Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

1: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Draft written constitution
The convention shall produce a draft written constitution on the powers and functions of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, if ever I had any doubts about the need for a written constitution, the very short debates that we have had on Clauses 2 and 3 stand part have proved the need for it. We have heard in miniature today a repeat of the hundreds of hours and millions of words spent on reform of the House of Lords. The idea that there can be some form of citizen-led consensus is, frankly, nonsense. We are faced with a constant clamour for this Chamber to be an elected House. I have no objection to that in principle—in fact there is much to be said for it—but what has not been discussed by any method is the relationship between the two Houses once we have an elected House. You cannot have two elected Houses without their powers being specifically defined.

As an example of how things seem to have changed, we recently had a little kerfuffle—a stooshie, as I like to call it—over tax credits. This House decided to reject the statutory instrument, and the Government immediately had a knee-jerk reaction and set the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to look at how things should be changed. The fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted in their entirety the views of this House on tax credits validates the right of this House to reject the statutory instrument. Perhaps the best thing we could do is to say that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should be stood down.

Much has been said. Constitutions; elections; the number of possible ways of voting, such as first past the post and proportional representation; the possibility that this House might be indirectly elected according to the proportion of the votes cast at the general election—all these have been discussed, and again there has been no consensus. I think that the clamour for election means that it is now inevitable, but one has to realise that the moment when the first elected Member enters this House, the whole dynamic will change. Perhaps it will change even before there is an elected House, because this House will then have the legitimacy to challenge fiercely the House of Commons, in a way that it has never challenged before. The only way to ensure that the supremacy of the House of Commons is maintained is by a written constitution.

Given the earlier debate about the difficulties caused by the number of tasks that this convention has to do, I hesitate to add yet another; nevertheless, I think it is essential. This set of affairs is very interesting but I believe very strongly in a written constitution. Of course, there is no guarantee that it would solve all the difficulties between the two Houses, especially two elected Houses. Implicit in my proposed new clause is the suggestion that, if there is to be a written constitution, there has to be a mechanism for change, and that takes us to interesting places and possibilities.

It is interesting, for example, to look at the United States constitution, which dates from March 1789. Since then, 37 amendments have been proposed, 27 of which have been ratified. Interestingly, the 27th was first proposed in 1789 but was never actually ratified until May 1992 —200 years later—so I suppose that one could argue that written constitutions are no short-term issue.

Of course, written constitutions can be overturned and manipulated. The most notorious example of manipulation of a constitution was what happened in the old South African Parliament before the end of apartheid. Written into the South African constitution were what we call entrenched clauses, which could be changed only by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament sitting together. The Government of the day wanted to remove the right of Cape Coloureds to be on the common voters’ rolls in Cape Province. They argued that they had a mandate for change and therefore they tried to amend the constitution by a simple majority in each House.

The courts in South Africa—which, by the way, have been seen as a bastion of freedom—ruled that that was not possible, so the Government came up with the wheeze that they would declare that the elected House of Parliament would become a high court of Parliament and would then rewrite the constitution. Not surprisingly, that, too, was rejected. The South African Government then simply increased the size of the Senate, increasing the numbers that could be nominated to it, thereby getting the two-thirds majority that they desired. As a matter of insurance, they increased the size of the Appellate Division of the legal system with their own placement to make sure that the law did not interfere again with what they were doing. In fact, they did not need to do that because the courts accepted that that was possible.

A written constitution is certainly necessary. If you think that the clamour—I call it a citizen-led clamour—for change is bad now, can you imagine what will happen when the second Chamber is elected? There will be incessant demands for change, should there be a clash, so a written constitution is an absolute necessity. I suspect that we are going to get constitutional change sooner rather than later, and when that time comes it is essential that the new, elected House of Lords, for want of a better phrase, and the elected House of Commons do not spend their early days squabbling about constitutional matters—about who has the right to do this and who has the right to do that.

There are far too many cynics around today who denigrate not just our parliamentary and political systems but the whole idea that politics has anything to offer. Nothing would give them more joy than to see a new system involved in arguments about who had the right to do this, that or the other. Although I do not like a written constitution—I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has the same view—I am absolutely convinced that it is necessary for the good of the country and the future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I enjoy the interactions with the Minister on this aspect, although we do not see eye to eye. I think he was referring to the previous constitutional history of England when he said “this country”. It is worth mentioning that. We often have to reflect on the previous errors of England in the constitutional history of these nations—plural.

I understood the amendment to require, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, a more codified relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords, and that it was not a consideration of a wider British written constitution. But I respect the extensive experience of the noble Lord in the other place and in this House, and share many of his views about the need for a more codified relationship in respect of our governance. It is interesting that those who now seem to set their faces against that—primarily the Government—are happy to institute processes that do not necessarily have any end or focus at all.

One example was the debate we had on incremental and gradual change of the House of Lords. Any objective observer of that process would feel that what the Minister said was a criticism of my Bill, but it could be applied exactly, in fact more so, to the process of reform that his own party is putting forward. That is amplified by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has proposed that external people should interfere in the procedures of this House, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It is probably more appropriate for the Government to adopt a slightly different tone, because there is now justification for moving towards a more codified system of relationships between the nations and our governance.

I shall go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Incidentally, if the Minister thinks that a superhuman expert is required for the running of such a convention, the more the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, contributes to that debate, the better. Much as he may indicate that he is ruling that out, I cannot think of anyone more qualified or who could give me greater assurance in running this constitutional convention. He pointed out some of the difficulties we have been having without a more codified system that also ultimately seeks a degree of flexibility.

Turning to the amendment, if the conclusion of the convention’s deliberations was that our relationship with the legislation we consider needs to be dealt with through a written constitution, that would be one of the benefits of such a convention and a justifiable part of it. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that the convention should be empowered to consider this issue itself.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, rather than introduce clarity, I seem only to have introduced more confusion. It is clear that I have not been able to persuade the Committee of the magnitude of the change that will happen if we have two elected Chambers. It is a recipe for clashes all the time, so in my view it is essential that that is taken on board. I appreciate the difficulties of time, but the noble Lord said that it would be a mechanism for changing the written constitution. I said in my opening remarks that there would have to be mechanisms for doing that. If there is no mechanism such as a written constitution, how would we adjudicate between two elected Houses? I suppose that there is only one other possibility. Each time there was a failure to agree, it would have to go to judicial review. However, it would be somewhat ironic to abolish a predominantly nominated, unelected House of Lords of whatever number, only to be governed by a small number of unelected, appointed judges. That needs to be considered more deeply than it has been in the past. I also take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, all of us in the Government are well aware that each three months our meetings are pored over and officials ask us to specify who met us, and on whose behalf if that is not entirely clear. I recognise that that has not been pulled together for all members of the Government and we should perhaps look at finding a programme which will enable us to pull all that together more easily. However, we have made progress. Whoever forms the Government after the election will discover how immensely difficult this area is and will, I suspect, decide to let this legislation bed down for a period before they move on to the next step.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that what he says sounds very much like the situation in the old days when there was a campaign to get a register of interests of Members of Parliament and, indeed, of Members of this House? However, it is always too difficult and it always takes a long time. What we really need now is action. Will the Minister give it to us?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is action—we have forced professional consultants to register. The regulations set out the terms and conditions under which they will have to register and list the companies and interests on whose behalf they are lobbying. I think we all recognise how difficult it is to define lobbying. All of us in this Chamber are lobbied every day, often by people who are paid for the messages they give us or the meetings they have with us. When they represent a clear interest, that is registered in our diaries if we are members of the Government. That is clear. It is the consultant lobbyists on whom we are focusing.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord in his amendment, although I am not sure that I entirely support him in his argument. He suggests that the very unfortunate circumstances of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw have weakened his argument but, on the contrary, they have strengthened it, at least in so far as my own opposition to the Bill is concerned. We have argued throughout these proceedings against the basis on which the Government have introduced the Bill. Where people have done something wrong—or, in the case of these two Members, appear to have done something wrong; we have not yet heard the facts or the circumstances of each case—the immediate reaction of the parties will be to withdraw the Whip, which is what happened to both Mr Straw and Mr Rifkind, making it impossible for them to face their electors as Conservative or Labour candidates. I do not for the life of me see how this Bill will operate in circumstances where the leaderships of political parties rush to judgment before they have the facts and remove the Whip.

The noble Lord’s amendment is sensible in that it extends the range of penalties so that the penalty can fit the misdemeanour. By making the range of penalties so slight, it puts the committee in a difficult political position, which it most certainly should not be in. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord’s amendment, although I do not share his views on the wisdom of recall. Members of Parliament should be able to face their electors. However, in the case of Malcolm Rifkind, we are on the eve of a general election, and if the Government really believed that it was up to the voters of Kensington to decide, he would have been able to go forward as a candidate and put his case to the voters. In practical terms, that is not what has happened, and I believe that that would be the case in every circumstance where this legislation may be required, which is why I do not support the legislation but do support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we are all agreed that this is not the time to discuss recent matters in the press. It is certainly not the time for your Lordships’ House to be apparently trying to make things easier for recalcitrant or erring MPs. I stress, as we all have, that none of us has any time for MPs who transgress the rules or MPs’ discipline in any form.

When we were arguing the case for 15 days rather than 10, it was not a matter of protecting MPs; it was a matter of justice. Things have to be done properly, which is what this House is about. In passing, I will say that I welcome the amendments that we will be discussing later when they are moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, if only because they destroy the defence he offered that we cannot change what has been done in the House of Commons. The refrain we have heard throughout the amendments is that, whatever the case, the other place has decided and we must not seek to overturn it.

