House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this has been a very good debate indeed. I thank my noble friend Lord Filkin, and, indeed, I thank the Labour Back-Benchers for agreeing to give up their own debate to allow us to have this fascinating discussion.

It seems that there is a general consensus that, whatever one’s views on the Government’s attempt to achieve substantive reform, any real progress in that direction is some years ahead. We could sit here and wait for the next Bill to come in a few years’ time, or we could take up the opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, says, to take fate into our own hands and really get down to making improvements in the way that we do our business. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to take note of the sentiments expressed in this debate this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, suggested a reconvening of the Leader’s Group. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will listen to that very seriously indeed. I can assure him that the Opposition will co-operate with him if he is able to allow us to take this step forward.

There is sufficient consensus around your Lordships’ House on a number of the important issues raised regarding working practices and procedures to suggest that there could be a successful outcome which would, as noble Lords reminded us, enhance the role of this House in the scrutiny of the Executive and of legislation, thereby serving the public interest as effectively as possible.

In the past decade we have, of course, seen various changes and improvements to the way in which we do our business. These include new Select Committees such as the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. Perhaps the most successful innovation, I say with all due modesty, has been the creation of the Merits Committee, now known as the Scrutiny Committee, which has considerably enhanced the way that we deal with secondary legislation. In some ways, we have made decisions and changed others. We agreed some years ago to increase the number of Oral Questions to six, and then decided that that was not a very good idea and came back to four. We have also tried out pilots. We are making greater use of Grand Committee for Committee stages of Bills. In place of the Lord Chancellor we now elect our own Lord Speaker, although, of course, the role of the Speaker in the Chamber is somewhat limited because the House remains self-regulating. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, implied, “self-regulation” can often mean that which the noble Lord the Leader of the House suggests the House ought to do. There is remaining business to be done regarding the role of the Speaker, particularly during Oral Questions. We have seen two revised procedures for Questions for Short Debate, although I think that noble Lords feel that we need to make further progress there, too.

We have made some improvements, which shows that we can incrementally enhance our effectiveness. Many other proposals have, however, bitten the dust. That is why it is right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to seriously consider reconvening a Leader’s Group in the light of the fact that substantive reform will not take place for some time.

Noble Lords have discussed legislation in the context of a sense that the other place is not as effective as it might be in the scrutiny of legislation. One of the main complaints about the way in which the Commons does its business is that whole chunks of Bills are often not considered in Committee. This means that when the legislation comes to your Lordships’ House, that is the first time that the detail of many of the clauses is put to the test.

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we need to look at a bicameral approach to the way in which Parliament does its business, and more liaison between Members of both Houses would be very helpful as well. In the end, however, we can do much more ourselves to improve the way that we deal with legislation. The argument for pre-legislative scrutiny, or a business standards committee, is persuasive. In the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny, I have always favoured public evidence hearings before Bills go into Committee in your Lordships’ House. I hope that that might also be given further consideration.

We have debated post-legislative scrutiny on many occasions. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is unable to be here today. He would press us, I think, to include that with any package of measures of reforms.

I also share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about the length of speeches when we debate amendments to Bills. I have to say that Ministers, too, could be advised to speak in rather a less lengthy time than they often do. I remember the late Lord Carter as Chief Whip advising me when I first became a Minister to read out every other page of my wind-up because, he said, no one would ever notice. If Ministers responded to the points raised in debate rather than felt they had to read out page after page of script written for them by officials, they would find the House much more sympathetic to the arguments they put forward.

If we had less legislation, there would be more time for debates on Select Committee reports. I have to confess as a former serial offender, having introduced many Bills to your Lordships' House, that I am a sinner who now repenteth. Indeed, I remember that the fourth NHS reform Bill that I brought to your Lordships’ House seemed to do away with lots of the clauses that I brought in with the first NHS reform Bill. However, I think that I am not the only offender there.

On secondary legislation, my noble friend Lord Filkin suggested that this House could have more influence if, instead of having the veto option, which it always hesitates to use, it could delay legislation. I hope that that will again be considered in any discussion on how we can improve legislation. At the moment, the situation is unsatisfactory; the House is not able to pursue the issues in secondary legislation that it would wish to; and there is a strong case for the delaying powers.

My noble friend Lord Filkin wanted to know how the usual channels worked. I am not sure that he would find it entirely illuminating if we tried to describe that to him, but I think that behind that was a plea for more explanation about why decisions are sometimes made in relation to business management. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to comment on that.

Finally, I come to the size of the House—“the elephant in this Chamber”, as my noble friend Lord Filkin put it. We are a large House in terms of numbers and we threaten to become larger still if the Leader is determined to flood the House with yet more of his own supporters. I look forward to him saying in his wind-up that he recognises that it would not be right to increase the numbers in your Lordships' House until we have resolved issues around its size, the length of terms and retirement.

I hope that the Leader will also say that the Government have given further consideration to whether they will support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in the other place. The significance of that Bill is in Clause 1, which says:

“A peer may retire … Retirement may not be rescinded”.

I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that enacting that legislation would provide the foundation for your Lordships’ House to start talking about a scheme of retirement. I detect a growing consensus among Members of your Lordships’ House about the need to work together to see whether we can come up with a sensible approach to the size of the House, the representation of the different parties and the Cross Benches, and schemes of retirement. It would be all too easy for the Government to say, “We are not going to do that in the absence of substantive reform”—and I acknowledge that Governments of different colours have said that in the past—but the fact is that, realistically, substantive reform is now some years away. The argument for looking at issues to do with size and the way we proceed, therefore, becomes ever more persuasive. If the Leader were able to respond constructively to the comments made by noble Lords today, he would find enormous support for the work that he could do. I strongly urge him to consider setting up a Leader’s Group to take any work forward.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the only Bill emanating from my noble friend Lord Steel that has passed through this House was the one that languished in another place at the end of the previous Session of Parliament. I think it extremely likely that the Government’s proposals will include aspects of my noble friend’s Bill, and they should be discussed in that context.

I move on to the next part of this speech in support of the gracious Speech. I hope that, in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will speak with his usual clarity. Out of nowhere, Labour now says that it will support a Lords reform package provided the Cross-Benchers are removed. I wonder what the Cross-Benchers did to deserve this. There has been no mention of it over the past 10 years, but suddenly the Cross-Benchers must be flung out of this House before the Labour Party will support the consensus. I say to the Cross-Benchers that they need to pick their friends rather more carefully.

Secondly, there is the codification of powers so that the newly elected House will have less power than the existing appointed House. This is a new sort of rich absurdity that has crept into this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, shakes his head; is he saying that he does not want codification of powers? The other day he seemed very keen on it. He will be able to reply in a moment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It is a great pleasure to intervene in the noble Lord’s remarkable speech this morning. The issue of powers, which has now been fully explored by the Select Committee and the alternative report, is very clear. With two elected Houses, there is a great danger of gridlock and a fight for legitimacy. That is why some codification is necessary. The issue of an elected House having fewer powers than this House is a red herring because this House does not use all its powers since it is not elected.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord has responded to my invitation to speak with clarity. Labour will support only a 100% elected House with a codification of powers that means that the elected House will have less power than the existing one. The noble Lord can quiver and quibble—he and his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton can do all those things—but in the end they need to be clear on all this. I wonder where all this nonsense came from. Throughout the past 10 years, no Joint Committee, White Paper or any aspect of this has ever mentioned that Labour was in favour of the codification of powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that was a remarkable speech by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It was a remarkable display in which he sought to wash his hands of any responsibility for the Government’s failure to get anywhere with Lords reform.

