Government and Parliament
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the words in the Motion,
“Parliament having full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider”,
have particular resonance for those of us who sat through 45 hours of Committee proceedings on the Housing Bill. That Bill is all I want to talk about today. It was a classic case of abuse in the production of legislation. Certainly, it is the reason for today’s debate. It was a skeleton Bill, as defined in the 2005 report by the Joint Committee on Conventions, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling. It was a Bill riddled with references to the need for secondary legislation. On my count, between the Bill and its schedules, there were, potentially, 81 statutory instruments covering more than 100 separate issues, all to be determined following Royal Assent. Almost every one of them covered an area of controversy. I have heard it said in the Commons that the reason the Government chose to introduce the Bill in this way, avoiding providing details covering the more controversial areas, was because with their small majority the Government were concerned that too much detail during Commons stages could have provoked difficulties on their own Benches and prejudiced the early passage of the Bill. I suspect that will not be the last time that happens.
An indicator of what happens when Parliament is denied full details on legislation came with an amendment to the Bill introduced in the Commons on the last day in Committee after 17 sessions of consideration. The amendment was introduced to begin the process of phasing out long-term council tenancies, which are very much a feature of tenancies outside London, and replacing them with two-year to five-year tenancies. This proposal was never in the original Bill, being too controversial, and was introduced without even an impact assessment. The approach the Government took during Commons proceedings avoided a constituency backlash on that matter from Members of the other House.
There were potentially whole sections of the Bill that we simply could not amend, leaving us with only fatal Motions, which some of us find difficult to support on principle, which I will come to later. I shall give an example. The Bill, under statutory instruments, gave councils the power to require all tenants to declare household incomes. The Explanatory Notes stated that,
“a process of verification may be needed to ensure that declarations of income are correct … The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of HMRC before making arrangements with a private body to fulfil this function”.
If you are a council tenant not in receipt of any benefit—in other words, if you are not means-tested—whatever your income, and particularly if you have a gross total household income, outside London, of more than £30,000, or of more than £40,000 in London, a private company, in the form of Capita, could access your income and potentially breach your privacy as part of the verification process without your specific consent. I believe this is an unprecedented use of regulations with little detail in the Bill, particularly on the process of verification, which we should have been able to consider during the proceedings and which we cannot amend in a statutory instrument.
I have to admit that the Ministers on the Bill, one of whom is in her place today, valiantly sought to defend the indefensible by assuring the House that the regulations and, if necessary, guidance would be introduced following a consultation that was to take place at a later stage. Nevertheless, the truth is that the Bill was premature. Whether you agree with its provisions or not, because it was so controversial, it should not have been introduced until the consultation on its contentious provisions had been completed. In its final hours in this House, the Bill was the subject of almost unparalleled protest on the Floor, all to be found in Hansard on 23 March.
I return to the issue of fatal Motions on SIs, on which I have very strong views. Behind closed doors in my Labour Party group meetings, I have consistently argued against voting on fatals. To me, as a former Member of the House of Commons, it was a matter of great principle. I confess that, against my party line, I declined to vote in the tax credit regulations Division on the basis that I regarded the amendment as fatal. However, after years of arguing on principle, my experience on the housing Bill changed my mind. If the Government want to play silly games with skeleton Bills, then I am afraid the Opposition, despite being unelected, have no option but to retaliate by blocking statutory instruments. I deeply regret that.
Furthermore and finally, I do not see how we can possibly interfere in the current arrangements for handling SIs until we have established a process for determining a proper deposition of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances”, as set out in the 2006 report by my noble friend, and have received a commitment from the Government to avoid the use and indeed abuse of skeleton Bills in the way that happened on the Housing and Planning Bill.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I will definitely pick up from where the noble and learned Lord left off and say that this has been an excellent debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way she introduced it and for all the contributions which have been made. It has been a constructive debate and for the most part I, too, agree with much that has been said. I hope we can find lots of common ground in order to make progress towards ensuring that this House is well equipped to do its job. I will respond to some of the important points that have been raised, but perhaps I may start by making a few points from my perspective as the person representing the Government here in this debate.