I know a lost cause when I see one and I appreciate that the chances are that the Minister will not accept this amendment. However, may I suggest to him a novel procedure? Would he perhaps accept the amendment on the understanding that the reason for doing so would simply be to allow the other place to look at the matter again? This is the last opportunity for that to be done; there is no other way for this to be discussed further unless the Minister accepts this amendment. If he accepts my suggestion of accepting the amendment on the understanding that it is purely and simply to allow further discussion in the other place, I give him my personal guarantee—and, I believe, the guarantee of everyone on this side of the House—that when it comes back there will be no opposition whatever if the Government decide to press on with 10 days.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to add just a few words because this is an extremely important issue. I am very grateful that my noble friend has raised it again. The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, show how complex the issue is, and yet it is treated as very simple. His comments about the withdrawal of the Whip and the inability of someone subsequently to stand in a by-election have not been discussed and fully thought through. I think that that shows how hastily this legislation has been pushed through despite the fact that people have been talking about it for many years.

However, I support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Hughes. In all the times that we have discussed this matter in the House, the Minister has never said why the Government have changed their mind and why they are sticking now to 10 days when they thought that 20 days was appropriate. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I have served on the Privileges Committee in another place. I can vouch, as he does, for the fact that the discussions on that committee—in my day it was under the chairmanship of the late Lord Newton—were never political. Discussions never led to a schism in the committee along political lines. I think that there is a very real danger that that is what will happen if we do not seek some changes even at this late stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I understand my noble friend’s position as leading for the Opposition, but I know of nowhere in any election manifesto or decision where we stand or fall by a matter of 10 days, 15 days or 20 days. The principle is not being attacked in any sense by this amendment. I beg of her, as I have asked the Minister, at least to think about the possibility—without committing the party at the other end to change its mind—of looking at the matter afresh, just to give it a chance.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I am coming to the matter of days in a moment. It is right to reiterate what many people outside Parliament feel about when someone is judged to have done something that even their peers in the other place consider inappropriate behaviour. In most other walks of life, one would not automatically be able to continue in one’s job. Therefore, there should be a possibility for recall at that point.

The second point is whether the particular number of days, which is what we are discussing in this amendment, is the right one. A different proposal was made by the coalition Government at the beginning. It was debated in the other place, although it may not have been debated at great length, and it has certainly been debated here, in Committee and on Report. A judgment has always to be made.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21, I will speak to Amendments 22 and 23 as well. Amendment 21, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is an extremely important amendment. Amendments 21 and 22 together would restrict donations to all campaigners in the recall process to our normal rules. Thus it would forbid non-permitted—essentially foreign—donors flooding a constituency with money that they would be banned from giving to political parties. These amendments are not an attempt to restrict the activity of non-accredited campaigners who could have an important role to play in a recall but to ensure that this group of campaigners does not have access to funds from individuals or companies not domiciled here, funds which, quite rightly, are barred to MPs and political parties. Amendment 21 would ensure that all donations to both accredited and non-accredited campaigners are allowed only from permissible donors as defined in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the Bill. Amendment 22 would ensure that donations to non-accredited campaigns are treated the same as for accredited campaigns and covered by PPERA.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, stated that all campaigners will be subject to rules on the content of their literature, including imprints, as well as rules on acting in concert, notional petition expenses and pre-election expenses. We welcome this but it leaves the key matter of donations unregulated. Let me paint a picture for noble Lords and indeed the Electoral Commission, which in a rather odd briefing to us yesterday said:

“It is not clear what … benefit there would be to control the source of donations over £500 to campaigners who are only allowed to spend up to £500 on a petition”.

It must have read the amendment wrong because Amendment 21 would control all donations, not just those over £500. I shall explain why this amendment is needed. As the Bill stands, 20 separate donations of £500 could be given to individuals or campaigns all from foreign donors completely under the radar, equating to the same amount that could be spent by the one accredited campaign of the MP concerned who, of course, can take no such money.

In Committee the Minister indicated that he did not want overburdensome regulations for smaller, non-accredited campaigns. While I appreciate this, I think the Government have gone too far the other way by allowing these campaigns to spend up to £500 without any restriction on the source of their funds, possibly all of which could come from non-permissible donations. Stopping money from abroad is important in itself, while reporting the source of donations should surely be expected of all campaigners during such an important democratic process that the Government have said they want to be open and transparent. I hope that the Government will therefore accept the amendment to rule out the possibility of donations which would not be allowed during a general election, or indeed at any other time, being suddenly allowed during this significant period—the petition to sack an MP. The Electoral Commission somehow has bought, without query, the Government’s assumption that a petition would not,

“attract significant amounts of spending”.

Neither it nor the Government seem concerned that perhaps that assumption is misguided. The lack of control over donations is a glaring omission from the Bill, which we seek to rectify.

Amendment 23 is about fairness. It would take big money out of the equation and have just two accredited campaigns—one in favour of recall and one against. It would create a level playing field for the two sides, allowing voters to hold their MP to account while allowing that MP to make the case for remaining their representative. The wording of the amendment, which would limit the number of accredited campaigns to two—a pro and an anti-recall—is modelled on legislation governing the Scottish referendum. In that case, which we are not seeking to repeat, an equal monetary amount was prescribed for each side. That we regard as entirely sensible and fair, and it should be replicated during a recall—not the giving of money to both sides but ensuring an equality of arms between them so that they can each make their case: one for a by-election and one against. There are just two sides to the argument and they should be equally matched. There can be no case, on the grounds of fairness, against that.

Without Amendment 23 there is no limit on the number of pro-recall accredited campaigns, each of which could spend £10,000, against the MP’s single £10,000, so that one side could outspend the other five or even 10 times over. For example, an MP in a three or four-way marginal could face the three or more parties defeated at the previous election, each of them able to spend £10,000 to force a by-election, and that is before any local or national group decided to take an interest in the matter. We surely have to regulate against this, otherwise the reasons behind a recall being triggered will be thrown out of the window and the issue will become one of asking, “Do we want a by-election?”. If it is a marginal seat or if the Government have a majority of one, the answer will be driven by that and not by the behaviour of the incumbent MP. Therefore, voters will not be signing to hold their representative to account for his or her actions but it will be a referendum on the popularity of the Government, the surge of support for a new, emergent party, a campaign on fracking or whatever. Money and broader politics will count, not the record of the MP concerned.

A recall petition will have been triggered by a single event—say, a sentence of imprisonment or 10 days’ suspension from the House. However, multiple groups could then run individual campaigns on grounds entirely different from the reasons behind the recall. These could be the voting record or beliefs of the MP, or the availability of a national platform to launch a campaign on some topical issue—Europe comes to mind, should a promised referendum not materialise. Without a limit on the pro-by-election campaign, myriad groups could make their case, each spending £10,000 on the back of their MP’s misbehaviour.

I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing, does not feel that it,

“should be given the responsibility of registering campaigners at an event that is confined to only one constituency”.

I do not think that it is for the commission to decide whether it is up to it, but if Parliament accepts the fairness of this amendment then either the Electoral Commission should do this to ensure that our politics are kept clean of big money or we can ask some other body to do so.

We support the recall process, as it follows a finding about an MP’s behaviour and gives the local electorate the chance to decide whether, in the light of that conduct, they still want the MP to be their representative in Parliament. However, that process must be fair. Our amendment would introduce a crucial element of fairness, an equality of arms and a top limit on the total expenditure permitted in the constituency during this process. It would also make sure that we had control over foreign money coming in during the recall process. I beg to move.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. At an early stage this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that he thought and hoped that the recall process would be effective and be conducted politely in a civilised manner. I wish that that were the case. I think that what divides us across the Chamber throughout this Bill is not so much the principle—I think we all agree with the principle—but how it will be approached. Some people may think there has been exaggeration of how bodies coming from outside the constituency to fight against the MP are calling for recall on issues unconnected with his or her particular misdemeanour; the fact is that that is what happens.

I will refer to something that happened a long time ago about how foreign Governments and parties can become involved in a British political event. When I was a councillor in the city of Aberdeen, I persuaded the town council to have a contract compliance clause in which no South African goods would be accepted. It was purely symbolic. If you bought a bottle of sherry a year, you were doing very well. It was an issue of principle. That clause went through. Unbeknown to me, the local shipyard had a contract to build two trawlers for a South African company. The next thing that happened was that on the scene came an organisation called the South Africa Foundation. I should say that the South Africa Foundation of the 1960s is quite different from any South African foundations today, which serve good, charitable purposes, so let there be no misunderstanding. At that time, the foundation said that unless the council rescinded that decision, it would have the contract cancelled. Imagine what the local press thought of that. I went down to the shipyard and spoke to about 300 workers. They said that they were going to build the ships. I said, “I didn’t ask you not to build the ships”. They said, “But it will stop the contract”. I said that the South African company was bluffing, and that, in any event, the South Africa Foundation was simply a front organisation for the South African Government. I did not deny that the South Africa Foundation and the South African Government had reason to come and challenge the views of Aberdeen. That was fair enough; their interests were at stake. But that was quite a different matter from trying to unseat an MP in a competition based on something else.

In the event, although I declared the South Africa Foundation a front for the South African Government, and it threatened to sue—I must say, that gave me some sleepless nights—it abandoned that when I pointed out that the organisation had on its letter heading South African Railways and Harbours Board, South Africa Marine, Eskom and all the South African industries which, in those days, were publicly owned and called parastatals. So that was dropped. That was simply one example of how they could come in. Had they decided to come in, with a lot of money, to unseat an MP—I think they would have done—that could distort the whole purpose of this recall Bill.

Although I share the views of many in this House who have declared that the Bill is unworkable and inflexible, nevertheless, I accept the general principle that MPs should not be totally free to do what they like. That has never been my position, nor is it, I believe, the position of Members on this side of the House. So, on the issue of funding, if there were strict control of funding in the general election, there would have to be at least the same limit on funding and a recall petition. It is straightforward and simple. I cannot believe that the Government would oppose this amendment in any way, as it is perfectly sensible and reasonable. So I hope that your Lordships will not think that those of us who oppose the Bill are taking rather fanciful, overblown or overdramatic views of the situation. Having been at the coalface for 27 years, I know how different bodies can go at things.

