Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
My Lords, I am glad that we brought this matter forward for discussion. There is no doubt that the proposals in front of us are infinitely better than the ones that were in the Bill as originally drafted. However, I am still not clear what the driving force behind this is. It was left as an excepted matter quite deliberately and for very good reasons, and in my opinion those reasons are as valid today as they were then. It would be impossible for me to avoid pointing out to the noble Baroness that there has been no consultation with the Assembly on this, and it is not an issue that has any traction except within the small group of people who are directly affected. But the proposals in front of us today are a lot better than what was there before. Some protections have been put in. I am quite sure that reference to the 2010 Act could very well have been the mechanism to sort the whole thing out at the end of the day. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness for listening to us and for acting on what has been said. At least we have put in some protections that were not there before and, I hope, will be of benefit in the long term. On that basis, I support the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I was greatly encouraged by the Minister’s offer when we previously debated this matter to have conversations with those of your Lordships who had taken part in the earlier debate on this subject. It is perfectly clear that, unlike with Amendment 1, we are not talking about a secret deal. There has clearly been openness in discussing this. It has obviously been extremely constructive. I infer that there is approval of where we now are.
I have only one tiny niggle. I hold no proxy whatever for the noble Lord, Lord Butler, but those who have been taking part in these debates will recall that, in our most recent discussion of this subject, he raised the question of why the Government appear to have resiled from the position that the Minister had expressed in Committee. Is the Minister confident that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is now satisfied—or would have been satisfied, had he been here—by what she said in moving the amendment?
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, at the risk of upsetting the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I join him in supporting this amendment. It would have been a lot better if we had discussed this on Report but the flexibility shown by the Minister, referred to by other noble Lords, indicates that once again there has been a success in talking to people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay a report in Parliament at least three months prior to bringing any order on the devolution of responsibilities in respect of the Civil Service Commissioners. The report should set out the Secretary of State’s view of the effect such an order would have on the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, including the merit principle for appointments and the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners. The amendment marks a move towards ensuring the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and we welcome it.
There are key differences between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Westminster Civil Service. Senior civil servants in Northern Ireland have a higher profile than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is partly because, particularly when the Assembly has been suspended or there have been different governance arrangements, it has often been a civil servant who has undertaken the role that Ministers have here in defending or promoting policies and engaging with the public. The difference is cultural and practical. Due to these marked differences, the Northern Ireland Civil Service would benefit from a requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a report that outlines the effect such an order would have on the impartiality of the Civil Service, including the merit principle for appointments and independence of the Civil Service Commissioners. I am delighted to welcome the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make a brief footnote to the debates that we have just had. My noble friend Lord Mawhinney made reference in debate on Amendment 1 to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and myself. I did not intervene in that debate, especially on the subject of secret deals, but certainly my basic attitude to such matters was learnt at my mother’s knee. I mention this because I recall that the Reith lectures given by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, treated on the same matter. It is happy that she is here so that she can reprove me if I misrepresent her. Her view on behaviour was that those people with whom one has contact react and respond to the way that you treat them. If you communicate liking, they are likely to behave in a likeable manner while if you show that you trust them, they are likely to behave in a trustworthy manner. In both these examples, the converse is true. Secret deals are therefore fundamentally counter- productive. I once worked for a great American who taught me that the strongest argument against falsehoods is that the truth is much easier to remember. I am not seeking a response.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has a sense from the tone of this debate, as in Committee, of how strongly your Lordships’ House feels on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made the point that we have devolution, not disengagement, and there is a responsibility here for your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Bew, made the point about the differences—not just cultural but practical—between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Westminster Civil Service. As a Northern Ireland Minister, I was struck by the far higher profile that senior civil servants have in Northern Ireland than they do here in GB. This is partly because, particularly when the Assembly has been suspended or there have been different governance arrangements, it has often been a civil servant who has undertaken the role that Ministers have here in defending or promoting policies and engaging with the public. So the difference is cultural and practical.
The timing of the Minister’s letter on this issue to noble Lords, dated yesterday and which I received today, is rather unfortunate. I appreciate that we have just had a recess, but it would have been helpful to have had the letter earlier; it may well have informed more of the debate today and the amendment that is being put forward.
There are a couple of points in the Minister’s letter on which I would like some clarification. I think that there is some confusion about what has been devolved and what is excepted. In her letter, she mentioned the debate in Committee and said that,
“many of the points made in debate related to the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service as a whole, which is of course a transferred matter”.
But the reason why there was a debate around impartiality was that we were discussing the role of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission, which is not an excepted matter. It was the role of the commission that brought about that debate. I think that people fully understand that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is devolved, but it is the role of the commission and its responsibility in ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Civil Service.
