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

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie—perhaps I should say the noble and wise Lord, Lord Hardie, given his masterly introduction. I wish to speak on the last amendment in this group—Amendment 143—in the names of my noble friend Lady Royall and myself, and also on Amendments 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47, and 99, together with various others, on which our names are joined with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie.

However, Amendment 143 is perhaps the simplest and is the key. It would amend the title of Part 1 to read, “Registration of professional lobbyists”. Establishing a register only of consultants would add nothing to the existing non-statutory register. Worse, it would effectively end that voluntary register, its associated code of conduct and related disciplinary mechanism. As UKPAC says, the Bill risks creating a statutory register with minimal coverage while undermining a voluntary regime that lists several hundred employers such as agencies, in-house lobbyists, public bodies and charities, and more than 1,000 people employed in lobbying.

Indeed, the proposed register—a skeleton rather than a viable thing—would cover only 1% of lobbying meetings, yet would be a heavy financial burden on consultant firms because they would have to fund the whole operation of the registrar. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said, the register would fail to increase transparency because it would not enable the public to see how outside bodies seek to influence the political system.

On the “Today” programme, which I assume we all listen to, Andrew Lansley said last week that the public should be able to see who is lobbying Ministers. I think we all agree, but the register will not tell you that if you saw only the list of clients and not the particular client on whose behalf even a consultant was meeting a Minister. The register would tell us nothing about the big six energy companies’ discussions with perhaps HMT or DECC officials. Indeed, we would learn about only their meetings with Ministers—and would learn that from the departmental diaries, not the lobbyists themselves.

Most seriously, the proposed register would exclude virtually all business lobbying, whether done by companies themselves or by their trade bodies. The Minister needs to tell the House whether that really is the intention. Does he really want a list that excludes the bulk of lobbying activity? Last year, BIS had 988 meetings with lobbyists, only two of which were with consultants. Under the Bill, only those two meetings would need to be entered on the register. Thus the register would capture fewer than 1% of ministerial meetings and do nothing to shed light on what goes on behind those closed doors in Whitehall.

Big government decisions often involve big business which—quite rightly and with no criticism—want to influence decisions that affect their bottom line. There is nothing wrong with Ministers, civil servants, Bill writers or anyone else meeting those who will be affected by legislation. In fact, had Ministers met those affected by Part 2 of the Bill, we might have saved ourselves half an hour earlier this afternoon and not have been presented with such a dog’s breakfast. More importantly, for the rest of us, for democracy and for good governance, we need to see who is lobbying Ministers and civil servants. Those who will not be covered, in addition to those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, will include: the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, which recently produced a manifesto for insurance for 2014; the Building Societies Association, which has been lobbying on the Banking Reform Bill; the Mobile Operators Association, which has been lobbying about the electronic communications code; Philip Morris, which sought to delay the tobacco products directive; the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, with the associated Keep Me Posted campaign; the Save Our Supplements campaign and Holland and Barrett, which makes supplements and spends money on reaching politicians; Fujitsu, which is keen to meet us, whether in Parliament or at party conferences; Forest, which argues for us to keep the freedom to kill ourselves with tobacco; One Hub or None, Heathrow’s campaign for expansion; BAE Systems, builders of killer planes and warships, which are, in its words, “defence solutions”; the CBI; the Nuclear Industry Association; Santander; Canon; and Siemens.

Noble Lords will recognise that list as containing just those whose material has passed over our desks in the past few months. There are also the pharmaceutical companies, and the drinks industries have been mentioned. They contrast with Alcohol Concern, which is too small to have in-house lobbying and thus has to rely on an agency for lobbying assistance. They all use in-house lobbyists and therefore will not have to register. The same is true of virtually every other manufacturer, service provider or audit firm which wants the ear of government. I am not against that dialogue; in fact, I rather favour Keep Me Posted, as my bills come by post so much more slowly than by e-mail.

I am delighted that we were lobbied about this Bill, but that is not the point. The question is: why should only lobbying consultancies, rather than those that do serious lobbying on behalf of their own company, have to register? That is not what was foreseen in the coalition agreement and it is not what the industry itself wants. The overwhelming feedback from the consultation last year was that the proposals lacked breadth and depth and would fail to collect meaningful and sufficient information.

Furthermore, requiring only those employed by a consultancy to register would mean that it would be cheaper for lobbyists to work directly for a company, if only part time. For example, they could perhaps work for 10 companies rather than run a consultancy with 10 clients. If a company wanted to have its dealings excluded from the register, it would only have to pull its hitherto outsourced person on to its own wages bill and then, as an in-house lobbyist, they would be below the radar.

It is not just business lobbyists who want to see a full register. Charities and trade unions, including Oxfam, which has been to see me, have told us that they are very content for their public affairs professionals to be included on a register and to disclose their lobbying meetings.

Therefore, we support Amendment 1 and the production of a proper, comprehensive—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—and statutory register of all professionals engaged with government and Parliament. Democracy demands nothing less.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill due to the fact that domestic committees of the House were meeting and I was otherwise engaged. However, I have read the whole of the Second Reading debate.

It is quite clear that the Government have not really put a case for what they are doing in this very limited form. One speech that struck me from reading the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who suggested that a very different approach to the Bill could well be taken. I just wondered whether Ministers had considered the contents of his contribution. His is a sort of halfway-house proposal: it would dilute the value of the register but would ensure that the kind of information that we really need was available. Today, he slightly alluded to his case, and I believe that the questions he raised at Second Reading should be answered during the deliberations on the Bill. I cannot understand for the life of me what is driving the Government down this route, apart from some huge PR effort to convince the public that they are doing something about lobbying in line with their coalition agreement. However, their proposal does not meet the terms of what I understand was agreed.

I have a number of questions that I should like to ask, and I have tabled amendments of my own, to which we will come later. What is the Government’s latest estimate of the number of organisations and individuals that will register? Some work on that must have been done. I have seen some figures published but, in the light of the speeches at Second Reading showing up the deficiencies in the Bill, and recognising that many will not be required to register because they will not meet the criteria for registration—information which, prior to Second Reading, the Government may well not have considered—what is now their estimate of the number that will finally register?

I should like to know more about the discussions that took place between departmental officials and Ministers and the professional associations. Since the early 1970s, in one form or another—I shall give more detail later in the debate on the work that was done in the 1970s and 1980s in this area—a system has been in operation which provides far more information than the Government are seeking the lobbyists and lobbying organisations to provide. It has been suggested in this House and in correspondence that we have received that their efforts may no longer be necessary. Some of them may be inclined simply to discard the work that they have been doing over the years and rely on the Government’s far more limited source of information. Surely that would be totally counterproductive. I wonder whether Ministers or civil servants have been told what the intentions are. I think that the House is entitled to know what the professional organisations intend to do in the event that this register is set in place.

Finally, on in-house lobbyists and their exclusion, it is simply not credible to call a Bill the name given to this Bill when it excludes the vast majority of lobbyists in the United Kingdom. It is not credible; it is a joke. Inevitably, there will be some scandal which will draw attention to the deficiencies in the registration system that has been set up by the Government. It may be for a future Government to find themselves defending the indefensible. I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions prior to my moving my amendments.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I had to go abroad on the day of Second Reading and I very much regret that I was unable to make a contribution. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech. However, I should declare a couple of interests. Some years ago I wrote a book on lobbying. It is a very small interest because it is out of print and no one can buy it. It was a do-it-yourself book on how to lobby and was intended specifically for the voluntary sector. The other interest I want to declare is that I spent some years until coming into this House as chief executive of the Refugee Council. Indeed, one of the things that I did most was to lobby. The organisation did quite a lot of lobbying on refugee policy.

I cannot for the life of me understand why that activity should not be incorporated in the register. If we had had the money, we could have hired a firm of lobbyists, which might have had to be on the register. The fact is that we did not have the money and I simply carried out that activity myself. It took me to all three party conferences: going to the Lib-Dem and Tory party conferences, as well as the Labour Party conference, is a subject for another day. I lobbied quite blatantly and I had two members of staff who also did quite a lot of lobbying. I hope that the Minister can tell me why that activity should not be covered in the proposed register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister talks about the system he has to use. Did he listen to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, at Second Reading? I think it was he who recalled how very complicated the current system is, how you often have to trawl through hundreds or even thousands of documents, and that it is almost impossible for the general public to have access to that kind of material. It is just too complicated. Does he take that on board?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I take that on board. The question of designing a system that is easily accessible to everyone, including if one has such a very large register as that which the noble Lord and some others are proposing, is one with which we all have to deal. The Government are indeed looking at making the ministerial diaries more readily and more rapidly available. At present we submit them every three months, so they are sometimes three months or more in arrears. We are aware of that problem. However, we are much more transparent than previous Governments in this respect and are, to that extent, moving forward.