I want to say something that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. I see in the press that the coalition is considering devolving abortion matters to the Scottish Parliament. I beg the Government not to do so. It is the most divisive issue of all in Scotland. What we need in this case is unity and some sense of proportion. However, perhaps the Minister will draw that to the attention of his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Having got that off my chest, what we want to do—and we are all in favour of it—is to strengthen the House of Commons and Members of Parliament. We must try to regain—I was going to say the high regard that people had for MPs but I do not think people ever had a high regard for MPs. I think there was a misunderstanding. I think that MPs had some respect, which is a different matter altogether. We are reaching a stage in this Bill where, if we do not put this right, it will be a shambles. I hope that the Government accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, those who have been patient enough to watch these proceedings at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report might have detected certain differences of opinion between the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Back Bench. Those noble Lords with forensic skills will have spotted that that is certainly true. The difference is that the Front Bench think it is a good Bill, and many of us on the Back Bench think it is a bad Bill but recognise that this is not the Chamber which throws Bills out, even were that possible.

However, on this issue of fairness of campaign funds between the two sides, there is absolute unity between the Front Bench and the Back Bench of the Opposition. I thought that that fact alone, given that we have been pretty frank about our divisions during the course of the passage of the Bill, might give a little pause for thought to the Government, as two groups of opposing views on this issue are united in what needs to be done. The reason is one of incredible simplicity, it seems to me: a petition campaign is a binary choice. There are only two options—you either sign the petition, or you do not. It is an absolutely fundamental principle of electoral fairness, the possibility of a just contest, a fair contest in our democracy for at least 100 years—I suppose since secret ballot times in the 1870s, or whenever it was—

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

May I ask my noble friend about binary campaigns? It is not. It is a single-issue campaign. You can decide to sign the petition, which has an effect. But if you do not sign, you are not taking part at all.

[Lord Grocott]

I suppose the point I was making was that there are only two possible things that you can do in relation to someone asking you whether you will sign a petition.

I hope this is not really arguable from the Government, but if you have two sides in a democratic contest and one side has got colossally more money than the other, then you simply cannot have a fair contest. You see a lot of discussions where, much as we spell out our arguments, in private we might acknowledge that the other side has a bit of a case. I frankly admit that a lot of decisions in the Bill have been grey rather than black and white: for example, whether you have eight weeks or two weeks to sign the petition and whether there are 10 petition-signing locations or two or three. These are all gradations and grey areas. However, I cannot see a grey area that enables us to have a different opinion as to whether two sides in a two-sided contest should have anything other than broadly similar amounts of money that they can spend, with a clear limit on how much. That is all that needs to be said. I just hope that anyone who cares about democracy and democratic choice—which includes all noble Lords I can see, scanning round this House—should be able to acknowledge that that is something that the Government really must concede on, because it is a matter of simple justice.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I hope that I will be able to explain, as I continue, what some of the safeguards against intimidation might be.

The regulations should specify that the marked register will be available for inspection, although, as at elections, that will be dependent on certain restrictions and an application to the petition officer. There are also some protections we can provide, such as choosing not to mirror the provision at elections where the marked register can be requested as a document for campaigning purposes by political parties and candidates. There is a good argument here that inspection should be allowed for reasons of preventing personation, but that the document itself should be kept securely and used only to test whether or not personation has been attempted.

Furthermore, the wording of the amendments implies a degree of ease of access to, and publicity of, the marked register, which does not exist even at elections. Those who wish to view the marked register must justify to the returning officer, or the Chief Electoral Officer in Northern Ireland, where problems of intimidation exist very clearly, why they need to inspect the marked register itself and could not glean sufficient information from the full register. Inspection is under supervision and the law specifies that, although handwritten notes are permitted, portions of, or indeed the whole of, the marked register may not be copied down.

I hope that this provides the assurance needed. There is only a small amount of space between the Government’s intentions for the regulations and the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments. There will be a marked register and it will be a document which can be made available for inspection—although, as I have said, there will be controls mirroring those at elections and, in some respects, further controls in that the Government do not intend that copies should be made available for campaigning purposes, for the very evident reasons given. I also accept that signing is, to a degree, a public act, although there will be those who prefer to sign by post and avoid attending a signing place; that is their choice to make. I also see the merit in the petition notice card making clear the degree to which signing is an open process; it will therefore ensure that suitable wording is included before it is user tested.

However, I believe that the regulation-making powers in the Bill are sufficient to deliver the policy outcomes under discussion. I therefore thank the noble Baroness for the care that she has taken to ensure that we address this delicate and difficult issue. I hope that we have satisfied her and, on that basis, I hope that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by what the Minister just said: that signing a petition is somehow—what was the word he used?—“delicate” or “difficult”. I am astonished. My understanding is that, once the election is past, the marked register is available to be purchased by election agents and political parties. He talked about the marked register being a campaigning tool. We are obviously all totally against names being made available while the petition period is going on, but surely to goodness, if a citizen of this country is asked to determine the fate of a Member of Parliament, he or she should not sign that petition carelessly, without thought to the possible repercussions. I really think that the Minister is quite wrong on the attempted secrecy of the marked register. I hope he will reflect, because he is not doing democracy any good whatever.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this short, but very important, debate. The Minister responded only on one bit of it, in respect of possible intimidation. There is another issue, which is the openness of this new democratic process. He has not really addressed that. He has not addressed whether journalists standing outside a council office where there is a signing will be able to write in the newspaper the names of the people who have signed, or whether they are all suddenly meant to be unable to report what they have seen.

Somebody who is known could go in to sign. The journalist could say, “I saw Hayter going in to sign”, and presumably that would be completely legal. The Minister seems unworried by that. It is not just the marked register. Either this is open or it is not—and that is something that Parliament must decide. I may not have put it down the right way—perhaps I should have had an “either/or” approach, which is not here, asking whether we want it open or closed. As the Government have left it, it will effectively be open. If that is the case, that should be in the Bill, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this. I think that it is a mistake to play off these conditions against each other, as if you were to ditch one and get a quid pro quo strength in another. In principle, one should take and look at each condition on its own merit and principle. I do not want to refer to the second condition, as I do not quite understand the dynamics of what happens in the other place; other Members will understand.

The first recall condition needs to have about it a certain level of trigger. Simply to be convicted of any offence and then potentially to find this juggernaut or sledgehammer process kicking in seems wrong. As we all know, when these processes begin, the issues to which they are supposed to refer are not those on which they are fought. At the moment in our political system you need to get only 10% of the electors to agree to recall the MP and have a by-election. It would be easy for people to use a minor indiscretion that leads to a criminal conviction to generate this rather costly and unfortunate process. I believe in the Bill in principle, but there should be a healthy trigger. As set out, the trigger requiring that a conviction leads to a sentence of imprisonment, which I assume also includes a suspended sentence, seems about right.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I will briefly comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I may be mistaken but he seemed to be painting an idyllic picture of what life is in the real world outside, in which the decision taken to discipline the Member of Parliament for whatever reason will be looked at with great objectivity by those reading the newspapers, listening to the radio and watching the television—you can imagine someone saying over their breakfast cereal, “I wonder what this is all about. What should we do? What considerations should we take into account?”. It does not work like that.

My noble friend mentioned the “f” word. We are not supposed to use the “f” word in your Lordships’ House. He mentioned fracking. The other “f” word I would like to use is fluoride. As the House will know, fluoride is a chemical which, put in the water supply, can bring immense dental benefits. For those who support it, it is a wonderful thing. For those who oppose it, it is responsible for every ill known to mankind and beyond. I know from personal experience how once the issue of fluoride comes up, all sorts of judgments come into play. The resources that people put into this are enormous. We know the facts of the modern world—Twitter and Facebook and all that sort of thing—of which, I regret to say, I know little indeed, except that I occasionally get them and delete them straightaway.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

You know more than most.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

As ever, my noble friend Lord Maxton is complimentary to me. But, immediately recall becomes a remote possibility, the influence of the press and the media will be enormous. I really do not think that removing any sort of mitigating intermediary between the offence of an MP and a recall petition is the right way to go about it.

We speak lovingly about the need to restore the reputation of Parliament. We speak lovingly and meaningfully about how it is necessary for the highest standards to prevail. If we say constantly that the House of Commons is not fit to control itself, and that it needs people from outside looking in on it to put it right, that does nothing whatever to produce the effect we desire.

I will say just one other thing in passing. When the expenses scandal started—and it was a scandal—it was said that the administration of expenses should be taken out of the control of Parliament itself. So we got IPSA—is it called?—to do that. Has that done anything whatever to improve the issue? All that happened was the press turned on IPSA and said, “You’re worse than the MPs were”. There is no easy answer to this. To imagine that this sort of Bill, especially in its dreadful form, will do anything whatever to improve the standards of Parliament and how it is viewed by people outside is totally mistaken. The only way for that to happen is for MPs to stop the nonsense of accepting that when they get petitions they must say yes to them. They are afraid, apparently, to have any independent views. I accept that as a former Member of Parliament I was subject to the Whips and I would never have been a Member of Parliament without being a member of the Labour Party. I understand the constrictions there are in that. Nevertheless, if we remove entirely any possibility of MPs speaking out for themselves about what may be unpopular causes, that may damage democracy irrevocably.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I was glad to add my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler. As my noble friend has made clear, these important amendments differ significantly from those he brought forward in Committee. My noble friend and the cross-party group that supports him have reflected and reconsidered. Our proposals have been revised, cut back and simplified. They have been discussed at some length with my noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Gardiner of Kimble. We await the Government’s response to them with interest, though not with unbounded optimism.

In their current form, the amendments are straightforward and uncomplicated. They seek above all to relate the process of recall more fully and directly to those for whom this legislation, whether we like it or not, has been devised—the electors of this country. The amendments would enable electors to exercise their judgment about the case for recall following a decision in the courts. In any worthwhile system of recall, electors should surely occupy the central position, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, the Conservative Party’s leading authority on the constitution, emphasised so powerfully at Second Reading and repeated today. The famous watchwords of Tory democracy spring at once to mind—“Trust the people”—sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill but in fact coined by his extraordinarily combative and pugnacious father, Lord Randolph, in 1884.