The point of the amendment and the whole tone of the debate is that, when the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission is transferred, it is with the statutory understanding that it retains its remit for ensuring impartiality in appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I do not think that there was any misunderstanding in the debate in your Lordships’ House about what was transferred or excepted, but the reassurance was required, which was not really explicit enough in the Committee debate, that before being a devolved organisation there would be statutory protection on its remit for impartiality.
The Minister said in her letter that there would be further parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is relevant here—it would be secondary legislation. But she also says that she intends to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. I think that it is a great shame that we do not have the amendment before us today, because it would have been helpful to your Lordships’ House to be able to discuss it today. What we will seek from her today is to understand exactly what that amendment would say. If the earliest time we see that amendment is at Third Reading, it is rather late in the day, and I am disappointed that we do not have that government amendment before us today. If she could clarify exactly what it will say and what the process of debate and vote will be, that would be extremely helpful to your Lordships’ House and might allay some concerns. I hope that she is able do that—but, to put it on record again, it would have been helpful to have that amendment today.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I mean no disrespect to the shadow spokesman for the Opposition in speaking immediately after her. I hesitated to speak in the debate because I had played no part whatever in the proceedings so far, but I detected some mild anxiety in the exchanges between the government Front Bench and the advisers behind me. Therefore, I reckoned that uttering for a moment might provide enough time for any matters of that sort to be resolved with total confidence.
Like many in your Lordships’ House, I was alerted to this problem by the original letter expressing concern about the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom at the moment in these regards. For reasons that are in no remote sense the responsibility or fault of the Minister, I was unable to attend any of the briefing meetings that she very generously provided for people interested in this Bill. It is possible, because I have not taken any part, that I have not received correspondence that may have come to other noble Lords.
Having listened to the debate this afternoon and read the debate that occurred in Committee, I have a sense of unease. I do not have a sense of confidence that all is well. We are rather late in the proceedings of this Bill to be dealing with these sorts of concerns. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a significantly clearer position of exactly where we are and why at this particular moment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. I know from Committee, and this afternoon, that this issue gives rise to considerable debate, in which of course there is very wide interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the matter back on Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, criticised the timing of my letter. My letter was dependent on knowing on which aspects I had not been able to satisfy noble Lords following the debate in Committee. There were a number of other issues of debate that have not come back to us because clearly the debate produced a satisfactory response to what I had said. I was therefore picking up those issues which had been raised in amendments by noble Lords or which had been raised with me directly in that noble Lords had told me that they intended to table amendments on those issues. Therefore, having got a picture of what noble Lords were interested in and concerned about, I wrote in the hope that, by giving some advance notice, I would enable your Lordships to prepare your points for debate with an eye to what I was planning.
Returning to the points made this afternoon, noble Lords will be aware that this amendment is the same amendment that the noble Lord tabled in Committee. As I outlined then, while we have much sympathy with the concerns that underlie it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has just referred, the Government cannot accept it; first, on the basis that it is technically problematic; and, secondly, because it will pre-empt a public consultation on the future devolution of the Civil Service Commissioners.
It is worth emphasising again that Clause 10 is concerned only with the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners and not the wider Civil Service. There have been a number of references today, as there were in the previous debate in Committee, to the issue of the Civil Service as a whole. That is, however, a devolved issue, and therefore it is important that we bear in mind that we are talking only about the appointment of the Civil Service Commissioners.
Clause 10 does not change the current procedure for the appointment of Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland. Appointments are currently an excepted matter, and the Bill proposes to make them a reserved matter, as is currently the case with the commissioners’ functions and procedures. But the Bill opens the possibility of responsibility for the appointment of the commissioners and their functions and procedures to be devolved at a later stage.
I recognise that noble Lords have concerns that the principle of appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be made on merit and through open and fair competition, and that this should be protected, as is the case with the Home Civil Service here. In Committee I made it clear that the Government are certainly open to the possibility of new statutory safeguards being put in place in the context of devolution. But as I indicated previously, attempting to write them in now would pre-empt a consultation on the future devolution of the commissioners, not least in Northern Ireland itself.
In any event, we do not have the time to put in place provision on the complex issues involved during the remaining stages of this Bill. Some of these matters, as I have said, are anyway a devolved responsibility on which we should not legislate without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is unnecessary to make such provision at present because the House, along with another place, would have the final say over whether devolution should take place when an order to that effect was proposed.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about the opportunities for the House to vote on a statutory instrument prior to devolution and that it would be a yes or no vote, the process for this is that the Secretary of State would bring an Order in Council to the House and the House can decide whether there are sufficient safeguards in place. If there are not, presumably the House would vote against that order.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I think this is the first time since I came to your Lordships’ House a dozen years ago that I have followed a Cross-Bencher who in Northern Ireland is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, has spoken well on this thoroughly useful and comparatively tidy Bill.