As Leader of the House I am appointed by the Prime Minister, I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am responsible for the Government’s business in the House of Lords. As has been acknowledged, my party was democratically elected and has a mandate to govern in line with the commitments set out in our manifesto. But I know that to succeed in my job, I have to listen to this House; I really understand that. Moreover, I not only have to listen; sometimes, I have to deliver difficult messages to my Cabinet colleagues. They do not always like what I have to say, but I know that it is my job and something I have to do. I am getting better at it because I think they are getting a bit more used to some of the things I have to tell them. The point I would make to noble Lords is that the Prime Minister and all Ministers in the Government understand the importance of my role because they are Members of Parliament too. They understand that for people to have confidence in the laws Parliament makes, Parliament has an important role in the legislative process.
The noble Baroness acknowledged what I said in my response to the gracious Speech the other week. We also acknowledge that Parliament improves legislation; that is part of what it does. But it is also true that from my perspective in government, when I see the picture from the other end of the telescope, things sometimes look a bit different. As my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out, since the last general election the balance of power has actually shifted more towards Parliament than has been the case for nearly 20 years, because the Government have such a small majority in the Commons and the Conservative Party in this House has no majority whatever. The noble Baroness referred to the approach of the Opposition in this House. I acknowledge a lot of what she said, but it cannot be ignored, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that in the first Session of this Parliament the Government were defeated on more than half the Divisions that took place in your Lordships’ House. That is significantly higher, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, than what was experienced when the Labour Party was in government.
We must recognise that the Government of the day are sustained through the confidence of the elected House, and although the Government bring forward their legislation, the legislative process itself is a conversation between the two Houses so when we talk about the balance of power, as has been acknowledged by noble Lords in the debate, we need to be mindful of the balance of power not just between the Government and Parliament but between the two Houses, and that the balance goes both ways. So while it is absolutely right that we in this House have the power and sometimes the responsibility to ask the other place to think again, we must acknowledge at the same time when to take no for an answer, mediated by the conventions that underpin our work. I feel strongly about that because that approach is what helps to protect our legitimacy as an unelected House. That point was very well made by my noble friend Lord Lang, and other noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate.
The legitimacy of Parliament and of this House also relies on the Government upholding their responsibilities in ensuring that both Houses are able to scrutinise fully our legislation. I recognise that we as a Government have a responsibility to make sure that Parliament has the opportunity to carry out its proper role in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising our legislation. I appreciate what lies behind the concerns raised by noble Lords in that respect, and I will come on to some of the more specific points on secondary legislation, and so on, in a moment.
I would also say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, touched on this as well—that as a House, we care very deeply about how we go about our work in scrutinising legislation, and we have made quite a bit of progress over recent years with some new innovations. We now have post-legislative scrutiny committees that have been set up as part of our regime of Select Committees. We ensured that there was more pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Parliament than in the one before, and we have new things such as topical QSDs. There is more time for Members of this House to scrutinise and hold the Government to account. Yes, Governments do not always get it right. I know that this one and previous Governments, as has been acknowledged, have not always got it right. I have heard loud and clear, both today and through other debates, that there are areas where noble Lords feel strongly that we must do better.
Let me start with skeleton Bills. Sometimes material is brought forward later than is desirable, as was the case with some material emerging after the election. Yes, I want to ensure that as Parliament proceeds, it has the information it needs to do its job. Having gone through one Session, I feel that I have learned lessons that I want to ensure are properly applied by the Government. The first Session of a Parliament is always a bit different from later Sessions because straight after an election, clearly, the Government have to get on with implementing their commitments in their manifesto. Some things require them to get on sooner rather than later, because if they have commitments that they must deliver by the end of that Parliament, they are required to bring forward legislation very early on and they need to get on.
I have learned lessons and I noted very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said about some of her experiences when she was Chief Whip and a Minister. I sit on what we now call the Public Bill legislative committee in government. I think that my reputation as a plain speaker, as far as Ministers who bring forward their Bills to that committee are concerned, is starting to get a bit more widespread than it might have been before. I can assure noble Lords that I am taking very seriously my responsibilities to ensure that legislation is brought forward in as complete a fashion as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made many points with which I would agree, and I share her view that this House has to have the right information to do its job properly. I do not accept that we have not welcomed challenge because, as she was good enough to acknowledge, Ministers in this House have engaged quite constructively with Members of your Lordships’ House during the passage of Bills. Yes, a couple of Bills may not have been as well developed as I would have liked, but we did get through 23 Bills in the last Session. By and large, most of them arrived here in greater shape than they might have been—or not necessarily in the shape that some described them. We might have a difference of view on that.
