Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The solution that the Government have come up with in the other place is, to put it mildly, far from perfect. But we have one problem in this House this afternoon: we cannot establish a Joint Committee. We can express a view and say that we think that there should be a Joint Committee—personally, I would welcome that—but we can also try to ensure that the matter is referred to our Constitution Committee. I believe that there are repercussions for this House and that we have to take the issue extremely seriously.

Altering the constitution in this way, almost by sleight of hand, does no service to any of us who care about the stature of Parliament, the relationship between the two Houses and the responsibility of this House in particular. My noble friend Lady Stowell has already indicated that there will be a full day’s debate in September, which is good and welcome. But I hope that when she comes to reply from the Front Bench she will be able to go further and say that she, as Leader of the House, will personally ask the Constitution Committee of this House, which has an enviable reputation for working thoroughly and fairly expeditiously, to try to report in time for that debate—but, if not, very shortly afterwards. We are entering a legislative quagmire here and it is far more important that we get it right—here, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—than that we achieve it quickly.

We have had too much government by gimmick and deadline over the last year. I have quoted this before in the House: something must be done by St Andrew’s Day and something else by St David’s Day. We are playing with the constitution of the United Kingdom, in which I hope that most of us truly believe, and if we are to safeguard the United Kingdom in this new era of extra devolution, we have to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom Parliament—a Parliament in which all Members are equal.

It may well be, as I believe, that there is a very good case for reducing the number of Members from Scotland when current legislation is on the statute book, and in time for the next general election. There is precedent for that both in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the extremely convoluted arrangement that is currently proposed is likely to create far more problems than it solves. Of course I welcome the idea of a review after one year, but I would rather that we did not go there. I urge my noble friend to give serious consideration to making a personal request to the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House to look at this matter very quickly.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, not because I want to impede the addressing of this issue by the Government, because we should not. As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, pointed out, the issue was in the Conservative Party manifesto—but these proposals were not, to the best of my knowledge. What I fear greatly is that the nature of these proposals, far from resolving the issue, will create so much confusion and potential conflict not only within this Parliament but between it and the devolved Parliaments—that of Scotland in particular but the others as well—that we will end up with a solution that is far from desirable from anyone’s point of view.

In deference to the House, I will not go through any of the details, because we want brief speeches. But I would just say, for anyone who does not understand them, that the definitions included in the Standing Orders are deceptively simple. These issues are not at all simple, not the territorial issues or even the second test of the content—not to mention the third test, which is not mentioned at all in the Standing Orders but which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, is the purpose. If we do not have this done correctly, this is a recipe not for resolving the issue but for having continuous recourse to the courts, to conflict and to confusion of a profound nature in our constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, if it is simply a question of expediency, one can make a declaratory statement in a debate. This Motion is intended to send a message to the House of Commons and there is no question about it. The committee is invited in the Motion to report specifically on the proposals for changes in the Standing Orders of another place.

We would not care for it very much if we heard from the House of Commons that they had had a debate and were sending us some suggestions as to how we should change the internal proceedings of your Lordships’ House, or if we should be told by people from the House of Commons who might vote on a particular measure.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

May I ask the noble Lord to read the Motion again? It is not to inquire into the Standing Orders; it is to inquire into the constitutional implications of the change. In that sense, in what way would it be improper for this House to consider the implications for the constitution of this country?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Reid, but I have read the Motion, which proposes that the committee should,

“consider and report on the constitutional implications of the Government’s … revised proposals to change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons … and that the committee should report on the proposals”,

not on the constitutional implications. It is a specific invitation to report on the Standing Orders of another place. I do not think that is wise; I do not think that we should invite the House of Commons to interfere in our affairs and our Standing Orders. We can make clear the concerns and feelings that we may have about these proposals in many other ways, but I urge your Lordships not to trench into the privilege of the Commons and to hold back. Whatever we may think, if the noble Lord, Lord Butler, were to put this Motion to a Division—I hope he will not—it would be construed as a challenge not just to the policy but to the right of the House of Commons to direct its own affairs. I do not think that would be a sensible procedure for this House.