As regards my party’s work in relation to reform of your Lordships’ House, it is widely acknowledged that the reforms which took place in 1999 improved the effectiveness of this House and that it is held in high regard because of the quality of its scrutiny and revising work. We should not underestimate the esteem in which your Lordships’ House is held. Of course, we wanted to move forward on the path of reform and we tried to seek consensus. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows, consensus on reform of your Lordships’ House is a jolly hard thing to achieve. I suspect that the noble Lord’s blustering this morning, in which he sought to frame the Labour Party for his own Government’s failures, was an attempt to disguise a fact: I wonder if they have a Bill prepared to present to Parliament at all, because on all the substantive questions put forward by the Joint Select Committee and in the alternative report we have yet to receive any answers. I hope that as we go through this debate—and when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, winds up—we might actually get answers to some fundamental questions about the relationship between two elected Houses, which goes to the heart of our debate.

This is a curious debate to have when the country is in such a critical moment—is it not?—with the economy in recession, unemployment high and investment depressingly low. We have a Government who, having produced a tax cut for millionaires, are now watching passively as millions live in fear of unemployment and are forced to pay more in bills, fares and petrol prices. We desperately needed from the Queen’s Speech a policy for growth to create jobs, halt fare increases and tax the banks. But from this laissez-faire Government we have nothing. It is no wonder that business leaders this morning expressed their dismay at the lack of any positive budgetary proposals.

We have had the thinnest of Queen’s Speeches, which is wholly irrelevant to people’s lives—nothing on growth and nothing on jobs. Even on the biggest social issue that we face—care for older people—all we are to get is a draft Bill, with no guarantee to implement the much-needed Dilnot proposals. There is no high-speed rail Bill and no development Bill. Instead, there is a hotchpotch of a programme in which Lords reform was originally intended to be the focal point. Then we had the elections last week and the panic in the other place on the Back Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Lords reform has clearly been downgraded to reserve status.

Yet, in your Lordships’ House, we are now to enjoy two full days debating constitutional affairs. We will no doubt have a stimulating debate. I have no doubt that much that is new will be brought to that debate, but I wonder what the public will think of that sense of priorities when so much of our economy is at stake. I wonder what they will think of the Government and their endless tinkering with our constitutional arrangements. Already we have had legislation on fixed-term Parliaments and a reduction in the number of MPs. We have been gifted politicised police commissioners, with elections in November and real concern about the low turnout expected. England’s biggest cities were forced to have referendums on elected mayors and, even though the Government got a big raspberry for their pains, Ministers now want to implant mayors on regions and unwilling populations. A referendum on Scottish independence is to come. There is a huge amount of churn but very little coherence in these stand-alone measures.

I get no sense that this will enhance public confidence in our democracy. I get no sense that we are anywhere near increasing public involvement in our democratic processes. Voter turnout gets ever lower, and people’s interest in politics gets lower still. Nowhere is this piecemeal approach more neatly expressed as in the approach to House of Lords reform.

[Noble Lords]

Ah!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It is worth waiting for, my Lords.

Let us pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. We have a government commission considering the West Lothian question and the place of Scottish MPs at Westminster voting on laws that apply only to England. The current terms of reference apply only to the Commons, but surely the same issues would apply to an elected second Chamber. That is readily apparent when one considers the potential referendum on Scottish independence. Independence for Scotland would of course be a game changer. Carwyn Jones, the First Minister for Wales, has argued that if Scotland were, unfortunately, to leave the UK, and fearing English domination of what is left of the UK, there should be a new Senate in which Wales, Northern Ireland and England should enjoy equal status. You do not have to agree with the First Minister to realise that we may well be heading for a new constitutional settlement of major proportions in which the second Chamber ought to be a constituent part. I put it to the noble Lord the Leader that the place of an elected second Chamber has to be considered as part of a more fundamental question about the future of our United Kingdom and its democratic arrangements.

The alternative report recommended a constitutional convention to look at the next steps on House of Lords reform. That is an excellent suggestion but I wonder whether the remit should not be widened to look at these pressing constitutional issues that we face as a United Kingdom, and perhaps we have a little time to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talks about the Labour position on Lords reform but what is the Government’s position? Briefings emanating from Conservative parts of the Government in the past day or so have suggested that the importance of reform has been downgraded. Threats to use the Parliament Act seem to have faded a little and there is even talk of a search for consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was at it again today.

Significantly, the Prime Minister’s call to arms in the Telegraph on Monday made no mention of Lords reform. On the same day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Osborne, said that it was absolutely not a high priority. Even yesterday, Mr Cameron seemed rather lukewarm when it came to the debates in the other place. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather gave the game away over the weekend. In his fascinating article in the Sunday Telegraph, he proclaimed, as usual, his belief in an elected Chamber but then predicted that the Bill might get killed off in the Commons. Indeed, it seems that that is the option of choice for most Cabinet Ministers, at least on the Conservative Benches. Yesterday the noble Lord went further in the Financial Times and said that an elected House would be more aggressive in challenging the decisions of the Commons. Of course it will, but I suspect that the noble Lord was just giving a signal to MPs of his own party in the other place and perhaps an invitation to ditch the Bill.

In contrast to the voices emanating from the Conservative Party, we have had the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, signalling his determination to press ahead with Lords reform, while his right honourable friend Mr Cable said, in a moment of supreme optimism, that we should get on with it quickly and quietly.

So what are the Government intending? What is their priority? Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked of adapting the proposals in response to my noble friend’s Joint Select Committee report. The choice of wording in the Queen’s Speech, describing the Bill as being concerned with composition, is intriguing. The noble Lord said this morning that it means that the Government will bring forward proposals that have elected Members and a smaller House at their core. Therefore, I ask him or his noble friend Lord Wallace: have the Government decided to ignore the Joint Select Committee’s report and the alternative report on the inadequacies of the crucial part of the Bill—Clause 2? Has the wording in the Queen’s Speech been couched in neutral terms to allow for a discussion on reaching a consensus? That would be welcome but, as we have discovered, more meanings are involved in that than “consensus”. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, defines consensus as what the Commons thinks, although he now sees himself as being rather misunderstood. Mr Clegg thinks that consensus is what he thinks, but Mr Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister and is in a position of some influence. Why is he so reluctant to have a proper conversation about Lords reform? If consensus breaks down, look no further than Mr Clegg and the fact that when we had joint talks at the beginning of this Parliament, the moment substantive issues were raised by the Opposition those talks broke down and we were never invited to them again. Do not lecture this party on consensus. We stand always ready to talk to the Government about Lords reform. We will do everything we can to help reach consensus, but consensus is a three-way process in our current political system. So far there is no sign that the Government are prepared to listen.