Some skeleton Bills arrive in that way for a purpose. The cities Bill was designed in that way so that we could allow the Government to enter into proper agreements with local authorities. Mention has been made of the buses Bill in this second Session. Again, it has been specifically designed in that way. I do not necessarily argue that all skeleton Bills are bad because that is how they have been prepared.
I move on to the content of legislation, secondary legislation, the number of statutory instruments and the use of Henry VIII powers. The number of statutory instruments was raised by many noble Lords. I cannot let go of the fact that, in the last Session, about 750 pieces of secondary legislation were laid in Parliament. This is the lowest number for more than 20 years. It compares very dramatically with first Sessions of previous Governments over recent times.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We can move measurements if we like and start counting pages, but it is a statement of fact. I cannot go back and count all the pages of pieces of secondary legislation from 20 years ago, but I can tell noble Lords that we certainly dramatically reduced the amount of secondary legislation in the last Session.
Economy: High Street Trade
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for recognising what the Government have done. He talked about various chains going bankrupt and the declining footfall on our high streets. In fact, footfall is now increasing and some high streets have responded very well to the changing patterns of the high street. The ones that have responded well are seeing very good results; for example, in my own town of Altrincham the market has almost completely revitalised the town centre.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
The questioner specifically asked about a turnover tax on online trading. What is the Government’s response to that suggestion?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have outlined the Government’s response to the suggestion, which is that high streets have found numerous ways of responding to the different patterns on our high street. Many chains on the high street are in fact benefiting from things like click and collect.
House of Lords: Domestic Committees
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very useful piece of work by a committee that I understand was superbly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, whose reputation as a reformer goes before her. However, I have a few questions which follow on from the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Oxburgh, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
At the heart of the report is the proposition that three committees be consolidated into one. I want to list what is in the remit of the new committee: access to internet; equipment; Library services, Parliamentary Archives; information services, broadcasting; catering facilities; banqueting; food procurement; gift shop issues; catering budgeting; catering staff issues; restoration and renewal; access arrangements to the House; aspects of security; office accommodation; acquisition of property; parking; and property maintenance. It is a very substantial remit indeed.
There is reference in the report to the fact that the new committee will meet more frequently. So it will, but what worries me is that, with this substantially widened remit, there will be a dilution of debate on many issues that currently come before the existing three committees. If that debate does not take place, paragraph 67 proposes:
“The Services Committee should agree appropriate delegations to its Chair and to the Management Board”.
In other words, we may well see a substantial increase in the amount of delegation as a result of the increased workload that falls upon this committee. Furthermore, the committee might well decide to establish sub-committees to deal with many of these issues which, in effect, reflect the existing remits of the existing three committees. I am concerned about the wide remit.
Secondly, I believe there is a contradiction in the report, which I am sure can be corrected by the Leader of the House when she winds up the debate. Paragraph 66 states:
“We would however expect the Services Committee to refer matters with a clear strategic impact to the senior committee, with recommendations, for a final decision”—
“a clear strategic impact”—and yet paragraph 88 refers to:
“Ideally the new committees should be composed in such a way as to ensure that the senior committee usually accepts any advice offered, and does not seek to unpick decisions or return to first principles”.
I ask a simple question: what is the difference between “clear strategic impact” and “first principles”? There seems to be a conflict inbuilt in that.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in dealing with the issue of bleed-over between the new House Committee —the general purposes committee—and the finance committee. There will be confusion over who is responsible for what and who takes the final decision on what.
I accept a lot of what is in the report but I regret that I did not give evidence. I presumed that we were following the report produced by my noble friend Lord Hunt for the Labour group on these matters. I did not give evidence and that is why I did not apply to speak in the debate today.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the contributions today. It has been an excellent debate; I found it interesting as well as informative. I noted the loud chorus of “Hear, hear” after my noble friend Lady Shephard concluded her contribution. That is a reflection of the respect we all have for her work as chair of this group and for the group as a whole in taking on this challenge, giving it proper, careful consideration and coming forward with a very thoughtful report and set of recommendations. We have been able to see from today’s debate that there is broad support for what has been recommended, for moving forward and for making progress.