English Votes on English Laws

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I shall try to explain why I do not quite accept what the noble Lord has said. First, once an England-only Bill or a Bill with provisions for England and Wales gets through its Report stage, there will be a grand committee where the relevant MPs from England or England and Wales consider what was agreed on Report. If the English and Welsh MPs do not accept what the House wishes to do and the matters concerned affect only their constituencies, they will have the option of disagreeing. However, there will be a process whereby the whole House will then reconsider the legislation. The point is that these two groups of MPs will be seeking to reach agreement. If agreement cannot be reached between the relevant MPs and the House as a whole, the matter will fall. However, this is about agreement or consent. It is not about having a veto; it is about trying to find the right way forward.

I say to those who are concerned about whether Members from Scotland will have a proper role in this process that this is designed to ensure that they continue to be included, as they should be, in matters that are considered in the UK Parliament. Therefore, I do not accept the description that the noble Lord has given.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, lest anyone should think that I believe this is a question that should not be addressed, I want to make it clear that I think that it should be. I have long thought that. Indeed, I thought that it became an inevitable question to be addressed when the Prime Minister, a week before the referendum—I declare no interest, because I was not consulted and nor was anybody else in Scotland as far as I can see—unilaterally decided that he would offer more powers to the Scottish people if they voted no. I am sure that that was done out of principle rather than panic. There was as much consultation on that as there has been on this issue, but it made the addressing of this issue inevitable.

I want to make three very quick points. The first concerns the House of Lords. I think that the noble Baroness’s assurances on this carry all the weight of her predecessor’s assurances that, if this Chamber became elected, it would not affect the House of Commons. It was an assertion without any evidence historically and without any rational foresight of the future. Historical dynamics will make sure that if this change goes through, it will have implications for the House.

My second point concerns the manner in which this issue has been addressed. The Minister said that we were answering the West Lothian question. I have to say to her that this is not an answer; it is a guess, and it is not even an educated guess. It is not an answer based on wide consultation, deep discussion, analytics or any form of rational analysis of the likely outcome.

The third thing I would mention is the practicalities. The explanatory notes say that the Speaker will decide what is an exclusively English matter. They allude to the fact that the Speaker already makes such decisions on financial matters. However, the two are not comparable. It is much easier to make a decision on a financial matter, and indeed it is much easier to make a decision on a matter that should be devolved to Scotland, because there is a Bill and there are references, and it is a small nation, whereas England represents 85% of the MPs, probably 85% of the legislation and 80% of the income. This matter is much more difficult.

For all those reasons, I urge the Government to think again about addressing not the question but the manner in which they are dealing with it. This is not a trifling issue and, with the best of intentions from the Government’s point of view, it would be very easy to end up with the worst of all worlds. To paraphrase WB Yeats, I urge the Minister to tread softly on this because she is treading on the union, and many of the attempts by people who thought that they were great defenders of the union have ended up having the opposite effect.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the noble Lord’s final point, I genuinely believe that if we leave matters as they are without seeking to address the “English question”, we will actually be weakening the union. This is something that we have to address. As to the noble Lord’s description of this as a guess, there has been an extraordinary amount of debate on and consideration of which process to adopt to take us forward in addressing the West Lothian question. I refer to what happened in the last Parliament. It is now becoming increasingly urgent that we get on with doing something—as I say, for all of us who believe in the union, this is urgent—and therefore the Government have come forward with their proposal. My right honourable friend the leader of the other place has made it clear today that, in about a year’s time, there will be a proper review of the way in which this is operated, using Bills that are actually happening. Rather than continue to debate and consider options and not get anywhere or make any progress, let us follow this proposal and then come back and have a look at it.

As to the role of the Speaker, I would make two points to the noble Lord. When considering whether to certify a Bill as being for England only or for England and Wales, one thing the Speaker will be required to do is consider whether this is a matter that has already been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The onus will be clearly on the Government in their drafting of Bills, but I believe that the requirement placed on the Speaker is a reasonable one and we will follow our responsibilities in ensuring that we play our part in making this work.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report: Fusilier Lee Rigby

