Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Friday 16th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The short answer is no. Lawyers charge very different amounts. A city lawyer charging £500 or £700 an hour is rather different from a country lawyer charging £100 or £200. It will also depend, as I said, on the complexity, but one is talking of thousands, not hundreds, of pounds. That is about the best I can do on that. However, as I said, I hope that the principle will commend itself to the Committee and that necessary changes to the drafting of my amendment can be dealt with prior to the next stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was rather taken aback by this being such a short debate. I very much welcome the noble Lord’s amendment. We discussed this matter at a little length on the first day of Committee. As he said, applications to the High Court in the circumstances of the Bill, if enacted, could, but not always necessarily, involve complex procedures. The noble Lord is not able to quantify the cost and that is entirely understandable. However, I recognise that for any Government there is then a problem in not knowing that potential cost.

On the first day in Committee, I thought that the Minister was reasonably sympathetic to the point. He referred to the LASPO Act, which has,

“an exceptional cases provision which deals with questions of the Human Rights Act and the convention requirements”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1879.]

He said that that was as far as he could then go on the question of legal support. Without entering into any question of financial commitments, which will no doubt haunt both sides of the Committee, I just ask whether he can go a little further and become a little more sympathetic on this issue.

Legal Profession: Regulation

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting, although short, debate. At the moment we are thinking very much about regulation of the media. Whatever the outcome of the current debate, in most sectors of the economy it is generally accepted that there should be statutory regulation of the affairs being conducted within them—and, where the professions are concerned, by the individuals who practise in that sector. However, there is much less consensus about the right regulatory approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that circumstances had changed considerably in the past decade since the architecture of the 2007 Act was formed—and, indeed, many years after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, first put his mind to these rather difficult subjects. She was right to say that the economic climate is different, both in the country and for the profession; and she was surely right, too, when she pointed to some of the experiences of regulators in other sectors. She mentioned financial services. I will mention the health service sector, where the existence of the long-standing—almost long-running—inquiry into Mid-Staffordshire has moved on from what happened in the hospital to look at the role of the various regulatory bodies, and at whether collectively they did the right thing or whether there were gaps, shortcomings or tensions between them.

It is absolutely right for us to have this debate and to discuss regulation within the legal profession. I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity to state their views and perhaps to reflect on some of the comments that have been made about the need for them to think in the next two or three years about how to take their views forward. I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on ownership structure in the profession. I readily recognise that there have been huge changes over the past decade. However, in my experience of the National Health Service, doctors in particular as well as other parts of the profession are able to maintain professional standards within a large organisation. I am not persuaded that it is impossible within new ownership structures for there none the less to be a strong ethos that will be very much underpinned by the principles set out in the 2007 Act, and by the regulatory framework that comes from it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble Lord not have concerns that an organisation that buys lots of law firms is likely to be interested only in what it can screw out of them? That is not consistent with any view of professionalism.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Of course, in the development of the kind of organisations to which the noble Lord refers, profit will be a core concern. However, one could look to other sectors where people are involved in seeking profit and point to professionals who practise to the highest quality, usually underpinned by regulatory functions. I do not subscribe to the noble Lord’s view that ownership structure per se will change the professional ethos of people working in the sector. I understand his concerns on the matter, but surely he will recognise that even if you are working in a sector where the objective clearly is profit, it is still perfectly possible to act in a responsible and ethical way. Even before the ownership structure changes, it was my understanding—although I am a novice in these matters—that barristers none the less would seek to earn good income if they could.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for seeing that I was hovering. Lawyering is a very particular business. It is not like manufacturing tins of beans. It has all sorts of social and ethical issues at the heart of it. Unless you can allow a lawyer to give full vent to his or her social purpose, the position of the lawyer as the gatekeeper to justice is impeded.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Having been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 15 years, I now recognise the special characteristic of lawyers, and I rejoice in it. I have only five minutes left and perhaps I ought to press on.

Clearly it is important to ensure that professional regulation works effectively. It should not be overly bureaucratic and it should uphold the independence and integrity of the profession. We should be very proud of the whole legal services profession in this country, the fact that it is recognised globally and that legal services are a huge export for this country. Clearly we should do nothing that undermines the strength of the legal services industry in that regard.