Looking at the Canadian system, we are not persuaded that we need a comprehensive register in which everyone who might be said to be lobbying as a matter of their employment would be included. The Canadian system was introduced in response to a system in which it was felt that there was no information about who Ministers were meeting. We have dealt with the issue of who Ministers are meeting by other means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, responds, my noble friend has really not addressed the distinction between those who do the activity and the activity itself. The Government are supposed to be trying to provide transparency about the activity, not simply listing those who may engage in it—in this case, only some who engage in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to what I said at Second Reading about what is in effect an alternative to this rather clunky mechanism being proposed by the Government. What I was proposing gets fairly comprehensively at the activity of who is lobbying on each measure that the Government bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, may wish to note that my Amendment 115 is intended to get at that. It is an alternative to what the Government are proposing and it would actually deal with that particular problem. My noble friend may wish to bear that in mind in responding to the amendments because I am not sure he has established that there is a need for this part of the Bill, certainly not compared with the alternative that I am putting forward, which actually gets at the nub of ensuring transparency of lobbying.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If I might add to that, particularly if there are only 350 registrations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Organisations, I should have said.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after “lobbying” insert “of government”

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, my amendment would inject the words “of government” after the words in Clause 1(1):

“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying”.

I should make it clear that I am amending a part of the Bill which I believe in principle to be totally inadequate to deal with the problem of the lack of transparency; I am only amending what is on offer.

Amendment 3 would clarify in the first clause of the Bill exactly the intention of the Government behind the legislation. The Bill restricts its remit and reach to limited areas in the institution of government. My amendment would make it clear that at this stage, the Government’s intention has been deliberately to exclude other important areas of government influence over public policy and decision-taking from the reach of the Bill. I tabled this amendment last Thursday to draw on the wider debate about those bodies that were being deliberately excluded—namely, government in its wider form, and Parliament—since when, on Friday, my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town tabled their Amendments 18 and 22, which more roundly deal with the issue of Parliament. I therefore yesterday withdrew the reference to Parliament in my amendment and will leave that to them to deal with.

My amendment would bring under the Bill government as a whole, as against the cherry-picked sectors which the Government propose. My case is that executive agencies, which are staffed by civil servants, non-departmental public bodies, which are staffed with a mix of non-civil servants and civil servants, and non-ministerial departments are all crucial parts of government.

The document Categories of Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments, of December 2012, sets out each of the three areas of government to which I have referred. Non-ministerial departments are described as,

“government departments in their own right—but they do not have their own minister”.

They include the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the Food Standards Agency, HM Revenue and Customs, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education and Children’s Services and Skills, Ofwat, the Office of Water Services, and the UK Statistics Authority.

Executive agencies are defined in the document as,

“business units headed up by a chief executive … often supported by a management board. Executive agencies carry out executive functions, with policy set by ministers”.

They include HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Identity and Passport Service, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the UK Border Agency. Finally, there are non-departmental public bodies, which are described as carrying out,

“a wide range of administrative, commercial, executive and regulatory or technical functions which are considered to be better delivered at arm’s length from Ministers”.

All these bodies are part of government and deal with contracts as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(i). Some deal with grants and “other financial assistance”, as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(ii), and some grant licences and other authorisations, as set out in Clause 2(3)(c)(iii). In other words, they are very much at the heart of government and carrying out the functions described in the Bill, and which the Bill is intended to catch. My amendment, which at this stage is a probing amendment, asks the Government why these bodies are to be excluded. I beg to move.

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 24, which is in this group. In doing so, I wish also to speak to Amendment 52 and, with the leave of the House, Amendments 56, 57 and 58, which are in a different group but are all consequential on the main amendment.

Clause 2(3) applies only to communications to,

“a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”,

second Permanent Secretary or persons serving in government offices as listed in Part 3 of Schedule 1. My amendment seeks to extend the class of persons. As many noble Lords observed at Second Reading, lobbyists will not confine their activities to Ministers or the senior civil servants listed in these provisions. Indeed, their involvement with such people is likely to follow lobbying activity involving civil servants of a lower grade. This is clearly the case when one considers the word “government” in paragraphs (a) to (d) inclusive of Clause 2(3), which has to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1. That construction extends the definition of consultant lobbying to Ministers or their equivalent, and officials at the highest level in devolved Governments and local authorities in the United Kingdom, and in any institution of the European Union.

When I was in practice at the Scottish Bar, I was initially standing junior to the City of Edinburgh Council then, when I was appointed Silk, I became standing senior to that authority. From that experience, I am aware that local authority officials of a lower grade than senior management prepared policy documents for consideration by senior officials, then elected members. Those junior officials had considerable expertise within their own professional competence and a significant influence on the terms of policy documents that were ultimately submitted to elected members. Any lobbyist worth his salt who wished to influence policy would communicate with these officials at an early stage. I suspect that the same is true in central government and devolved Governments in the United Kingdom. If this provision is to be of any significance, it should be extended to include communications with any civil servant. Equally, there is a perception that political advisers can have a significant influence on government policy. Why should they not be included in the definition of persons to whom communications are made?

Amendment 34 sets out the definition of “political adviser” but, on reflection, the approach taken in the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, is more appropriate in referring to “special advisers”. That avoids reinventing the wheel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I am absolutely aware of what the noble Baroness has said, and I will come to that very point. Of course, it is not just a question of the numbers but about the role they play. I am trying to demonstrate that this is not a new problem but is certainly a central issue for the Bill and hence for my amendment.

Dr Blick goes on to say:

“If there was a change over time, it was in aides becoming more firmly established and accepted, and, to a limited extent, officially defined”.

Therefore they are recognised there and so they should be recognised in this legislation.

Then, as now, these political appointees acted as gatekeepers for senior Ministers. Then, as no doubt now, too many lobbyists found their way to the top decision-makers by this route. It was their particular way forward. If the spad did not feel that it would be politically helpful for the lobbying exercise to reach his or her Minister, it often failed at that hurdle. However, in many cases that was and is the gate through which the lobbyist has to go. It is certainly true in the present Government—I endorse what the noble Baroness said.

With both Labour and Conservative Ministers, we know that this was the route taken by representatives of the Murdoch media empire. Since 2010, there have been two serious scandals involving lobbying at this level that resulted in resignations. In one case it involved a spad and in another an adviser who clearly thought that he was a sort of special spad—a sort of spadoid. As I indicated at Second Reading, it would be ridiculous to exclude those extremely important decision-makers who are outwith the normal hierarchy of responsibility to the Permanent Secretary.

The advantage of the amendment is that it is simple to add spads into the regime. Consultant lobbyists who approach them should have to register, and the spads should have to publish details of their meetings with all external organisations, in precisely the same way, I am glad to say, as the coalition Government have now insisted that Ministers should do. I understand the arguments for extending the scope of transparency still further down the Civil Service chain, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very valid point. It will be difficult to know where to stop, if you go down the departmental hierarchy. The cases that he mentioned are not within that hierarchy, of course. If we went further down that hierarchy, there would be a substantial administrative burden; for the move to be effective, hundreds and perhaps thousands of civil servants would have to publish their diaries. As it is, the Permanent Secretary is responsible for what happens at lower levels.

I welcome the fact that this Government have, for the first time, introduced very considerable transparency in terms of the meetings that take place. As I said at Second Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to this—there is an amendment that would address the particular difficulty that the public, the media and parliamentarians have at present in identifying, in precise terms and quickly, when a meeting has taken place of this nature, with whom and on what subject. Therefore, it is extremely important that we have that clarity and access. Adding hundreds more people into the declaration regime would risk giving an excuse for delay in the publication of details about meetings with those who strongly influence decision-makers, and those who really do take those decisions—who must surely be the political appointees, special assistants and senior Ministers.

As we have heard in this debate, the lobbying register proposed by the Government is limited.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Did I mishear the noble Lord when he said that adding hundreds to the list would lead to delay? Surely, if he supports the position taken by my noble friend Lord Rooker, that is precisely what will happen.

[Lord Tyler]

I referred specifically to the non-ministerial government departments, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a very valid point, because they are not within the hierarchy of departments responsible to the Permanent Secretary, in the same way as other civil servants. So I do not accept that. The addition to which he specifically referred would have considerable merit. I would look at that very carefully, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, as well.

Unlike others, I accept that we are making a limited addition to the transparency of the whole process with the register. Far more important is to make sure that the meetings that take place with whoever is lobbying are as transparent, timely and accessible as we can make them. What surely should not be limited should be the encounter with such critical political decision-makers and their advisers as the special advisers attached to senior Ministers. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will find favour with the House and with my noble friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate which has fully revealed the flaws and inadequacies of the Bill. In Amendment 3, I drew on the 2012 document which dealt with categories of public bodies. It is worth noting what it says about them:

“The landscape for public bodies is undergoing significant reform to increase transparency and accountability … Those public bodies retained will remain at arm’s length from Government, but will be expected to become more open, accountable and efficient”.

The Bill as it stands does precisely the reverse.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker, who drew on his very considerable experience in the Food Standards Agency to strongly reinforce my case. The Government would be very wise to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who argued that an amendment should be tabled on Report to widen the definition of those civil servants who should be covered by the Bill. I hope that the Minister has taken on board that suggestion, and that the Government will wish to bring forward their own amendment to deal with those issues.