As in all organisations, the question of how we should structure our decision-making is an on-going process; it is not something where you ever arrive at the exact point when you say, “That’s that then—that’s done”. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, governance is a process of evolution. If we are to remain modern and relevant, we have to take account of changing experiences and circumstances on matters such as this.
My noble friend Lady Fookes recommended that we keep a watching brief on how these changes are implemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested that, as part of the implementation phase, we should consider how we look at how things are going post implementation. I am happy for that to be part of the next stage. It is probably best not to prescribe how we do that, but I acknowledge that it should be part of our work.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, acknowledged, there is no perfect model of governance. However, what strikes me from today’s debate is how much the group has captured the concerns of noble Lords about the way decision-making happens in this House and has set out a coherent way to tackle those concerns. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, it was striking that, in the group’s consultation process, nobody argued for the current structure to be maintained. Although I am sure there are noble Lords who may have wanted the group’s remit to be set wider, the fact that the remit was narrow, and it was able to do its work in a way which has attracted consensus, is another good example of incremental reform being a model for progress. This is a lesson which I continue to learn.
On timing, I hope we are able to put in place the changes that we have been discussing today early on in the next Session. We can concentrate on the implementation phase in the period between now and the autumn and look at the detailed issues that have been raised in the course of the debate and which we need to consider further. I will talk about the implementation process and then try to respond to some of the specific queries that have been raised this afternoon.
Several noble Lords asked exactly how all this would unfold in practice and how we would consider these issues before they are finalised. Having consulted with the House authorities and with the Clerk of the Parliaments, I think that it would be most straightforward to do most of the detailed implementation through the House and Procedure Committees, the recommendations of which would ultimately come to the House for approval. We will keep this under review as we go, but the way I am expecting things to unfold is that, rather than another single resolution coming before the House, the specifics that will need to change in order to bring some of this stuff to life will feature in reports from the relevant committees, which will then get approved by the House. Thanks to the provisions of Standing Order 64, we can continue with the committees that currently exist, as presently constituted, into the new Session. Further discussions will continue alongside those formal processes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned the usual channels. In light of some of the comments this afternoon, I am a bit nervous about talking about the usual channels. Some things lend themselves best to the usual channels, but I readily acknowledge that they are not the only channel of communication. I hope also that in the weeks ahead we will continue to be able to take advantage of my noble friend’s expertise from the work she has done and that of others in the group—and, indeed, members of the existing committees—in considering the way to move forward.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said about the Information Committee’s decision to consider the outstanding issues that would need to roll over to the new structure is a very important part of the transition period. I do not think that the schedule she has set for her committee is in any way out of step with the next stage of this process. I very much welcome that initiative.
Indeed, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for her excellent chairmanship of the Information Committee. I echo all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made in her tribute to her. I assure her personally that the decision of the Information Committee on iPads and iPhones had my full support. She has nothing to fear in terms of the decisions that have been made previously being relevant to our proposals for changes in governance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised some very detailed questions about the phasing and sequencing of some of the decisions—what committees should be set up first and so on. Again, this is something that we can take away and consider carefully. He made some important points.
A range of points were raised today. I will do my best to respond to most of them. If I fail and any noble Lord wishes to discuss any of this further with me outside the Chamber, I will be more than happy to do so.
I will make a couple of brief points about joint working between this House and the other place. It is worth reflecting on the fact that 64% of expenditure is already joint between the two Houses. That is something that we should be very pleased about, actually. It is far higher than both Houses get credit for. It is something that we want to see continue to increase. Noble Lords may like to know that there is already a big review going on to look at where there is scope for more joint working and what services would be most suitable for a next stage.
As noble Lords will understand, it is easier for some services to implement joint working than others. I note what my noble friend Lord Fowler said about the Library. I do not think that that will be in the next phase but that does not mean that it will not or should not be something for us to consider down the line. I note also what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said about legal services but, again, that is not something that is about to happen soon.
I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker with regard to joint working between the House Committee and the commission of the other place. She has already established some joint meetings of both those bodies and has been very much behind our efforts to improve co-ordination and collaboration between both Houses.