The Library’s briefing pack identified this Bill as the first piece of constitutional legislation in Northern Ireland that has undergone recent examination by Parliament without a background of crisis. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, Lady Hermon MP even elicited from Raymond McCartney, a Sinn Fein MLA, that he did not see any reason why Sinn Fein would not respond to an invitation to give evidence at Westminster, dependent on the context. This was the first evidence from Sinn Fein to a Westminster committee given in public.
That is not to say that one can only have a useful measure in less critical times. A particularly striking instance of that was the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, carried through your Lordships’ House early in the new millennium by the late, great Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, effectively, completely changed the Bill between Second and Third Reading, to its great improvement. My own absorption in Northern Ireland detail has diminished during the past score of years; but I am batting at number six among the 11 initial speakers in this Second Reading debate, which makes me its fulcrum and an apposite place to make the sort of remarks the chorus makes in a Greek tragedy.
I like the format of the Library’s briefing pack and I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now used to give pre-legislative scrutiny to new Bills. That House of Commons committee, which I chaired during the 1997-2001 Parliament, did not exercise that power, though we did, after ten years, review the working of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Ken Livingstone, then an MP, who served on that Select Committee before he resigned to contest the mayoralty of London, suggested the review and agreed at first that it should be delayed until the end of 10 years. When we reached the time for the review, he acknowledged that he had originally suspected the legislation to be simply a sop to American critics, but that he now agreed it had made a real beneficial difference.
My only unease about the pre-legislative scrutiny was that it contained 29 recommendations whereas the Government’s response—they claimed that they had addressed each recommendation, as indeed they had—said that the report contained 24. On a day when the Government has made a Statement on, inter alia, UK arithmetic, the Northern Ireland educational establishment can still teach its colleagues in Great Britain something.
Having myself approved the title “National Lottery etc. Bill” in 1993, I suppose it is churlish of me to regard “Miscellaneous Provisions” as an inadequate substitute for,
“measures to improve the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,
and separately,
“donations and loans to Northern Ireland political parties”.
Those were the subjects of consultations by the NIO in 2012 and 2010 respectively, which underlie the Bill and which both have a fine 17th-century timbre. My locus is all the more insubstantial to make these comments when I know even less about d’Hondt than I do about the Duckworth-Lewis scoring method in limited-overs cricket matches. Selfishly, I must say that I hope amendments about d’Hondt will not trouble us in Committee. As it is, there is clear evidence of progress on the size of the Assembly, the dual mandate and the transparency of donations—even if history takes a meandering course and it is less well known than it should be that there was a fall-off in Irish-American donations after Mrs Thatcher gave authority for the United States Air Force to fly bombing raids from British airfields to Libya in the mid-1980s, when France and Germany had declined to do so.
I profoundly welcome the Bill’s attention to detail over the year 2016, not just because of the centenary of the Easter Rising but because of that of the opening salvoes of the Battle of the Somme. I had no role in the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Downing Street declaration, the IRA’s ceasefire in August 1994 or the Belfast agreement, but I did have a role in the 75th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. I represented the Cabinet on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, accompanied by the late Alan Clark, who was representing the Ministry of Defence. The noble Lords, Lord Bannside and Lord Molyneaux, were also present. It was a memorable day, not least because of accidents in the arrangements on the battlefield in both the morning and the afternoon.
In the morning, the local Catholic priest was passed over for his planned prayers, which were then taken at the end of the service at the Lutyens memorial. In the afternoon, under a light but wetting rain at the commemoration of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Helen’s Tower, mishaps were happily overcome. The first happened when the Minister from the Ministre des Anciens Combattants, representing the French Government, having returned to Paris after an excellent local lunch, was therefore not available to take up the tray of fleur-de-lys, which were refused in turn by the lady Mayor of Thiepval—population 86—and the British ambassador and were eventually accepted by me. The second was because of the ambiguity in a sentence in the service sheet to the effect that a piper, “will play a lament. Wreaths will be laid”. The latter phrase could have made the actions either simultaneous or consecutive.