Finally, I want to say a word about the position of Permanent Secretaries. It has been argued that Permanent Secretaries almost appear to have little influence over what happens in many areas. However, there is of course one department where Permanent Secretaries have a major influence and could well be subject to substantial lobbying, and that is the Ministry of Defence, to which I do not think any of the former Permanent Secretaries who spoke today referred. In that department it is crucially important that they are included.

On the basis of the response given by the Minister and in the hope that he will respond to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I have a few probing amendments in this group: Amendments 10, 12, 15, 30 and 51. I am not in any way criticising the Minister here, as we are in Committee and the idea is to get some detailed answers to some of these issues so that we can decide whether or not there are issues of substance to come back to on Report. I hope he will feel free to give us some detailed responses to some of the points being raised as, otherwise, we will not get the benefit of Committee stage. It was always planned that Report would be after Christmas anyway—there is no change there, as I understand it—and this is important.

Amendment 10 says,

“leave out ‘and in return for payment’”.

I want to know what happens if the lobbyist is acting for free. What is the situation when they are not doing it for payment? There might be ways of people organising their affairs such that they can undertake lobbying but not actually get paid for it. I want to know what the effect would be of removing the words “in return for payment”.

Amendment 12 has a degree of substance. I have not brought it with me, because I do not want to make big speeches in Committee, but this is based on paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report from Graham Allen’s constitutional reform committee in the other place. The reality of life is that lobbyists, in return for payment, provide professional advice on how to lobby but do not lobby themselves. That is, to a great extent, the evidence that was given to the Select Committee in the other place about the way that professional lobbyists work. They go to a company and say, “You have a problem and this is the way to solve it: deal with it this way and approach these people. Do it all yourself and we will guide you through”. That is perfectly respectable—I am not criticising it in any way—but it is not covered by the Bill. The industry itself says that is the main way that it works. There has to be a response to that. I did not follow the details in the other place but the Select Committee report criticised the Bill as an object lesson in how not to legislate. This is an important point.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have pondered this myself. I wonder what interest it really is anyhow of anybody what a lobbyist advises a client. Why is there a need to register that person? If he is simply advising his client as to what to do, why should that original lobbyist register?

[Lord Rooker]

The point behind this is that the Bill is addressing an issue that does not really arise. The vast majority of the work that takes place is lobbyists training and advising others how to do their own lobbying. They will not get caught by this. The reality is that the Bill will not cover anybody. The numbers are going down all the while. We will end up with a register with nobody on it; there will be no fees to run the register. I am not criticising this; it is a perfectly respectable way to work. I do not want to criticise people who train others how to lobby; it is a bit like training others how to legislate. But that is what the industry told the Select Committee in the other place about how the industry works. This Bill is a complete waste of time and does not address the issues the Government set out to address. That is what is behind Amendment 12, simply the way it works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood slightly what he was driving at. But it begs the question as to whether the 350 companies that the Minister referred to at the Dispatch Box include some of those companies that my noble friend was arguing were excluded from the legislation. The Minister might want to provide for us a more detailed analysis of how that list of 350 was drawn up so that we can see whether it includes some organisations that we believe are excluded under the legislation.

Amendment 17, which was in the first group, and Amendment 19, which is in this group, are in my name and deal with essentially the same issue. Amendment 19 stems from an unease I harbour about how some lobbying works in practice. I want to make it clear that I understand the vital role lobbying plays within our system of government. What I worry about is how people interpret the word “lobbying”.

Clause 2(3) defines lobbying as “oral or written communications” but there are oral communications and oral communications. This came out during an interview on the “Andrew Marr Show” on 7 October this year. The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, was asked by Andrew Marr whether he had been lobbied by Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party strategist, on the issue of tobacco. He replied, after the question had been repeated, that Lynton Crosby “has not intervened”. It was a curious construction of the language. You got the feeling that some wriggling was going on. I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no idea where the truth lies. I am sure that Mr Crosby is a perfectly excellent gentleman; that is not the point that I am making. I am simply drawing on that as an example of how there can be a wriggle on the use of the term.

The answers given by the Prime Minister during that interview reminded me of the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, during the famous Paxman interview. It also brought memories back of the many conversations we had in the Select Committee on Members’ Interests in the 1980s during the course of our inquiry into lobbying nearly 30 years ago, under the chairmanship of the late Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith. There was endless discussion on formal as against informal discussion—formal as against informal lobbying—the word in the back of the cab as against the discussion across the table in the department with civil servants or a Minister present; the word on the golf circuit as against the formal response to a consultation.

The issue is where you draw the line. To this day I do not know, and I have asked Ministers over the years where they draw the line and there has always been much ambiguity as to where that line is to be drawn. When is an intervention not lobbying? When is lobbying not an intervention? This is a probing amendment to tease out some guidelines on where that line is to be drawn.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I read with interest Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because there is a serious point here, although I am not sure that that is the right way to approach it. As I mentioned earlier, way back in the 1980s, I headed a public affairs consultancy. I recall that on many occasions I and my colleagues would advise clients. They were not, on the whole, commercial clients. They were usually trade associations, local authority associations, environmental groups, the Countryside Commission, the Rural Development Commission, and so on. Ministers and their senior team would always rather hear from the horse’s mouth, not from me as an intermediary. I had some experience; I had previously been a Member of Parliament; but it was far more effective for bodies of such reputation to speak directly to Ministers. So there is the definition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that not just those who are themselves making representations but those who, in return for payment, provide professional advice on how to lobby should be within the subsection.

However, we may be losing the effective target for the legislation. It would not be appropriate to deal with the next group of amendments in great detail, but the critical issue is who meets who when and what is discussed. In those days, I may have advised a client to take a particular line, think about the implications, talk to particular people in whatever context or perhaps given them bullet points as to what to say. For example, I recall advising a client on what approach they should take when talking to the then Prime Minister about which of the options should be supported by the Government for the Channel crossing. We went into detail about exactly what should be said. We did not go to see the Prime Minister in No. 10, and Sir Nicholas Henderson, who was the leader of that particular team, did not take a great deal of advice from me—he was far too experienced at dealing with Prime Ministers, not least Mrs Thatcher.

The critical issue is the details of the meeting: who, when and how? That is why, in the next group of amendments, we will address that to a greater extent. It is important that we concentrate on that. I give credit to the present Government because they have made that a great deal more transparent than it has been in the recent past. That is a real step forward, and we must make sure that the Bill builds on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Ministerial diaries need to be secure about the future. There are security considerations about ministerial movements. The future is quite different from the past. I do not see any reason why ministerial diaries should not be available the following day. I agree that they need to reflect not what the Minister planned to do, but what he actually did, and therefore the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is quite right, but that can easily be done within a few hours. I see no reason why they should not be out the following day. I think the Foreign Secretary’s diary used to be, until a slightly embarrassing moment in the time of Ernest Bevin. When he was planning to go to the cinema, the diary said, “Night of love with Mrs Bevin”.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

It seems to me that there is a bridge between the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, at Second Reading and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, today. That is the way forward, but what it really needs is courage. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will recall that in the previous Parliament I had to lead a rebellion against my own Government on political funding. We won. We defeated the Labour Government. I, a Labour Peer, was behind that rebellion.

It may well be that because what is being advocated here is so very different from the approach being proposed by the Government, it needs a bit of bottle and a bit of courage for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, or the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to take on their Government on the Floor of the House of Lords and in the Division Lobbies in the hope that they will have the support of the Official Opposition for the amendment. That is the only way we are going to be able to reshape the legislation whereby there is a far greater element of accountability in the way the noble Lords suggested in their contributions during this debate and at Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am fascinated to hear this great outbreak of revolution in transparency. We thought that we were set out on a constructive step forward on transparency. I am not sure that I want all Ministers’ and civil servants’ diaries published the day after they meet anyone, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was beginning to suggest.

I will try to answer the various probing amendments. A number of them, starting with Amendment 54, are about stiffening the independence of the registrar. Amendment 54 would require the Minister to consult with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee before appointing the registrar. I am not aware whether that has yet been requested by the committee itself, but it is an interesting proposal.

The amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would prevent any person who had been a civil servant or a political adviser in the previous five years being appointed registrar. This is also thoughtful, and designed to provide assurance regarding the independence of the registrar which, of course, the Government are entirely committed to establishing and maintaining. Under the Bill, the registrar will be appointed according to the public appointment principles of open and fair competition and the Minister will be able to dismiss the registrar only where they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that he is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of his office. If thought unreasonable, any such decision by a Minister could be challenged in the usual way, by judicial review. The registrar will be independent of the lobbying industry and the Government, and will have a clear remit to operate independently of the lobbying industry and the Government.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, seeks to extend the positions that will not be eligible for appointment as registrar to capture those officials who would be required to submit information to him or her under his new clause. The Government are not persuaded of the case for the noble and learned Lord’s additions, and would therefore resist this amendment.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the registrar is independent. We are confident that our proposals secure that, but are grateful for these suggestions and will of course consider whether they should be pursued further.