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is right. I can only imagine how members of the Armed Forces must feel, knowing that one of them has been attacked and murdered in cold blood on the streets of London. Our advice to the Armed Forces remains very relevant and will be reviewed should it ever be necessary to change it.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister respond to the points arising from the imperative she mentioned—not to delay in doing that which is necessary to assure the country? Without being in the least bit churlish about this, what is now being admitted is that which was denied by the Government prior to, and from, 2010: first, we are fighting an international struggle against terrorism; secondly, the measures necessary for surveillance by improving GCHQ are less than adequate, for reasons connected with the coalition’s internal politics; and, thirdly, control orders, which were weakened down to TPIMs, are now being strengthened back up to become virtual control orders. If we are going to be honest and realistic about this, we have to answer the question that the public will ask. How is it that over the past four or five years, when we have had a high threat level in this country, we have diminished security and it is only now that the Government are thinking of increasing it again?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

What I would say to the noble Lord is that what we have done and will continue to do is to take the advice of David Anderson QC on the measures that we introduce. We have responded to the increasing threat. We have listened to the security services and the police service. They have requested additional measures and we are bringing those additional measures in. Clearly, an appalling and tragic event happened, and this report focuses on that. We all wish that it had not happened. What the report tells us today is that, sadly, nothing could have been done to prevent it happening and the two men who were guilty of that crime are currently in prison serving life.

Iraq

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe that Parliament will support the Government on this today. So I want to confine myself to two simple questions. The first is: what are the political objectives? Force has no utility unless it is used in pursuit of political objectives. In Iraq they are clear: the defeat and degradation of ISIL, and support for the democratically elected Government. In Syria it is essential that we have some inkling of where the Government are going because you can separate the issue in terms of Motions but you cannot separate it in reality. It is much more complicated and more conflicted. Put simply—I disagree with a colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this—it is not the wisest course to try to get rid of ISIL and Assad at the same time. Both may be devils but perhaps we ought to consider at least that the devil we know may be better, at least temporarily, than the one that we are only beginning to know. That is a hard decision to make but this is realpolitik.

My second question is this: what is the strategy? Or rather, where is the strategy? By that I do not mean military strategy but what militarists would call the overarching, grand strategy. While it is doubtless necessary to degrade ISIL at the moment, we need to be alert to the contagion that has resulted in, for instance, al-Qaeda rebranding itself and murdering French citizens in Algeria last week, and attacks in Mumbai, Yemen, Somalia and so on. That is not to mention Libya, which is now an ungovernable mess—a reservoir of terrorist ammunition for the rest of the country as a result of a “tactical intervention”. That is what worries me if, on this occasion, we are confining this to a tactical intervention. If all we do is limited military intervention, push on with tactical strikes and then look for the so-called exit strategy, we will achieve nothing. We will go round in the same circle again in another part of the world.

Surely, of all the lessons of Iraq—I disagree with a lot of what I think are superficial lessons—one is that it is quite possible to win a decisive military battle: the first six days were very successful, but it was the next six years that were the problem. Building the peace is an essential part of a grand strategy. If we do not have plans to build that peace on a wider scale then we will just go back to where we were before.

Let me conclude by saying what I believe a grand strategy is about. It is not grandiose but quite simple, and I would identify three elements. First and foremost, it does not confuse combat, or even decisive battles, with winning anything other than a short-lived, fragile peace or truce, during which we will actually win the longer term.

Secondly, grand strategies cannot be delivered successfully without a wide coalition. While I welcome the Arab states being involved, the wide coalition is answered by asking not just, “Who are our friends?”, but, “What are the interests of other people?”. Given some of the threats I have mentioned, Russia, China, Iran and others have the same interests as us against that primary threat. We should be talking to them. The decision this House made in Syria last year resulted in a realignment because we moved from getting rid of Assad to getting rid of chemical weapons with the support of Russia, Iran and so on. That is the second element.

The third is that such coalitions require capacity that goes well beyond military capability. If a strategy does not include public services such as education, health, sanitation, water supplies and so on—a real intervention to establish the winning of the peace—then, as I said earlier, we may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This time when we act, let us work through not only the tactical and military interventions but the grand strategy to win the peace as well as the short-term battles.

