Scotland Bill

Lord Gilbert Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, once again, as we did in Committee, we have had a passionate debate. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said in his closing comments, it has been a debate where clearly there is a strong emotional sense that what happens at the moment is not right. I want to salute my noble friend Lord Forsyth for the tenacity with which he has pursued this issue. I indicated in Committee that I certainly would reflect on the strong views expressed then. As I said, my officials and I have engaged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and indeed with Universities Scotland. These are discussions to see if we could identify some way to resolve this problem rather than just accept an anomaly that we must live with, as my noble friend Lord Vallance said.

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, I realise that it is normal to intervene towards the end of a Minister’s remarks, but I think on this occasion it is rather more helpful to intervene at the beginning. What I would like to know is: when are we going to have the dinner break?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I probably share the noble Lord’s feelings on this. For that reason, I think it is only right that I do proper justice to the many comments that have been made; but I will try to do so as concisely as possible so that we can proceed. I accept and I have heard again the strictures that have been made about the timing.

As was expressed very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, today we are debating an issue caused by the fact that higher education is devolved across the United Kingdom.

This UK Parliament is responsible for higher education in England, in Scotland the Scottish Government are responsible, in Wales the Welsh Assembly has responsibility and in Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Executive has responsibility. All four countries in the UK have chosen to fund higher education in different ways. Because of EU law, and my noble friends Lord Stephen and Lady Brinton have both explained the limitations of what is permitted under EU law, non-UK EU students in universities in the UK are entitled to the same financial support regarding tuition fees as local students. We recognise, and perhaps this is common ground, that our challenge is to ensure access to university education and to ensure the quality of that education.

A point that I should make at the beginning, and I will deal with this in a little more detail as I proceed, is that English students attending Scottish universities should be no worse off than English students attending English universities as a result of the present arrangements. The latest figures from UCAS at 21 February this year, compared with the same date a year earlier, show that as a proportion of the total number of applicants so far, prospective English students have not been put off from applying to Scottish universities. In both years, 5 per cent of the total population of applicants have applied to a Scottish university. That is a circumstance where the English students are aware that they would be no worse off if they choose to attend a university in Scotland than if they went to a university in another part of the UK.

I do not want to open this up into a wider debate on tuition fees but the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated that part of the Scottish Government’s response to the UK Government deciding that, to ensure the long-term sustainability of higher education, tuition fees were to be increased was that the Scottish Government had decided to fund undergraduate tuition fees for Scottish students and directly fund Scottish universities, which are therefore able to charge students from the rest of the UK up to £9,000 a year. This means that attending university in Scotland, as I have said, should be no more expensive per year for an English student than for an English student attending a university in England. Indeed, as university courses in Scotland are typically four years long, many Scottish universities have committed to charging students from the rest of the UK a maximum of £27,000 for a four-year course—the same as the maximum fee that students would pay for a three-year course in England.

The fee, however, is only one part of the equation of student finance. The universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews, which have not capped for a four-year course, have both committed to providing generous bursaries to students from the rest of the UK. Little has been said in today’s debates about that aspect of student finance. Edinburgh University is offering bursaries of up to £7,000 a year to the least well-off English students, which they can use either to reduce their fees or to help them with their living costs. St Andrews University will be topping up support for all English students who qualify for a maintenance grant so that they will receive no less than £7,500 a year in total government and bursary support.

That is why I do not recognise what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said about only the very rich paying up-front fees. It is not a question of up-front fees; for English students in England or Scotland, the loans that cover the fees do not start to be repaid until they are earning at least £21,000 a year.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Gilbert Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, that is an important point, but the answer is that if you legislate on the principle, as this Bill when an Act will seek to do, the electorate will be entitled to know what it is voting for at any election. Will it get a fixed-term Parliament unless the legislation is amended or repealed, or will the Government and the Prime Minister retain the right to choose when to go to the country? If the Government decide to repeal the legislation or amend it, they are likely to put that in their manifesto. On the basis of these amendments, the Government will have the right after the election to determine what the electorate has given them. That, in my respectful submission, is wrong in principle.