I am intrigued by the wording on the Bill. I wonder whether it is cover for eventual government support for the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a plan B for a Steel-plus Bill to deal with the size of the House. The briefings from different parts of the Government have been confusing, but I want to be clear and I accept the invitation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to say that if the Government press ahead with proposals for an elected House, it is inescapable that unless they can articulate the role, functions and powers of both Houses and their relationship with each other, the Bill will fall at the first hurdle. It would deserve to do so. That goes to the heart of the arguments put forward by the Joint Select Committee and in the alternative report.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

That is an interesting statement. Would we be right to conclude from it that, unless those conditions are satisfied, Labour will vote against the Bill?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

We will have to see what is in the Bill.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we will of course have to see what is in the Bill. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government are busily pondering how to adapt their proposals in relation to the report of the Joint Select Committee. It is not unreasonable to say that we should see what is in the Government’s Bill, particularly given the ambiguity of the wording in the Queen’s Speech.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. Anyone listening to his previous statement would have concluded that it would be a condition for Labour to have those powers defined before it supported the Bill. It is nice of him to tell us that that is not a condition. Clarity on this matter really would be useful.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am slightly confused. The noble Lord asked me whether the Labour Party would support the Bill. I said that we had better see what is in it. I can tell the noble Lord that it is an inescapable conclusion and quite clear from my reading of the workings of both the Select Committee and the alternative report that, unless we are clear about the respective powers of both elected Houses, it will be very difficult indeed to make progress.

[Lord Trimble]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I understand the importance of the issue to which he has just alluded. However, I suggest that another very important issue that might be a way of resolving these problems is to look more closely, which unfortunately the Joint Committee did not do, at procedures to resolve disputes.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That is a very helpful suggestion. One way or another with two elected Houses, whatever is in the legislation on the respective powers, there will always be a need for procedures to deal with the situation when both Houses disagree with each other, particularly if both Houses claim equal legitimacy, as is likely to happen, and particularly if the upper Chamber were elected on a different system of voting where the arguments for legitimacy will be legion. The noble Lord is quite right to suggest that reconciliation machinery must be part of the package, but I do not think that that can substitute for absolute clarity about the respective powers and the role of both Houses if they were both elected.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is widely liked and admired in your Lordships’ House. In his wind-up speech last week, he apologised for not answering all the points made, but he did not answer any of them. These points go to the heart of our debate. He was asked whether a second Chamber elected by proportional representation would not claim greater legitimacy than the Commons. He was silent. Asked about the applicability of the Parliament Acts, he was no more forthcoming. Instead, he said that the Government would set out their legal reasoning on the application of the Parliament Acts if a Bill were included in the Queen’s Speech. A Bill was included in the Speech. Will the noble Lord now tell me when the advice will be made available?

The advice must answer two questions. The first is on the use of the Parliament Acts in relation to a Lords reform Bill. The second is on their use more generally in application to an elected second Chamber. I remind the Minister that both my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the drafters of the 1911 Parliament Act did not intend its provisions to apply in the event of a second Chamber being constituted on a popular basis.

On the question of cost, the Minister said that no estimate could be given because a final decision had yet to be made on the number of Members. However, there is nothing to stop the Government coming up with a series of different options based on different sizes.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested that the primacy of the Commons was a wonderful obstacle against which one kicked. Of course it is, but primacy is at the heart of our constitutional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, talked about involving conventions and of the House being more assertive, which I fully acknowledge; it is one reason why many people think that the House of Lords has become a more effective Chamber in the past 10 or 12 years. However, on the balance of power, the arguments between two elected Houses will be much greater than those caused by a non-elected House exercising a small degree of assertiveness.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Is it still the official position of the Labour Party that it favours a 100%-elected House? If so, how will it seek to solve some of the problems that the noble Lord mentioned?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we are in favour of a 100%-elected House. We debated hybridity last week. Our view on a mostly elected Chamber is that the 20% non-elected element would not feel confident about making a positive contribution in a House that would be much more political. One has only to think of what happened with hereditary Peers. I well remember, when my party was in government, that when we lost votes we counted up the votes of hereditary Peers, and if it turned out that we had lost because of their votes we made a great play of it. The same thing would happen with Cross-Benchers. They would be in an impossible position because it would be argued that because of non-elected Cross-Benchers the will of the elected majority in the second Chamber had been thwarted. In a non-elected House, I pay tribute to the great contribution of Cross-Benchers. However, a hybrid 80%-elected House would not work.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I have listened to the noble Lord’s very important and interesting speech. Does it follow from his argument that the Labour Party’s position will be that because of the West Lothian question and the examination of it, and because of the Scottish referendum, it would be more sensible to postpone consideration of parliamentary reform so that options such as a Senate and indirect elections from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be contemplated—or is that simply a debating point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is an interesting idea. If we face huge constitutional change in the affairs of the United Kingdom because of the referendum and the potential of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, one should at least put on the table the fact that there might need to be some kind of constitutional convention to consider what impact that would have on Westminster and certainly on the second Chamber. In the mean time, if a Bill is brought forward we will of course give it every consideration. None the less, it will have to deal with the issues of powers and relationships—we believe that it should be 100% elected—and one cannot duck the fundamental positions that my party has adopted.

[Lord Rooker]

Perhaps I may give my noble friend another example. We did not develop this matter in the Joint Committee, but it was raised. If we were to have a second elected House—80% or 100%, it does not matter—it would leave the United Kingdom as the only country in the world with two elected Houses and no written constitution. If you looked at the matrix of those with unicamerals and those without written constitutions, and then look at those with elected second Chambers, you would see that we would be unique. In other words, there is nowhere else we can go to learn about how you work with two elected Chambers without a written constitution for settling disputes. That is a barmy position in which to put ourselves.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I agree with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. Of course, this is not new. One has only to go back to the preamble of the 1911 Act because the drafters of that Act knew that too. That is why they said that if a Chamber were constituted on a popular basis—and noble Lords on the Lib Dem Benches frequently remind us of the distance between 1911 and 2012—new proposals would be needed for limiting and defining the powers of the new second Chamber. The position in 1911 was exactly the same as the one pointed out by my noble friend today.

We are on a truly uncertain journey. Last week, in a notable intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked how the public would feel about a constitutional change, which is really a deal got up by the two political parties in the coalition, whereby the Conservatives get extra Members in the Commons and in return the Lib Dems get control of the balance of power in the House of Lords. I wonder how the public would feel—as has been briefed in the past few days by a number of people close to the Conservative Party—if, in order to save the immediate future of the coalition, another deal might be got up in which the Conservatives do not get the extra seats after all and in return the Lib Dems drop their passion for Lords reform. What would the public think if that were to happen?

Indeed, how do the public feel about Lords reform? As a Birmingham resident, last week I took part in a ballot to decide whether we were to have an elected mayor, and I wonder why the people of Birmingham are not to be given a say on whether we should have an elected second Chamber. There is only one answer: Mr Clegg is frightened of a referendum and what the public would say.

The Government owe it to the nation to think very hard about the substantive issues that are likely to be raised in our debates on the Bill. I hope the Government will listen carefully to the words of the Joint Select Committee and the alternative group. I also hope that the Government will in the end realise that they owe it to the British people to decide and will agree that, whatever proposals come forward, there ought to be a referendum of the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, it is entirely appropriate that the debate on the humble Address should begin on constitutional affairs. I will try to step aside from the party political flavour that has just occasionally crept into the earlier contributions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will excuse me if I make just one comment on something he said—I hope that I heard him right and apologise if I got it wrong. He said that to build a consensus on the future of this House, it is necessary to seek agreement with the three political parties. Well, there are some others of us in this House. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that those of us who do not belong to a political party might have a contribution to make on matters of this kind.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am delighted to respond. The noble Lord will recall that in the cross-party talks which my own Government instituted, we had strong representation from the Cross Benches and the Bishops’ Benches. However, it is an inescapable fact that, in the wider scheme of things, if consensus is to be reached, we need the Deputy Prime Minister first of all to recognise that there has to be discussion on issues other than composition and membership. Essentially, that was the point that I was trying to make.