Amendment 63 has attracted a considerable amount of support. It would require that, in addition to the statutory register of consultant lobbyists, the registrar would be required to keep and publish a central database of ministerial meetings with external organisations.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When the Minister responded to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, I heard him say that the Government would consider the amendment; he will find that that is what he said in Hansard. If that is the case, can we be assured, then, that the chairman of that committee in the Commons will be consulted so that there can be discussion in the committee about to what extent it thinks that it is a realistic possibility for it to carry out that function, so that Ministers at least have the view of the committee when they make a judgment as to whether to accept my noble friend’s amendment?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not going to give that commitment now because there are larger questions about how many public appointments should be overseen by Commons committees. That is a much broader issue than this appointment alone. I will take that back and consult with others but, as I said earlier, the Government are not currently persuaded of these amendments.

I return to the central database issue, which raises some large issues about the role of the registrar and whether or not ministerial appointments should be handed over, so to speak, for collation by an independent body associated with the Government. We have listened to those who have asked that the reports be available from one central location and have responded by migrating all meeting reports to gov.uk, where they can be readily accessed as both PDF and open-format CSV files. We have responded to those that suggested that the timeliness of reporting could be improved by committing to publishing all meeting information in the quarter immediately after that in which the meeting took place. I note the pressure to go further. The Government are committed to the principles of open government and we continue to investigate how we can further improve the value of the information that we make available to the public. However, we are not at present persuaded that we should be going as far as the noble Lord suggests.

Opposition Amendment 74 would require the registrar to submit an annual report to the PCRC on the operation of the register. Again, this is not a provision that I understand that the committee itself has sought—perhaps because it recognises that the registrar is already required by the drafting to submit their annual accounts to Parliament and that the committee will be perfectly entitled and able to call the registrar to provide evidence at any time. I would have thought that that would be enough to hold them to account.

The new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is by far the most ambitious amendment. It would require the Government to publish alongside any statement on a matter of policy, legislation or a contract or grant, records of any oral or written communication directed to a Minister, the Minister’s parliamentary private secretary or special adviser, and any departmental civil servants relating to that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, provides exemptions from the requirement to publish for commercial or security-sensitive material. This is certainly an intriguing proposal but, I suggest, neither a feasible nor proportionate one. At a time when our focus should be on ensuring more efficient and effective government, a statutory requirement that every oral or written communication received by every civil servant, special adviser, PPS or Minister be recorded, collated and published in parallel with any relevant statement would appear ill advised. It would of course be an absolute goldmine for an academic researcher.

Not only would such a system impose an unwelcome bureaucratic burden on the public sector, it would likely impose information overload on the members of the public—perhaps even academic researchers. The volume of information that the Government would likely be required to publish in relation to a Budget Statement or a Queen’s Speech would be so overwhelming that any transparency value would be entirely undermined by the inaccessibility and quantity of the information. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who talked about “hiding in plain sight”. When there is too much information provided, it is sometimes hard to weed out what is crucial.

The Government’s objective is to provide the public with valuable information which they can utilise to scrutinise our actions and hold us to account. The focus should be on the value of information and the insight it can provide, not on the volume. The Government already publish unprecedented amounts of information about decision-making, and the register is intended to extend that transparency to those who seek to influence decision-makers. It is already standard practice that responses to government consultations are published in full and in summary, and if the public require further information about certain policies or decisions then they have a right to request that information using the Freedom of Information Act.

I recognise that the noble Lord is urging the Government to extend our information publication regime a good deal further. We will continue to consider how enhanced transparency can best be achieved. I suggest, however, that a statutory requirement of this nature is not the most appropriate manner in which to do so. I therefore resist that amendment, and urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Syria: Peace Initiative

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we would welcome Iranian participation in the Geneva II peace conference. However, as UN Resolution 2118 spells out, the Geneva II peace conference is based on acceptance of the Geneva I communiqué, and Iran has not yet signalled that it accepts the basis of that communiqué.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, during the Recess, at the beginning of September, there were UPI international press reports from a reputable source that the Russians were accusing the Syrian opposition of using chemical weapons. There seemed to be almost a conspiracy of silence in the western press about these accusations. What actually happened in the Foreign Office? Was that information followed up, and if it was, what was the conclusion of any inquiry?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Russian allegations were made. There have been investigations, in so far as it is possible to pursue investigations on the ground within Syria at present, and all the evidence to which I have had access suggests that the opposition did not have access to chemical weapons and certainly did not have the capacity to use chemical weapons on the scale on which they were used on 21 September.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Although of course this has to be raised in the context of auditing and auditors, because that is the subject of this Bill, the issue is very much wider. I said earlier that the future for local government—and perhaps of other public services—is with commissioning services from other organisations, be they commercial companies or the third sector with its charities and so on. Here, we have a very much bigger issue of the extent to which, and how and whether, the freedom of information provisions apply there. That is a wider issue and I would be happier if the Government were able to reply again today by saying that they recognise that this is a live and growing issue, and one that the Government are going to address. Perhaps the Minister replying—I do not know whether it is he or she, but I think it is he—will give an undertaking that the issue will be actively reviewed and that conclusions can be reached as to how or whether it should apply to the more narrow confines of the Bill before it ends its parliamentary life. The Bill is likely to leave this House after today but that certainly does not end its life, as it will continue in another place throughout the autumn. If the Government can say that they will continue to look actively at that issue, both generally and in the context of the Bill, I would be content to support them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I will briefly intervene to follow up some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. From 1986 onwards, I argued in the Commons for revision of the law governing the provision of information to the public. It was during a very interesting period following the arguments in the mid-1980s over Tony Wright and the reform of the Official Secrets Act.

One of the reasons we argued for freedom of information was that we believed that it would change the conduct within local authorities. My noble friend’s amendment would extend those rights of access to a group of organisations that effectively are carrying out the functions of local authorities. In saying, “change the conduct”, I refer back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on the additional cost. However, no-one has been able to quantify the benefits financially to local authorities of being more transparent in their operations. I frequently used freedom of information requests to press local authorities and other public bodies on the way that they conduct themselves. After a series of freedom of information requests, one sometimes notices a change in the way that a local authority conducts its affairs. Very often, it means greater efficiency, the saving of public money and a happier general public paying their council taxes.

When the Minister winds up, I do not think that he should see the issue simply in terms of costs; he should think about the actual benefit to the taxpayer of a system that is far more transparent in its operations.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I had intended to add my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I regret that probably I advised the clerks too late for that to happen. I start, therefore, by apologising to the noble Lord.

As did the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I declare my interests as a newly polished and appointed vice-president of the Local Government Association and a possibly somewhat more tarnished president of the National Association of Local Councils. The issue is one of not adding unnecessarily to costs, as the noble Lord pointed out. Part of me says that whenever locally—or at whatever level—a greater throughput of taxpayers or public money is being used, it is right that the level of scrutiny is proportionate. The reference to “significant private companies” is perhaps slightly less than I would have liked. I would have liked the figure itself to have been objectively significant rather than the company providing the service being significant. I am not sure that I know what a significant company is in this context, whereas I am clear as to what a significant figure might be.

However, it is right that auditors should have a degree of discretion in looking at this. As I said at an earlier stage in the Bill, we may be looking at quite small organisations that, for whatever reason—perhaps because of some project they are undertaking—may be responsible for deploying fairly significant sums. It is right that those should be subject to scrutiny. There is no place here for opacity in the way in which figures are presented. Therefore I very much support the principle of this amendment.

I will digress, if I may, onto the freedom of information issue. I am aware that one of the get-outs in relation to providing freedom of information data is when the request is considered to be vexatious. The standard of “vexatious” as a term of art seems to be a matter of self-assessment to a degree by the body that is providing that information; at least, that is how it seems to me. The noble Baroness opposite is shaking her head slightly; if I have got it wrong, I apologise. However, it seems to me that that is capable of a degree of latitude. I certainly have seen evidence of “vexatious” used as a reason for not providing information—although not in the context of local government—and the term ought to be made a little clearer. In general terms, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has put forward and am grateful to him for continuing to bring it to the attention of the House.

Order of the Companions of Honour

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, my briefing assured me that honours were not to be withdrawn from people who have died, and I think that the awarding of honours to people who have died would also be outwith the honours system as it is currently understood. However, we would all strongly agree that Alan Turing suffered quite appalling discrimination. Both my parents-in-law worked with the noble Baroness at Bletchley Park.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, does not the nature of this Question indicate the scale of the disconnect between the people of this country and the politicians?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Not entirely. The honours list in recent years has included an ever larger number of people who provide public service, often without reward, at the lower levels. I processed up the Abbey on Tuesday morning behind a lollipop lady who was there because we were demonstrating different forms of public service to the country. I am happy to say that the number of teachers, including head teachers, who receive awards has been increasing in recent years. Eight head teachers received senior honours in the latest honours list.

Ministerial Code

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the arrangements for enforcement and monitoring of the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of the standards set out in the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, now that it has been clearly established that the Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood, totally failed to carry out a full inquiry into the Mitchell affair, by discarding the evidence and in doing so, perpetrating a huge injustice on Andrew Mitchell, the former government Chief Whip, is it not now time to transfer the responsibility for carrying out inquiries into alleged ministerial transgressions from the Cabinet Secretary—indeed, anybody in Downing Street—to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for Commons’ Ministers and to the Commissioner for Standards in the case of Ministers in the House of Lords? Surely we all recognise that all Ministers are Members of Parliament and should be subject to rules set by Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the Cabinet Secretary’s recommendation to the Prime Minister was that the e-mails were unreliable evidence and that Andrew Mitchell should stay in post. In the evidence that he gave to the Public Administration Committee on 10 January, he said:

“My report to the Prime Minister basically said that there were some inconsistencies and inaccuracies between the account in the e-mails and what I could see in the CCTV footage. What was fundamental was the conclusion, which was that you could not rely on these e-mails to terminate Andrew Mitchell’s career”.