As I have mentioned before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, recalled, my support for my noble friend Lord Tyler’s carefully researched and constructive initiative stems from the work done on the Bill by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member. The committee’s report has featured quite prominently in our debates. Its central point, as far as these amendments are concerned, is that it expressed considerable scepticism about the wisdom of placing a recall trigger in the hands of the Standards Committee. I repeat the key passage of the report:

“The constitutional purpose of recall is to increase MPs’ direct accountability to their electorates: it is questionable whether that purpose is achieved when the trigger is put in the hands of MPs rather than constituents”.

I would add this question: do we not need to guard against the possibility that the existence of such a trigger might create dissatisfaction and disillusion among electors? If that should occur, the Bill—the purpose of which is to strengthen the electorate’s trust in the political system—could end up exacerbating the very problem it is designed to alleviate.

The committee’s report was published on 15 December. The Government’s response, received a few days ago, states that,

“it is important to be careful to respect the disciplinary arrangements of the House of Commons”.

That, of course, is a sound and overwhelmingly important principle of the internal arrangements of the House. It is not, however, obvious or self-evident that the principle should be applied to the procedures that will trigger recall, not least because of the acute danger that decisions relating to those procedures would be unduly politicised, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, argued so strongly at Second Reading.

Is there not a case for asking the House of Commons to reconsider these issues, which bear so directly and powerfully on the workings of democracy in our country, particularly in view of the new report, to which attention has been drawn this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Soley]

I want to emphasise what I said in my intervention. Bear in mind that when Bobby Sands starved himself to death, there were constant displays outside all sorts of places relating to government in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. If we have this, there will be something similar. It will not, I hope, ever be as dreadful as that period again, but do bear in mind a very important point: people get sentenced for offences as a result of a political situation.

I shall give another example, which has been given here in the past and concerns the First World War and conscientious objectors. There is a whole range of issues on which, in the past, Members of Parliament have committed offences which are illegal and get them into trouble with the law. Under this legislation, it would result in their losing their seats. If you want to look at a situation, of course it is easy to identify ones where MPs fiddled their expenses. That is the easy option. However, when they are linked into a political-style offence, it is a very different ball game and there are all sorts of dangers. To my mind, that is a much bigger danger in the whole of this Bill, not just this individual question of three or eight weeks.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, but would the Minister like to say exactly why eight weeks was chosen? In all our debates, I have never heard—I may have missed it—a precise definition of how that was arrived at. Why eight weeks? There must have been some reason for choosing eight weeks. Was some sort of scientific study done? Or was eight weeks simply plucked out of the air as a good idea? Of course, the shortest time would be one day, but that is clearly impracticable. We would not want it to be a sort of side-show to be done in one day.

I simply throw this into the ring. It may be that the eight weeks that is provided to give people the maximum amount of time to make up their minds and to vote actually has the opposite effect. By the end of these eight weeks, people may be so fed up with it that they will not bother going to sign the petition, which would be counterproductive. The other side of that is that when you ask people to sign the petition, they might ask, “When do we have to sign by?”. If you say, “Eight weeks from now—two months”, they will say “I’ll do it tomorrow”. Some of my noble friends will, like me, remember knocking on people’s doors asking them to go the poll and them saying, “Can we come and do it tomorrow?”. That is absolutely true. I imagine that people will say, “Well, we’ll put it off”.

Although I am one of those who is, if you like, a sort of prophet of doom in the sense of fearing that a huge frenzy will build up in the media, even the media cannot sustain things much beyond three weeks. Even the most lurid cases disappear after three weeks, because the media have moved on to something else. I am not sure that even the media would be prepared to commit the resources to get the petition signed for, in totality, beyond two or three days.

Apart from that, the timing is far too long. A decision must be arrived at, although whether three weeks is the right length of time or not, I really do not know. My noble friend has not said why it should be three weeks; he said that perhaps it could be three or four. We should be flexible on this, in the sense that neither the coalition Government nor we should say it has to be three weeks and nothing more or nothing less. The Government are wrong in thinking they have to stick by eight weeks. If the Minister cannot accept three weeks, I hope he will understand that this is not an attempt to wreck the Bill or anything like that. Whatever its faults, we have to try to make the Bill as sensible and workable as possible. Why eight weeks? Why not four weeks? Would that not be a much better way and a much better use of resources?

[Lord Tyler]

I was enormously impressed with the noble Lord’s very dramatic introduction of his amendment. Perhaps he has been over-Mantelled recently and has been watching too much “Wolf Hall”. However, in these circumstances, he has a perfectly valid point.

My questions follow on from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Who advised Ministers that it should be eight weeks? Most significantly, there is the very important cross-reference with the number of signing places, which my noble friend Lord Norton and I referred to in Committee. If there are only two signing places, perhaps you do need longer; but if there are 10, you should obviously review that situation. Has whoever gave advice to Ministers on the number of weeks, on the original basis of a maximum of four signing places, been asked to review that advice in the light of the Government’s now much more flexible attitude? That is something we need to be told now, otherwise it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has huge merit, at least in making the Government think again about the very new circumstances that their own flexibility has now created.

--- Later in debate ---

I entirely understand the good intent and the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in bringing this amendment forward.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Does the Minister accept that one of the problems of an eight-week period is that someone who signs in the first two or three days might well reflect after five, six or seven days that he or she has made a mistake? There is no provision if someone changes their mind. For the process to work properly, if it can work at all, the shorter the period in which people make up their minds, the better.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Another interpretation is that if you have too rushed an arrangement and want to vote by post, along with the problems that I have outlined about three weeks, this will be a serious and rare event. In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I think that there should be a time in which mature reflection is permitted. If someone knows that they have a decent length of time either to send their vote back by post or to go to the signing place, this encourages them rather than causing in them a knee-jerk reaction from the last thing they read in the press. Because this is a serious move, a period of calm is required and would be provided.

If it was all to be condensed into a very short period, we could possibly have the hiatus and the cherries and the Madame Defarge scenario, whereas we want this to be taken seriously by Parliament; and if that happens, we want it also to be taken seriously by electors who will not in my view feel rushed by the arguments of one or the other side. They should have some time in which to reflect properly on the matter.

While I understand the kind and good intentions that the noble Lord has portrayed in not wanting to seek an unattractive scenario, I think that the eight weeks provide the calm reflection that I hope there would be abroad for this very serious matter, and so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. She is rightly teasing at various issues that are significant. I am aware that we need to make sure that we get the Bill and the regulations correct.

As I understand it, the last day on which an eligible elector can make an application to register to vote in order to be able to participate in a recall petition is on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice. This enables the petition officer to produce, in advance of the petition opening, a register of electors who are entitled to sign the petition. That register will include existing electors and eligible electors who applied to register on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice. It will also be used to ensure that only those entitled to sign the petition do so. It is not irrelevant that we have now introduced online registration so the reference here to,

“on the day of the Speaker’s notification”,

is a live and important one because it would be possible for a number of people to register on that day. As the noble Baroness knows, the take-up of online registration has been particularly high among younger voters.

Applications to be added to the register will not be processed immediately. The last date on which a person may be added to, or removed from, the register is three working days before the petition opens, except as a result of a court order or the correction of a clerical error. I stress that court orders and clerical errors represent extremely small numbers of cases. Until that date, the publication of the number registered would not give an accurate indication of the number of signatures that would be needed for a recall petition to be successful.

In some cases, it is possible that there will be a small change in the number of electors who are eligible to sign the petition because, for example, of the correction of clerical errors, which may result in the addition or removal of a small number of names, as sometimes happens ahead of elections. At the end of the signing period, these changes will be included in the total number of electors who have been eligible to sign the petition, and this figure will be used to calculate whether the 10% threshold for the removal of the MP has been met.

I see some merit in the noble Baroness’s proposal. It would give constituents and campaigners an indication of the number of electors who would need to sign the petition in order for the 10% threshold to be reached. However, a more appropriate date on which to refer to the register is the “cut-off day”, which is three working days before the petition opens. Even then, this figure would not reflect any additions to, or removals from, the register before the end of the petition signing period, although I acknowledge that it is unlikely the figure will change significantly.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that regulations to be made under Clause 18 will set out further provision about the conduct of a recall petition, including the use of the electoral register and how the public will be informed about the result of the petition. Along with arrangements for elections, we envisage that the formal declaration of the result would include details of the number of electors who successfully signed the petition, the number of spoilt signing sheets and, in answer to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, details of the number who signed by post.

In designing the regulations, we will need to give consideration as to whether it would be helpful to make it a requirement for the petition officer to make public the number of electors registered in the constituency at the beginning of the signing period and eligible to sign the petition, although, as I have said, I see merit in the arguments advanced. However, I do not believe that there is a special case to include this level of detail in the Bill. Therefore, while recognising that this is a significant matter to be included within the regulations, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

I agree wholly with the Minister that those who wish to promote a recall should know at the start of the signing period what the total number is so that they can calculate how many people they have to get to sign. However, will he give an undertaking that there will be no announcing on a daily basis the number of people who have voted?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It is my understanding that that is the case, but I will make sure that I can confirm by Report exactly what the position is intended to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it will be the same process as for an election. Who will be keeping an eye on non-accredited campaigners? It would be for the police and the courts if anyone had a problem with non-accredited campaigners and there was a feeling that they were not behaving appropriately. If there are any further clarifications for the noble Lord I will make sure that he gets them, but I have answered as best as I am able.

Turning to the noble Baroness’s other amendment, I clearly understand her point about extending the provision allowing the Electoral Commission to give advice and assistance to petition officers and accredited campaigners to all other campaigners. We recognise that understanding and complying with the rules can sometimes be challenging, particularly for those who seek to participate in electoral events for the first time. With this in mind, Schedule 6 amends the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to allow the Electoral Commission to give advice and assistance to petition officers and accredited campaigners. PPERA already allows the Electoral Commission to give advice and assistances to other persons, such as returning officers and recognised third parties at elections.