Finally on this topic, I acknowledge, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, that the restoration and renewal Joint Committee, which I have the great privilege of co-chairing with the Leader of the House of Commons, is a really good example of a Joint Committee of both Houses where the membership is equal and we are working together, recognising that the issue before us is one that we have to address together and cannot address separately.
Moving on to some of what I might describe as the points of detail that arose in the debate, I shall respond first to the points raised on the remits of the new committees and the relationships between them. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of whether it would be clear under this new structure which decisions would sit with the senior committee and which would sit with the junior committees, or sub-committees, and my noble friend Lord Cope made similar points. I think that they both referred to some specific committees, such as the services and finance committees. I understand the concerns raised, but this is where the preliminary discussions that will take place in the House Committee, and will then have to be followed through once the new senior committee is established, are the crucial part of this change. It is about getting that clarity of remit right from the start and having the proper delegation of powers from that senior committee to the sub-committee so that, once those committees are in place, the people on them know what their responsibilities are, what they are accountable for and what the House expects from them. There were points made well about this by all noble Lords who raised them, and we need to take serious account of them in the next phase.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a specific question about who would speak for the senior committee. There were other points raised as well about the role of the Chairman of Committees. Who will speak for the senior committee can, again, be discussed in the next phase, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to assume that the person in the new post of the senior deputy speaker would be the one who would speak for the senior committee. I do not consider what is proposed in the report to be any kind of diminution of the responsibility of the Chairman of Committees—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said this, too. I see this role as being a very senior Member of this House. Yes, it will be someone whose responsibility is more focused, but we should see that as a positive step forward and not in any way a relegation of seniority.
Because of that, I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about the salary of the new senior deputy speaker post. I am happy for us to consider that, but I do not think that it would be something I would necessarily advocate, because that role will continue to be very substantial and significant. As for the title of the role, the point I was making in my opening remarks is that, whatever new title we might decide to give it—whether that is senior deputy speaker or deputy Lord Speaker—we would not be able to remove the Chairman of Committees officially from that role without a change to primary legislation. However, we can of course use whatever title we choose to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, raised an important question about the Audit Committee and whether its chair should also be a member of the senior committee. That is another important and wise suggestion, which I think we should reflect on further.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked about the number of non-executive directors on the senior committee and whether that should be increased. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I think it is important that we do not consider the non-executive directors as the only people who would bring expertise to the senior committee. In that regard, I would see their contribution as slightly different to that which one would normally expect non-executive directors to make to a board. I also make the point that the senior committee is one with a supervisory function, so that the Members of this House on that committee will not themselves be the executive; the executive is the administration. The noble Earl also raised an interesting point about board evaluation. That, again, is something we can consider in next steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised questions about members of the administration being full members of the group. My noble friend’s group did reflect on this carefully but did not recommend it. However, it is important that the members of staff and officers of the House who attend these committees feel able to make a full contribution to the discussions and are not in any way seen as somehow being prevented from playing their full part in them.
Other concerns were raised about the potential effects of the changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is an excellent chairman of this House’s Works of Art Committee, and I was very grateful to her for giving us all an insight into the responsibilities of the committee. The work of that group is important and should, and will, continue. I do not think that the proposal in the Leader’s Group report for it to sit as an advisory panel to the Lord Speaker does anything to detract from the important work that it does, but again we can reflect on the relationship between the Lord Speaker and that panel, and how that works in practice, in the next stage.
Noble Lords, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lady Fookes, commented on the continuing role of the Information Committee. I would again come back to what I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Although that committee currently has a very important remit and set of responsibilities, the new structure envisaged in the proposals from the Leader’s Group means that these committees will not necessarily just replicate all the work that was there before but will have a different focus and approach. They will try and look at these things at a more strategic level and avoid some of the duplication. One of the most telling examples for me as a member of the House Committee where I felt that some of the distinctions between responsibilities were not quite right was a matter which had gone through the Information Committee at great length but then became a matter that the House Committee felt it needed to get involved in.