[Lord Laming]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Therefore, before we go, perhaps we may just make a contribution to this debate.

Constitutional affairs might seem dry to some people but, as has already been demonstrated across the House, they are immensely important to the well-being of our society. During the past decade, which is what I have been particularly interested in, there have been many changes. Even during the previous Session of Parliament legislation was passed that might have a marked effect on our arrangements for the governance of the United Kingdom. Some commentators seem to believe that for more than 1,000 years there has been little change, especially in your Lordships' House. That is manifestly not so. Every Member of this House will have direct experience of substantial changes in both local and central government. Even last week some of these changes were experienced for the first time, in the form of referendums for mayors, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned.

Time does not allow for—nor does there need to be—a rehearsal of the many changes that Parliament has enacted, both centrally and locally. However, whatever view we take of the merits of those changes, we can at least agree that the catalogue of change has been substantial. Of course, that is the way it should be. If our legislative institutions are to keep pace with the changes in society and remain relevant to the needs and aspirations of our fellow citizens—and, indeed, if they are to understand the concerns that have just been referred to—then of course change must be a constant in all our arrangements for government.

I recognise that there are many in this House who are better qualified than I to speak on these matters, so I will be brief. I shall therefore just pose three questions for consideration, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. First, does he agree that during the Session that finished only last week, the Bills that came to this House, having previously completed every stage of consideration in the other place, were without exception, once again, greatly improved during their passage through this House? Thanks to the conscientiousness, skill and hard work of Peers across the whole of the House, the quality of scrutiny resulted not only in many sound amendments being made to those Bills but in the Government, having listened to your Lordships, very wisely bringing forward many amendments to their own legislation.

I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, responds to this debate, he will begin by agreeing that this House conscientiously fulfils its responsibility to scrutinise and improve legislation. It is dangerous to raise that point, as there will be those who think that it is just another piece of self-congratulation; but I do not raise it in that spirit, nor do I do so with any notion of complacency. On the contrary, I have in mind something that I regard as much more important: the fact that many of us have a real concern about the effectiveness of the other place in scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account. Our society depends on a very strong House of Commons that fulfils its unique role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that when the noble Lord responds he will recognise that it behoves us all to ensure that Parliament is as strong as possible, and that our endeavours should be directed to the whole of Parliament and its standing in the community. It is vital to the well-being of our society that Parliament as a whole commands the confidence of our fellow citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wakeham]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the Convenor of the Cross Benches. I have always had great respect for Convenors of the Cross Benches. I remember that when I arrived in the House as Leader the Convenor of the Cross Benches was Lady Hylton-Foster. I consulted her on the appointment of someone to an important position and said that there was a question as to whether they might be a little too old because they were 75. She looked at me as if I was absolutely out of this world. She told me how old she was and that was the end of the discussion. I have always treated Convenors of the Cross Benches with considerable respect.

Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I want to say a few words about Lords reform. As has been mentioned by both Front-Bench speakers, some 10 years ago I was the chairman of the royal commission which produced a report on Lords reform. Everyone will probably have forgotten what we said, but it was that the Lords should continue to be mostly appointed but that there should be a significant proportion of elected Members, particularly because we thought that the regions and nations of the United Kingdom were not well represented there and that that would be a way to increase the spread of membership. We recommended what is now, in common parlance, the 15-year non-renewable term.

I have to say that our report got an extremely bad press. A number of people said that it was an interesting report, well argued and everything else, but that it had come to the wrong conclusions. We did not mind that it got a bad press, because we expected that, although it was slightly embarrassing to me because it was at the same time as my youngest son was taking his A-levels and he had to write an essay on an article by a Guardian reporter which referred to the timid and cautious report of Lord Wakeham. When I saw the paper afterwards, I said, “I hope you told him that it was an extremely bold report”, to which he said, “No, Dad, I said that it was timid. I want to pass the exam”. That was the sensible thing to do.

The one bright spark at that time was the Labour Party, because it put in its manifesto that it had accepted the Wakeham report and would implement it. It was slightly embarrassing for me to have my name in a Labour Party manifesto, but it was encouraging. When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tells us about the need for a 100% elected House, I can remember a time when that was not quite the Labour Party’s position. That is not my recollection.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to acknowledge the excellence of his royal commission report. He will remember that we tried, and produced a White Paper, but, alas, we did not get anywhere with it.

[Lord Wakeham]

It is another story as to why the noble Lord did not get anywhere with it. I will not bore the House with it now, but he and I know many of those reasons.

The main lesson of my report has not been learnt even to this day. Our report recommended a compromise, and that is why people did not like it. Everybody compared their ideal solution with our compromise, and our compromise looked weak and wishy-washy compared with what they wanted. We talked about a compromise; in the modern jargon, that is a consensus, but it is the same thing. We did not reach our consensus easily, I can tell you. One of my noble friends who was on the commission told me privately when we started, “I have already been party to a published document that said that there had to be an elected element in any reform of the House of Lords”. One very distinguished Labour Member of Parliament—a good many noble Lords will guess who I mean, but I shall not mention his name—came to me to say, “If the commission so much as discusses elected Members, I will not attend any more of the meetings”. I persuaded them both to stay. They both signed the report, and we got consensus. It is therefore possible for people of goodwill to get consensus.

What do I mean by consensus? I mean that all our preconceived positions, both of and within the parties, have somehow to be melded together in a form of compromise for a way forward. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has acknowledged, as a result of the Joint Committee report the Government have to think again about a number of the things which they are doing. If I may say so to the Labour Party, it, too, has to think again about the idea that it can have a 100% elected membership. It is quite simply unrealistic. A consensus outcome will not produce that. We have in Parliament a very big responsibility to get this right and to get consensus because, as people have frequently said, outside this Chamber there is no great interest in what goes on in here. They are not interested in what we do and for us therefore to try to put through a solution that was highly controversial within the House would be a grave dereliction of our total responsibilities as a Parliament. Consensus is therefore what we have to achieve.

Let me say three things about the position as I see it. First, the Government are right to try to see whether they can find a consensus. This issue has been hanging about long enough, and if it is possible to find consensus, we ought to move forward. Secondly, in my view a consensus will involve a partly elected and a partly appointed House. There will be some very tricky negotiations as to how they are going to achieve that. An issue which is now highly relevant, but was not realised 10 years ago, is the effect that that will have on the House of Commons. It has to be thought about very carefully. Thirdly, and of this I am quite sure, if the House of Commons reaches a consensus and sends us a Bill that reflects that consensus, the responsibilities of this House are clear. We should treat the Bill like any other coming before the House. We should give it a Second Reading, try to improve it in Committee and give it proper scrutiny in the normal way. This applies, I am afraid, particularly to noble Lords who do not like things going on as they are. All of us have a responsibility to act in accordance with our precedents.