The truly memorable event of 1 July 1991 was that, back in Belfast, the inter-party talks of that summer continued under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, who during the day negotiated an agreement that the talks had now run their course and should be brought to a gentle close. It was agreed that the close should be temporary and that the gentleness should bind everyone not to get into the blame game, so that the talks could be peacefully resumed in due course, as indeed they were, to the long-term benefit of the peace process. If useful Bills go well, the climate improves and we must hope that this is true this time too.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Mayor of London—those are the ones that come to mind immediately.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I was out of the Chamber so I did not speak, but in the light of the noble and learned Lord’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will he comment on the fact that the three referendums that he described were all done one after another—and one had the sense that the policy was being made up as they went along. Only when those three had been done were we allowed a referendum Bill itself.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I think that the referendums Bill came between those on Scotland and Wales and the London Mayor, but I may be wrong about that. However, I agree with the underlying thrust of the question. Once we started on the route of referendums we realised that we needed some principles, but those principles guided only the process for a referendum; they did not determine when there should be a referendum and when there should not. Maybe it is that issue that we now need to move on to.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we support this amendment. It goes to the heart of this Government’s claim that they wish to empower the legislature as against the Executive. The reason it matters, as my noble friend Lord Grocott said, is that where there is a restriction on the time to get legislation through, there is a huge incentive for any Government, whatever their hue, to reach agreement with the Opposition on as many issues as possible. If they do not reach agreement on those issues, the consequence is that their legislation is delayed.
Parliament is disempowered if a Government feel able, as this one did, to double the length of a Session. This Government did so on a whim, as there was no consultation. It appears from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that they simply decided to go for two years without giving any justification. This House is entitled to hear the Government's opinion on the number of Sessions there should be in a Parliament and their commitment in relation to that. Do they understand the importance of empowering the Chamber in each House by having a limit on the time available to them for the passage of legislation?
If satisfactory answers are not given, this should be put to the vote. It is an important issue. The answers must include one to the question which my noble friend Lord Grocott put, because that is really the litmus test of how committed the Government are to the idea of there being a year-on-year Session. This is another opportunity for the Government to put their money where their mouth is. Are they true exponents of what they describe as the new politics, or are they simply motivated by a desire to make their life as easy as possible—that is, the worst sort of Executive?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I apologise for speaking at this late hour but I made it clear in Committee that if anybody referred to Mr Asquith again, it would stimulate me into speaking. Although I was not here to hear the reference to him at the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings, it was alluded to later in the debate on Amendment 1. Therefore, here I am, on my feet.
Your Lordships’ House will recall the Sherlock Holmes case where the great detective pointed out to Dr Watson the significance of the dog not barking in the night-time. Those of your Lordships who were here to listen carefully to the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, on Amendment 1 will have noticed that he omitted from his list of five-year Parliaments in the post-war era the period from 1945 to 1950. He thus omitted the great achievements of the Labour Government of the Earl Attlee of that period.
In generosity, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, realised that it required a five-year Parliament to produce the achievements of what I understand the Labour Party has always thought was the greatest Labour Government of them all. As to the reason he omitted it, I suggest that it was considered either that it would be sacrilege ever to run the risk of toppling the Attlee Government’s record from its plinth or that Labour had given up hope of ever challenging the Attlee Government’s record and felt that Labour should conceal the dilemma I am describing by limiting the life of any future Labour Government to, at most, four years as a self-immolating, self-denying ordinance. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan—not to mention the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—was prudent enough not to announce which of the cases I have adumbrated was correct and now we shall never know.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as to the need for careful consideration of constitutional reform. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, accurately pointed out that the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, did not suggest that a referendum is required in relation to the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments. As the Committee well knows, the Constitution Committee expressed grave concern in paragraph 20 of our report that this Bill owes,
“more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles”.
I suggest that the Government’s position in relation to whether a referendum on constitutional reform is appropriate is precisely a matter that appears to be determined by short-term considerations—alternative vote, yes; reform of this House and fixed-term Parliaments, apparently no.
It is very difficult to deny that the Bill that we are currently considering will introduce major constitutional reform. In paragraph 40 of our report, we refer to the evidence that we heard from Professor Vernon Bogdanor in which he pointed out that the Bill, if enacted, will prevent,
“a newly chosen Prime Minister between Parliaments from going to the country”,
it will prevent,
“a Prime Minister who has a new policy for which he may seek a mandate from going to the country”,
and:
“Most importantly of all, because we could be moving into that situation with our hung Parliaments, it means that coalitions can change in the middle of a Parliament without the people being allowed to pronounce on that”.
This is a major constitutional reform. I am no fan of referendums, but I would welcome guidance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on behalf of the Government, as to what their policy is as to when a referendum is appropriate for constitutional reform and when it is not, and I would welcome an assurance that that issue is not determined by short-term political considerations.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I realise that I regard the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, as an agreeable ally on constitutional matters, but I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, felt it necessary to precede her in this short debate. Of course I understand the protocol that he was pursuing, but we always know that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will have spoken before the Minister rises—he is indeed a pillar of the constitution. However, I think that chivalry has a role. At Second Reading, I alluded to the French Revolution. In Burke’s memorable sentences:
“It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France … the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever”.