I supported the passage of the Legal Services Bill in 2007. Although the Legal Services Board has come in for some criticism in your Lordships’ House tonight, we should recognise the progress made by the board under the chairmanship of David Edmonds. We should also recognise that the board will be publishing its inaugural assessment of the effectiveness of each of the approved regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board. It might have been better if this debate had been timed after we had seen the outcome of these arrangements.

The triennial review to which the noble Lord, Lord Gold, referred has suggested that there is a continuing role for both the Legal Services Board and the Office for Legal Complaints. The next review will take place in 2015. The suggestion by the Bar Council and a number of noble Lords for post-legislative scrutiny, which I would always support as a matter of principle, might be better timed to coincide with the next triennial review around the 2015 mark so the two might run concurrently.

I have noted noble Lords’ concerns, and particularly the Bar Council’s concern and criticism of what they describe as mission creep by the Legal Services Board, citing micromanagement, duplication and overlap of regulatory activities and unnecessary cost. These have to be guarded against. I understand the total cost of the LSB start-up and first three years’ running costs of just under £20 million is not insubstantial, although it is modest compared to many other regulatory bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, commented on examples of where the LSB is considered to have gone overboard, and mentioned equality and diversity data collection. My understanding is that the LSB—as it saw it—gave best practice advice on how that collection could be done anonymously and made it clear that there should be no compulsion on individuals to take part. The consultation was explicit that the reason for going beyond the blanket survey was so that clients and potential employees could see the diversity make-up of individual firms and chambers. I am not going to argue one way or the other, but it is important that we also hear the viewpoint of the Legal Services Board. We have tended to hear from one side.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

On the question addressed to me, I do not know whether I can give an off-the-cuff precise answer to the noble Lord, but my apprehension is that, in NHS hospitals with private facilities or a private ward, there is an attempt to deliver comparable clinical care to private and NHS patients. As the noble Baroness has just said, there are cases where that plainly does not happen, but that is the ideal and it is achieved in many hospitals—I suspect that the Royal Marsden is one of those. All that the amendment seeks to do is to put that ideal into the Bill so that it is also law.

I do not want to waffle on now about the delivery of that ideal in practice—I say “waffle” because what I would say might not be impressive to you gentlemen who are treading the wards—but I believe that it is possible and can be done. I am encouraged by my three co-signatories to the amendments to believe that this can be done and delivered. As I said, that may require an amendment to the provisions of the Bill that deal with Monitor so as to give Monitor an explicit role in policing this requirement of equality of clinical treatment and care.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will continue to waffle on, because it seems to me that he has put his finger on the real concerns that so many have about this Bill and why people are so opposed to it. The continuing puzzle is why we have this Bill at all when the NHS was in such good condition at the time of the last election. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, might get cross that I come back to this point, but that puzzlement is shared by almost everyone working in the National Health Service and certainly by most patients.

We do not understand what this Bill is all about, unless the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right that, essentially, this is about taking the NHS on a journey to become a second-rate service for the poor and needy. One can see the building blocks that are being put in place. First, the Secretary of State seeks to downplay his or her responsibility for the provision of services. Secondly, we see the NHS starved of resources.

The NHS—I should perhaps remind the House that I chair an NHS foundation trust—is supposedly receiving a real-terms increase in its resources, but I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that real-terms increase has not reached the service. I do not know where that money is. Either the money is being kept as a bung for GPs and clinical commissioning groups or for the costs of the reorganisation and redundancies that will need to be paid, or, perhaps, it is being held in a fund that will be let out when the NHS reaches crisis point this winter. I do not know, but I can tell the noble Earl that, up and down the country, NHS trusts are facing considerable financial challenges. It can be the only explanation for why the Government are putting so much less emphasis on dealing with waiting times. We had the amendment from my noble friend Lord Warner early on. I do not think the noble Earl was able to convince the House that this Government really are concerned about the waiting times for patients. The risk is, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, that we will go back to the bad old days of long waiting times, when consultants faced with patients encouraged those patients to go for private treatment. There are so many examples of this perverse practice that I fear we are going back to it again.

Another factor in where we are going is the noble Earl’s refusal to refer to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. All we hear from the Government is this generic term “provider”. Of course we understand that, because it is the mantra of Ministers that there is no distinction; the qualification is qualified providers. So the NHS institutions are simply to be seen as a provider, no different from private sector providers. No wonder Ministers are prepared only to talk about commissioning as being part of the NHS. It is almost as if the provider side has been completely written out of the script when it comes to the National Health Service. It is quite clear that, notwithstanding the fact that Monitor will also have to have a role in integration, its real emphasis is on promoting competition. When one considers the issue of the private patient cap, one has to do it in the context of where one thinks the Bill is going.