House of Lords: Membership

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Clearly I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that there was a difference between the extremely clear view expressed—a 71% majority in favour in principle of an elected House—and what happened. As she said, when push came to shove some of the consequences of an elected House, such as the issue about the balance of powers between the two Chambers and so on, perhaps became less compelling. However, that was the situation and the Government have made it clear that they will not bring forward further legislation to reform the House in what remains of this Parliament. This position was welcomed by many in the House.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I am keen to preserve the spirit of consensus that my noble friend Lord Hunt generated. However, with respect to the Leader of the House, who I hope will be engaging in discussions with the Government and other authorities, the question of legitimacy that he raised—that it would not be legitimate when something had been done to appear to do the opposite subsequently—must be truly addressed. Does he recognise that not only was the idea of proportionality lost in the proposals for this House but it was previously rejected under this Administration by the country in the referendum on the alternative vote system? Given that there is an apparent consistency about the legitimacy of the processes and non-contradiction, will the Leader assure us that, given the fact that proportionality has been rejected by the country in an overwhelming vote and then lost during the proposals for reform of the House of Lords, the idea of proportionality through appointment to this House will not be pursued?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On the point about proportionality, the noble Lord will know that in the coalition document, the parties set out their position—although, as I argued earlier when I referred to the exercise of restraint, progress towards that form of words has not been put into effect in the same way. I agree with him about the importance of this being a consensual debate. I do not seek to make it political.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, might I answer that point? I shall ask my noble friend whether he will agree to place the opinion of counsel in the Library of the House alongside that of the Clerk of the House.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, I may be the only one, but, further to the clarification which the Leader gave, I am now more confused than ever. He appeared to say that it would be open to this House to agree to proceed with a debate, but that it would not be open to it to deny a debate if the mover of the amendment insisted on proceeding with it. Did I understand him correctly and, if that is the case, does that apply to other Members of this House who have their name to the amendment? In other words, if any of them insisted on going ahead, must a debate take place? That is now my understanding of what the Leader said in his clarification. If he could confirm that, I would be obliged.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, let me quickly confirm that. The answer to that is yes.

Scotland: Referendum

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the comfort that he wants. There is nothing that we can do to oblige the Scottish Parliament to publish a draft Bill, and this very much depends on the process of the passage of that Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

On the second point on the franchise, such voting already takes place in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament decided that 16 and 17 year-olds who turned 18 during the lifetime of the register would be able to vote in the health board elections. It may be a small example but it is an example of where devolution on the franchise has already taken place. I reiterate that I am not in favour of a change in the franchise but it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, everyone in this House accepts that in these discussions compromise is necessary. But that compromise has to be informed by the need and the criteria for clarity, fairness and legitimacy. Let us accept that having one question certainly meets those criteria. However, there are two areas which fail to meet those criteria.

First, the idea of having the Scottish Parliament and the SNP effectively decide the question is not liable to assist in either legitimacy in the long run or fairness in the short term. There may be inadequacies, as has been pointed out, about the Electoral Commission, but I am sure that if anyone in Scotland was asked who was likely to be more objective in choosing a question between the SNP and the Electoral Commission, I would not bet against the Electoral Commission winning that judgment.

Secondly, as my noble friend Lord McConnell pointed out, to ask people to vote for a Section 30 before they know what they are voting for is similar to asking people to vote on devo-max before they know what they are voting on. Since we argued successfully against that—that people should not be asked to vote for a “pig in a poke”—if that applies in the Scottish referendum surely it applies in this House and the other Chamber.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that compromise was necessary and I think that all those who have followed this process would agree with him. He also mentioned clarity and we do have clarity in the single question. I am one of those who have never entirely understood what is meant by devo-max, and if you ask three people what they think it is you always get four different answers. Therefore, it is entirely right that we remove the opportunity for that question to be asked.

The question on the paper will be a question on independence. The precise wording will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine and will be set out in the referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government. However, the Scottish Government have agreed to refer the proposed referendum question and any preceding statement to the Electoral Commission for review of its intelligibility. It is important that interested parties will be able to submit their views on the proposed wording to the Electoral Commission as part of the commission’s review process in the normal way.