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke but a little variety in our experience might bring the government Benches back into the Chamber on constitutional matters, as he was wishing earlier, just as everyone who speaks in these debates has their own personal and individual subjective view on how we could increase voter turnout.
An aspect of variety in this speech is that, most unusually, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, whose constitutional views I respect just this side of idolatry. However, I have a reservation on this occasion. He prayed in aid the statistical fact that there would have been four fewer elections since the war under this Bill than factual history produced. I have profound admiration for the maturity of the British electorate. On only one occasion among those 17 post-war elections did they possibly make a mistake, as they themselves may have conceded, by giving more votes to one party and more seats to the other, but that does not mean that we may want more opportunities as an electorate to exercise our maturity or indeed our wisdom.
The reductio ad absurdum to which the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, could be made subject is that we should hold a referendum on whether the electorate wanted more elections or fewer. There is some polling evidence that they would vote for fewer but that would accelerate the number of referendums we felt it necessary to think that we need.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is an interesting contribution to follow. Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I am pleased to make rather a late entry into your Lordships’ deliberations on this Bill. I am glad that it is on such an interesting matter and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Howarth for their amendments.
As a number of noble Lords have suggested, this is part of what was promised to be a comprehensive package of reforms on the constitution by the Government. We have already had the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. We now have this Bill and before too long, although it seems to be a somewhat lengthy time in coming, we are promised the draft House of Lords reform Bill. Like other noble Lords, what I find so puzzling is the piecemeal approach and lack of consistency on the part of the Government to how these different measures are brought before Parliament, then in some cases put to the electorate and in others not so.
We are to have a referendum on AV. We are also promised, in the coalition agreement, a referendum on any changes or amendments to the European Communities Act 1972 where there is a proposal under a treaty to transfer areas of power or competencies. Yet there is to be no referendum on the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, on whether it should be for four or five years, or on reform of your Lordships’ House. I agree with other noble Lords that, arguably, this Bill and the one to come are constitutionally much more significant than changing a voting system from first past the post to AV.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—it is worth reflecting on this—the view of the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution is that this Bill owes,
“more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles”.
I agree with that. My noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Howarth are surely right that the period of five years must mean that the voters will find themselves less able to hold the Executive to account. That is therefore of significance. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, may be right in suggesting that the public might welcome being inconvenienced on fewer occasions. But should that not be put to the public in a referendum? Surely it is the same when it comes to Lords reform. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I think that the issue of Lords reform is highly significant to the debate that we are having.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I hope that Amendments 5 and 9A will be of some interest to the House. They would introduce a flexibility to hold a general election at any time in the fifth year of the Parliament. Amendment 5 deals with this particular Parliament and Amendment 9A deals with subsequent Parliaments. They still provide for Parliament to be fixed, but with flexibility between four and five years. They recognise that there are important objections to the term of Parliament being fixed for a full five years. The objections, which have been explored in our debates earlier in the day, are that accountability is diminished, that elections would take place less frequently, that the accountability of Members of Parliament to electors is therefore reduced and that the accountability of the Government to electors is reduced. Furthermore, if you insist on fixing the term of Parliament for a full five years, you are liable to find that you require an exhausted Government to totter on into a fifth year and probably expire at the end of it.
My amendments also recognise the widespread view within our political culture that, assuming that a Parliament is still viable, for the Prime Minister to call an election before five years are up is opportunistic, exploitative and an abuse. On the other hand, it is widely accepted that to call an election after four years have passed is acceptable. We saw that in the Parliaments of 1979-83, 1983-87, 1997-2001 and 2001-05. I do not think that anybody complained when either Mrs Thatcher or Tony Blair called an election after four years on those occasions. It was regarded as entirely within the reasonable understanding of our constitution.
These amendments would allow a continuation of the four-year norm—it has been typical that Parliaments have lasted for around four years in the post-war period— while respecting the principle of the five-year maximum which was legislated for in 1911. When Mr Asquith proposed that legislation in 1911, he envisaged that while there would be a maximum of five years the probability would be that elections would tend to take place some time around the end of the fourth year, or not long thereafter. That was prophetic and has proved indeed to be the case. These two amendments would simply institutionalise what has become convention and practice and, on the whole, has been found to be satisfactory by the people of this country. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief but I told myself that if anybody else brought Mr Asquith into the debate yet again I would take advantage of his reappearance to make a single point. In the Earl of Oxford and Asquith’s memoirs, he describes the debate within the Liberal Cabinet in the period leading up to the First World War in relation to the Marconi scandal in which the then Attorney-General was somewhat embarrassed by his behaviour. I think that it was on the issue of shares. I am astonished that the Prime Minister put this into his memoirs, but the outcome of the Cabinet discussion was that they were at no real parliamentary risk because it was absolutely clear that the Conservatives would be too stupid to take advantage of it. There was one dissenting voice, which was Winston, who had of course once been a Tory.