I must say that I disagreed for once with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I have very great reservations about the removal of the private patient cap. I certainly understand that there is a need to review how it is working. If there is local support through the members of foundation trusts or the governing body, maybe even through the local health and well-being board, to remove the cap to that extent, I can see that there may be a case for it. However, there needs to be some control to ensure that NHS organisations do not go mad and seek to have a huge increase in their private patient income, because that would be bound to distort their whole behaviour and how they approach NHS patients. I well remember when I first worked at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, where we had a private patient ward—it was called the Mayfair ward, for some reason. I am sure that the doctors and nurses there would say that the clinical care was just the same, but my goodness me it was very interesting to see the succession of the matron, the senior physiotherapists and the senior consultants walking down to that ward and the amount of time they spent there.

Having a large amount of private care within an NHS organisation is almost certain to distort how that organisation approaches NHS patients. That is why this group of amendments is very important. I hope that the Minister will consider coming back on Report and taking part in our further discussions about the private patient cap. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, should be in no doubt that there is widespread suspicion throughout the National Health Service at the Government’s motivations in relation to this Bill. This is one of the core issues that lead to that suspicion.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his careful explanation of the Bill. I would very much like to welcome him to his new portfolio and well deserved promotion, and I look forward to working with him. I echo his tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for her stewardship of the Home Office brief. I very much enjoyed debating the—perhaps I may say—unlamented police Bill as it went through your Lordships’ House. She was a very good debater and listener who will be very much missed from the Front Bench.

The security of this country is of paramount importance and the Official Opposition would always wish, wherever possible, to support Her Majesty’s Government in their counterterrorism policies. The introduction of control orders was controversial because they can impose intrusive restrictions on individuals who in most cases will not have been convicted of a terrorism offence on the basis of closed material. We would always prefer to prosecute terrorist offences through the courts. Control orders are not desirable but I believe that they were necessary to deal with a discrete number of individuals who for one reason or another could not be prosecuted but posed a terrorist threat. The decision to introduce control orders has been vindicated through the way that the public has been protected from the risk of terrorism, but also as evidenced by the vigorous judicial process undertaken in relation to control orders.

The parties opposite, when in opposition, made a great deal of their concerns over control orders. In government, I suspect that the Home Secretary has come up against reality, but still feels obliged to introduce this Bill. It is a flawed Bill, it is a fudged Bill. It seems to owe as much to the needs of the coalition as it does to national security. Just as we see a faultline running between the two governing parties on European human rights legislation, so we see a faultline in the legislation in our debate today. On the one hand, we have the Bill, which the Government say—and the Minister repeated it this afternoon—provides greater safeguards for the civil rights of suspected terrorists. But we also have another Bill—the draft emergency Bill, which the Home Secretary will carry around in a back pocket for the inevitable moment when this Bill is found wanting. The problem with a faultline is that there can often be a gap. I hope that national security will not fall into it.

At the heart of my concern is the fear that the Home Secretary’s powers to deal with the most difficult cases are being weakened. Nowhere is that more evident than in the central issue of relocation without consent. Relocation powers have proved to be extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity and have been regularly described by the police as one of the most effective powers that they have. How many of the control orders in force have relocation as part of them? In evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne said:

“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 5.]

The Home Secretary clearly thinks so. In May of this year, just five months ago, the Home Secretary argued in the case of CD that he needed to be removed from Greater London to protect the public from a terrorist attack. The judge in that case said:

“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist attack.”

In July of this year, the Home Secretary said in the case of BM that relocation outside London was “fundamental” to preventing terrorist activity. In that case, BM admitted that he was committed to terrorism. The Home Secretary believes that those powers, which were needed three and five months ago, are not needed now. What has really changed in that period?

Ministers claim that they will put more surveillance in place but again, the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, said this:

“To get the resources we anticipate we need will take more than a year in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 9.]

It is simply not credible that the security environment has changed so substantially in the past three or five months that the powers needed then are not needed now. Are the Government really saying to this House—in Olympic year, of all years—that the powers are needed less in the coming year than they were last year, when the Home Secretary felt that she needed to use them five times?