Finally, I have been in this House for 18 years and was also in the House of Commons for 18 years. I had the honour of being Leader of each House. There are still Members of this House in all parties and of none who are of great distinction, but the place has changed in the 18 years I have been here—and not for the better. When I first came here, I remember Lord Callaghan and Lord Whitelaw getting up time and time again when their Governments were in difficulties to say, “I completely accept the right of your Lordships to pass this amendment, but is it wise?”. They were really saying that there is no point in a revising House passing series after series of amendments which will just be reversed when they get to the House of Commons. A revising House should be looking at the legislation that has come forward and seeking to improve it, particularly where the House of Commons is singing on an uncertain note. That is the moment to make amendments towards effective legislation, rather than sending back hundreds of amendments. I hope that people will not be offended if I suggest that we use with some humility the position that we are somehow superior in public perceptions and in our judgment of the public good. The House of Commons is the elected House, its Members accountable to their electorates, and we should not live in a world of wishful thinking, make-believe or has-beens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are having a discussion at the beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate on constitutional reform. I am, however, immensely surprised by the prioritisation in this galère of measures of the reform of the House of Lords. I accept that reform sometimes takes a long time. Indeed, what has been notified to us about the possibilities of changing the succession to the throne is very delayed; it has been more than 300 years since the Act of Settlement. I hope that that part of the Government’s programme will be concluded with all appropriate celerity.

It is also right to recognise the need for change when it arises in a conspicuous fashion. Perhaps the case of electoral fraud, of which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, spoke, is such an example. I, too, have some concerns about non-registration, which my noble friend Lord Tyler has already mentioned. It is important that people are notified of their opportunities and responsibilities, and that should be part of the legislation.

At this time, questions have to be raised about the traditional methods of constitutional reform in this country. Incremental change has a pretty good name among constitutional lawyers, and I understand why: it enables the elected Parliament and legislature to give detailed consideration to what is proposed. However, it has to be said that, at this time, when the future of the United Kingdom is under attack, to have an incremental response to the possibility of the nations of this country falling apart is not wise or sufficient to deal with the constitutional crisis in which we are placed. We have to consider as the top priority whether or not Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom and the other constitutional changes that might be necessary in either circumstance. It is not only Scotland that would be affected by independence being sought and won but also Northern Ireland, Wales and England.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Does the noble Lord think that if Scotland rejected independence but some form of what has come to be known as devo-plus was offered, the same circumstances would arise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, the Queen’s Speech contains a number of important constitutional matters. The matter of the royal succession is important and requires to be carefully negotiated with all members of the Commonwealth so that the unity of the Commonwealth, which has been so conspicuous under Her Majesty’s reign, may continue. There are also the proposals on electoral registration. I am disturbed by any suggestion that that should be motivated otherwise than by trying to achieve the fullest possible registration of voters in a proper way. I hope that that would be the motivation of any reform that is put forward. We are faced also with a major constitutional matter in relation to the independence of Scotland and possibly of other parts of the United Kingdom if that should occur. We need to consider those matters with great care.

However, I intend to restrict my remarks specifically to the House of Lords proposals and the proposal to deal with its composition. When William Hague was leader of the Conservative Party, he invited my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell and me to consider options for reform of the House of Lords with a view to achieving some kind of consensus. That is now rather a long time ago. I invited, as I was empowered to do, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the late Lord Russell to join us, but neither felt able to do so, with Lord Russell explaining that the leadership of his party at the time felt that it might not be desirable. I can well understand those responses because we had been appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party, which had recently suffered a rather severe defeat in the general election. But my noble friend and myself, with the help of Douglas Slater, a clerk here with great experience, considered the various options. The report has been published for a long time and was available to the Government and the Joint Committee, and was no doubt carefully considered.

My central point relates to the relationship between the two Houses. I have no doubt whatever that the primacy of the House of Commons, recognised in taxation particularly since 1671 or so, is founded on the fact that the House of Commons has over the years been elected—no doubt with a rather restricted electorate to start with, but gradually evolving into a general electorate over the whole country. That has given the House of Commons the responsibility, in accordance with the maxim that there can be no taxation without representation, for full control of taxation matters.

Since 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons has also achieved a primary position on general legislation. The true position now is that the elected House can prevent anything going on the statute book with which it does not agree and, after a reasonably short delay, can put on the statute book anything that it steadfastly believes should be there. Sometimes, as we know, as a result of consultations and consideration in this House, it wisely decides not to proceed further, as happened in relation to the process whereby people were detained without any particular procedure being followed. That process was eventually abandoned. However, generally speaking, the House of Commons—the elected House—gets its own way on posited legislation and prevents the enactment of any measure that it does not want. Therefore, I do not see that the undeniable governance difficulties in our country have anything to do with the democratic deficit, as it is sometimes called, whereby ordinary people cannot exert influence through their representatives on the laws which govern them.

The proposal for a fully elected second Chamber requires that the second Chamber, being fully elected, should have democratic accountability and democratic legitimacy. Therefore, I do not see why it should not be given the same authority as the other House, which is directly elected. That seems to me a fundamental point, which is well made by the Joint Committee. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is now in his place, that I very much appreciate the clarity of the Joint Committee’s report, which constitutes an important development. The same sentiments apply to the alternative report, which was compiled by members of the same committee. It is not possible to print it as a government paper because of the desire for unanimity by the House of Lords, if possible. However, it was printed using government resources and is available in the Library. It seems somewhat unnecessary to make a distinction in this regard. Indeed, my remarks about the clarity and utility of the main report apply also to the alternative report. We are all extremely grateful to the members of the committee for giving a great deal of their time, effort and expertise to frame the report.

The report records the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the Parliament Acts would not affect the situation if the House of Lords—the second Chamber—became a fully elected Chamber. I firmly agree with that opinion as you have only to read the preamble to the 1911 Act to appreciate that the House of Lords did not operate on a popular basis at that time. I have no doubt that if it were fully elected it would operate on a popular basis, and we would have two fully elected Houses with full democratic mandates, given that we have universal suffrage throughout the nation. The Joint Committee recommended that if this were to happen it would be right to introduce legislation to distinguish clearly between the powers of the two Houses. I entirely agree with that but legislation needs to be based on reason. I see no reason for legislating to restrict the democratic authority of the second House, if it has a full democratic mandate, but to leave untouched the democratic authority of the first House.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If you accept the primacy of the Commons as the first base of the constitutional arrangement, it would still be possible to have two elected Houses provided you were able to set out their respective powers. However, inevitably, despite the universal mandate that would arise from the fact that people can vote for the second Chamber, it would none the less still be secondary to the primary Chamber, if it were so ordained through legislation.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am saying that the legislation needs to have a reason behind it. It is all very well to legislate, and I know that from time to time we see legislation which some of us think does not have much reason behind it, but on the whole we regard it as rather important that legislation which reaches our statute book should be grounded in reason. If the democratic mandate is the same for both Houses, it is difficult to see a reason for distinguishing between their democratic authority.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that at Report on the Bill there will be issues which relate, however indirectly, to the finances of the National Health Service. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House whether the Government could give an indication of the procedural implications for this House on the Welfare Reform Bill following a Statement on financial privilege by the Minister earlier today in the other place.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind invitation for some procedural advice. We will be dealing with the Welfare Reform Bill when it comes back from another place. I should say that matters for privilege are not a matter for the Government but a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons on advice from his clerks. The position of privilege has of course been jealously guarded by the House of Commons since 1671. It is well precedented and there is nothing unusual, although the second Chamber might always think that the Commons using financial privilege is a little unfair.