In tabling this amendment, the noble Baroness rightly notes that the provision in the recall Bill does not explicitly state that this advice and assistance can also be provided to non-accredited campaigners. Non-accredited campaigners are likely to require advice and assistance in determining what the rules are and whether or not they are required to become accredited. I therefore appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern. The Government also want to ensure that non-accredited campaigners are able to access advice from the Electoral Commission in the same way as accredited campaigners. We consider that this will be the case as Section 10(3)(b) of PPERA allows the commission to,

“provide advice and assistance to other persons which is … otherwise connected with, the discharge by the Commission of their functions”.

I believe, therefore, that the point that the noble Baroness has raised is covered. The Government have given considerable thought to the matters to which she referred in terms of the level of £500 and have sought what we believe is an appropriate balance to transparency and participation. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Listening to the Minister’s explanation raises a number of questions. The answer to this may be in the Bill and, if it is, I apologise: what happens if, after the results have been declared, it is discovered that there has been a serious breach of conditions and that money has been irresponsibly or illegally spent? Is there the possibility of the MP going to court to have the result of the petition struck out or would it be automatically struck out? What happens next? Will there be a further recall petition?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will take advice on precisely the answer to that so that I am most helpful to the noble Lord. I do not think that there is any point in me flannelling on when there may be a distinct reply to help the noble Lord.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth put it a few minutes ago, with admirable and characteristic brevity—in contrast to one or two other noble Lords—this is very much linked to the amendment that my noble friend the Minister has said he is prepared to take away and think about again. If we are going to have, in some constituencies, just two or three signing places and only two weeks for the signing, then the pressure on those places will be considerable. To succeed in a recall petition in an average-sized constituency, 7,500 people will have to descend upon those one or two places. So there is a direct relationship. If my noble friend the Minister is able to say that in geographically larger constituencies, where it is more difficult to obtain satisfactory locations in so few places, there will be an increase, perhaps to eight or nine places—or whatever it may be in the islands; I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—or, for example, in my old constituency in Cornwall, to six or seven places, then reducing the number of weeks to two weeks is much easier. Otherwise there will be enormous pressure.

I hope that my noble friend will accept, having generously and sensibly said that he is prepared to go away and think about the issue of the maximum and the minimum numbers of signing venues, that this also applies to the number of weeks that they are active. The numbers otherwise could be extremely difficult to manage.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can explain to us why eight weeks is thought to be a suitable term. It cannot be to make sure that people know that the recall petition has to be signed, because that will be no secret. Once the Bill becomes law, the very first MP who is referred to the Standards Committee for some misdemeanour will be fastened upon. From day one of the Standards Committee discussions, the press will be going on about demanding a recall. We do not know how long the Standards Committee will take; it could be five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 weeks, or three or four months. Some discussions have gone on for six months. Everyone will know about it, and once the petitions officer is informed, there are 10 days for him to take action on it. In those 10 days, there will be fierce discussion in the media. What is going to happen in eight weeks? For what logical or logistical reason can eight weeks be satisfactory?

We manage to do a general election by voting on one single day. I am not necessarily suggesting that that would be the right thing—I support the term being reduced to two weeks—but if we vote in those numbers on one day, why has this been stretched out to eight weeks? Again, we are not told why that is the case. I suspect that this is one of those things where somebody had a good idea and said, “We will all look good if we have a recall Bill on the statute book”. This is a limited recall Bill, as I shall hope to discuss in greater detail on a later amendment, but they were saying, “Let us get it on to the statute book”.

The Minister said in a previous debate that we will not have the regulations in time for the general election and they will be sorted out afterwards. Why not leave the whole thing until after the general election and do it properly? It would make much more sense if the Bill were withdrawn and started again. That could be done and would not take up any more time. It might go through much quicker. This is the kind of provision that does not bring any real sense to democracy. What is going to happen during the eight weeks of the signing period? On a later amendment, I will argue what might happen during those eight weeks, but I ask the Minister to have some sense. For goodness’ sake, accept this amendment.

[Lord Finkelstein]

My Lords, there has often been a wonderful use of the words “with due respect” in this Chamber on this Bill, in lieu of actually showing any. The suggestion that people who drive taxis or cut hair are not those who run the country will come as very sad news to the voters, particularly those who cut hair or drive taxis. To suggest that one cannot comment on the recall Bill without being a Member of Parliament would be like suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, cannot comment on the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals without having been Deputy Prime Minister, which he was never able to be. I do not think that ad hominem points really help.

This is about handing a simple power to voters. Most people viewing this debate would be perplexed as to why we would wish to deny such a power being handed to the voters to remove people who had gone to jail or—

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

The noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, really should use his words carefully. No one in this Committee has denied that the Bill is necessary; no one in this Committee denies that it should go on to the statute book.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

All right, we can see that noble Lords think that it is funny, but I do not think that it is funny at all. The fact is that we are arguing for a sensible Bill which will do the job properly; not the hash and mishmash which has been put before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My noble friend referred to the long period of time leading up to a general election. However, the moment a Member is referred to the Standards Committee, the whole thing will be under discussion in the constituency. Therefore, there is no need for eight weeks. People do not need eight weeks to make up their minds; two weeks is surely long enough.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

There are two different issues here: making up your mind on the matter and the procedures involved. The questions I am asking the Minister are: why did the Government decide on this measure, and what is the appropriate period? Two weeks seems too short to get the whole thing set up and the registers ready. Indeed, we are talking about 12 weeks with a couple in between, given the eight weeks that have been mentioned, added on to a possible by-election lasting another four weeks.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, now appreciates what my noble friend Lord Grocott said. The best thing would be to resign straightaway and call the by-election yourself, as the MP concerned, and go straight into a by-election, saying, “Yes, it is true that I have been kept out of the House of Commons for 10 days”—or whatever it is—“but that was because I felt very strongly about a matter; there was a Bill going through that I did not like”, or whatever the issue was. In that case, you are on the front foot. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Grocott was making. That would be a much more attractive proposition and might be the right way to tackle the matter—that is, by putting the MP in the control seat. Sadly, we have not discussed these issues fully and I do not think that the Government thought about adding the time for a by-election when they chose the eight-week period. They have some explaining to do about the choice of this period, particularly with regard to the discussions they have had with the electoral officers and the Electoral Commission on the eight-week period. We look forward to clarification on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I entirely accept that the Front-Benchers are committed to that and I wish that noble Lords elsewhere were. We have already, in effect, extended the process of elections. The fact that postal voting starts at a much earlier stage is a problem that we now all face in elections. Indeed, we have extended the period, in regulations that I have taken through the House over the past two years, rightly, between sending out postal votes and the election, in order to provide more time for people overseas, people who are going abroad on holiday, or whatever. So the process of elections has now been extended and we have the severe problem, as I felt working at the last election, that by the last week of the election a substantial number of the electorate have already voted. The conversation takes place early. The intention stated in putting the Bill forward for pre-legislative scrutiny was that the dialogue would take place as the petition was opened.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I ask the Minister, since I am no longer involved in the question of postal voting, what is now the time between polling day and the granting of postal votes?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Since I have taken the regulations through I should know the answer to that, but I do not now recall it; I merely recall that we have extended the period.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am sorry, but the Minister just told us how he brought all this legislation through the House and now he cannot even remember what it was about.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I certainly remember what it is about. I do not remember the exact period. I think we have extended it from three weeks to four and a half or five, but I will write to the noble Lord about that.

On the question of the preparatory period, I note that these two issues are, of course, linked and that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is proposing that there should be a longer time for preparation and a shorter time for signing the petition. I assume that he regards these as intrinsically linked to the provision of a larger number of places at which to sign, so that, in a sense, it all goes together as a package. The proposal which the Government have put forward in the Bill is that, since the electoral officers have not asked for a longer preparatory period than that suggested in the draft Bill and which is therefore provided for here, we therefore open the petition-signing process after 10 days. That gives a considerable period during which people who are on holiday can return, et cetera, in order to provide the maximum amount of time for a campaign which goes in parallel with the petition-signing process and gives the maximum amount of time for those who wish to sign the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

If there is a petition with only one question on it and you sign the petition, everyone must know how you have voted. The idea of secrecy is nonsense. If people sign the petition, it must be known that they have done so, and then we know how they will vote. Again, the idea of secrecy is a lot of nonsense and I have no idea what the Minister is talking about.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the question of intimidation has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and others, and that is a matter which we also have to take seriously. We will consider the issues. That is why balance comes into the question. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, and others have some sad experience of the problems of intimidation in issues like this. I have promised to take this back and I will do my utmost to return with a clearer statement of the Government’s view of how we can strike what is an extremely difficult balance, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, and others have observed. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her opposition at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)]

If Amendment 40 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 41 to 43 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I have been thinking very carefully about this idea of the wording in the Bill. As the wording is in the Bill, someone who gets the petition has the choice either to sign it or not to take part in the petition process. In other words, it is a one-way process. There is no opportunity for someone who is against the recall of the MP to say, “No”. Why can we not have a straight yes/no question? That is what democracy is about.

The issues surrounding the recall of an MP will generate much excitement—if that is the right word to use—about the behaviour of the MP, sticking strictly to the three triggers, whichever one is to be used. There will be a tremendous bandwagon: there will be no possibility of the MP defending himself or herself. How is that feeling to be translated? The MP who is faced with this petition may well be extremely popular. There is no possibility of that popularity being translated in any shape or form in the petition—and, as we come to in a further amendment, with the proportion of the electorate that is to take part. But it is all one-sided. I cannot see how this can in all senses be fair or sensible. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment so at least there will be further discussion about how the process might go.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I respectfully suggest to the House that the suggestion and proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is an excellent one. I was thinking about the problem raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, in that there were two principles that were diametrically opposed to each other. One was the principle of the innate secrecy of the ballot; the other was the principle of the innate public nature of the petition. The answer and the compromise may very well be in the sort of suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. What would be wrong in having two questions—yes or no? You would have a hybrid; it would be something of a ballot and something of a petition, but you would be free from many of the disadvantages that would attend a situation where the fact of having voted would mean that you had voted only one way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Mr Goldsmith would be in a very strong position to hire his own fleet of cars, absolutely. I must confess that the other weakness that the amendment raises is that on the pathetic threshold of 10%, both sides may get 10%, in which case there would be an interesting stalemate to which I do not know the answer.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, the percentage of people required to trigger the by-election is certainly a very serious matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has said, the issue of recall will probably not be decided by the constituents themselves, although they are the ones who will sign the petition. It will be decided, first, in the Procedure Committee. Weaning the Procedure Committee away from a quasi-judicial function will be sorely tempting but we do not want that to happen. Secondly, not even they by themselves will decide which particular trigger will be invoked. The decision will largely be governed in the boardrooms which the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, probably attends quite frequently. The editors of the national press will latch on to this as a good idea, as something which the public have been anxious for.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who is temporarily not in his place, seemed quite taken by the fact that I said that a recall petition would generate great excitement. I perhaps chose my words badly—I should perhaps have said great activity, rather than excitement. By and large the discussions in your Lordships’ House have been sober, serious, not entirely dispassionate but, in the tradition of your Lordships’ House, have looked at matters carefully and seriously. Alas, the real world outside is not like this place—it is going to be governed by people’s particular prejudices.

