European Union: United Kingdom Renegotiation

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I always try to operate at a higher level.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not clear that the European Union is incapable of dealing with the greatest challenges which face it— monetary policy and migration—and that it is in decline relative to the global economy? Is it not also evident that supranational political institutions that disregard national sentiment do not endure and that the European Union fails to command the loyalty of its constituent peoples and can therefore be expected to disintegrate, just as did the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia? Should not British policy accord with the march of history?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That was an interesting lesson in history, but at the moment we are concentrating on trying to get a better deal for the British people as regards their current membership of Europe, which I will focus my remarks on today.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not have a constitutional crisis on our hands. We are dealing with two problems, both of which are much more mundane: the problem of Ministers feeling frustrated and sore, and the problem of a system of scrutiny of statutory instruments that we all agree does not work well.

As to statutory instruments, the vote on tax credits and the complaints about that, it is clear that it was not your Lordships who breached any convention governing relations between the two Houses. As we have noted, the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, agreed unanimously by both Houses, made it clear that the House of Lords is entitled to go so far as to vote down a statutory instrument in exceptional circumstances, and the circumstances attending the tax credits SI were exceptional. It is entirely outside the conventions of Parliament, as is made clear in Erskine May, that the Chancellor should have tried to sneak through Parliament in an SI radical and massively contentious legislation on tax credits. He was not candid about the impact of his measure, so that the House of Commons voted it through in ignorance of what it would mean for millions of people on low incomes. It was this House that ensured that the appalling damage the SI would have done to so many of our fellow citizens was correctly understood by Parliament. The Government duly thought again and withdrew the measure.

Wise Ministers recognise that effective opposition benefits the quality of government. Indeed, it has long been one of the most valuable roles of this House—performed sparingly; for sure, only on rare occasions—to rescue a Government from themselves. The pattern in these events is that a Government take it into their head to do something ill-considered and unacceptable; the House of Commons wakes up to what is amiss too slowly; the House of Lords obliges the Government to pause and think again; the public are delighted; government Back-Benchers are relieved; and Ministers go into a sulk and get all huffy about the constitution, but the misguided element of policy is dropped, tempers die down and life then returns to normal.

This Government have behaved true to the pattern so far. First, there was an absurd briefing that the House of Lords was to be suspended. Then there was the threat of the mass creation of new Tory Peers on top of what we have already had. Then the heavy artillery was rolled out: the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was commissioned to carry out a review. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, noted, the noble Lord does not bark, but on behalf of the Prime Minister he growled in his foreword that,

“the patience of the Commons is not unlimited”.

Then, on page 18, he resorted to the assertion that this House had acted in defiance of the Government’s “electoral mandate”. But the Conservative Party never told voters that it intended to make massive cuts to in-work benefits, and it won a House of Commons majority of only 12 seats on the votes of just 24% of the total electorate, so the claim that the Lords defied an electoral mandate is tosh.

In his menu of recommendations the noble Lord set out an outrageous option 1, to remove the House of Lords altogether from consideration of SIs. Almost as threatening to the principle of bicameral government and effective accountability, he also proposed that the House of Commons should consider annexing a greater range of SIs, not just on financial matters, to Commons-only procedures. He made this proposal, notwithstanding that scrutiny by the House of Commons of SIs is perfunctory in the extreme. In committees on SIs, all too many MPs scrutinise their Christmas cards more thoroughly than the legislation before them. If the House of Commons persistently fails to scrutinise legislation adequately, of course more responsibility falls on the Lords, and we should not shirk it. Finally, the noble Lord proposed, as a so-called compromise, statutory regulation of the relationship between the two Houses.

I dread to think what the process of legislation that the noble Lord has advocated would be like. Consideration of such a Bill would be prolonged and expansive. The House of Lords would not—surely it should not—willingly give up its present power to strike down SIs. At the very least, agreement would need to be secured on three points. The first—relatively easy to deal with, but insufficiently guaranteed in the prescription of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—would be that Commons reconsideration must be genuine, with adequate time given to debate and proper explanation of the Government’s position. The second agreement that would be needed is more complex still. It would have to be agreed that statutory instruments were not to substitute for primary legislation. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that we need a Joint Committee of both Houses to review and clarify the appropriate use of SIs and the appropriate means of scrutiny of them in both Houses of Parliament.