The Opposition say, again and again, that the purpose of the Bill is to provide glue in the coalition relationship. In responding to that, remembering what had happened in Asquith’s Cabinet, I asked myself, “Is it really because they want to be helpful to the coalition that they go on repeating this?”. I recall in the process C S Lewis’s happy remark that if you hear about someone going around doing good to others, you can always tell the others by their hunted look. It occurred to me that there was some degree of overlap between the argument that we need a Parliament shorter than a five-year one and the Opposition’s view, set out during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, that it would be helpful if the country had the opportunity of expressing its opinion at the earliest possible opportunity, when it so happened that there might have been some degree of parliamentary advantage to the Opposition in that happening. I hope, diffidently, that as the Bill progresses we will not have suggestions made in either direction that we are all engaged in this for short-term parliamentary advantage or that we are all concentrating totally on the good of the nation and the constitution.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that was an interesting and helpful intervention. Anyone who has read David Laws’s book on the negotiations between the coalition parties will find that the coalition parties did not meet the test that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has set. On page 98 of that highly readable tome, Andrew Stunell pointed out to the negotiating team that,
“trust and confidence was very important to us, and that we wouldn’t want to find the PM calling an election at a time that did not suit us. ‘That works both ways!’ said William Hague. We mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. We made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments for the first time in its history”.
So much for principle.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I was not making any comment on the course of events. I was simply saying that interventions periodically from the Opposition Benches on this subject might have had a degree of self-interest.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not recognise that at all. It is tempting to mention Mr Asquith, if only to encourage the noble Lord to make further enjoyable interventions.
There are two issues here. We are changing our system and we believe that the change from four to five years will be damaging to our constitutional arrangements. Extending the elections by, in practice, around one year will distance people from the politicians. The debate before the dinner break on the issue of the devolved Administrations was very interesting because it highlighted the principle of unintended consequences of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is likely that, as a result of this legislation, the term of office in Scotland and Wales, and possibly Northern Ireland, will be extended to five years. That must be the clear implication of what the noble Lord said. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is in his place. He argued that we should not have a referendum on this Bill because, although under the Bill the term of the Parliament will be fixed at five years, that will not be outwith the limit in the current legislation. However, in relation to the devolved Administrations, moving to five years will go outwith the current primary legislation. I hope that there will be a referendum on that proposal if it comes before Parliament.
My noble friend has raised the very interesting and ingenious proposition that four years should be the norm while respecting the principle of a five-year limit. He deserves a comprehensive response from the Minister.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, as we set out today on proceedings on this important Bill, those on the Pensions Bill set out in parallel in Grand Committee in the Moses Room. At Second Reading on that Bill, I averred that I was batting much too high in the batting order, but that misgiving was as nothing compared to my similar concern about overpromotion today, given the wealth of batting still to come. However, it gives me the unwarranted opportunity to be the first from these Benches to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cormack and to congratulate him on it. The debate might have been made for him on this occasion.
It is also the greatest of pleasures, with one caveat, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He always speaks with such uncommon good sense on these matters that my one caveat must necessarily be that if I find myself disagreeing with him, I shall spend the rest of the debate asking myself how I could have got it so wrong. Fortunately, I shall give so few hostages to fortune in what will be a brief speech that I shall enjoy the rest of the debate even more. My first observation is based on the symmetry arising from the repeal of the Septennial Act 1715. That Act was preceded in the reign of Queen Anne by paving legislation in 1706; that in the event of the Hanoverian succession, Ministers should cease to sit in the House of Commons. That Act was then repealed in 1708. I had always wondered why the repeal occurred. My only likely conjecture has been that the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707 had overtaken the need for the 1706 legislation. I was greatly reassured when I found that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern agreed with me. Interestingly, the great historian GM Trevelyan, in his magisterial four-volume history of the reign of Queen Anne, draws attention in a footnote to the fact that Montesquieu, writing in 1739, had alluded to the passage of the 1706 Act without apparently realising it had been repealed. After paying a warm tribute to the great understanding of this nation in these affairs, he prayed the 1706 paving legislation in aid of his own argument for a separation of powers, which Trevelyan believed had affected American and French thinking on their own constitution building at the end of that century.
