table, so that is already provided for.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was worried that members of Select Committees might be less willing to travel on committee visits at the rate of £150. I cannot remember exactly what the rate is now, but it is not the full daily rate. It is a reduced rate and is not far different from £150. The new scheme is intended to provide adequate support for Members to contribute to their activities, but if we find that there is a problem with Members being inhibited from travelling on committee visits, we will have to review the system—we are keeping it under review, as I have said. However, it is not the proposal to do so at the moment. In passing, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that the cost of his telephone call to his wife on an overseas visit could be taken from his daily subsistence allowance, which he would receive. I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, which would, evidently, reimburse Members for first-class travel regardless of cost. The noble Baroness referred to the Wakeham group’s report and the difference between the SSRB’s recommendations and those of IPSA. The Wakeham group considered the merits of both sides of the proposals on train travel. It was prepared to accept the SSRB’s recommendations but noted the difficulty of verifying whether a Member was working. Noble Lords will recall the arguments about whether one was going to be working on the train and therefore whether one should travel first or second class. The group expressed a preference for the IPSA proposal, which rightly emphasised value for money over class of travel, and the House Committee agreed.