We will get to that Bill in due course. I cannot comment on the Health and Social Care Bill, which is of course the subject of the Motion before us now, as to what the Government’s attitude will be on defeats. But, as I said earlier, there is nothing unusual about financial privilege being prayed in aid. Since there are many former Members of another place present in this House I am sure that they will readily understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps I may come back to a point he raised. I am sure that the procedure was followed appropriately in the other place and I assume that the Government made application to the Speaker. The question is whether it was wise for the Government to use this process in this place, because, essentially, they are hiding behind parliamentary procedure to curtail consideration of the amendments that your Lordships passed on the Welfare Reform Bill. In essence, my noble friend has put it absolutely right: if the Government continue to do this on these Bills, our role as a revising Chamber is effectively undermined.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I simply disagree with the noble Lord. This situation has existed for 350 years. It was as though the noble Lord were suggesting that the Government had found some new ploy to stop the will of the House of Lords. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will agree that we are an unelected House. The House of Commons is an elected House. It has protected its financial privilege since 1671. Nothing has changed for the debates that we will no doubt have on the health Bill and the welfare Bill.

House of Lords: Scottish Referendum

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the proposed referendum on Scottish independence on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the Government can proceed only on the current constitutional framework. We will of course take all relevant factors into account when planning the timetable for reform.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that illuminating response. Remarkably, it appears that Mr Clegg’s Bill is to be the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme for the next Session. However, this will be in advance of the outcome of the Scottish referendum which could—I am sure the noble Lord will agree—have profound constitutional significance for the United Kingdom. How will the Government take that into account? Furthermore, as Scotland is to have a referendum, why on earth are the British people not to be allowed one on Lords reform?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there were a number of questions there. The noble Lord is right that it would have profound constitutional implications for the United Kingdom if there were to be a referendum result in Scotland in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom. However, as I said in my Answer, we can proceed only on the current constitutional framework. If there is a Scottish referendum, I for one—and, I am sure, the noble Lord for another—will campaign in favour of retaining the United Kingdom. The Government of course considered the case for a referendum on the future of the House of Lords. However, given that all three manifestos in the most recent election were remarkably similar on reform of the House, we feel that people's views have already been taken into account.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with both points that my noble friend makes. However, the fact is that if we end up with a wholly elected House or a partially elected House, and if the relationship between the two Houses becomes strained, it is up to parliamentarians in both Houses to find the best way of sorting that out.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to this as a Christmas question, but I do not detect too many turkeys in your Lordships' House this morning. He cannot get away with that. When he quoted from the draft Bill, he omitted the second part of Clause 2(1)(c), which states that nothing in the proposed Act affects the,

“conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses”.

The noble Lord should go back to the 1911 Act’s preamble, which makes it clear that those conventions were developed to allow for a relationship between an elected and an unelected House. They cannot apply to two elected Houses. This draft Bill and previous draft Bills are defective because they do not get to the crunch of the issue, which is the relationship between the two Houses.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the conventions can apply but they may well evolve in the years after we have an elected senate.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, no is the answer to the last part of my noble friend’s question, but he is right that, if we do not fundamentally change this House, at the start of every new Parliament where there is a change in the Government the House would continue to increase. The Constitution Unit at UCL has done a useful piece of work examining this. On the current general election figures, if we were to put the policy into effect immediately, it would mean an increase of 82 Conservative Peers. I can tell the House that we are not about to announce 82 Conservative Peers.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, given the uncertainties as to whether the Government will achieve substantive reform in this Parliament, why do they not say that they will take over the Steel Bill?

Hereditary Peers

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am not sure that I detected a question. The Government believe that it is time to deal with the issue of succession to the Crown, and there is no simple read-across to succession to the hereditary peerage, which is infinitely more complicated and affects many more families.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that it would be difficult to implement, but will he suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that he perhaps should seek to amend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel? On that matter, can he tell me whether tomorrow the Government intend to support the noble Lord, Lord Steel?

Public Disorder

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, would like to associate myself and these Benches with the sentiments that have been expressed and to extend our condolences to those people who have lost so much in the terrible events from Saturday onwards. I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minster’s Statement today.

There is absolutely no excuse for the terrible scenes that we have witnessed on the streets of London and beyond in our cities over the past few days. Our deepest sympathies must go to those families who have lost their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods. As we have heard, we must work to restore hope and confidence in our cities.

I have lived in Hackney and Islington all my life. I served as a councillor in those areas, which were among those where we have seen terrible unrest. I worked in Tottenham for almost a decade from the mid-1990s; in fact, I was there earlier on Saturday before all this happened. I know the area and the people well. I know that the vast majority are law-abiding, decent people who care deeply about their community. They are absolutely traumatised by what has happened to their neighbourhood. They did not have very much to begin with; all they had was their high street and that is now destroyed.

Whether we like it or not, the young people who rioted, looted and trashed their streets are part of our society. As the Prime Minister’s Statement acknowledged, there is a deep-rooted problem with gangs in many inner-city areas. We know that in London, for example, there are more than 250 active gangs. The police know who they are and who the leaders are. These gangs have been allowed to grow and to take a hold for more than a decade—for 10 or 15 years. They draw in young people who are out on the streets and they spread criminality. When I was a councillor, mothers would come to my surgery begging me to get them transferred because they were so terrified of living on these estates and because of the way in which their families and their children were intimidated if they tried to resist joining these gangs.

These social problems did not happen overnight in our inner cities, where there are huge inequalities and a big social divide. We have to acknowledge that. We have a disconnection in a section of our society—an underclass of young people who have poor education and no skills and who come from dysfunctional families. They feel that they have nothing to lose. They have no fear of authority. Who are their role models? Millionaire footballers and rock stars. They want the latest gadgets, trainers or mobiles. This is what they aspire to.

The solutions for these riots must come from within our diverse communities. Please can we ensure that we do not demonise all young people? We certainly should not demonise all black young people. In future proposals to rebuild these communities—I am pleased that my noble friend the Leader of the House announced in the Statement that funds will be made available—can we ensure that these young people play a role in the rebuilding so that they feel a sense of ownership and pride in those communities? Let them have some work to do to rebuild their own communities.

It was clear that the police were often overwhelmed and could not protect property or stop the looting. On Monday night, in Dalston in Hackney near where I live, a large group of Turkish and Kurdish shopkeepers came together and successfully protected their businesses from rioters. They told me that they had no option. They prevented their high street from being trashed. I pay tribute to such people. I pay tribute to the Sikhs of Southall and the Turks and Kurds of Dalston. When strength was needed and they needed to stand up in their communities against this thuggery, they spontaneously demonstrated what was very good in our community. They did this in a good and peaceful way and nobody was harmed. We have seen what is very bad in our communities and society but we have also seen what is very good. We need to recognise that and pay tribute to it. We should not focus just on the bad.

I ask my noble friend the Minister how we can restore confidence in the police, because a lot of people feel that they cannot rely on them now. Vigilante groups are being formed up and down the country, which we must feel are not welcome. How can we restore confidence in the police and prevent the need for the rise of these groups of vigilantes around the country?

On a final note, I think that a lot of us were very moved during the break by the words of the Norwegian Prime Minister, who said that at times like this we need more democracy and more humanity. We need to be guided by that and to reflect on it before we make any knee-jerk reactions in response to what we have seen.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for agreeing to answer specific points on policing and the role of the Home Office. I have no doubt that the actions of police forces up and down the country will come under intense scrutiny in the next few weeks and months but none of us should underestimate the bravery of thousands of police officers and other emergency workers in the face of the shocking and indefensible lawlessness that we have seen in the past week. On Monday night, 44 officers were injured in London alone. They have done us great credit and we are very grateful to them.