Furthermore, the amendments are inconsistent with the Parliament Act 1911. By that Act, the House of Commons can insist on legislation that does not extend the life of a Parliament and this does not extend the life of a Parliament, with the exception of the possible two-month extension, and we do not know what will happen to that. This House can only delay legislation. By these amendments, because of the provision for a resolution of both Houses, the power of this House would be there to deny passage to a resolution that the House of Commons wished to pass. That again is contrary to the principle and militates against these amendments.

The so-called sunrise clause in Amendment 25 would cause chaos. By way of example, under Amendment 25, the schedule would come into force only to the end of the first meeting of the next Parliament, but that schedule is the one that would repeal the Septennial Act 1715 among other things. Would that suddenly come back into force after the next election?

The amendments are understated in their presentation. They hand straight back to the Prime Minister and the Government of the day, with no need for legislation, the power to choose the timing of the next election. That is the answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she intervened on my noble friend Lord Tyler.

[Lord Gilbert]

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord’s speech. Over and again I heard him say that the Prime Minister would have total power to choose the general election date. Has it never occurred to him that the monarch has a say in that? The noble Lord finds that funny, but I do not.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

We plainly take a different view of the constitutional arrangements. The monarch has a say in certain very limited circumstances but, by and large, in a constitutional monarchy she takes the advice of the Prime Minister and is very careful to avoid becoming embroiled in constitutional disputes of this sort.

[Lord Gilbert]

Is the noble Lord actually advancing the proposition that the monarch has no discretion whatever as to whether she actually accedes to a request for a dissolution?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Noble Lords will have heard me say that her discretion is very limited and that she seeks to stay out of controversy of this sort where she possibly can. Plainly, sometimes, the monarch’s role is to get involved and sometimes that is unwisely exercised, as with the dismissal by Sir John Kerr of the Government of Gough Whitlam in Australia. That was not the monarch directly, but it was the monarch’s representative and that shows the danger of the monarch becoming involved. Controversy has raged ever since in Australia and elsewhere about that exercise of the royal prerogative. It is a dangerous one.

My point is that if you read these amendments carefully, a resolution of both Houses would be required for this legislation to survive beyond the first meeting after the next election. That is wrong. If Parliament wishes to change the law, it needs to pass new law to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gilbert]

Is not the danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just referred only likely to arise if both Houses are elected? [Laughter]

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

It is very difficult to answer that question, and I will not try.

This is an important opportunity for the Government to show their sincerity in relation to the way that constitutional legislation should be done and to accept the amendments. If they do not, I will support the movers of the amendment if they put it to the vote.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Gilbert Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I have a specific question for the Minister. The debate has concentrated exclusively on the interests of the Member of Parliament. In drafting the Bill, particularly with the squeeze from what was 12 or 13 years down to five, did the Government ask colleagues in local government, anywhere in the country, what use they make of parliamentary boundaries? Again, I quote only the example I know of from representing part of a large city, but each time the boundaries were changed for constituencies in the city of Birmingham—I had three elections on one set, then they changed; three elections on another, then they changed—they were used by the local authority for managing and administering social services. Because a big city of a million people had to be divided up, they set up the structural management of more than one of the key departments—it was probably three—to match those boundaries. That made sense, because those boundaries were coterminous with ward boundaries as well, so when it changed at each boundary review they looked at the structure and changed the management and delivery of those services.

I do not know whether that happens in the county areas because of their nature. I do not know about that, but did the Government ask what use local government makes of the boundaries? In that case, given the fact that they have more or less three elections on the same boundaries, you could do it. If it comes down to five years along with a fixed-term parliament, there is no way that local government will be able to organise the management and keep changing the delivery structure or the management of personnel at that speed. My question is really: was local government asked about what use it makes of constituency boundaries for the management and administration purposes of its services?

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, listening today to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, confirmed my long-held view that the voters of the Black Country are by far the most sophisticated in the country. The noble Lord expressed concern that the consequences of this legislation would be the introduction of ward bosses into Glasgow. I first arrived in the Black Country 40 years ago, and I can tell him that we knew all about ward bosses then. It made your job a lot easier if you were trying to get reselected because you knew who you had to go to and who you had to keep sweet. If they have not yet got around to that system in Glasgow, I am very surprised.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

They are certainly getting into that system—they probably visited the noble Lord’s constituency—but my point is that it would become more intense.