I do not want to rehearse the speech that I am going to make later about the debate but, in relation to the way in which MPs are perhaps no longer free from the scrutiny as they once were, I remember one Friday in the other place when we were discussing a repeal of the Steel abortion Bill. It was a very difficult subject. Whichever side of the argument one was on, it was controversial. In some constituencies it is hugely important.

I was in the Lobby with a colleague who was unhappy about voting against the amendments to the Steel Bill. He said that he believed that the amendments should not be passed and the Bill should be left more or less as it was, but he was concerned about what might happen back home. I said, “Well, don’t vote. Stay out of the Lobby”. He said he would have to vote because it was the right thing to do. So we went through the Lobby and we voted. When we passed the Tellers, he almost turned to jelly. He said, “I’ve lost my seat. What am I going to do? It’s dreadful—I’ll be hounded out of the constituency”. I told him to nip into the other Lobby and cancel his vote out.

How did I know that that was possible? I knew because my then pair, the late Iain Sproat, had asked me if I would time-pair with him so he could take his wife out to dinner and I agreed. I was in the Library reading—a euphemism for having a snooze—and the Division Bell went off in the Library. My wife says that even now after I have been out of the Commons for 17 years, when the alarm clock goes off in the morning, I throw the blankets off, shout, “Division!” and start running down the stairs. I got up and automatically went through the Lobby and then realised on that occasion I was time-paired. All of us who are former Members of the House of Commons know perfectly well that the greatest sin one can commit in the House of Commons is to break a pair. I asked what I could do and they said, “Nip in and cancel it”. I was in mortal terror for two or three days that the local press would discover it and make a fool of me, but they did not notice. So I had good cause to tell this colleague to cancel his vote out and he did. That much I can vouch for. In those days, we were not under the same scrutiny.

What has been said—and I cannot vouch for this—is that if someone in favour of abortion wrote to that colleague and asked how he voted, he could send them the page of Hansard which showed that he voted the way that they wanted. If someone was against abortion, he could send them the other page of Hansard. It was a wonderful strategy, except that nowadays, within five minutes of a vote being declared in this place or in the House of Commons, it is published on the internet. That sort of strategy would not work now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I think this goes to the heart of the issue. If one believes that the three serious triggers for serious wrongdoing that have been set and agreed in the other place are to be adhered to, there would be this opportunity for the electorate in that constituency to have another opportunity. We are obviously at the heart of whether or not there should be legislation. The Government believe, as I think do the opposition Front Bench, that for certain conduct there should be an opportunity for the electorate of that constituency to have their say again on who represents them.

We have almost got to a point where I know that there are noble Lords who are very unhappy about the Bill, but the point is that the Government and the other place feel that there should be triggers whereby recall should take place. It is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to oppose this, but I am afraid that I disagree with the view that there should be no opportunities for recall—hence this Bill.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am afraid that the Minister misunderstood what I said. The recall provision can be triggered only if one of the three things is invoked—there is no question about that. It then goes to the petitions commissioner—no question about that. However, the Minister and I, and indeed all noble Lords in this place, know that the discussion that takes place during the 20 days or however long it is will not be about the trigger at all. It will not be a discussion about how well or badly the MP has behaved; it will be entirely about political matters not connected in any way with the triggers. That is the dilemma that we are in. I am afraid that the 10% level makes it all too easy for that to take place. It is not a case of saying that there has not been wrongdoing, or that it has not been triggered. The question is: what will be discussed during the 20 days? If there are 20 days from the moment when the matter is referred to the petitions commissioner, the debate will take place entirely outside the Member’s individual behaviour.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I understand that. That is why I say that it comes to a different view and a different impression of whether there should not be a recall because of the issues that the noble Lord outlines. However, I think that there should be opportunities, where there has been serious wrongdoing, for there to be recall. That was in the manifesto pledges of the three main political parties and in the coalition programme. We are getting into a discussion—which I respect entirely—with noble Lords who do not like this Bill, but the point is that the other place, the Government and the Official Opposition are of the view that there should be certain opportunities, with safeguards so that representative democracy is not thwarted; of course we should defend that very strongly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, Amendments 45, 46 and 48 are further attempts to try to improve the Bill, not to challenge it—although, as noble Lords will realise, I have some fundamental questions about it. I say to the Minister that, although I have tabled about a dozen amendments, I could have tabled 100 amendments that would have helped to improve the Bill. It really is a terrible Bill; it has been badly drafted and needs huge scrutiny, but we do not have time to do that.

My first amendment relates to 16 and 17 year-olds. Given that both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party are in favour of allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in general elections, Scottish Parliament elections, local elections and others—just as they did in the Scottish referendum—and to sign the recall petition if they wish, the amendment is anticipating that that legislation will take place.

Amendment 48 would change the position about withdrawing a signature from the petition. Under the Bill, it would be impossible for someone who signs the petition to withdraw their signature. If someone signs it at the beginning of what is still going to be an eight-week period, and during the course of that eight weeks realises that the MP is not as heinous and awful after all—because all he did was incur a motoring offence and get sent to prison for 14 days, as we heard from a former judge might be the case—and changes their mind, they cannot withdraw their signature. I do not understand why: there is no explanation.

The amendment suggests that people should be able to withdraw their signature from the petition on giving a reason. How that reason was taken account of, who agreed to it and so on, would need to be looked at. But given that we are going to have weeks, months or perhaps years to look at the regulations anyway—from what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said earlier—there is no reason why this cannot be looked at as well. It seems strange that if someone changes their mind about the petition they cannot withdraw their signature.

Amendment 56 was drafted by my noble friend Lord Hughes, with his long experience and wisdom, so I am sure that he will be able to speak to it himself.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 56. It states:

“After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause … ‘Early publication of number of signatories … (1) Petition officers shall not make public a running total of signatories to a recall petition until the final result is announced … (2) Any breach of subsection (1), or any publication purporting to reveal a running tally, shall render the recall petition null and void.’”.

Having reread the amendment, I admit that saying the recall petition would be rendered null and void may be a bit severe. On the other hand, it is probably necessary.

Throughout this debate it has been repeated that the recall petition can take place only if one of three triggers is pulled. That is the beginning and end of the matter. We have tried to say to the Government and to our own Front Bench that whatever cold print is in the Bill, what it describes is not going to be happening in the real world outside. That is because—I am sorry to repeat this—as soon as the matter goes to the Procedure Committee, the question of recall will be raised. If that trigger is agreed to by the Procedure Committee, a notice goes out to the petition officer that the debate will immediately start. Some 90% of the time the discussion will not be about the actual offence that has triggered the recall petition. The argument will be about other things entirely.

Therefore, as we have said, the dice are loaded entirely against the MP who is the subject of the recall petition. As we know, on the day of a general election, agents for the candidate can go to the polling station and get the numbers who have voted, every hour or whatever the agreement is. Of course, that is the precise purpose of making sure that one gets one’s core vote out before the closing of the poll. That is a perfectly legitimate and normal thing to do, because people will not be convinced to go and vote by the numbers who voted at 10 o’clock; they will be convinced to go and vote if they think it is the right thing to do. However, if there is a running tally, on day one the petition officer might say, “Ten people voted today”, and the next day might say, “This is ridiculous. Get more out; do your job as citizens; get rid of the MP; get the recall”.

If the recall threshold is 10%, the figure may start at 5%. The hysteria of getting more and more people will mount up. As we approach day 19 or 20, there may still be 2% to get, so this huge momentum may be built up to get people to sign the recall petition. Huge pressure builds up for that to be done. In this, the Member of Parliament subject to the recall is totally powerless. He is like a rabbit in the middle of the road with the lights of a car approaching—totally impotent in these matters.

It has been said that former Members of Parliament have a vested interest in the sense that we are overprotective of existing Members of Parliament. However, it is not a question of being overprotective. No one—certainly not me—has suggested that triggers are wrong and should not be discussed, or that there should never be a recall petition. That is not the case at all. We suggest that there should be a level playing field and the possibility of a fair trial, if you like. I fear that it is the other way round, given the way the Bill is drafted. It will not give the MP concerned a reasonable possibility of keeping his or her seat.

As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, if an MP loses a recall petition, there will be no prospect at all of him being re-elected, or reselected by his party to stand. We are discussing not so much the cold print on the paper as the realities. So I hope that—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful to the noble Lord—what he said is absolutely right. If someone found themselves in a position where this whole procedure was initiated, it is unlikely that a political party would retain them as a candidate. Even at the first stage there would be great difficulty getting a signature from their party, so their career would be over.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I accept that entirely. Of course, the decision will be made by the constituency party, not so much on the basis of the seriousness of the offence but of whether they think they can win the by-election. I despair at the way in which the Bill is drafted and at the lack of any respect for the MP concerned.

