Legislation

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the volume of primary and secondary legislation being introduced in Parliament.

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

My Lords, like every Government before us, this Government intend to enact the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech. The number of pages in primary legislation enacted so far in this Session is less than in other comparable Sessions.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat spare Answer. However, will the Government give serious consideration to the establishment of a commission of wise people, properly resourced, to look into the now profound and multi-faceted problem of increasing—and increasingly complex—legislation, which has dire effects in terms of citizen disaffection, bureaucracy and failed implementation?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend says, and he is right; legislation is more difficult and complicated, in large part because we live in a more difficult and complicated world. You just have to look at the growth in technology and the subsequent substantial increase in regulation and secondary legislation. There is more legislation from Europe; there are active judges and so forth. However, I wonder whether my noble friend’s solution is necessarily the right one. You could not get much more collective wisdom than is present in your Lordships’ House, where every piece of legislation is discussed and debated very thoroughly.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I really do not think that the Opposition should have two goes; it is the turn of my noble friend.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will my noble friend please take even more account of the fee-farming industry that has grown up in this country, which encourages indiscriminate and, I have to say, false claims because neither the fee-farming company nor the solicitor who purchases the case from the fee farmer ever sees the client? Without that, there is no constraint on dishonesty.

Peers

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, appointments are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, but the coalition agreement indicated that, pending long-term reform of the House, we would gradually move towards appointments made more in proportion to the political parties in the House of Commons.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, reports on retirement arrangements, what does my noble friend think should be done, if anything, about those Peers who do not take the enticement but do not speak, do not vote, do not serve on committees and often do not attend?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is exactly why I will await the final report of my noble friend: to see whether or not he raises any of those issues.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I do not believe in apologising when I am not fully aware of the facts.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will my noble friend comment on the fact that there are many other legislatures where elections, referendums and plebiscites are held simultaneously and the people of those countries do not seem to be incorrigibly undermined in their decisions as a result? Secondly, will he comment on the fact that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the first schedule to the Bill set out a very stringent duty on the Electoral Commission and the various election officers to inform the public? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission intends to circulate to every household in the land a plain English guide to the issues about which the referendum is to be held.

Israel: Illegal Settlers

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I feel that we need to go to the next Question.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was a senior Minister in the former Government. They must have debated these issues many times in the build-up to the 2008 White Paper. Of course we have to decide what this House is for and what it will do. The view at the moment is that the House should continue to have the powers that it holds and do the work that it does. We are looking at its composition and how people get here, rather than what they do once they get here. I have hardly started in my speech. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and then I will get on.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am most grateful but, in the light of all the peculiar circumstances, it is important to know that, when the Bill is brought to the House, it will not be whipped so that there can be a genuinely free debate.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have consistently taken the view over a long period—I am not saying that I will retain that consistency—that whipping a Bill on reform of the House of Lords is a particularly fatuous exercise as I suspect that Peers will make up their own minds, almost whatever the Whips tell them. However, we are a long way from having legislation on which we need to take a view on whether it will need to be whipped.

The coalition agreement, which noble Lords will have seen, envisaged a wholly or mainly elected House with elections on the basis of proportional representation. As the noble Baroness pointed out a moment ago, it also anticipated the transitional arrangement that a “grandfathering” system would be put in place for current Members of the House. I know that noble Lords will be anxious to know what both these things mean. They mean that we as a Government have yet to take a view—

Financial Provision for Members

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely sensible question, one which is not entirely easy to deal with. There is a perception among those outside this House that a few minutes’ attendance reaps the benefits of large sums of money. In my experience, both as a former Chief Whip and as Leader of the House, I regard these abuses to have been exceedingly small; nevertheless, there is that perception. I am also aware that there are some Peers who, because of the nature of their outside work and for other reasons, do not spend a great deal of time in the House. It was felt in the discussions that I had that we should offer an alternative—a lower sum of £150.

Ultimately, it can only be up to the judgment of each individual Peer where and how they make that claim. A Peer may spend only half an hour in the House on a given day but, if they spent the morning reading and preparing for a complicated Committee stage on the next day, how are we to judge whether that time was well spent? In the end, all these claims will be made public. I hope that, with the co-operation of the House Committee and the House authorities, we will be able to make these claims known electronically on a rolling basis so that it will be easy to attach contributions to the amount of money claimed. That will create an internal accountability, which will be useful to Peers and public alike.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I hope that I am correct in understanding my noble friend as having indicated that the new scheme will be wholly divorced from the actual expenses incurred by Members of this House in coming here and undertaking their duties. I think that that is right—the noble Lord is nodding. Therefore, his remarks vis-à-vis taxation assume a more important light. I go back to what he started by saying, which is that this House and, indeed, the other place came under a great deal of unwelcome public scrutiny over the expenses arrangements and that the trust in both Houses was severely dented. Some may think that those wounds are not entirely healed. Would it therefore be acceptable if the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his group were to work on the basis that, whatever arrangements are come to vis-à-vis taxation, we have to accept that the allowance will now leave some Members of this place with substantial remuneration—that is to say, a return well in excess of anything incurred by way of expenses—and that it surely cannot be acceptable that this place, of all places, should expect a privilege in tax terms over any other citizen of this land? For us to say that it is much simpler to claim the entitlement and be done with it is fair enough, but that surely cannot satisfy the test that every other person has to live by, which is that, in terms of the tax charge, they can claim only those expenses actually incurred.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct to point out that the reason why we are even discussing this is because trust has been dented, not just in this House but substantially in another place. Both Houses are, in their own way, trying to find their way through this to come out at the other end with a greater understanding between the public and Parliament, so that we can try to rebuild that trust. My noble friend is also entirely correct to say that this is a move away from the expenses regime. We are not asking Peers to demonstrate what they have spent. In fact, we are not hugely interested in what Peers spend their money on, in where they stay or, indeed, in whom they stay with. What we are interested in is: have they turned up? Have they made a contribution? What should the value of that be?

The SSRB suggested in its report that in due course the expenses regime that it proposed should be taxed. I take no particular view on that. I am not an accountant and it is not a decision for me. It may well be a decision for HMRC and the Treasury to take in due course. My further understanding is that, if tax were payable, that would require legislation and that, if tax were taken off, no doubt many Peers would make the case for some sort of rerating to make an allowance for taxation. These are all issues for another day.

There is another view, which I laid out a few minutes ago. We hope that there will be legislation on a reformed House. If there is a reformed, elected House, those Peers—or senators, or whatever they are—will be paid. There is then the prospect in that legislation for another independent body—perhaps IPSA itself—to look at what the recommendations should be.

House of Lords: Post-legislative Scrutiny

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for polluting his bit of the Bench. [Laughter.]

Is the Leader of the House aware of what I think is a military tradition, whereby the top brass who devise strategy are supposed to live with its consequences in practice? Would it not be a good idea if we learnt something from the military and stopped the mad ministerial merry-go-round, whereby Ministers, who are progenitors of legislation in this place, rarely if ever have to face the music?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that we are very much in favour of stopping the ministerial merry-go-round in this House.