If I fast-forward three-quarters of a century to the last two decades of that century, and concentrate for a moment on the Americans and ourselves—the French Revolution not being exactly conducive to a Speaker’s Conference—it is interesting that while the Americans were soberly, if a little informally, going about their own constitution building, Charles James Fox, who beats me into fourth place in terms of longevity as MP for Westminster, was embarking on his dedicated campaign, born of his own brief experience in Cabinet, to remove the royal prerogative in the calling of elections; the story which is in the very context of this Bill still gripping us today two centuries later.
The reference to the Bill encourages me—and perhaps your Lordships’ House—to cover the next two centuries in a single sentence and to bring me straight to today’s proceedings. We are much in the debt of the Constitution Select Committee in your Lordships’ House for providing us in its eighth report with an energetic canter over the issues. It was admirably and reassuringly assisted by the UCL Constitution Unit—even if one piece of briefing sought to translate that acronym into the disguise of a “University of Central London”. I must remark that, although the Mediterranean littoral is currently seized of a massive political upheaval, in the western democracies less is happening than two centuries ago in terms of constitutional reform—although the recent inability of the Belgians to form a Government runs counter to that universality of peace and quiet. There is, therefore, a general absence of external infectiousness towards reform here.
Of the three major parties, the essence of this Bill contained in its title “Fixed-term Parliaments” uniquely did not appear in the Conservative Party’s manifesto last year. This is clearly a coalition measure and very much in the care of the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean no disrespect either to him or to our coalition partners if I say that I had some difficulty in parsing Mr Clegg’s reply before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when he said,
“Do I think that in practice 12 months makes an earth-shattering difference in terms of the length of time of a fixed-term Parliament?”,
and he answered his own rhetorical question,
“No. I do … ”.
If the trumpet sounds an uncertain note, who will gird himself for battle?
I understand that several national polling projects have reported that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the nation are in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, but I have not seen any qualitative evidence of why they hold that opinion. For myself, I find the arguments for one side or the other remarkably evenly balanced. I do not propose to draw up a personal balance sheet but shall listen closely to the rest of the debate.
In the mean time, as I am speaking from the government Benches, perhaps I may say that I approve of the argument that a fixed-term Parliament would make for better planning of parliamentary business; nor am I disturbed by the alternative contention that a fixed-term Parliament would enable Her Majesty’s Government better to manipulate the economic cycle. Given that any Government hope to succeed themselves, I do not have such unyielding confidence in Her Majesty’s Treasury so to conduct itself as to achieve the optimal result.
I also think that there is much to be said for the final sentence in lighter print—not the heavy print of a recommendation—of paragraph 43 of the Constitution Select Committee’s report:
“There is a case for saying that any new Prime Minister should at least have the opportunity to seek a fresh mandate in a general election”,
as Eden did in 1955 and as Mr Blair’s delayed retirement prevented his successor from doing, had he wished, prior to the Summer Recess in 2007.
For myself, I am left a little agnostic about the balance underlying the Bill. Where I may be in a gang of one—as my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley once described the then Mr Hattersley, now the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, in his winding-up speech in the Queen’s Speech debate in 1979—is that, despite the coalition’s rapid resolution of the post-election crisis of last year, I doubt whether the crisis of February 1974 would have been resolved as rapidly without the benefit of the Queen’s prerogative in the background. Together with my noble friend Lord Taverne, I have spent many happy hours explaining British politics to young American students at the start of their semesters abroad in British universities. The students’ curiosity about the Queen’s position in the British constitution always prompts me to allude to February 1974.
It is in part because of the abolition of the prerogative—and, were this the subject of polling, I doubt that a national majority would be found for its abolition—that I regret that a move towards more constitutional consultation or scrutiny on these issues has not found favour with the coalition. There are enough loose ends lying around on the quarterdeck, as the Bill now is, to prompt resort to the memorable conviction of that tersest of American politicians, President Johnson’s great Texan ally, Sam Rayburn, that the wisest words in the English language are, “Wait a minute”. On St David’s Day, I am encouraged by the speech of my noble and learned friend and fellow Welshman Lord Howe of Aberavon to believe that the remaining stages of this Bill are going to be interesting.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, the amendment responds to the indication given on Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that an accommodation could be achieved on the treatment of the City of London. Noble Lords who followed the exchanges on the City of London, in Committee and on Report, will know that the point at issue is the inclusion of the whole of the City of London in one parliamentary constituency. This requirement of current legislation is noticeably absent from the Bill. My earlier amendment sought to deal with the issue by requiring the whole City to be included in one constituency so far as practicable. A qualification was included to avoid an absolute obligation that might have collided with the allocation method enshrined in the Bill. I also related the requirement to the City being seen as a “special authority” to emphasise its individuality. The noble and learned Lord the Minister acknowledged that individuality in his response on Report, and I am wholly content not to include that reference in the amendment which I have now tabled in agreement with the Minister.