The third, and much more difficult condition, but which is essential for the health of Parliament, would be that a limit must be placed on the Prime Minister’s power to pack the government Benches in the Lords and thus disable this House by another means. Surely we will make better progress if we apply ourselves to a renewal of the conventions rather than attempt such legislation.

It is healthy if Governments are nervous of what it is in the power of Oppositions to do. That is a strong argument for our not renouncing fatal Motions. However, it is not an argument against the development, within the conventions, of an additional power that is less devastating than a fatal Motion but less futile than a regret Motion. The precedent has now indeed been set for use by this House, on an important issue, of a delaying power where an SI is concerned. A series of reports, the latest being the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have proposed the formalisation of a new delaying power on SIs exercisable by the Lords. I hope Ministers will now be willing to accept that. I do not see, however, that such a power would need to be created by statute, and I see good reasons why it should not.

The kind of mature relationship that the two Houses need cannot be legislated for. As Professor Dawn Oliver says in her excellent pamphlet, Constitutional Guardians: The House of Lords, what is required in dealings between the Houses is emotional intelligence. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows this really. He opens his report by saying, rightly:

“Conventions in parliament are a cornerstone of our Constitution”.

But he then wrings his hands and despairs of conventions any longer being able to work.

My advice to the Government, if I may be so bold, is to lighten up, and certainly to stop trying to bully this House. It is time now to restore to working relations between the Houses, and within this House, an atmosphere of tact, forbearance, proportion, mutual respect, courtesy and good sense.

Food Supply: Sustainability

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this is a very serious issue, and the Government have been working successfully with industry under the Courtauld commitment to reduce food and packaging waste in the supply chain. It has been reduced by 7.4% since 2010, and clearly this is a continuing process. The amount of food we all waste is disgraceful.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I declare my interest as a farmer receiving EU funds. Sustainability could well be enhanced through local procurement along shorter supply chains. Does the Minister agree that this could increase the supply of fresh, healthy food, reduce farming’s carbon footprint, support UK agriculture and more closely connect the consumer to the producer? If this is the case, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to enhance the supply of local food?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this very much goes to the heart of public procurement. Only last Monday, the Secretary of State announced that Defra is reviewing buying habits across the public sector and working across Whitehall to improve transparency when government catering contracts are due for renewal. Following the launch of Dr Peter Bonfield’s plan for public procurement, there is much more to be done on this.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I know that my ministerial colleagues are working with the RPA on this. We are seeking to ensure that all payments are made promptly and we are working to that effect.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

English Votes on English Laws

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has offered no justification at all for the Government introducing major constitutional change by way of using their majority in the House of Commons to alter the Standing Orders of that House and that House alone—thereby sidelining this House, for which she should speak—and in the process annexing vast power for a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament in the southern part of England to impose their preferences on urban and northern communities where they have no representation. How is that fair?

On the matter of the duty laid upon the Speaker to certify that such measures would apply exclusively to England or England and Wales, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, advised us, that will not be a straightforward matter. He cited the question of tuition fees, but the Statement envisages that there would be a veto, to be exercised by English MPs only, on decisions about the distribution of resources within England, or rates and thresholds of income tax within England. But let us suppose that there were lower rates of income tax in Newcastle than in Glasgow, or that a Government wished to stuff the northern powerhouse with gold: that would have a very important bearing on the fortunes of the Scottish economy. The Speaker would be asked to make not simply a judgment of fact or a technical judgment but a political judgment, and that would not be fair.

Finally, the Leader of the House of Commons says, rather grandly and rather absurdly, “Today, we are answering the West Lothian question”. Does that mean that the noble Baroness can give us an assurance that this Government will have no truck with proposals for an elected second Chamber or a federal second Chamber?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked; I think that he extended them beyond the number that we would normally have time for. He suggested that I had somehow played a part in annexing powers. I cannot stress enough to the noble Lord and to the House that the way in which we operate, how we do our business and the powers that we have are not affected by the changes happening in the other place. We will continue to be able to do precisely what we do now. The change is taking place in the Commons. When we seek to amend a Bill and it applies specifically and only to England, clearly it is right that the English MPs have a voice. However, as I have said, the House of Commons as a whole will retain its voting rights.