Of course, Ministers have already conceded that additional powers may be needed, so they have published draft emergency legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, remarked at the end of his speech. That will give the Home Secretary powers to impose what have come to be known as enhanced TPIM notices which make it possible to impose stringent restrictions on individuals, including relocation without consent. We have the rather extraordinary position of the Government saying, “We do not like control orders so we are getting rid of them, but until we do that we are going to go to the courts and argue vigorously for their use, and we will keep emergency legislation just in case this Bill turns out to be inadequate”. The Government want to go further: from a position of apparent opposition to control orders, remarkably, this Bill now contains in Clause 26 a provision that allows the Home Secretary to impose the enhanced TPIM notices which should be the subject of the emergency legislation during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. I suggest that if extraordinary provision such as that is needed, the Home Secretary needs it now and it should be in this Bill.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s point about the absence of a relocation direction, does not the power to exclude a person subject to a TPIM notice from any area as specified provide a great deal of the protection that he wants? That is set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Why, then, my Lords, do the Government need a draft emergency Bill? It is because they consider that there may be circumstances in which the current Bill does not meet the security threat. My argument is that if the Government have to contemplate bringing in emergency legislation, it would be better to actually legislate for those provisions and allow Parliament its proper scrutiny rather than, at the time of an emergency or enhanced threat, seek to rush legislation through.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before we forget, we need to remember that the ID system that we are abolishing was not obnoxious for the mere card; it was obnoxious for the national identity register which carried a mass of personal information and which Microsoft reckoned would become the greatest honey pot in the world for crime.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I shall make two points about that. First, I fully understand the point that the noble Lord is raising. It is quite remarkable that we have reached a situation in which private sector companies such as Google are allowed to amass a massive amount of information and then use it for marketing purposes. Frankly, I have some concerns about that. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I will hold my peace and think more about it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Before the noble Baroness agonises over whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the review. Will it be a departmental review or will it be a more public review? Can she say something about its timing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps before the Minister answers, I could just ask her about what it says at the top of page 6 of the Bill, in Clause 10(3)(i). Following my noble friend’s intervention on qualifying the credit reference agency, I notice that there is an open-ended paragraph that says,

“any other person specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State”.

It would be helpful if the Minister could let me know either now or in writing what sort of “any other person” might be mentioned. There was a concern about the credit reference agency, but I would actually have a rather wider concern about the open-ended nature of that provision.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To follow on from what the noble Lord has just said, I think that is why he and I and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, had an amendment asking for some oversight of the process. This is a vulnerable clause which involves discretions, and it needs some sort of review process to ensure that what should be done is done.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I respond to that, as we are in Committee? The noble Lord raises an important point. I have no objection whatever to the general principle behind Clause 10, which seems entirely sensible and in the public interest. It is simply a matter of ensuring that there is due process and accountability.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

In speaking to Amendment 3, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, Amendments 8 and 20. We come to a very important matter of principle—the Government’s decision to refuse to compensate cardholders for the scrapping of the scheme. My noble friend Lord Rosser already picked up some of the points when he spoke to the first group of amendments. I ask the Minister what the Government have to say to the thousands of individuals who have spent money buying cards in good faith. These cards were sold on the basis, and the purchasers were given the impression, that they would be valid for a wide range of purposes for 10 years. However, there has been a change of government, a change of policy, and seemingly no care for those left inconvenienced and out of pocket as a result. I wonder what the Government now have to say to those people. Why do the Government seem happy to penalise them?

We have been told that the cost of £360,000 to compensate all those who will be eligible for a refund under the terms of Amendment 3 is too much. However, that is the maximum figure. It is quite plausible that a certain percentage of those eligible to claim will choose not to do so. It would be possible to entertain a time limit, a date after which claims could no longer be made, which might lower the total compensation figure. However, the important factor is that compensation had been offered.

On Second Reading, the Minister said:

“We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card”—

this is a remarkable statement—

“did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]

That is, to say the least, unsympathetic. To rely on the public having an in-depth knowledge of party manifestos or coalition agreements—documents that in most cases were published long after most cardholders had spent £30—is a touch unrealistic. The Government's continued reliance on their insistence that people knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected is an extraordinary decision.

I received an e-mail this morning from Mr Nicholas Hodder, who informed me that, since obtaining his ID card in May this year, he had presented it 30 times in order to enter or leave the Schengen area. I ask the Minister why someone like Mr Hodder, who in good faith purchased the ID card and has used it effectively, should suddenly be told, despite the fact that he bought it for a 10-year period, that it will be taken out of use very shortly and that he is not to receive compensation?