In criticism that has been made—and will presumably continue to be made—of decisions by a number of police forces, we should not underestimate the complex challenge faced by police chiefs in these difficult circumstances. I, too, want to pay tribute to my own chief constable in the West Midlands, Chris Sims, for the careful and measured statements that he made yesterday and the leadership that he has shown. That calm response to a highly dangerous situation was influential in ensuring that the forecast troubles in Birmingham yesterday did not happen.

I pay tribute to Mr Tariq Jahan and his extraordinary courage in the comments he made yesterday following the tragic death of his son and two others, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir. Community leaders in Birmingham, Members of Parliament, councillors, the police and representatives of the community worked very hard yesterday to defuse any potential racial tension. I am proud of what they achieved. I endorse the remarks of the most reverend Primate that we should seize the moment. Surely the noble Baroness is right in terms of using this to bring our communities together.

There will be many inquiries and reviews of policing. In my brief time, I just want to put three or four points to the Minister. We know—my noble friend referred to this—that it essentially took four days to ensure that London was secure for its citizens. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the situation in London was due not to a lack of powers available to the police or a lack of willingness to use them but to the sheer lack of police numbers? The police were able to respond and restore order when they had a massive injection of police officers into the capital, an increase from 6,000 to just under 16,000.

Secondly, I want to come back to the important issue of funding. Can the noble Baroness give me some assurance that the Government will revisit the intention to reduce police funding by 20 per cent? Many Ministers have responded to this point in the past few months saying that they do not believe that those cuts will impact on frontline services. The noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated that this morning. Can that seriously be maintained in the face of actual reductions in frontline officers, in the forced retirement of some of our most experienced policemen and the indications that some frontline officers are being withdrawn to provide back-office services because of the redundancies of civilian staff within police services?

The estimate is that there will be a reduction of 16,000 police officers at the end of this four-year period. That is the very number of police officers who are now staffed in London over the next 24 hours to secure the peace of the city. Will the Minister respond to ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde, who wrote today of the challenges that those cuts are having on each force up and down the country? Will the noble Baroness the Minister give some assurance that the Government will take this opportunity to review their intention to take the police Bill through Parliament?

Faced with a series of reviews and a huge set of challenges, the last thing that the police forces in England and Wales need is the imposition, less than nine months away, of elected police commissioners in place of current police authorities. The risk of the politicisation of our police forces and the inevitable undermining of the authority of chief constables can serve only to reduce further the morale of our police men and women and the confidence of the public.

What of the Metropolitan police force? Who could underestimate the challenge that they face in maintaining public order, in the continuing investigations into phone hacking, in their counterterrorism responsibilities that they face and in the Olympics? There is no permanent police commissioner in place at the moment. When one is appointed, he or she will be the third commissioner who will serve under the auspices of the Mayor of London in a four-year term. How on earth can that provide the leadership and stability that the Metropolitan Police so need? Surely that cannot be the model that the Government want to extend to the police forces of England and Wales. How can the Government justify the expenditure of £100 million on the election of police commissioners when police forces up and down the country are facing such reductions in their overall funding?

The Government also need to think about their overall law and order policies. The Prime Minister said today that we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong. I thoroughly endorse that proposal. But why are the Government so disparaging about some of the measures that the previous Government brought in, such as closed-circuit TV or dispersal orders—the very mechanisms that have been used effectively in the past few days? And why are the Government encouraging softer sentences to complement the reduction in prison numbers and prison places? In view of the utterly outrageous behaviour that we have seen in the past few days, surely that should be an opportunity for the Government to review their policies again and ensure that the public are given the security and confidence in public order that they need.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the report by the Procedure Committee simply demands that leave of absence be pursued more rigorously, which I am sure will be welcomed in the House but is unlikely to make a noticeable contribution to reducing our numbers. However, the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set up by the Leader of the House, recommended that,

“the House should introduce arrangements to allow Members to retire from membership of the House on a voluntary basis”,

and accepted that legislation would be necessary to achieve this.

The committee further argued that a reduction in numbers would result in an overall saving to the taxpayer and that part of that saving should be used to offer a modest pension. It called for this to be investigated in detail, but this has not yet been followed through. Perhaps in reply we could hear whether the House authorities intend to take actuarial advice on this matter, as recommended by that report. Because we are unpaid, it cannot be a pure pension and therefore requires a new statutory provision. The Chairman of Committees may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill awaiting Committee provides such statutory authority.

When this was previously discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that any such payment,

“would … not be understood by the British people”.—[Official Report, 16/11/10; col. 675.]

Of course, if he is talking about extra money from the Treasury, he is absolutely right, but I suggest that if it is money from savings of expenditure within the House of Lords budget, contrary to that view redundancy pay is well understood in the country at large and accepted as saving money. The current redundancy lump sum permitted tax free is £30,000, which is less than the annual attendance payments for those who come to this House, say, 75 per cent of the time.

Therefore, I hope that in due course, the Government may come forward with a modest payment proposal of a lump sum of, say, £30,000 to those choosing to retire after, say, 10 years’ service or having reached the age of 75, provided that they have had an attendance record of at least 50 per cent in the previous two Sessions. Those in the business world tell me that a modest lump sum of that kind is much more attractive than the financial sum appears. One can imagine Members of your Lordships’ House discussing with their spouses whether they might buy a new car for their retirement or go on a world cruise and listen to lectures by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—or choose another one to avoid that peril.

In any event, that a scheme is needed to get the numbers down is not in doubt. Of course, the Hunt committee was right to suggest that if that were pursued, Members who chose to retire should enjoy the same use of House facilities as former hereditary Peers do. I hope that this matter will be pursued as recommended by the Hunt committee and not simply neglected and brushed aside by this report, which we nevertheless welcome.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I was a member of the Leader’s Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to whom I pay tribute for his leadership of the group. He led it with great distinction and I very much support the conclusions of the group and the recommendations of the Chairman of Committees’ Procedure Committee report before the House today. I also welcome the initial and positive response of the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when the report was first published. We on this side certainly support the Motion before the House.

I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but in rather a different vein. The note in the report to the House says that the Procedure Committee has not considered those elements of the Leader’s Group recommendations, such as the provision to override entitlement to a Writ of Summons, the scheme of associate membership and extension of legislation. Nor has the committee considered the financial aspects of any scheme for voluntary retirement, which, if the House agreed to the report, would be a matter for the House Committee. I do not know if the House Committee will consider this report, but I imagine it will need to consider the implications very carefully.

I return to the issue of the potential for primary legislation. I hesitate to return to last week’s enjoyable debate on reform of your Lordships’ House. I realise that the Chairman of Committees cannot speak for the Government; perhaps we can tempt the noble Lord the Leader of the House to intervene helpfully in this debate. However, I wonder whether the Government have given thought to the potential for primary legislation on the issues to which I have just referred. The Government may take the view that they took last week on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel: since they have published a draft Bill on substantive reform, they cannot contemplate the noble Lord’s Bill. That, in essence, would accept that the Government do not think they will get very far with their own substantive Bill. Having been there myself, I understand the line that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, used last week.

However, it is just possible that, at the end of the work of the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend, the Government might decide to pause on reform. We might not see a substantive Bill before your Lordship’s House in the next Session of Parliament. In that case, there must surely come a point where the matters in this report and the items covered by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, ought to be considered. If we simply carry on in a situation in which Governments cannot contemplate sensible interim changes because they will always have a proposal for substantive reform on the table at some point, the business of this House will become more and more difficult.

All I should like to do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to give some consideration to these matters. It may, in his eyes, be extremely unlikely that the Government will not proceed with a substantive Bill in the next year. However, there will come a point when such sensible interim reforms need to be considered.