Economic and Social Inequality

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will prioritise to reduce economic and social inequality in a One Nation Britain.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, the Government believe that the best way to reduce inequality is by delivering full employment and reducing the number of workless households. By restoring growth to the economy, low-income households will become more likely to enter work, and households will reap the benefits of a growing economy. More people are in work now than ever before, and since 2010 the number of children in workless households has fallen by around 390,000.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Prime Minister sloganises about the Government’s one-nation approach and as the Chancellor forswears any tax increases on the well off and remains bent on hitting the poorest again with a further £12 billion of cuts in social security, is it not inevitable that inequality will worsen, with its associated pathologies of ill health, underperforming education, poor productivity, slow economic growth—as the IMF pointed out this week—and, whatever tokenistic legislation they pass, a budget surplus continuing to recede beyond the horizon?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. Income inequality in the UK has actually come down, and this is reflected in household incomes since 2007-08. The annual average disposable income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £100 in real terms, while over the same period the largest fall has been in income for the richest fifth of households, which has reduced by £3,000 per year. The way to address inequalities, both social and economic, is to get people into work so that they can reap the benefits of full employment.

Parliament: Conventions

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord knows that the 0.7% Bill, which was debated in this House on Friday, is, as he said, a Private Member’s Bill, but it represents a policy that was in the Conservative Party’s manifesto at the most recent election.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, if form should follow function, as the noble Baroness said, and if the function of your Lordships’ House is to act as a revising and advisory Chamber, how can it have been right for the Government to alter the form of the House, as they have, by packing the Benches behind her to create a large in-built government political majority?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I take exception to the language that the noble Lord has used. As he knows, it is important that we continue to refresh this House with new Members. Of the peerages created during this Parliament, 47 have been on the Labour Benches.

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Friday 28th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, every little counts. I add my applause for Mr Dan Byles and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for this further small increment of Lords reform. It is good that the Bill will authorise the House to make arrangements for retirement and will disqualify people for non-attendance. On balance, it is also right that we should have the same provision as the House of Commons to exclude from membership of this House those who are found guilty of a serious criminal offence. In mentioning retirement, let me also say how much I personally shall miss the wisdom and companionship of my noble friend Lord Grenfell.

I regret that practical political circumstances have made it impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to include further measures in the Bill. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford that we should have a power to suspend and expel people who disgrace themselves and the House. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, that it is important that the Appointments Commission should be placed on a statutory basis as soon as possible. I say this with sadness but in the 21st century we really do need to proceed to abolish the principle of hereditary membership of the legislature.

All history and experience teach us that constitutional reform is best when it is incremental and, indeed, that there is very little chance of reform unless it is incremental. There is some talk again of a constitutional commission or convention, and I agree that we have to think systematically. There are great issues before this country; for example, the integrity of the United Kingdom. Whatever the result of the referendum in Scotland, it will have constitutional implications. The imbalance of wealth and power between London and the regions seems to be becoming a constitutional issue, and of course there is the anguished constitutional issue of our relationship with Europe. The future of the House of Lords must depend on the views that are taken and the reforms that may be introduced in relation to all those issues and, no doubt, others.

Reform of the House of Lords seems to exemplify Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. The tortoise starts off slowly on incremental reform, and Achilles, who is the great athlete, flexes his muscles, preens himself and dashes off with a grand scheme of redesign. However, Achilles never overtakes the tortoise. He stumbles and falls, and we have seen an instance of that within this Parliament.

I am therefore wary of grand designs, and I am wary of constitutional conventions that will almost inevitably come up with grand designs for constitutional reform. These radical programmes of change, especially if they are based on rather shallow thought and the arrogant assumption that the Government for the time being have a right to do what they will with our constitution, nearly always fall flat on their face and generate a lot of trouble in the process. Organic reform therefore seems preferable. I applaud not only the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but the Front Benches of the parties, who at long last seem also to agree that incremental change is the right process and the right way to go. Noble Lords want reform. I do not think that I know any Member of your Lordships’ House who is entirely satisfied with the status quo. It has been frustrating to us that the Front Benches have hitherto not allowed us to proceed as we wish to incremental reform.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that the way to reform is incrementally and that the time to reform is when there is demonstrable need, but I also recognise that the call for radical reform is unlikely to go away. One can imagine a certain conjunction of political forces in which a coalition Government would again get the bit between their teeth and feel that they were entitled to legislate for radical constitutional change.