I pray in aid the impact assessment produced by the Minister’s department. The IA looked at five options. Under option 3, the return of cards is not required, but there will be a return of fees to current cardholders. The benefit of that option over the do-nothing option 1 is said to be:

“Reputational benefits for the government, in dealing with people who purchased a now-useless card in good faith”.

Is the Minister not concerned about the reputation of the Government? Does she not see that in not agreeing to refund £30, the Government are developing a new principle, which can only reduce trust in Governments generally? Why is it acceptable to compensate companies for termination of contracts? I refer her to the preferred option of the Government. As far as concerns funding, the cost of £22 million is contained in the summary of policy option 1 in the impact assessment. I will come on to whether it should be policy option 1. Option 1 refers to the costs of,

“termination of contracts with contractors”.

Why is it reasonable to pay the costs of terminating contracts with contractors but not with members of the public?

I refer again to the impact assessment. The preferred policy option—that of cancelling ID cards without refunds and with no requirement to return the cards—states that the £22 million includes the cost of the refund process. Clearly, at one point, the Government considered including refunds in the policy option that was being preferred; but presumably at some point they decided to drop this. None the less, it would appear that the £22 million must include the cost of refunding fees. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this point.

My confusion about the impact assessment of 26 May 2010 is that it refers to five options. Option 1, do nothing. Option 2, scrap ID cards, return of cards not required, no return of fees. Option 3, scrap ID cards, return of cards not required, return fees. Option 4, scrap ID cards, return of cards mandatory, no return of fees. Option 5, scrap ID cards, return of cards mandatory, return fees. On page 1 of the impact assessment, signed by the Minister, Damian Green, on 29 May 2010, it states:

“Option 2 is the preferred option”.

But when I turn to the analysis on page 2, this option is described in the heading as “Policy Option 1”. Can the Minister clarify exactly which option we are talking about?

That brings me to Amendment 8. This is a straightforward and, I believe, much needed addition to the Bill. Conservative Party Ministers, when in opposition, made claims about the current cost of the ID card scheme that ranged wildly from nearly £1 billion to up to £20 billion. However, the national identity service cost report of October 2009 stated that the projected forward cost of providing ID cards until 2019 was £835 million. Crucially, this figure does not equate to the savings to be made from scrapping the scheme. We know this because the impact assessment which accompanies the Bill states at the bottom of page 4 that:

“The October 2009 cost report indicated that cancellation of ID cards would avoid future costs of £835m up to October 2019. However, these costs were planned to have been recovered through future fees to ID card purchases. Therefore, there are no benefits to the taxpayer from Year 3 onwards”.

The tables set out in the impact assessment reveal that total savings from scrapping the scheme are £180 million, and the total cost of cancelling ID cards and the NIR are stated as £22 million.

What is clear from the apparent muddle is that the Government have been using rather dubious figures to claim savings on the scale that they would have liked to see. I believe that a definitive and preferably independent audited costs and savings report is urgently required to clarify this matter for all concerned. It would be useful if it were part of the duty of the Government to provide clarity in this area. Amendment 20 is consequential on Amendment 3. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. To be honest, I am disappointed that we have to spend time on this issue. That is because on any normal sense of simple fairness, we would not hesitate to repay the £30 that individual citizens have laid out for one of these cards. I have also to express disappointment at the reasoning advanced for the refusal to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already gone over this, and indeed it was referred to at length at Second Reading. I cannot resist quoting from the Statement on this made by the Home Secretary in June:

“We made it clear that we were opposed to identity cards … The Liberal Democrat party made it absolutely clear that it was opposed to identity cards. People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 346.]

Frankly, it demonstrates an astonishing lack of reality vis-à-vis the great British public to believe that they read party manifestos. If I am allowed to do so, I would like to ask anyone in the Committee to raise their hand if they read all three party manifestos. I think we can say that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was the sole person to have paid such attention to the detail.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I did, too, but surely the point is that we are not really ordinary people in this context.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

They are under an obligation, but a much more fuzzy and weaker one, and they are not constantly having to go back to their constituencies —as an elected Member would have to do—to justify themselves to their members. I have no doubt about that. As I was saying, the personal party loyalties, which are perfectly normal and good in our system, would not—contrary the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Butler—allow many outsiders to appear high on the party list at elections.

In any event, the number of party members in this country is very low and still declining.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Labour Party membership is growing considerably since the election.