What then followed was a continuing press campaign, possibly with others involved, that led to Andrew Mitchell later offering his resignation.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Lexden. It is a novel amendment but a modest one. In Committee, there were essentially two objections to the proposal to extend the 15-year limit on British nationals who live abroad having the vote. A third objection was to the mechanism proposed by my noble friend, which is again before us today.

One objection to extending the 15-year limit was that citizens who have retired to live abroad and enjoy the sunshine of foreign climes had effectively fled the United Kingdom and therefore should not be able to vote—certainly not for any great length of time. My noble friend Lord Tyler referred in Committee to the fact that some people may deem them to have deserted these shores. That is to misunderstand the situation of British nationals living abroad. Most emigrants from this country live abroad for work-related purposes. Some will be moving around the globe for their companies, which may well be UK companies. The fact of living abroad for some years is no proof of leaving the UK on a permanent basis.

My noble friend Lord Tyler raised a second objection, to which he referred again today. He argued that citizens living abroad do not have a clear constituency link, and he queried how an MP could represent,

“people who live perhaps thousands of miles away in a very different economic and social context”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 481.]

Well, I presume that they can do it in the same way in which they currently represent those who live abroad but have not yet done so for 15 years and are registered to vote. It is perhaps also worth reminding ourselves that the MEPs for the south-west of England also represent Gibraltar, where people live some way away in a different economic and social context.

The other objection was raised by my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble in respect of this particular amendment, on the grounds that it would be unusual to make such a change in secondary legislation. I note that he said “unusual” and not “unique”. In any event, what is involved here is not a new right but an extension of an existing right. Far greater changes affecting individuals are made through secondary legislation than is being envisaged here. What the amendment does is provide some flexibility. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that the question of extending the time limit,

“remains under consideration within government”.

The amendment provides the means to move forward, should that consideration result in recognition that the time limit should be extended.

The grounds for extending the time limit were made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lexden. As I stressed in that debate, we need to recognise the contribution made to the United Kingdom by citizens living abroad. They are a major source of soft power for the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Gardiner acknowledged,

“the continuing loyalty to the United Kingdom of so many who have lived and worked overseas for many years”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 489.]

We should look upon our citizens around the globe as a continuing asset and not as a body of people to be cast aside and treated as having deserted these shores. If they wish to demonstrate a continuing commitment to the United Kingdom, they should be enabled to do so.

My noble friend’s amendment provides the means for doing so but, at this stage, without commitment. It enables the Government to complete their consideration of the issue. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I intervene only briefly to ask a question, because the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, quite rightly drew the House’s attention to the sensitivity in very marginal seats to votes coming in from abroad. I want to know what happens in conditions of fraud. We have an individual registration system and the suggestion is that we should extend the right to vote to those who have been overseas for more than 15 years. What happens if a fraud takes place? Where are those involved to be prosecuted? Can they be prosecuted? Are they to be extradited? Does this not raise all kinds of problems in terms of prosecution? Perhaps the Minister can give the answer.

[Lord Bates]

I am toying with supporting my noble friend’s amendment but I just wish to seek clarification on a couple of things. The areas that I find totally persuasive are those raised by my noble friend in moving the amendment and those referred to by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, particularly when he talked about soft power. That soft power extends in a network world increasingly to include economic power. These people are overseas on business—they are economically active. There is a global network of 4.4 million or more people who can speak up for and promote Britain, as well as provide information on and connections to the commercial arms of the respective embassies and consulates overseas.

My only difficulty is this. My noble friend Lord Lexden pointed out that currently 4.4 million people are of voting age but only 23,500 or thereabouts are registered to vote, although I do not know what proportion actually voted at the last election. First, does my noble friend agree that it would be useful for the Electoral Commission to undertake extensive research into the reasons why people do not register overseas for this right to vote, which is extremely important to them? Secondly—perhaps this is better addressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench—does he agree that the time has come for the Government to appoint someone to champion the voice of overseas residents who have the vote here? In that regard, I cannot think of a better person to head that up than my noble friend Lord Lexden.

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government have moved some way towards greater transparency in terms of who members of the Government meet. I am amazed by the detail in which I have to account quarterly for who I have met over the previous three months, so at one end we are already being more transparent. Part of the origin of the proposals for a lobbying register during the previous Government was the question of how much money was being paid to these specialist lobbying companies to influence Government. That was the origin of the inquiry. For the first time in my life, I sympathised enormously with the evidence given by the TaxPayers’ Alliance to the inquiry in which it said a narrower definition would be rather better.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When the noble Lord fills in the form that he talks about within the department, does he draw a distinction between official and unofficial engagements and does he register them both?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Yes, and we have discussed whether I should put down everyone I meet at a party conference. There comes a point where almost the entire political process becomes lobbying. For example, the secretariats of most all-party groups are supported by outside bodies. Are those lobbyists? Is that proper? Should we do away with them? One gets into very deep water quite early on in this field.

Parliamentary Boundary Commission: Electoral Administration

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That this House takes note of the implications for political representation and democracy of the current proposals of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission and matters relating to electoral administration.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the Cross Benches. In all my 11 years in this House, I have diligently avoided provocative party-political contributions, apart from on electoral registration and during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. The latter was a blatantly political Bill, introduced for party advantage, with its proposed reduction in the number of parliamentary seats favouring the Conservatives.

This debate is a direct product of that legislation, which was introduced in the wake of the expenses scandal and led to the creation of IPSA and other measures that have so undermined the institution of Parliament. IPSA has so demeaned the role of MPs that they are reduced to scurrying around the Commons Tea Room gathering their receipts for food while they collect Starbucks-type points for refreshments. These are the people we elect to run the country and they are being humiliated. Weak politicians—no match for the great statesmen of the past—have swallowed a tabloid pill and, in many ways, stripped the Commons of the gravitas and dignity that has so characterised the past.

That is the background to this debate—a Parliament of 650, under tabloid pressure, to be reduced to 600. A dark shadow now stalks the lobbies, cafes, bars and corridors of Westminster. We have entered a world of dog-eat-dog as parliamentarians fight it out in what has been described as the largest and most profound redrawing of constituency boundaries in a century.

To those who think I am exaggerating, I say that they should step down the corridor and ask around. The anger is everywhere, with the result that the overwhelming response of MPs to news of this debate has been positive. As one MP put it to me: “Just say what we can’t say”. Young men and women who have been elected, and in some cases committed their careers to underremunerated public service, find themselves caught up in a debate so sensitive that open discussion is often quite impossible. It is not just the 50 seats involved, it is the fact that the whole country is being redrawn, causing deep anxiety. Despair and anxiety have become the hallmarks of many a political household in the land. While spouses fret, long-term political friendships have become clouded in suspicion. There is an overwhelming feeling of injustice among Britain’s MPs, many of whom have spent decades building up relationships with their constituents. At the stroke of a commissioner’s pen their lives, careers, family ties, political organisations and loyalties are to be disrupted, leading to widespread insecurity. It is all so unfair.

It is increasingly clear that the Liberal Democrats will ultimately be the main casualties. Many of them have had to struggle hard to win seats in Parliament, sometimes over decades, and a worried Mr Clegg is reported to have demanded that the commission reviews 69 seats in the south. I am afraid that he is a very late convert to the growing reality of political extinction. For example, Vince Cable must be finding his vital work as Business Secretary greatly disrupted by proposals to abolish his Twickenham constituency and force him into a run-off with Zac Goldsmith. Goldsmith’s bottomless pit of cash enabled him to displace the rising star MP Susan Kramer, who is now a Member of this House, in what can only be described as an outrageous campaign distorted by money over years. Mr Cable should beware.

Then we have Iain Duncan Smith, a man for whom I have much respect. Some of his policies may disturb us on these Benches, but nevertheless he is widely respected for his political courage. I understand that he is beside himself with anger over the carve-up of his seat. He has described the whole exercise as grossly unfair and in unrepeatable language in private. He now has to spend this Parliament worrying anxiously as he casts his eye over his shoulder in search of a seat while gazing blindly forward to the prospect of possible political oblivion in the Commons. His treatment is appalling.

What about Norman Baker, a Liberal Member of Parliament—a beacon of environmental enlightenment on the Liberal Democrat Benches? He has to fight in the most difficult of political circumstances to save himself from political extinction. He is surrounded by a sea of entrenched conservatism, so what will happen to him? How can he keep his eye on the ball as a progressive Transport Minister when he has to worry about the prospect of political survival?