[Lord Gilbert]

I am obliged. My second point is that we all come here with different experiences. I have heard many glowing references to the work of the Boundary Commission and the inquiries and hearings that it had. As far as I am concerned, it is a damned waste of time. It never took a blind bit of notice of anything that was said. Even when, as was always the case in Dudley, the Conservative MP for Dudley West and I as the Labour MP for Dudley East made identical recommendations, these people again took no notice of them whatever. Unsurprisingly, the extremely distinguished Conservative Member for Dudley West wanted all the Conservative voters and I wanted the Labour voters; it seemed to be an extraordinarily simple arrangement that could easily have been accommodated, but the commission never paid any attention to what we had to say.

Thirdly, on a slightly more serious point, I make no imputation—if I have the Minister’s attention; how kind of him—that the Government are trying to derive party advantage from these proposals. I have disagreed with some of the proposals before in the Bill, but these are the only ones that I find profoundly dangerous. I really hope that the Minister will go away and look at them. The idea that you pick everything up by the roots and look at it every five years, and the consequences—I forget which of my noble friends said this—for both parties, where people would be squabbling for selection at the next election and the election after that, would be very serious. I hope very much that the Government will think again.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I feel more than usually inadequate to speak in this particular debate, as I think I am the only speaker—it does not matter whether it is the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who responds—who, much to my regret, has never been a Member of the other place. Much of this interesting and helpful debate has been about the role of Members of the other place. Still, let me do my best.

In our amendment the other day—I cannot blame noble Lords if they have not exactly remembered every single phrase of it—we suggested from the Front Bench that the periodic boundary review should occur no later than every six years. We recognise the concerns that the current rules under which the Boundary Commission carries out its work—namely, eight to 12 years—is perhaps too long. Many argue that the extent to which boundaries have become out of date in the intervening time between the commission reporting and new boundaries applying following a general election is unsatisfactory, and we are tempted to support action to address that. The British Academy report on the Bill has concluded that,

“population movements are considerable over relatively short periods of time”.

We acknowledge that that may even happen within a five-year period. However, there has to be a balance, at the very least, between that consideration and the workability of the task that this Bill in particular is asking of the Boundary Commission. That is how we came up with the figure of not more than six years.

The arguments employed during this debate give us some cause for reflection about whether “not more than six years” is necessarily the right length of time. The powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, and others about the role of Members of Parliament raise significant and real points. I was intrigued by the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, to the points that were made. I particularly enjoyed—I say this with the greatest affection—how he talked about boundary changes in his old constituency where, on the borders, there were Liberal, Labour and Conservative seats. I could not help thinking that he had managed to be a member of more than half of those parties, although I would never accuse him of being a Conservative.

More seriously, to have a review every seven years leaves it just a bit too long. The same applies to the other amendment in this group, which suggests eight years rather than seven. We would like—if this is possible for the Opposition—to go back and consider whether our point about six years strikes the right balance. On the Front Bench we have been rather attracted by the arguments that have been employed about how, unless the electorate decide differently, it is important that there is a certain stability for Members of Parliament, if only to encourage people from all walks of life to go for that honour.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Gilbert Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

There are many ways in which one can be an active citizen, and I enumerated some of them when introducing a debate on that very subject in this House shortly before Christmas.

I do not wish to detain the House, and I am conscious that the hour is late and that many will wish to reach a decision on this. However, I want to say that I am distressed by the fact that so many noble Lords for whom I have a high regard should imply that this deliberative process would bring about a better end point than the deliberations of our Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to as the mother of Parliaments. It is so highly regarded largely because it is thought to act, usually, in a deliberate and wise way. On this occasion, the silence on these Benches indicates consent to what the Bill is putting forward, and an awareness that those opposing it are seeking to stop it from making progress and to stymie the efforts to achieve the constitutional reform that is long overdue.

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, in the 27 years that I was in another place I represented all that time the good people of Dudley. The extraordinary thing is that I represented no fewer than three distinct and different constituencies, and was chosen to stand as a candidate for a fourth constituency, within the boundaries of Dudley. That was not so much an inconvenience to me, but an infuriating irritant to the good people of Dudley.