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, we can wring our hands about the House being too large. We may, unintentionally but unfairly, have made newly appointed Peers feel less than welcome, but until now there has been no serious consideration of what might be done. This is, therefore, a much needed report and a step forward. The real difficulties with which the group has had to grapple are very clear, but at least the issue is now being addressed.

The only feasible option is that of voluntary retirement. However, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Steel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I feel this cannot be achieved in significant numbers in the absence of some form of payment. I recognise that there is a public perception issue here about additional costs. However, we may be looking at a saving. My maths may be somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but the outcome is the same. By my reckoning, if a Peer attends even irregularly—on, say, 100 out of 150 days—at the lower daily rate of £150, the cost over a year would amount to something like £15,000, plus travel costs of around £2,000. We are looking at something like £85,000 over five years.

Why would it not be possible to make the saving and offer something between £20,000 and £30,000 in order to promote and encourage Peers to take voluntary retirement—voluntary is a word that might not always be entirely appropriate here? It would be a major incentive for many Peers who have given years of service, some at the expense perhaps of a full professional salary, and would most probably achieve what this excellent report aims to do. However, for this to be effective there must also be a moratorium on appointing new Members and possibly a cap on numbers for the future.

The House is too large. It will be pointed out that many turn up only irregularly, but perception is important. As long as the media continue to talk about a House of well over 800 we will continue to appear ridiculously overstaffed. For this reason those who rarely attend should be asked in no uncertain terms to avail themselves of the retirement option. As I said before in this Chamber, there are a few among the Cross-Benchers who have not shown their faces for something like 10 years, which is ridiculous. I also feel that those who, through infirmity, are unable to attend might welcome the option of a dignified retreat from this House with the offer of some dining rights plus a lump sum. I think that the Cross-Benchers could be reduced by something like 30 Members, which would be very welcome news to those who think that there are too many of us. The truth is that over the past 10 years there has been a net gain of 55 Cross-Benchers, which is just over five a year. I do not think that that is a flood.

We will have to bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, acknowledge that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Leaders of each of the groups will have to approach those who attend very rarely, or make no contribution to the work of the House, with a firm proposal to take up the option of retirement, but this can be done only, in fairness, if there is to be some monetary compensation.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, I have two preliminary points. First, in eight minutes it is inevitable that one can touch only on certain issues, and after a long debate it is also inevitable that one will be repeating many of the comments made on the key issues. I make no apology for that because it indicates the strength of feeling on these issues. Secondly, when I was in the other place I consistently held and expressed the same views and support for an appointed House that I hold now—a House, of course, greatly enriched and changed by the reforms relating to life and hereditary Peers.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said yesterday:

“What on earth is this House doing spending two precious days debating an issue that has no interest outside the Westminster village and for which there is no demand in this country at a time when we are facing a domestic crisis of major proportions?”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1208.]

I take issue with that. I think that he was wrong; these two days have been very well spent. I agree, though, about the reaction that there will be in the country when we spend two years and much parliamentary time dealing with this issue when the country is still having to face the inevitable and continuing economic and other pressures in dealing with the fiscal deficit and many other things. This leads to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, made, when he said, in justification of the Bill:

“The public have made it very clear that they do not trust our electoral system in its present form”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1189.]

I was in the other place for 27 years. I go along with many others who say the same as me: I never had a single letter on House of Lords reform during the time when I was there and I get very few representations even now. Such reaction as one does get to the House of Lords, when people know that one is in it, is largely favourable. The adverse public reaction concerns the House of Commons. I regret that because I have a deep respect and affection for the House of Commons, which has been unfairly denigrated in many ways in recent years. However, there is no doubt that the Commons expenses issue and the kind of yah-boo politics that is inevitably conveyed in prime-time television coverage has greatly diminished the public’s respect for the House of Commons. Therefore, it is the House of Commons which gives cause for concern, not the House of Lords.

I am constantly told by many members of the public who talk to me about House of Lords reform that the last thing they want is a clone of the House of Commons. I say this as someone who, as I say, has deep respect for the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that if we had a referendum on reform of the House of Lords as proposed, I am fairly certain that the public would give the same response as they did in the AV referendum, and they would do so because so much of the media comment from serious newspapers and other commentators is against these proposals. Therefore, there would be heavy pressure against these proposals in any referendum.

There has been a subtle move in the language from democratic accountability to democratic legitimacy, and I can see why. Earlier proposals on House of Lords reform ran into considerable difficulties because they were based on regular elections to the House of Lords on the same basis as elections to the House of Commons. This caused great concern among Members of the House of Commons in relation to the challenge posed to their position in their respective constituencies and in the House, as this House would be elected on the same basis. There was also a concern that those who wanted to come to this place might well be those who had failed to get into the House of Commons and therefore might use this as a stepping point to getting into the House of Commons. Those two fears and criticisms were dealt with by proposing a 15-year term and no re-election. However, that immediately removed any question of democratic accountability. There is no democratic accountability if you are elected for a single term. I somewhat suspect that there is no democratic legitimacy either as many Members, knowing that they were here for 15 years with no possibility of re-election and no possibility of getting to the House of Commons, might not even attend very often because no one would demand that they did. That is very different from being a Member of the House of Commons and having to face re-election. I take very much the point that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made on this. The democratic legitimacy versus democratic accountability argument has lost a lot of its credibility because of these proposals.

The key weakness of the Bill is Clause 2, which relates to functions and powers. This part of the Bill has already been holed in the water, and I think is already dead in the water. It is simply unsustainable. Inevitably, there will be clashes as the Lords asserts its democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said yesterday in favour of House of Lords reform:

“I cannot imagine that the decision to introduce the poll tax and the decision to take this country to war would have got through a Chamber elected on a different mandate and in a different period”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1190.]

They would certainly not have been challenged by this Chamber on the basis of the proposals in this Bill because it would have no power or rights to do so. They could have been challenged only—this is the giveaway—if the House of Lords asserted the powers to do that, which it has not got but which it will have if it is democratically elected. I am constantly surprised that Members of the House of Commons have not understood this point in the past, but I think that they do now. There is a growing understanding in that regard. It was very significant that in response to Mr Clegg’s Statement in the House of Commons on 17 May, 16 of the 29 who were opposed to the proposals—rather more than those who simply asked questions or were in favour—referred to the clash between the two Houses and the challenge to the supremacy of the House of Commons. I suspect—this is also significant—that many Members here who are raising this issue have been Members of the House of Commons and understand the point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it may not be only in this House that a lot of challenges will arise to this part of the Bill.

I wish to make two other points in that regard. One concerns finance and supply. It seems to me inevitable that if this House were elected it would demand many more powers in relation to finance and supply. Already there are demands from outside Parliament that this House should play a much more substantial part in scrutinising Finance Bills. That would become inevitable if this House were elected.

A point that I do not think has been made already is about Ministers. I am a little perplexed by the paragraph on Ministers but it seems to me to be absolutely clear that there would be a need for a growing proportion of Ministers in this House if this House had democratic legitimacy. I pay great tribute to Members, on both sides, on the Front Bench for the roles that they play and have played as Ministers. They do a tremendous job under huge pressures but the job would become much bigger if this House was democratically elected. There would be a need for many more Ministers in this House from individual departments. We could not have one Minister responding for six departments. There would be many fewer Ministers in the other place and those who aspire to being Ministers in the other House should think about that point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is that not an argument in favour of that?