Then we have George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose task is to steer the economy through a sea of international financial turbulence. Could it be that the distraction of a boundary review, which abolishes his seat, accounts for the somewhat erratic decision-taking under his watch as we move deeper and deeper into recession? What of his constituency neighbours? They must be worrying that he is to be given some unreasonable advantage under a Central Office-organised attempt at constituency seat allocation or fix, not because he is necessarily the best candidate—I do not know—but because he is the Chancellor. They might find themselves cast aside totally unfairly on a playing field of fix and manipulation.

What about the flamboyant Nadine Dorries—populist to the core? Some say she is the voice of hardcore Conservative Britain. She is an MP loved and loathed in equal measure—loved by an adoring Conservative public and loathed by many of her parliamentary colleagues who envy her willingness fiercely to spell out what she believes to be true. Her calculation is simple. Faced with extinction she has two options: to speak up, be heard and hope that some Conservative association decides that it wants her; or to keep her head down, be a good girl and sink without trace. She has chosen the former. What is interesting about her case is that her approach may be contagious.

It is not that the populist wing of the Liberal Democratic Party does not have its share of rumbling resentment. We have Mr Timothy Farron of Westmorland and Lonsdale who spends his time criticising the coalition in public in the media and then blithely votes for the coalition’s policy in the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons. He wants it both ways. Well, his constituency party is going both ways. It is the victim of one of the most ludicrous boundary changes in the country. The commission is taking out the lakeland town of Windermere and tacking it on to the constituency of Copeland on the west Cumberland coast, which is currently represented by the excellent MP Jamie Reid. To pass from Windermere to the body of the new constituency, you would have to drive over the highest mountain pass in Britain, the Hardknott, with its 1:3 gradient. When you drive over it—as I have done regularly—it is so steep that you cannot even see the roadway over the bonnet of your car. The proposal is utterly absurd and makes a laughing stock of the commission. I understand that, quite unusually, all the Cumbria parties are united in their desire for revisiting the Cumbria boundary proposals.

Then we have Mr Clegg himself. He is surrounded by a sea of Labour and Conservative MPs. Local Tories trumpet that he is out. He cannot, in some desperate attempt to survive, meddle in neighbouring seats to build a new constituency base. He has only the knackers yard to look forward to. I suppose he could seek election to an elected House of Lords or even move to an appointed one under the patronage arrangements he so strongly opposes, although, as the architect of current proposals for Lords reform—which I support—he may not find too warm a welcome. I suppose he could disappear to Europe as a Euroflunkey, an appointment which is likely to be opposed by a coalition of Conservative Eurosceptics and Labour MPs who resent his support for the austerity programme. However, is he being fairly treated? Or do we turn a blind eye and say that he has only himself to blame? Even Mr Clegg deserves fair play.

Then we have the appalling proposals for Delyn and the Vale of Clwyd in north Wales, where David Hanson, the decisive and highly respected Minister in the Blair-Brown years, is being set against one of Parliament’s most effective campaigners, Chris Ruane—two first-class performers forced into a duel, where the real casualties will be Parliament and the people of north Wales. As Mr Ben Wallace MP, who has to fight it out with neighbouring and fellow Lancashire MP Mr Eric Ollerenshaw, said, “My poor constituents are run ragged by these changes”.

However, ill conceived marriages in Lancashire are not unique. We have the Salford-Manchester marriage, the Rutland-Corby marriage, the Leigh and Makerfield-Westhoughton marriage, the Broxtowe-Rushcliffe marriage, the Chingford-Edmonton marriage, the New Mersey Banks seats, the City of Gloucester-Forest of Dean marriage, the Anglesey-Bangor proposals and the Devon Hall seat. The list is endless. Liberal Democrats in the Midlands have described their marriages as schizophrenic, unnecessary and haphazard. David Davis MP was reported to have claimed that,

“this process is highly corrosive of effective representation”.

A member of the shadow Cabinet wisely drew historic parallels, claiming:

“This is like the partition of India. Somebody has sat down in a room in London and drawn arbitrary lines through communities they know nothing about”.

What I really worry about are the implications for the quality of the membership of the House of Commons. The new regime, the humiliation of MPs, IPSA’s irrational decisions, the uncertainties over electoral registration, the use of the guillotine, the intimidatory approach of the press to MPs as exposed during the Leveson inquiry and the pay disincentive mean that men and women of real talent and potential public service contribution will refuse a role in our mother of parliaments. This is a shame. They notice one massive sense of insecurity that pervades our institution, realise that it is only further aggravated by ill conceived boundary review and refuse to join a system where the earning and retention of constituency loyalty can be destroyed on the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. They want security for their families. The result of all this is that we will lose many of the lawyers, trade union leaders, businessmen, doctors, strong leaders from local government and the exceptional that Parliament so desperately needs. All these changes are destroying the incentive to become a Member of Parliament. This whole project is wasteful of talent. We are playing a very dangerous game, and I say “Stop it now”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I stand corrected.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the noble Lord think it proper for prominent Liberal Democrats to trade Lords reform for the reduction in seats?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord and all those on the other side for their sympathy for the position of the Liberal Democrats. We are a coalition Government and bargain every single day on a whole host of things. I have no knowledge whether what Mr Richard Reeves said as he left for the United States—very unwisely, and without any authorisation or standing, I thought—relates to anything that is being discussed between the two parties.

I hope that I have covered most of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked about the application form, which again we will return to when we discuss the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. I understand that the application form that will be designed by the Electoral Commission must include a statement about the possibility of a fine and the size of that potential fine. We were discussing that in the debate in the Moses Room yesterday on the question of behaviour change and how one designs forms best so as to influence people to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, we have had an interesting, indeed excellent debate, unlike in the House of Commons where there has been almost no debate on these matters since the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and a debate that took place on the problems in Wales in Westminster Hall only last week.

I regret that more Conservative Members felt unable to participate in our debate, apart, of course, from the courageous noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who is known for her preparedness to stand up and say what she thinks. She argued valiantly in defence of an impossible case. Equally, the Liberal Democrats are hardly overrepresented. We have their electoral guru, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who has substantial knowledge on these matters, although it was noticeable that while he argued for equalisation of electorates, he did not oppose the reduction of seats from 650 to 600 for the next general election. He should impress on his prominent Liberal Democrat colleagues, and Mr Hughes in particular, who have been peddling the line, “No Lords reform, then no boundary change”, that they are not helping the case for Lords reform. They fail to realise that many Conservative MPs, as against the Conservative Party organisation, do not want boundary changes, so their mantra is an invitation to Conservative MPs to block Lords reform. It could all backfire.

I was, as ever, greatly amused by the comments of my larger-than-life noble friend Lord Foulkes, on my self-denying ordinance on the generality of legislation, but he need not worry. The excalibur is as sharp as ever. My noble friend Lord Wills referred to the failure of the Government to establish a cross-party group on electoral registration and the immense danger of underregistration. The latest Bill has just completed its passage in the Commons, so let us hope that by the time we get it in the Lords it will be suitably amended to deal with the looming and inevitable difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, drew attention to the startling proposal that the electorate of 204 constituencies be changed by 50% or more, tearing up identifiable communities. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton expressed her deep concerns over the lack of a detailed assessment of the combined effect of all the changes on the health or democracy. My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere was so right when he said that too many people were left out to dry and that party leaders should have been more supportive of Parliament when the institution was under attack.

My noble friend Lady Corston drew attention to the ludicrous proposals for Gloucester and the Forest of Dean, and the Mersey Banks constituencies. They are but two of hundreds of similar anomalous examples where local people are objecting. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon in winding up from the Front Bench stressed that local ties and the integrated nature of communities were cast aside in favour of a numbers game. How very true that is. As for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I have to say that I was not altogether convinced by his arguments justifying the seat reduction or by his attempt to assure my noble friend Lord Wills that electoral registration will be successfully introduced.

I can only repeat my proposed concern over what all these changes are doing to Parliament, as set out in my earlier contribution. I only hope that some way to reverse this whole policy of constituency reduction can be found. I believe that all these proposed changes can bring nothing but harm, worry and disruption to the whole parliamentary arrangement. I am indebted to the House for the opportunity provided by this debate.

Motion agreed.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Timetabled and all the rest of it. Therefore, I have to say—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord refers to two defeats in two years. However, he is conveniently forgetting that many amendments are accepted by the Government in the other House. They do not go to a Division.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

That is true, my Lords, but many of those concessions derive from amendments to Bills made in this place, which gives the boys and girls down there a bit of leverage over Ministers. Indeed, you hear it said that a lot of the most contentious stuff in relation to education Bills, health Bills and so on, is left for us to deal with because it is then somehow easier for them to deal with it when it goes back.

As I say, these are complex issues. I repeat that I have come to a slow but certain conviction that to elect this place directly would not even be a leap into the unknown because we know what is happening at the other end and we know that the partisanship would come up here. We also know that if you had a different majority at each end, that would constitute the deep blue sea. What would happen then? The pretence that legitimacy would be retained, as many noble Lords have said, is a total figment of the imagination because legitimacy lies not in the written word but in the hearts and minds of the people of this country. It is in the eye of the beholder. If we were elected, the man in the street would accord equal credence to us as he does to those in the other place. For those reasons if for none other, I fear that I will be a steadfast resistor of election if that time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I want to follow up and embroider upon my contribution to the debate on Lords reform which took place on 30 April. I shall concentrate on issues of primacy and, in particular, gridlock, dealt with supposedly under Clause 2 of the draft Bill.