I do not wish to divert down difficult roads, but there has been a lot of discussion in the press recently about the right of a person to return to his or her chosen profession. That has been intensified in the debate about a certain footballer who committed a very serious offence. I will not enter the argument at all about the rights and wrongs of that. However, throughout that debate, rehabilitation has gone out of the window in many respects. I fear that MPs will be subject to the same kind of attack and that, if they commit an offence, they will beyond the pale for ever. So some safeguards have to be built in. I understand that the Minister may not be able to accept the amendment in its present form. However, I hope that he understands its seriousness, and that something can be done to prevent a bandwagon building up not on the merits of a case but simply on getting the numbers out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think that the Government are going to consult on that and will come back on it. They have not made the position clear at present.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I should make it clear that my amendment does not say that the names should be published but simply that the numbers should be published. The two issues are not therefore connected.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I was sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Tyler talk about a holistic approach. I criticised the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the other week for using what I regard as a managerial phrase that was inappropriate for someone of his background.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not persuaded by that. There are questions of intimidation regarding giving the name of someone who has already voted to the MP so that the MP can write and tell them not to. I can recall fighting a heavily Labour seat in the middle of Manchester in the 1970s, when Labour councillors were going round to voters saying, “I see you have a Liberal poster up. We have just checked the housing transfer list and you are on it. Are you sure that you want to keep it up?”. There are difficult questions here. I see no reason to change existing electoral regulations in this area.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

The Minister keeps saying that he is following general practice as far as possible. This is an entirely new practice. Will he please tell me where, either in my amendment or at any place in the Bill, it is stated that during the eight weeks when people vote the petition officer will make known the names of those people who have voted?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will come to the noble Lord’s other amendment. I was talking about the amendment on the right to change one’s vote or attitude to the petition after one had voted. I will come to his amendment on disclosure of the number of signatories. The Bill—rightly, as he noted—does not specify whether a running total of the number of signatories should be published. That we intend to be a matter for the conduct regulations. As is the case at elections, petition officers and their staff will be bound by their official duty, and penalties will apply if information is released without proper authority. Again, I stand on regular practice. It is not allowed for those concerned with the conduct of elections—and, by extension, petitions—to release information of that sort. There will be many occasions on election day when releasing figures at one o’clock on how many people had voted would be helpful. That is not the case, and it is similarly not the case here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, this has become a farce. Where it suits the Government’s aims they stick to electoral law; where it does not suit their purposes they go on to something completely new. We are wasting our time, the Government are wasting their time, it is making a farce of the whole debate and it is making the House of Lords look ridiculous. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will at some point recognise his part in that. I withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, in relation to my amendment, may I make clear that on the day of the general election—I am sorry, am I in the wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

55: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on prejudicial comments
From the time that a recall petition is authorised, any material written, spoken or broadcast on any media with the intention of being detrimental to the MP in question, other than comments directly related to the reason for the recall petition, shall render the recall petition null and void.”

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I appreciate that the tabling of this amendment leaves me open to the possibility of being accused of censorship by refusing people the right to free speech. I understand that point but I believe that this amendment brings us to the heart of the difficulties and problems we have with the Bill. Throughout our discussions, both Ministers have repeatedly referred to the three triggers that can start a petition. They have dealt with the matter not as though we are dealing with a general election or a recall Bill. I am sorry to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion but this Bill is wrongly named. It is a recall limited Bill and not a recall Bill. We know that the aim of the people whose driving goes behind the recall is a total recall on grounds of policy.

As much as we may like to believe that in general discussions in a constituency the atmosphere of rational debate will be followed—I agree that, much as in this place, there may be the occasional flash of annoyance—that is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. As soon as the notice goes out to the petition officer that a recall petition is to be held, there will be open season. This Bill will become a de facto recall Bill because under its terms everything that has been said or done by an MP can be called into account.

I believe that no one could have been an MP for any period of time without annoying some constituents or groups of constituents. For example, in my constituency in north Aberdeen, there were boundary changes and we took into the west of the city a new, privately owned housing estate. The traffic from Aberdeen airport and the surrounding industrial estate into Aberdeen and south of Aberdeen caused horrendous problems. The city council decided to do something about it. It proposed a spur road to join the ring road, which would have involved some impingement on the private housing estate, although not a great deal but certainly a significant amount. Of course, the noise generated by the traffic would be significant.

I was invited, or perhaps I should say summoned, to a meeting of 150 absolutely furious people. They said that the value of their property and their quality of life would be destroyed, all for the sake of a few minutes of traffic problems. They proposed an alternative, which was that the spur road, as I call it, should be moved to the east of where they were and run through a local authority housing estate. I accept that this local authority housing estate was not the most salubrious estate in the city of Aberdeen. I am very proud of the housing estates in the city but this one was not the best. These people thought that because they were owner-occupiers they had a better right than council house tenants. I had to disagree with them.

I fully understood their concerns and I said that I would do what I could to alleviate them but I would not agree simply to shift the problem from one part of the constituency to another. I suggested that the road should go to the north of the city, over a flyover in order to avoid a notorious roundabout and then go on from there. I was accused of copping out of the difficulty. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was considering my council house tenant constituents above them. I was told in very menacing terms, “You will pay for this at the general election”. As most noble Lords will know, I was very fortunate. I never had a majority of less than 10,500 and never more than 18,500. I must admit that I was not frightened by the prospect. However, I seriously and honestly ask myself whether I would have been so steely had I been in a marginal constituency. Obviously, I cannot answer that question.

It is very easy to fall out, not with groups of constituents but with individual constituents. I tell a story against myself. In the good old days, when business in the House of Commons on a Friday was taken very seriously, I was a junior Minister and I had a very fraught and difficult Friday on the Floor of the House. I finally got away and managed to catch the late evening plane to Aberdeen where I had an advice centre on the Saturday morning. I would have happily taken the weekend off and not gone, but it was published so I went. At 8.15 pm, I went to the office to make sure that there were no sudden cases needing urgent attention. The phone rang and I picked it up. A voice that I knew well said, “Oh, it’s you, is it?”. I said, “Why?”. He said, “No one’s ever here by that phone”. I said, “My secretary works from nine to five and, on a Friday night especially, I would not expect her to be here. Do you always phone at this time of night?”. “Oh yes”, he said, “But no one ever answers”. I said, “With respect, how are your broken legs and your broken wrists?”. He said, “What do you mean?”. I said, “Well, you know I hold a regular advice centre on a Saturday morning that is advertised in the press. You must be severely incapacitated if you can’t come down to the office with this problem. How long have you been trying to get hold of me?”. He said, “At least six to eight weeks”. I said, “I am very sorry about that. How are your broken wrists?”. He said, “What do you mean, my broken wrists?”. I said, “Well, if it is so serious, you could have put pen to paper. You know the address”. He mumbled something and I said, with some asperity if you like, “Look, it can’t be a serious problem. You are wasting my time, so bog off”, and I slammed the phone down.

After I had done that, I realised that I had made an enemy for life. Although I met the man frequently after that and the issue never came up between us, he went around saying that I was impolite, did not care for my constituents and so on. That could be multiplied by two or three, plus the 150 disgruntled people at the meeting about the road. Surely everyone knows that as soon as the recall petition is announced, the media and press in every shape or form will descend on the constituency like a swarm of locusts. That is not to mention the cybertrolls whom we cannot control.

As for an MP who is put before the Procedure Committee and his recall petition is announced, you cannot stop the press saying that the guilty, disgraced MP is facing a recall. In fact, even if an MP were to succeed in overturning a recall petition and to continue in his seat, he would always be described as, “The MP found guilty, put to a recall petition, and succeeded”. We cannot stop that, but we have to find some way of controlling the huge influx of publicity and rhetoric, some of which will arise from outside the constituency itself. It will not be generated so much by the constituents as by the press and the media, who will be determined to make the recall a success from their point of view.

We must find a way of controlling that. There is a balance and I am sure that the Minister will see it as a balance between free speech and fair play. From what was said on the previous day in Committee we can see that there is no possibility of an MP in trouble getting a square deal in this matter. The dice are totally loaded against him. He will not get the chance to campaign with a counterpetition. He will not get a chance with the media. He will not get a chance because he is dead in the water. I am and always have been all in favour of MPs who transgress being properly dealt with. This country of ours has had a high reputation for its standards of democracy and the standards of its politicians. Sadly, the expenses scandal has almost wiped that out, which is a sad thing to say. The activities of a very few have destroyed our reputation, but that does not mean that we should not seek to defend our reputation and our democracy.

It is my view that this proposed new clause will go some way towards striking the balance. It will stop campaigns being paid for by people on the outside and carried out by those with no real interest in democracy. They are interested solely in proving a political point. They are demanding the total recall of MPs for any reason whatever and sadly this whole process is leading us towards that. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his amendment, which intends that in the event of any material being written, spoken or broadcast that is unrelated to the wrongdoing which initiated the recall petition and which is detrimental to the MP, the petition will become null and void.

The Government believe that there are three significant concerns as to why this amendment presents difficulties. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to the first, which is the principle of free speech—an issue which of course all of us in this House prize very strongly. I do not think that we should, in effect, severely restrict what individuals, including MPs, constituents and the media, may say or write for a period of eight weeks.

My second concern is the appearance that this amendment gives of particular and special treatment for a Member of Parliament. The noble Lord’s amendment states that it is only material unrelated to the wrongdoing and which is detrimental to the MP that will cause the petition to become null and void. That leaves the clear interpretation that there will be no such consequences to publishing material unrelated to the wrongdoing that is beneficial to the Member of Parliament facing recall. Indeed, while I realise the view of my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the Bill, here he is absolutely right. The third concern is that the proposals would make recall unworkable. Indeed, who would determine whether something is detrimental—and is that even possible?

I say by way of example that it would be impossible to conceive of an eight-minute period, let alone an eight-week period, which could pass without even one example of detrimental material being put into the public domain. The noble Lord’s proposals would make it very difficult for any recall petition to reach its conclusion because it would be quite simple for the supporters of a Member of Parliament to put out negative comments just to secure that outcome. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I entirely understand and accept his good intentions, but, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Someone once said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In my initial remarks, I referred to the fact that this might well be seen as an attack on free speech. I appreciate that point very much indeed. Of course, it has been pointed out that people who use beneficial comments might also be struck out. The difficulty I have is that the recall petition is a kind of trial. If you are on trial for a road traffic offence, for example, extraneous behaviour such as that you got drunk the night before or were drunk during the trial would not be allowed in court because it could influence the result of the trial. Therefore, I am deeply unhappy because that is what, in fact, will happen. However, I do understand the problems.