I shall briefly explain the effect of the amendment. It adds a reference to the City of London as a whole into the interpretation of “local government boundaries” in rule 11 of Schedule 2, which is inserted by Clause 11 of the Bill. That, in turn, makes the City of London as an entity a factor for the Boundary Commission to take into account in any future review. Unlike a number of amendments with which your Lordships’ House has been concerned, this is about keeping a small area with particular attributes but few parliamentary electors together in what will inevitably be a much larger single parliamentary constituency. That is why reference in the amendment to the City of London as a whole but not to its sub-divisions, such as wards, is so relevant.
One point not covered in the amendment is the inclusion of a reference to the City of London in the name of the parliamentary constituency. Although I appreciate that the question is ultimately a matter for the Boundary Commission, it is, I think, in order for me to invite the Minister to express a view on the appropriateness of such a reference in any future constituency which includes the City.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to record my gratitude to all the Members of your Lordships’ House across the Chamber who have actively supported this case. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who has supported me throughout, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who earlier tabled her own amendment, and finally my noble friend Lord Newby, who also added his name to my original amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has explained, the amendment adds the boundaries of the City of London to the local authority boundaries which the Boundary Commission for England may take into account when drawing up constituencies. I thank my noble friend for his amendment and for the interest which he and the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, together with others, have shown in this matter, and for their persuasiveness in pressing their argument. I believe that his proposed wording provides the best way of including the boundaries of the City in the commission’s considerations, and the Government are content to accept the amendment.
My noble friend raised the question of the name of the constituency and indicated that it is of course a matter for the Boundary Commission to decide. I see a very good argument for including the City by name in any constituency that it falls within, and no doubt those who feel strongly about the matter will be able to make representations to that effect to the commission as part of the review process. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to support my noble friend’s amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says, the Labour island. He referred to this because it gave him an opportunity to make some important points, but he will readily recognise the arguments for preservation. I do not think that even he would start to claim that it has a special extreme geographical situation. I understand what he is saying, but a Boundary Commission will be able to devise and recommend seats within the parameters of size defined in the Bill that give proper and fair representation and a fair vote and fair value to the people of Shropshire, including the people of Telford.
In any of these matters, we should not lose sight of the fact that while, yes, primacy is given in the legislation to securing fair votes and fair values as best we can, the Boundary Commission still may—I acknowledge that the numbers within the margins take primacy—take into account, to such extent as it thinks fit, special geographical considerations, including the particular size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; local government boundaries as they existed at recent ordinary council election days; and any local ties that would be broken by changes in the constituencies. These are important factors, which will help to address a number of the concerns that have been raised not only in this debate but in other parts of the United Kingdom.
In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. We are certainly conscious of the concerns expressed and we recognise the strength of feeling, but we are confident that the variation of up to 10 per cent between the biggest and smallest constituencies will lead to a reasonable balance between equal value votes and have proper regard to locally meaningful boundaries.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken in this vigorous debate, especially my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I admire the spirit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, even if I cannot support the precise wording of her amendment because it seeks, beyond peradventure, to avoid the hybridity issue. I appreciated the quotation given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—as, no doubt, did the Opposition—of the resonant 1944 voice of the Home Secretary, Mr Herbert Morrison, who is of course the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for his kind words.
I have heard what my noble and learned friend the Minister said, and I thank him for what he said about the Magna Carta, about which he offered to write to both me and the noble Baroness. I understand the Government’s overall position, as he has indicated it, but before I contemplate whether to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting with us to discuss this issue before Report, based on the strength of the case presented on all sides of the debate. I remind him quietly that at the time of the 1948 Act, the Governor of the Bank of England, the chairman of Lloyd’s insurance and, I think, the chairman of the Stock Exchange accompanied the Lord Mayor of London to the Bar of the other place to present the strength of the City’s case. If my noble and learned friend the Minister nods his head to my request for a meeting in such a way that it can been seen by the Hansard writer, I shall—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps I should put this beyond peradventure in case the Hansard writer does not see my head. I am sure that I would be willing to meet and I am sure that the representations made by my noble friend will be every bit as powerful as those that were made by the various dignitaries to whom he referred.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
In response to the generosity of my noble and learned friend in standing up to agree to a meeting, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.