My position is clear. I support an elected House—perhaps as a compromise an indirectly elected one. I support the thrust of the Richard report and I also strongly support a referendum. However, those of us who support an elected House, hybrid or otherwise, have to address the issue of gridlock. Until we confront that, we cannot win the argument. I have sat through four days of debate, primarily on Lords reform, and there has been very little discussion on that particular subject. Personally I am not greatly troubled by it, and my reasons are simple. The first is that I believe that the conciliation procedure, which has been referred to in this debate, will grow out of gridlock. I am not convinced that you can predetermine a conciliation procedure in advance, as such a procedure will by definition need to be finely tuned and carry the nuances and ambiguities that may on occasion be essential to deal with the sensitivities that conciliation requires. Secondly, I am convinced that a constitutional crisis arising out of gridlock will abate to meet public expectation and market movements as Parliament backs off from sustained open conflict between the two Houses.

However, the questions in my mind remain. Can we avoid gridlock? Can we protect primacy of the Commons? Can we build into reform a mechanism for controlling the pace of change as the newly elected Chamber increasingly and justifiably seeks to increase its influence? Without a written constitution, what can we do? At the moment, we have two options: a system of statutory codification setting out the powers and responsibilities of both Houses, or a series of resolutions carried in both Houses, which has been described as a concordat.

On statutory codification, it is argued that a means will be found to undermine codification in the courts, despite Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the reluctance of the judiciary to intervene. On the concordat, it is argued that such an agreement, approved in this unelected House, could find itself tested to destruction in a newly elected House where Members claim greater legitimacy. For those reasons, I proposed in the debate on Monday, the 30th, the amendment of the oath as a constitutional lock.

The oath that we all take at the commencement of each Parliament is a solemn promise made to Parliament to show allegiance to the monarch as part of our constitutional arrangement. It is the product of a constitutional settlement and it already provides a constitutional lock on allegiance to the monarch. Similarly, we need to find a mechanism for reinforcing any constitutional settlement agreed between the two Houses prior to the election of the second Chamber—effectively, a new lock. The current wording of the oath is as set out in Section 1 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, as amended by Schedules 8 and 10 to the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, with further amendment for affirmation under a consolidated Oaths Act of 1978. The oath has a long history. It has grown out of a series of revisions and amendments over the centuries from an oath of supremacy, an oath of allegiance and an oath of abjuration to today’s oath. At one stage in our history, Members took three separate oaths. Interestingly, the oath introduced in 1829, which removed restrictions on Catholics entering Parliament, imposed limitations on the actions of Members, which is what I am advocating.

So what am I advocating? I argue that the parliamentary oath should be amended to include an obligation or duty to accept the constitutional settlement between the two Houses. The settlement would be underpinned in statute. The 1866 Act, as consolidated, would be amended and the constitutional settlement, which would include limitations on the statutory and non-statutory powers as set out in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Richard report, would, where necessary, be defined in the legislation—that is, the Bill about to be presented to Parliament. I argue that the oath could then provide us with a constitutional lock.

I am not advocating that the newly elected House could not debate for increased powers. However, I am advocating an arrangement under which the Lords would be unable to threaten to delay, or actually delay, legislation with a view to securing greater powers. Nor would the Lords be able to bring an amendment to the constitutional settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the process of amending the settlement could be initiated only in the Commons under its primacy. The Commons, protecting its primacy, could influence the pace of change.

What about the arguments against? We are told that Parliament cannot bind its successors, but of course that would not be the case if the constitutional settlement provided for Parliament having the right to amend, which would be the case under Commons primacy. It is argued that such a proposal would breach the freedom of speech provisions in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which states that,

“the Freedome of Speech and Debates … in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”.

My proposal is for an internal parliamentary arrangement to be made in the form of a constitutional settlement between the two Houses, establishing a process for the handling of legislation. It is an internal parliamentary arrangement. There is no question of outside interference in freedom of speech. A summary of “The Parliamentary Oath” research paper produced by the House of Commons in 2000 states that,

“even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking this Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to her heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689”.

So, as it stands, the lock keeps out those who are not prepared to show allegiance to the Crown. In the oath we already have a constitutional lock in practice, but that raises the issue of challenges to the requirement to take the oath.

We have the Bradlaugh v Gossett case of 1884, which involved a challenge to the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. The court held that the matter related to the internal management of the procedure of the House of Commons and the court had no power to interfere. We have the Prebble v Television New Zealand case in 1995, in which the Privy Council ruled:

“In addition to Article 9 itself, there is a long line of authority which supports a wider principle ... that the courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles. So far as the courts are concerned they will not allow any challenge to be made to what is said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges”.

We then have the Sinn Fein/McGuinness v United Kingdom case. In one of the cases, Mr Justice Kerr ruled:

“The control of its own internal arrangements has long been recognised as falling uniquely within parliament's domain and superintendence from which the court's intervention is excluded”.

McGuinness, defending the interests of the Sinn Fein elected MPs, went to the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled:

“The requirement that elected representatives take an oath of allegiance to the monarch forms part of the constitutional system of the respondent State, which, it is to be observed, is based on a monarchical model of government. For the Court, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch can be reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support, inter alia, the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State … In the Court’s view it must be open to the respondent State to attach such a condition, which is an integral part of its constitutional order, to membership of Parliament”.

McGuinness lost.

Interestingly enough, the Northern Ireland Assembly Members do not take the oath, but they have to sign the Assembly’s roll of membership and take a pledge of office which sets out in detail requirements and obligations on Members to act in good faith, to commit to democracy, to serve all communities, to commit to participate in democratic institutions, to recognise the role of Ministers and to participate in programmes of government. Their responsibilities are clearly defined. That is my proposal. The amended oath would set out an additional requirement to accept the constitutional settlement in addition to pledging allegiance to the Crown. The oath is a solemn promise made to Parliament.

Following the last debate, I encountered, quite naturally, some hostility to the proposal that I put to the House, essentially from those opposed in principle to an elected House. However, there are those in favour of an elected House who have a more open mind. I seek an objective debate on the proposition that I have put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard]

My noble friend and other noble Lords will never have heard me argue the case for referendums for mayors. Noble Lords present during the debates last year on the Localism Bill will have heard me express strong reservations about referendums. There are often major problems with the conduct of referendums. The only exception I have thought of to my general belief in representative democracy above referendums is that the system by which Members are chosen in the place that has primacy should be chosen not by those Members themselves but by the voters.

A number of noble Lords have suggested this evening that electors a year ago chose first past the post and rejected proportional representation—that was the implication of a number of arguments. I remind noble Lords that the option of proportional representation was never offered to the voters last year because noble Lords from other parties and Members of another place were too fearful that people might decide to have that system rather than first past the post.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is not one of the advantages of a referendum on House of Lords reform that, if the vote is won in favour of reform, Parliament is then locked into that decision? Parliament would find it very difficult to say no when the people have said yes.

[Lord Rennard]

I agree that it would be difficult for Parliament to say no in that event. I do not totally rule out the idea.

Let me first refer the noble Lord back to the report on referendums by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. In the debate in this House on that report, it appeared to be generally agreed by almost all noble Lords present that referendums should be rare and that there were significant problems with holding them—not least the propensity of the electorate to vote in response to a different question from that which appeared on the ballot paper. However, the report concluded that it would be appropriate to hold a referendum if abolition of either House of Parliament was considered. It is probably on that basis that some noble Lords consider the justification for a referendum. Yet when we look back to the 1911, 1949, 1958 and 1999 Acts, they were never considered to be Acts of abolition, even though they significantly changed both the powers and the composition of the House.

Gradually reforming composition does not amount to abolition. The draft Bill and the proposals of the Joint Committee suggest a transitional period that would not be complete before 2025—some 114 years after the 1911 Act and 15 years after all main parties promised in their manifestos to work for such an outcome. Ending the hereditary principle, removing patronage from party leaders and allowing people to choose their legislators do not amount to abolition of this House, so I do not see any case for a referendum before 2015. In the mean time, I believe that in 2015 we should begin the first phase of real reform by electing a small proportion of the membership of your Lordships’ House and finally ending completely the hereditary basis for membership. There may be more of a case for a referendum later, on proceeding to the second or final stages of reform.

I also want to address briefly another important constitutional issue in the gracious Speech—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I have always regarded him as something of a senior statesman in your Lordships’ House. I agreed with much of what he said about the priority of Europe at the moment. It was a point made by my noble friend Lord Giddens today and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, last Thursday. I hope that there will be the opportunity to have a debate specifically devoted to the subject of Europe and the economic and political movement around Europe at the moment.

I should mention again that I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill and that I was also a signatory to the alternative report. Not very surprisingly, I intend to concentrate much of what I want to say on the announcement in the gracious Speech about reform in your Lordships’ House.