We have had experience of this already, although admittedly perhaps not on something this important or involving the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government will respond to the report, indicating their response to any recommendations that the Electoral Commission may make. The point is that this will be a very public process. Equally, constitutionally it is right that it must be up to a parliament to decide what question should be on the paper. That is what this Parliament would demand and I can understand why we have concluded that it is right for the Scottish Parliament to do the same thing.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, apart from powers, one of the key areas will be the electoral system, which is different from the one originally proposed in the draft Bill. It is different from what was suggested by the Joint Committee, although the committee suggested some improvements to the original system on which this is based. Under this system, it is difficult for independents to be elected, which is why we have reserved 20% of the House to independents who will be put here through the statutory Appointments Commission. It is beyond doubt that it is a proportional system. Therefore, there will be no natural majority for any Government, which will preserve one of the strengths of this House.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Will the Leader of the House at least consider that, after the White Paper and all the deliberations, consultations, and discussions he has made a bad Bill worse? First, as has just been pointed out, the new senators will be less independent than originally proposed because not only will the list system make them more loyal to parties but they will have to be determined on the list by the party leaders. Secondly, they will be more likely to intervene in the legislative process and the work of the House of Commons because they will have no constituency work to do and can spend all their time dealing with matters of politics and legislation.

Thirdly, I am sceptical about the cost. I do not know what the Leader of the House would think of any new company which starts up with 450 employees and bases its overheads and costs assessment on the hope that they would not turn up to work, which seems to be what he is doing. Above all, will the Leader of the House explain—if he knows it but Members of the other House do not—that you cannot ring-fence by regulations or by law the natural dynamic of politics? If you choose 300 senators with constituencies 10 times as big but with no constituency work for a term three times as long, whatever the regulations that will become through the dynamic the primary House. If there is scepticism from the Members of the House of Commons about this cast-iron guarantee that they have been given, will he refer them to the cast-iron guarantees that were given by Mr Straw that the Freedom of Information Act would be ring-fenced so that it did not apply to MPs allowances?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord says that Peers elected under this new system will be even less independent. We are not calling them senators at the moment: we are not calling them anything. I think that the Bill calls them Members of the House of Lords, but they will not necessarily be Lords.

The noble Lord’s charge is that they will be less independent than they are today. I am not sure that that holds water at all. At the moment, Peers get appointed by their party leaders and presumably act accordingly. Under this arrangement they will be elected by the electorate, but once they are here they will not need to be reselected to stand again because it will for one term only. Do I agree with the noble Lord that they will intervene in improving scrutiny of legislation? I think they will. This Bill is now in the House of Commons. It is up to Members of the House of Commons to decide whether the noble Lord is right and whether that will aid the scrutiny of legislation or improve it. I believe that it will improve it and that elected Members of this House will be more assertive than the current House.

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, any proposed reform of your Lordships' House clearly puts the cart before the horse. Given that a majority—or at least a very great deal—of our national law is now made in Brussels, with the House of Commons and your Lordships' House irrelevant in the process, why do we not start by retrieving our democracy from Brussels for the House of Commons and your Lordships' House? We could then work out how the Executive will be held to account in the House of Commons by a new committee structure, perhaps with new powers for the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. When we have done that, we could work out the job that we want your Lordships' House or any second Chamber to do. Only when we have done that should we decide who we want to sit in the second Chamber and how they should come here.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, I first make two declarations of interest. The first is that I was a member of the Government that consistently brought back proposals for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 per cent of Members of this Chamber or its replacement to be elected. The second declaration is that I voted against every such proposal on every occasion. I did so for two reasons. First, it was not self-evident that such a change would increase the efficiency of government. More importantly, as I had spent my life in the House of Commons, I wanted to protect the primacy of the House of Commons. It was obvious that it was impossible to bestow democratic legitimacy on a Chamber that was widely perceived as being slightly more mature, both in years and wisdom, and certainly more full of expertise, and in all practical terms to stop it becoming the senior Chamber. I still believe that.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, may I—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and then from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his elucidation of the thoughts of the Deputy Prime Minister, which I am sure he has done to the best of his ability, but could he help us further? Since the Executive under our constitution—the Government —are so by virtue of their ability to command a majority in the House under the democratically elected system, and since it is obvious that the Deputy Prime Minister considers that the electoral system of proportional representation with which this House would be elected better represents the common will, why, under the reform programmes would the Executive—that is, the Government—be chosen on the basis of a majority under first past the post in the House of Commons rather than under a majority under proportional representation in this House? Was he briefed on the Deputy Prime Minister’s thoughts on this?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a clever argument, but it will not wash. There is no intention at all to change the primacy of another place or of the Government being able to govern by commanding a majority in another place. In fact, PR would preserve the system that we have here, whereby the Government do not have a majority.