As I say, the arguments and concerns that noble Lords have raised in this debate will be instrumental and informative as we design the remits, the delegation of powers and the memorandums of understanding. We have to get this right in the first place and be clear as to what these different committees will be responsible for.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the noble Baroness not referring to the issue of equipment for Members generally? There was a lot of concern in the House about this. There will be less opportunity within this new structure for the widest possible consideration of all the concerns that exist on this and other issues. I do not really think that the structure that the noble Baroness is referring to will deal with these concerns.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The hereditary Peers who are Members of this House make an important contribution to our work. Any change relating to their arrival in this House would be part of a much wider package of reform, and that is not something that is currently being explored.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, many noble Lords, as I said, have left your Lordships’ House. They continue to use the facility of retirement. That opportunity is to be welcomed, and when we refresh we are ensuring that we are effective in what we do.
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me understand a little more what she proposes with this swap from “high” to “higher”. I quite understand that going for “higher” rather than “high” will protect some authorities—largely London, but maybe Oxford, Cambridge, Winchester and so on—from seeing most of their stock disappear because, on the national level, they have a “disproportionate” number of high-value properties. We all understand what “higher” means: possibly the top decile or the top 20% of house prices in this country. Obviously, they would then respond to a redistribution across the country, which the Minister, if she wished, could control by having local, district, regional or county controls on that redistribution.
I have a worry, which I hope the Minister can allay, that “higher” will be anything above the median, which effectively means that every local authority in the country will have some high-value stock above the median and some lower-value stock below the median, even though that area may be very poor. Does this mean that the Minister and her officials will determine for each local authority what proportion of housing it must be expected to sell because it is higher than the median? We can tell her now that that will be some 49% in Oldham or Great Yarmouth.
I can see why the Minister is trying to move away from a situation where she redistributes from a few very high-value authorities across the country, but she can address that issue by containing the area within which that redistribution occurs. Instead, by going for “higher”, at the moment, based on my understanding of the English language, she opens up the potential for every local authority to lose up to 49% of its stock because it is “higher”—not “high”, but “higher”—and therefore above the median. That would be utterly perverse.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I follow that point with a very brief intervention. Does it mean that a local authority will be told by the Government what percentage of its stock should be sold off—in other words, that there will be a target cap beyond which there is no expectation, but below which the local authority will be allowed to sell up to that cap? In other words, Westminster might be told that 60% of its stock is the cap, Camden might be told 50%, or Cambridge 20%. Is that how this will work in practice?
Lord Lansley
My Lords, in making a brief contribution, I remind the House of my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. In that context I will refer specifically to Cambridge. There was a concern in Cambridge that, if there was to be a definition of “high value” by means of comparison across the country as a whole, a very high proportion of the properties in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire in particular would be likely to be treated as “high value”. I very much welcome the amendments that my noble friend the Minister has tabled in this group. They will enable the calculations to be undertaken and the agreement to be reached for a determination in each authority, taking account of all individual circumstances.
Of course, the measure is not mechanistic. Trying to argue that “higher” becomes mechanistic is simply trying to introduce rigidity where that is not necessary. The provision as amended would allow a determination to be made in relation to each authority, specific categories of housing or different comparators. It is deliberately flexible. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on all the questions that he said need to be answered in order to proceed. But the point is that if one began to answer all those questions, one would take away from the Government and local authorities, working together, any flexibility to adapt to individual circumstances. In doing so, his proposed Amendment 61A—I cannot find it on the Marshalled List but I interpret from his remarks that it would leave out Clause 67—would take away the opportunity to realise value from the stock of higher-value housing and unlock new build for affordable housing in local authorities, support the right to buy and, by extension through the right to buy in housing associations, offer the additional opportunities for them to undertake new building.
A Select Committee in another place might well think that everything the Government want to do must be funded out of some taxpayer subsidy but the reality is, as we all know, that there is no such magic money tree that we can continue to shake to deliver all the objectives we want. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that we want to build more houses. Frankly, realising value out of the higher-value housing stock that becomes vacant in local authorities is precisely the mechanism for this. That realised value can then be deployed with a multiplier effect to enable local authorities and housing associations, as a result, to build more houses. I thoroughly support that.