However, there is another constitutional point on which I hope the Minister will comment when he winds up. That is the announcement that the Government intend to take forward reform of the rules governing succession to the Crown. The briefing notes on the gracious Speech, which I believe are available on the Cabinet Office website, make it clear that this is part of a system to do away with male primogeniture—a system under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession—because the current arrangements are discriminatory. Does not the same discriminatory practice pertain throughout all the succession rights in the British aristocracy except where expressly provided for with some specific titles? Surely it is no more or less discriminatory to usurp the elder daughter of a duke or an earl in favour of her younger brother than it is to usurp the elder daughter of the monarch. I hope that some thought will be given to that when we come to consider the Bill, and I would value the Minister’s comments.

But of course the flagship policy on constitutional reform in the gracious Speech is the reform of your Lordships’ House, and since we last discussed it in this Chamber, we have all heard the gracious Speech. The 15-word reference to the reform of this House sheds little light on what the Government really intend. It says quite simply:

“A Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the House of Lords”.

No mention is made either of elections or of functions and powers, despite the clearly emerging consensus that functions and powers are unlikely to remain unchanged if the Lords are elected. However, whatever the gracious Speech says or does not say, the briefing notes from the Cabinet Office, available on the website, make it clear that the Bill is intended to ensure that most Members of the House will be elected. The Cabinet Office paper notes that there has been, in its view, a “broad consensus” on this since 2001, which I imagine is news to a great many of us, particularly to my noble friend Lord Grocott, given what he said earlier this afternoon. The briefing notes go on to claim that the Joint Committee which considered the Bill under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Richard agreed that there should be, “a mainly elected chamber”. That statement is misleading and I have today written to the Cabinet Secretary asking him why the Cabinet Office briefing notes are so inaccurate.

This is a fundamental issue. Your Lordships will see on page 150 of the Joint Committee report that the original draft said that the Joint Committee agreed that,

“the reformed second chamber … should be elected”.

That is a bold statement. It was a Conservative MP, Mr Gavin Barwell, who moved an amendment so that the sentence was deleted and a new sentence inserted to read that,

“the reformed second chamber of the legislature should have an electoral mandate”.

That amendment was passed. A mandate, as the Oxford English Dictionary tells us, is the,

“authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election”.

So the decision of the Joint Committee was to give an elected House of Lords the authority of a mandate. The sentence was then further amended—without a vote as everyone agreed—with the addition of the crucial words,

“provided it has commensurate powers”.

When I asked the Leader of the House why he had chosen to leave out this vital phrase in his opening speech last Thursday, in his usual jocular way he asked me what the Joint Committee had actually meant by “commensurate powers”. I hope that this is not going to be another consensus moment for the Leader of the House. The word “commensurate” is in common usage, and again the good old Oxford English Dictionary comes to our aid by pointing out that what it actually means is, “in proportion to”, or,

“corresponding in size or degree”,

or,

“of the same size … extent”.

In this case, it means the same size and extent as the electoral mandate.

There is no ambiguity about what paragraph 23 of the report says, and I hope that, given how much time was devoted to this issue, what the report actually says will be quoted rather than what many people who do the quoting would rather it had said. It says, for the avoidance of doubt:

“The Committee, on a majority, agrees that the reformed second chamber of legislature should have an electoral mandate provided it has commensurate powers”.

That is what the Cabinet Office briefing should have said.

The Leader of the House says that the Government want to proceed on the basis of consensus. We all know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is not in his place at the moment but who has been here a great deal, has pointed out on numerous occasions that there is no consensus on election. However, there is consensus on a great number of issues regarding the reform of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, pointed out in his very good speech earlier today. There is consensus that we can begin reform now, taking the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, together with some of the reforms suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Baroness has repeatedly referred to the use of “commensurate powers”. In an intervention in our debate on 30 April—I am just trying to establish exactly where she stands—she defined “commensurate powers” as,

“doing away with Commons primacy”.—[Official Report, 30/4/12; col. 1963.]

If that is the view carried by the committee in the amendment that my noble friend referred to, is she then suggesting that it was the view of the majority of the committee that they should do away with Commons primacy?

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

No, my Lords, I am not suggesting that; I am suggesting that “commensurate powers” means what it says, particularly when it comes in a sentence that refers to an electoral mandate. The current settlement between the two Houses on the constitutional position and the conventions must change in favour of the House of Lords if it is elected.

We could have consensus not only on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but on the reforms suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her excellent speech earlier today. Such reforms would fulfil the undertaking given in the gracious Speech to,

“reform the composition of the House of Lords”.

The Government would be doing exactly what is laid out in the gracious Speech. There is consensus in the Joint Committee report that giving an electoral mandate to the Lords means that the elected Lords has powers commensurate with that mandate. That after all lies at the heart of democracy. Elections mandate the elected, and those elected become accountable to their electorates.

There is further consensus that Clause 2 of the Bill is completely unfit for purpose; it has no friends other than the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the Bill. Moreover, there is consensus that if there is a parliamentary decision to elect the Lords, the people should be consulted in a referendum. Even the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, agreed on this point earlier in our exchanges on this issue. I do not know whether the rest of the Liberal Democrats agree with him, but I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that some of them would take issue with him over that.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I exchanged views on what we voted on. For the avoidance of doubt, we voted on a proposal which was agreed. It was:

“The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision”—

not the proposal—

“to a referendum”.

There were no “ifs” or “buts”; the Joint Committee agreed, as more and more commentators are agreeing, that a decision to elect the House of Lords should be subject to a referendum of the people of this country.

I think that a further consensus has started to emerge: that there will be no consensus around this totally inadequate Bill unless it is a consensus that it does not work. It falls short at virtually every point, from the Parliament Acts, through Clause 2, to primacy, and from the almost Byzantine arrangements for elections on a proportional representative system—a form of which the people of this country have already decisively rejected—to the non-renewable terms of office. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said that we fell short of even the standards of Egypt in this respect. I discussed non-renewable terms of office recently with some Egyptian visitors to this country. They wanted to be MPs in the Egyptian Parliament. They said something to me that made me think they were talking about non-renewable terms. I said, “Is it non-renewable terms to which you are referring?”. They said, “Oh, no, of course not. We know there is no accountability with non-renewable terms. We would not dream of using them”. They understood that point very clearly.

The Government are obviously in trouble over this Bill. They know that it cannot work but they have all promised each other to give it a jolly good try to get it through. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, put her finger on it precisely. Ministers are now falling over each other to say what has been pretty obvious to all of us for some time now: this Bill is not a priority. If it fails, as I hope it will, we will be back where we started, waiting for another try perhaps in 2015, 2020 or 2025. I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we should act on the consensus that we have. As suggested in the alternative report, there is consensus on the Steel Bill, some of the noble Baroness’s own proposals and some of the Goodlad proposals. I believe that we should set up a constitutional convention as laid out in the alternative report to consider whether and how we could eventually elect the House of Lords. That should consider inter alia how the elections would affect the Commons and the devolved Parliament and Assemblies. It should consider the composition of religious representation in your Lordships’ House, the role of government in the Lords and the crucial question of the effect of the possible independence of Scotland. Above all, a convention should consider the powers and functions of the Lords and Commons, and deal with the fact that we would have two elected Chambers comprising what Erskine May describes as “representatives of the people”. There would be two such Chambers but with no written constitution to work out which Chamber would prevail in the event of a dispute—a point made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, thinks that it will all work itself out, as he claims that it has in the past—a prospect of, “Well, let us see what happens”. That is an irresponsible attitude and one that no sensible Government should proceed on. The noble Lord did not answer the point about a written constitution leading to the possibility of the courts having a direct role in the conduct of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister would like to give that one a shot when he replies to the debate.

I make no apology for emphasising that before we get this Bill—if we do—we need some proper costings, with options properly, openly and transparently done to see what the price of 300 of 450 additional, salaried politicians would be. Or we could try the other way, as described in the alternative report. Constitutional conventions are a sensible way to find answers to complex questions—ones not answered in the Bill or White Paper, or by the Joint Committee. So far, nothing has produced a consensus on what should happen if there is an elected House. I ask the Minister to give this suggestion some serious thought, not simply to shrug his political shoulders and say that it is not something that he is prepared to consider. It will take time and effort but it could produce results, although not quickly. It may produce something far more durable and workable than the current Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that the alternative report made no mention of the Wakeham commission. It does. It does so twice in warm terms. If the noble and learned Lord reads paragraph 5.8, he will see that the royal commission is referred to as having been chaired by the former Leader of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and as having given the fullest recent consideration to a range of proposals on further reform of the House. It is further referred to at paragraph 5.2. If the noble and learned Lord would like to reread the alternative report, I have one or two spare copies.

Electoral Register

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suspect that a great many Members of this House are registered in more than one property. I certainly am since we have lived both in Yorkshire and in London for a very long time. The questions of what is a second home and what is a holiday home very delicate. I am conscious that in south-west England this is a particularly sensitive issue.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why are the Government so keen on removing the offence?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps I may be precise and make it clear that the Government are not removing the offence. The offence is the failure to return the form for the system of household registration. If we were to make it an offence not to register on an individual basis, that would be extending the offence. We will return to this when the Bill is being considered in both Houses.