My noble friend Lord Howarth raised an intriguing point about opinion polls. I had thought of that and was not quite sure how to proceed, but I had in mind that an amendment along the lines of banning opinion polls during the eight-week period might well be an amendment for Report. I am glad he has reminded me of that, and I hope it will be taken up, if not necessarily by me, then by others.

We are in extremely difficult times with this Bill. We are torn between trying to see justice for MPs and giving constituents the opportunity to exercise their rights in relation to their MP. In all the circumstances, I believe that the best thing to do is to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there were two questions there. The Government made all documentation available to the committee at the outset. The further question, which has taken rather longer than anticipated, was the subsequent discussion as to how many of those documents should be published. After all, some of them are highly classified and deeply sensitive about British foreign policy and relations with other major Governments and allies. I understand that that process is also now complete. When the report comes out, it will contain more than 1 million words and will publish substantial documentation from more than 200 Cabinet meetings. That is all agreed and under way. In terms of the publication, the Prime Minister has not intervened at any point—and nor, as I understand it, did his predecessor. It is up to the inquiry and its chairman to decide when the process is complete. As we know, Maxwellisation is part of the process of completing the report. When that is complete, it will be published.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who wish for an early publication of the Chilcot report, if for no other reason than to put a stop to the conspiracy theories multiplying. The ridiculous comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, are a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to him.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I also wish for an early publication, but we are waiting for the inquiry to submit the report to the Government. The Government have taken the decision, as my honourable friend Rob Wilson and I have both said on previous occasions, that if it is submitted after the end of February it would not be appropriate to publish it until after the election because part of the previous Government’s commitment was that there would be time allowed for substantial consultation on and debate of this enormous report when it is published.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Windrush, who has a considerable political background. It is different from mine, but it is certainly considerable. I think we may want to hear much more from him about that. He has been a political adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who was leader of the SDP. As he said, he spent 10 years in No. 10 advising the Prime Minister. How far that influence is of real value is a matter of debate. He himself said that political pollsters are sometimes described as pernicious. I would never use such a word in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord made an interesting speech, and I hope that his years spent in the corridors of power might be explained even further. Perhaps on a future occasion he will shed some light on how the system works. I am sometimes asked, “How does Parliament work? How does the system work?”. I have been around both ends of the corridor for 40 years, and I say to them, “If you ever find out, let me know”. I hope that we will hear from the noble Lord in the future. We look forward to his contributions. He obviously finds the aspect of a maiden speech not too demanding and not too stressful.

I generally support the principle of the Bill that those who commit an offence or transgress, as defined, should be subject to recall. Despite the protestations from the Government Front Bench that this Bill sets aside the possibility of recall on political issues, it does no such thing. In fact it is the thin end of the wedge. The demand to have the right to recall MPs on policy grounds will grow; there is no stopping that.

I was elected to be the MP for Aberdeen, North in 1970, and served for 27 years. Short of imprisonment, bankruptcy or death, the only way to lose the seat was if I lost the parliamentary Whip and did not have it restored by the time of the election or if there was a vote of no confidence passed in my constituency party. In those 27 years my largest majority was 19,114, and the lowest was 9,112. I put the vagaries of that down to several boundary changes, and I hope not to my own performance.

Much has changed in the past 40 years. When I was first elected, the heavies, as we might call them, the Telegraph, the Times and the Guardian, all produced full-page reports on a daily basis of the goings on in Parliament. Even my own local newspapers, the Aberdeen Press and Journal and the Aberdeen Evening Express, each had a Lobby correspondent and a parliamentary correspondent. Now, one person does that in its entirety, if there is even a dedicated member of staff. All we are left with now in the heavies is the comedy sketches—the funnies. Every event, however serious or important is reduced to a political pantomime. It cannot be good for democracy when people see that sort of thing.

I have always agreed about and argued for accountability. There is a distinct and continuing trend these days to downgrade party politics and political parties. I concede immediately that the activities of a few MPs and some Peers brought both Houses into disrepute, but there are plenty of organisations out there on the internet who are determined to impose their particular version of democracy There is a campaign headed “Party People: How should the Political Parties select their Parliamentary Candidates?”. The intention is to have parliamentary candidates chosen by open primaries. There may well be a case for that. It happens in other parts of the world. But the proponents of that give the game away; they use as a sub-heading a quote from the political satire programme, “Yes Minister”:

“MPs are not chosen by ‘the people’—they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hats”.

That is actually quite a funny quote. But you then realise that it is intended to denigrate the hundreds of thousands of people who daily serve political parties by canvassing, raising funds and supporting their MPs and candidates. These people have raised a great deal of money, often in the cold, canvassing and doing all sorts of things, and it is the worst kind of activity to make fun of them because they do a job without personal reward.

Similar articles have surfaced on the internet—campaigns for the recall of MPs on whatever political grounds of opinion. This unwittingly reveals the agenda. The intention to destroy political parties, coupled with these sinister campaigns for recall, show a desire to have MPs who will hang and twist in the wind and follow slavishly what may be seen as the popular will of the people.

I was extremely fortunate during my 27 years in the Commons to chair the Anti-Apartheid Movement for 20 years. It is worth recalling that that cause did not have the same universal approval that it now enjoys. Indeed, I remember on one occasion a very hostile interview with BBC Scotland in which research was produced that purported to show that the majority of Scottish people believed that apartheid was the right policy for South Africa. I was later taken aside by a very senior member of the Labour Party in Scotland and gently advised that I should stick to Scottish affairs. The members of my constituency party stood by me and defended me when the local press and others demanded that I concentrate on only Aberdeen and Scottish affairs, and that it was unseemly for a Member of Parliament for Scotland to do otherwise.

As some of your Lordships may know, I held robust anti-Scottish devolution views, so much so that one branch of my party tabled a motion of no confidence. I went in fear and trembling to see the pairing Whip, the formidable and redoubtable George Lawson, MP for Motherwell, who many of my colleagues will remember was a strict disciplinarian. I thought that he would be difficult. I thought that he would say, “You made your bed, you can lie in it”. In fact it was quite the opposite. In those days, it should be recalled, one had to get permission to leave the House even on a two-line whip, never mind a three-line whip. He was very reassuring, saying, “Of course you must go to defend yourself. Leave it with me and I will cover you”.

The meeting took place and we meandered through the agenda of mundane business and finally the motion was called for debate. No one was present from the branch to move it. Therefore it fell. I was relieved and delighted. However, my chairman went on to say, “We can’t leave it there”. I had a moment or two of panic and I thought, “What the devil is he up to now?”. He got up and moved that “The constituency has full confidence in its MP” and demanded a show of hands. It was carried unanimously. The effect was to put the whole issue to bed and I was free to pursue my activities.

If there had been a recall on policy issues, I do not believe that I would have lasted 27 years in Parliament, and certainly many of my contemporaries—I had good company in those days—such as Norman Buchan, Robin Cook, Tam Dalyell and others would not have lasted either. I do not claim now, nor did I claim then, that what we did was anything special and that there was any special virtue in arguing and debating fiercely the matters of the day. We simply did what we did. It is what we were expected to do. It was natural to engage with the electorate and seek to engage them. It was natural to engage in fierce debate with members of our own party. There was none of this instant policy-making when you wake up in the morning and discover what has been said.

Of course, an MP must take account of and consider what his constituents’ views are. We all know that there are views which one holds strongly and lines that we should not cross—on capital punishment or abortion, for example. There are many other issues that engender strong feelings and emotions. What is undeniably the case is that we have not come to terms with the computer revolution. I do not know how we can deal with Facebook, Twitter and blogging. There may be other social media of which I know nothing. What is happening is a kind of pyramid selling. You get an e-mail petition that says, “Click here to show your support, and click here to send to your contacts”. An illusion is presented that somehow there is massive political support.

I fear that what is now intended, despite the best intentions of the Government and of my own Front Bench, and what we are facing is the destruction of party politics and the destruction of the trade union movement as a political force, and in their place to have MPs who will hang and twist in the wind. They will face any direction in order to get elected. It is a grim prospect and we seem unable to recognise that. Far from enhancing democracy, recall will lead to the destruction of democracy and certainly representative democracy as we know it.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [HL]

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Friday 21st November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I very much agree with that. That is a very sensible approach and I am sure that consensus could be reached. The point I was making is on the argument that we should not do this because substantive reform is just around the corner. As I said, even if we agreed and a Bill went through and was approved by both Houses, it would be very unlikely to be implemented before 2020. So for at least five years ahead, we will be working under the current arrangements. The argument for sensible change—

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

I am slightly confused. I thought that this Bill was about dealing with people who transgressed the behaviour expected in this House. I appreciate that my noble friend is anxious to pursue his agenda but he knows perfectly well that consensus on reform of this House can proceed only on the basis of its powers compared to the House of Commons. Until that is satisfied, all the discussion in the world will get nowhere and he should not waste his time on it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With the greatest of respect—and I have great respect for my noble friend—I think that he has missed the point. I agree that substantive reform of the Lords will not take place until the relationship between this House and the other place is fully resolved. I believe that conventions will need to be codified in an Act of Parliament to have any chance whatever of there being a relationship between two elected Houses, if we are to have two elected Houses. Other noble Lords will disagree but I say to my noble friend that the argument that the Government have deployed on a number of occasions is that we cannot agree to sensible, incremental measures because we are committed to a fully elected second Chamber. That seems to be the argument that essentially comes out, certainly from the Minister and his party. My point is that even if we were to reach consensus and a reform Bill went through both Houses, it would be some years before it could actually be put into practice.

In the mean time, we still want a second Chamber to be as effective as possible. The way we are going, the issue about numbers is becoming so serious that we are running into a real problem of credibility. That is why I hope that the Minister will be very positive on this Bill but that he will also reflect on what his noble friend has said about allowing the House to discuss these other matters and come to a view very quickly, which I believe could be done.