I therefore hope that, if the parties are considering what they may put in their manifestos, they will give consideration to a system of indirect election, a system whereby seats in your Lordships’ House would be allocated to the parties in accordance with the percentage of the vote they obtained at the latest election, leading to composition of the second Chamber which would be proportional to the landscape of political opinion in this country. We could do that with a House of 450, as was recommended by the Joint Committee which scrutinised the draft House of Lords Reform Bill earlier in this Parliament. If the Bishops and the Cross-Benchers were to form 20% of the membership of such a House, I think that we could be confident that no one party would have an overall majority in the House. If they were to form 30% of the composition of the House, I think that we could be confident that no coalition of parties would have an overall majority.

Your Lordships, I think, agree that our House is at its best when Ministers, in order to prevail, have to win the argument and cannot get their way by mobilising the party machines by way of the Whip. When Ministers have to win the argument, the House of Lords is best placed to fulfil its role of advising the House of Commons by way of proposed amendments to legislation.

Under such a system, we would continue with an unpaid and part-time House. Noble Lords would be Members of the House for 15 years, a third of them retiring every five years. A transition to that system could be achieved over three general elections. This is a scheme not unlike what was in the House of Lords Reform Bill, but it substitutes indirect election for direct election. Dr Alexander Reid, who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, has written a paper which demonstrates the feasibility of arriving at such a state of affairs.

If radical reform is to be sought by any of the political parties and in a future Parliament, and if there is truly to be a search for consensus—the phrase that we so often hear—I believe that a scheme of indirect election could be a compromise that sufficiently satisfied the proponents of election and the proponents of an appointed House. It would retain the primacy of the House of Commons, because there would be no direct elections and no geographical constituencies; it would retain the virtues of an appointed House, its independence and the experience and expertise of its Members. However, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that it is not my plan to amend this Bill to that effect, and I suspect that agreement on any scheme of radical reform remains a pipedream. We will therefore proceed incrementally and this measure is a very useful step in that process of increment.

Legal Aid

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. This is not a jump into the dark; it is a recognition of the current situation that the Government face across the board and across every department. We are seeking to focus legal aid spending on those who most need it. Spending on legal aid in the UK amounts to about £39 per head. I reiterate that one should look at some of the figures, even making international comparisons. Compared with like-for-like systems—for example, New Zealand at £18, Canada at £10 and Ireland, next door to us, at £20 per head—our legal system will, after the efficiencies are made, still remain one of the best in the world.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has just spoken of efficiencies. How is it efficient to impair the quality of justice?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, I disagree with the noble Lord. Looking around the world, and speaking for the Benches behind me, I believe that our justice system is one of the best in the world and will continue to be so, despite the efficiencies being made. I do not agree with the picture that the noble Lord paints.

House of Lords: Debates

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Perhaps that sound is someone ringing from another place with a view on the quality of our debates. The response that the House gave to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin reminds us that we do not want slavishly to follow examples in another place.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, if there were to be a minimum ration of, say, five minutes for each speech, surely it would not matter very much if from time to time debates ran on a little longer. That would facilitate the kind of more spontaneous and lively debating that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly calls for while ending what is, frankly, the demeaning practice of limiting the time for noble Lords’ speeches sometimes to three minutes, and sometimes to two minutes or even one.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The whole House has taken a view about time-limited debates. The advantage of them is that noble Lords know how long they have to speak, when the debate is going to take place and so on. The ingenious suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about allowing things to run on would effectively take time from someone else, and they would have an equally strong view the other way. These are not straightforward issues. One point worth making generally is that the amount of time in the previous Session set aside for debates was actually greater than that in the previous three Sessions. The noble Lord will probably know that I have brought forward proposals to the Procedure Committee to try to increase opportunities for debate and, importantly, for topical debates in particular because I know that there is widespread demand for that opportunity.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Howarth of Newport Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to proceed with any reforms to the composition of the House of Lords.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Government have no further plans for legislation to reform this House in this Parliament.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, given that the House of Commons has made it absolutely clear that it will not tolerate the challenge to its primacy of an elected second Chamber, given the Deputy Prime Minister’s sensible acknowledgement that the best is the enemy of the good and given the undesirability in the interests of good government that the question of Lords reform should overshadow the next Parliament, will Ministers introduce legislation in this Parliament to enable us to resolve the issues of how Members are to be appointed to the House of Lords, the future size of the House, how the balance between the political parties, the Cross Benches and the Lords spiritual is to be determined, the future of hereditary membership and life peerages, and provision for retirement and disqualification, all of which need to be resolved and upon which sufficient consensus could be achieved?