I have also seen the consequences—as, no doubt, many other noble Lords have—of constituencies that cross local authority boundaries. That is not only an inconvenience to the Member of Parliament but an enormous inconvenience to elected councillors and paid officials of the different local authorities. It is beyond an irritant; it drives ordinary citizens berserk because they do not know who to go to. It is not a question of parliamentary convenience.

Long ago I came to the view that this manic idea that we have to have precise mathematical equivalence in constituency numbers is a hobgoblin of very small minds indeed. We should be big enough to accept certain anomalies in our constitutional system without recoiling with shrieks of “unfair, unfair”. There is no such thing as a fair system, because what is unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whose speech I largely agreed with, is fair to me; and vice versa. There is no such thing as an ideal fair system which is just to be grasped and which ordinary reasonable people would sit down and agree with. Ça n’existe pas, it never will, and we should accept anomalies.

Earlier in this debate, one noble Lord talked about his difficulties in visiting a part of his constituency which was an island. When I first represented Dudley, it was an island.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Gilbert]

Oh yes it was. The centre of Dudley was a part of Worcestershire that was wholly surrounded by Staffordshire. I represented a constituency called Dudley, but which was actually and simultaneously Dudley and Stourbridge. The country got by quite well with that, except rather inconveniently at electioneering time when my wife and I swapped ends. In the mornings, I was in Dudley while she was in Stourbridge, and vice versa in the afternoons and evenings. However, the principle was exactly the same as that adumbrated by my noble friend. Surely to god this country is big enough to accept a few minor anomalies and have something like the Isle of Wight with a much bigger electorate, if it wants that. The idea that we should try to produce equivalence in numbers of constituents—with all the consequences that it produces—is quite absurd.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment and is the inevitable consequence of doing what the constitutional committees in both Houses of this Parliament have complained about.

The chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the Commons issued a report on 2 August which stated:

“Your legislative timetable has put me and my committee in an extremely difficult position. When the House agreed to establish the committee, it did so, in the words of the Deputy Leader of the House, ‘to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister’. In the case of these two bills”—

one of them is this Bill—

“you have denied us any adequate opportunity to”,

scrutinise. Our own Constitution Committee said:

“In general we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other”.

It is possible that the effect of Part 1 of the Bill as drafted will have no effect on our constitution. There is no doubt that if Part 2 in its current form goes through, it will have a substantial effect on our constitution. I very strongly empathise with the very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Boateng. What would we say to a country that said, “We are going to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in our country by 50 by using our majority to do so”? We would say, “It may well be sensible to reduce or increase the number of Members of Parliament in your country, but presumably there is some sort of independent process by which the number is to be assessed”.

The number of Members of Parliament in this country has fluctuated over a period of 60 or 70 years. That fluctuation has always been as a result of recommendations of the Boundary Commission. It is a very dangerous precedent for a majority in the House of Commons, and then a practical political majority in this House, to push forward a change in the number of Members of the House of Commons.

Even if there was not some independent justification for the reduction from 650 to 600, is there some intellectual justification for the reduction from 650 to 600? How many of your Lordships were present when the Leader of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave as the justification that it was a nice, round number? There is no intellectual justification and no independent justification of any sort whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whom I respect for the work he did in pioneering the way for constitutional change, says sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and go for it; it is leadership that matters. We have never done that in this country since 1944 in relation to how our democracy is based.

In 1944 a Speaker’s Conference set up the current method for determining constituencies and the number of Members of Parliament. That was given effect in an Act of 1949. There was a further Act in 1954 which gave effect to a consensus that there should not be too radical changes in the number of Members of Parliament. There were further changes in 1986 by a Government led by Mrs Thatcher—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—which we, the Labour Party, broadly supported. Further changes were introduced in 1992 by a Government led by Mr John Major, which we broadly supported. There was one occasion in which jiggery-pokery was attempted by a Government and that was in 1969 by a Government led by Harold Wilson and the Labour Party. What happened was that this House rejected the Bill that sought to tamper with a boundary revision.

So do not tell us that Parliament has not proceeded by way of consensus; Parliament has behaved exceptionally well. I think that it is a disgrace that there is absolute silence from the other side, as without independent justification and without intellectual justification a Leader of this House treats this House and the parliamentary system with contempt by saying it is a nice, round number. I see Back-Benchers nodding that it is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not; it is a disgraceful argument.