Syria: UK Military Action
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be helpful if I make a brief business statement regarding our proceedings this afternoon. There are 64 Back-Bench Members who wish to speak in our debate today. If contributions are limited to four minutes each, we would expect the winding speeches to start at about 9 pm. This would allow the House to make its contribution to the debate before the House of Commons vote on the Government’s proposals, which is expected to be at about 10 o’clock. I remind noble Lords that the clocks are set at zero when they rise to speak and that when the clock shows “4” the full four minutes will have elapsed—so if you see “4”, your time is up. The Whips have been instructed to deal firmly with noble Lords who exceed the speaking time. In the circumstances, I therefore ask noble Lords to be restrained in intervening on speakers.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, if speeches overshoot, what will happen at 9.30 pm?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I can count on this House to show good sense in the way in which it deals with a very important subject. We all have a collective interest in allowing everyone who has indicated a wish to do so to have their say. The whole purpose of this statement is to encourage the House to exercise self-restraint in doing so.
House of Lords Reform
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I quote from a very interesting little article in the New Statesman the other week by Mr Peter Wilby, a former educational correspondent on the Guardian:
“Are the Tories secretly planning to kill off the House of Lords in its present form? It is hard to reach any other conclusion from David Cameron’s extraordinary ennoblement of failed and discredited politicians alongside obscure Tory donors and former special advisers. Now the house has more than 800 members, it has become a joke, even to those who were previously among its firmest supporters”.
In my view and in the eyes of the electorate, this House looks quite ridiculous. All the good work by very talented men and women is now sidelined in a sea of ridicule. A very small number of individuals, party donors, expenses cheats and vendors of access have undermined the credibility and reputation of this institution. It is in that climate that Mr Cameron now intends to stuff not just 50 or 35 Conservative Peers—whatever it is—into the House. This is only the first group; there will be further groups in the next 12 months.
We know he has a problem because the Government want their business to get through, but he created the problem by bringing into this House a disproportionate number of Peers in the last Parliament, many of whom were Liberal Democrats. This is not the first time that he has stuffed the House. He stuffed it with 110 Peers in the period between May and November 2010, putting so much pressure on the introductions system that, in the Procedure Committee, we had to carry two reports that year—the first and third reports—recommending an arrangement for an increase in the daily intake of Members. A Motion was put before the House to do that, and I suspect that it will have to come before the House again. We are in a position to block it if we wish to slow down the process of introduction.
I want a cap and have a partial solution for that: one death equals one new appointment, and one retiree equals one new appointment—what I call the policy of substitution. That approach, in a rather simplistic way, would immediately cap the numbers, but the problem of the disproportionality remains. In the procedures and practices debate earlier this year, I predicted that the Liberals would be reduced to a rump, which they were; that there would a be a huge increase in the UKIP and Green vote, which there was; and that all that would be followed by a further invasion of a large number of Liberal Democrat Peers, who in my view should not be taking their seats in this House at this stage. I recognise the immense contribution made by people like Menzies Campbell and Alan Beith over many years in the House of Commons, but I still do not believe that they should be coming in at this time on the basis of the present arrangement. They should come in on the basis of the policy of substitution which I referred to.
My long-term view has remained the same from the day I was appointed to this House. I believe in either indirect or direct elections, and everything else is a compromise. In the interim, however, how do we proceed to reduce the numbers? The document produced by the Library sets out a number of possible arrangements, such as severance and the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for the 80-plus option. But we could consider a two-tier system of membership: voting membership and non-voting membership. How would you divide the voting membership from the non-voting membership? You could have internal elections, which I suppose could reflect proportionality, or you could have another system which is more blunt but which to some extent takes into account the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. You could have a system whereby those who remained in the House after the age of 80 would simply not have a vote; those under 80 would vote. That would enable those with huge experience who were still clear in their thinking to come to this House and give it the benefit of their judgments and then leave without voting. It would provide them with flexibility in their later lives and yet bring to the House the benefit of their knowledge.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I think I have responded to what the noble Baroness referred to in respect of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Government in our manifesto have committed in this Parliament to massive reform of the kind attempted in the previous Parliament, which failed because the House of Commons would not get behind the legislation. We will not try that in this Parliament. This Government and Prime Minister have given us an opportunity—a period of stability—to address important matters that are necessary for us to remain an effective second Chamber. That is what I want us to do, and I think we should seize that opportunity. It is an opportunity that I, for one, am very enthusiastic about and on which I want to see some progress. I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Baroness referred to all-party discussions. Twenty-six Conservative Peers are to be introduced to the House. If these discussions are to be meaningful, may I suggest a freeze on further appointments after these latest introductions? If there is no freeze, it will make a mockery of the discussions.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As my noble friends behind me are urging me to state, of course I will not agree to conditions as I go into these talks. There will be 26 Conservative Peers joining your Lordships’ House, and I am very much looking forward to welcoming them. There will also be 19 Peers from opposition parties. That is because they are borne out of a Dissolution list that reflects the outgoing Government.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I feel really disappointed. We have spent about six hours today debating this really important matter. I felt that we started off with a real sense of willingness for us all to get together and see some real progress on this important issue. That is what I want to see us do. I want us to make progress in the areas where we ourselves have some control, where we can do something about it. Instead of us looking to the Prime Minister to come up with the answers, and looking for him to take control, let us make some progress. Let us have some action on those areas where we can make progress. That is what I want us to do. I give way, finally, to the noble and learned Lord, and then I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee is an extremely important committee and is made up of Members of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is funded by both Houses of Parliament, yet this House, which I think contributes a very significant proportion of the funding—it would be helpful if the Lord Privy Seal told us what proportion it funds—has only two of the committee’s members. Will the noble Baroness explain the rationale for that? Will she tell us what recommendations or representations she made to the Prime Minister about the Lords representation on this important committee?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to clarify the position a little more. I understand that the Government intended that the costs should be shared between the two Houses but, because the Government could not find accommodation in the Commons or the Lords for the ISC to sit, it was decided not to go ahead with that arrangement, and now the Government themselves fund the committee’s expenditure. Following upon the original recommendation, though, we were told that serious discussions were going on about the need to increase the Lords representation, perhaps to four members but at least to three. What has happened to those discussions? If they have been derailed, could they now be put back on the agenda?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, we have had very little notice of this Motion. We should take some time to discuss it because, particularly now, this is a matter of great importance. Until 2010 the House of Lords had only one representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and in the four years until 2010 I was that Member. Some of us felt that that one Member was not enough. We lobbied hard to ensure that the number of Members from the Lords should be increased, at least to two, to ensure that there was an opposition Member as well as a government Member on the committee, and that was agreed. That is why we were very surprised in 2010 when the then Leader of the House moved that the representatives should be the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler—with no disrespect to either of them. We accepted that and did not create a fuss on that occasion because we expected that account would be taken of the need to have an opposition representative the next time this matter was considered.
That is why I am very surprised that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has come forward again not with an opposition Member but with another Cross-Bencher. With no disrespect to either the noble Marquess, whom I have known for many years, or the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, who served with distinction as secretary to Her Majesty the Queen for a number of years, neither of them could be said to be the most radical, probing person on this issue. Given recent events, the Intelligence and Security Committee is now under intense public, political and media scrutiny, and that is not going to decrease. That is why I think—with no disrespect, as I say, to either the noble Lord or the noble Marquess—that this matter should be taken away and considered again.
As I understand it, there has been no proper consideration with either of the opposition parties— the Liberal Democrats or ourselves—and now the Government have come forward with two names. With respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, she—and indeed the Government, the Chief Whip, whom I know very well, and the whole Conservative Party—would gain a great deal if they accepted that this was a genuine and sincere matter and had another look at it. I hope she will agree to take it away and look at it again.
Care: Costs Cap
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
House of Lords: Membership
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Because we have made it clear in our manifesto that we do not intend to pursue comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, this provides a period of stability when, alongside the priority that I have outlined which is to assist Peers in their decisions about when to attend and when to contribute, if there are other proposals that noble Lords want to put forward that are workable and where a consensus can be reached, clearly I am very interested to hear them.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, produced a perfectly acceptable solution. Will the Leader of the House consider that proposal? In the interim, why do we not avoid public ridicule, bite the bullet and ask the Prime Minister to freeze the size of the House by adopting a new formula: one retirement or one death equals one new appointment?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord refers to my noble friend Lord Jopling’s proposal, which was among those debated when we debated the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, earlier this year. Many different proposals are out there. As I have said, what is important is that any of them needs to be both workable and attract a consensus. The Prime Minister, as all Prime Ministers do, has at his disposal the facility to create Peers. We ourselves need to reflect on our role here and on what measures we can take to ensure that we continue to be effective. It clearly sounds as though that is what all noble Lords want to do.