Queen’s Speech

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech two years ago, I made the mistake of beginning by discussing the fixed-term Parliaments proposals, only to find to my great surprise that a principle that had been in the Labour Party manifesto had suddenly become the subject of such passionate opposition from the Labour Front Bench that I was intervened on some six or seven times in as many minutes. I may be about to repeat that mistake by attempting to respond to some of the points made in this debate about the future of your Lordships’ House. I hope then to make a few remarks about electoral registration.

There has been much debate about the future of this House since the much quoted Parliament Act 1911, which followed the controversy over this House blocking what became known as the “People’s Budget” when a Liberal Government, with Lloyd George as Chancellor, first introduced the old-age pension in the face of great opposition from the largely Conservative hereditary Peers who were of course Members of the House at that time. It has been said many times in this House that the House of Lords merely revises legislation and invites the other place to think again. Many of those most opposed to reform frequently say that this House does not block the will of the elected House. However, in many ways, the current controversy about the future of this House goes back all that time to the attempts to block the introduction of national insurance and the old-age pension. These came not long after Gladstone’s attempts to introduce home rule for Ireland.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

The House of Lords actually passed those Bills.

[Lord Rennard]

I defer to the perhaps greater knowledge in this respect of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. However, I recall seeing the paintings of the debates in 1893 that hang outside the Bishops’ Bar. I thought that it was at that point that the House of Lords was blocking home rule for Ireland.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

The first home rule Bill was blocked in the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. The House of Lords under the Liberal Government had let through such matters as old-age pensions. Those matters which were clearly popular outside, it let through.

[Lord Rennard]

I think that Lloyd George in his many arguments against the hereditary basis of the House of Lords felt otherwise as he tried to introduce radical legislation.

Turning to more recent times, I would dare to suggest that opposition to the Government’s legislative programme in the past two years has often gone well beyond polite exhortations to the Commons to reconsider. This House has real purpose and real power, even if limited today to the significant power to delay non-financial matters. The power to delay can in practice often be the power to prevent.

The issue of legitimacy for this House to exercise its powers has been debated for more than 100 years. It is frequently suggested that we may now be moving too rapidly to conclude that debate. As I have said previously, it is probably only in this place that a Government intent on proceeding with a principle contained in all major party manifestos and introducing a phased programme of democratic reform over about 15 years could be accused of acting with “undue haste” with only a mere century of deliberation so far.

Proposals for reform appear to have shocked many noble friends to my left in this Chamber—I do not mean to my political left, of course—as well as a few around me. Some of those around me should recall that we have two words in our party title. The first word is “Liberal”, which takes us back to the party of Lloyd George and Asquith and that fight to end the hereditary principle and, at least in Asquith’s case, to replace it with the popular principle for membership of the House.

[Lord Cormack]

My noble friend will of course remember that both Lloyd George and Asquith accepted hereditary peerages.

[Lord Rennard]

Indeed they did, and some of us accepted life peerages. Some of us who I know were strong supporters of the principle of democracy and elections to this place accepted peerages because it was the only way in which we might have a voice in these debates and eventually a vote to support those principles.

For Members around me perhaps looking for a little further guidance as to where our party should be on this issue, I suggest that there is a clue in the second word of our party name, “Democrat”. I take a simple view about the nature of representative democracy: I strongly believe that those who approve the laws should be elected by those who have to obey them.

As for noble Lords who take a more Conservative position, I understand that it took a long time for their predecessors to accept such principles as the universal franchise, the secret ballot and the abolition of rotten boroughs, but I might remind them of what their party has said in more recent times. Under the leadership of Mr William Hague in 2001, the Conservative Party manifesto stated:

“We would like to see a stronger House of Lords in the future, including a substantial elected element”.

Under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, in 2005, the Conservative Party manifesto said that,

“proper reform of the House of Lords has been repeatedly promised but never delivered … We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords”.

In 2010, the manifesto on which 307 Conservative MPs were elected stated:

“We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”.

[Lord Cormack]

I know that my noble friend likes to be accurate, so would he acknowledge that in 2007, when another place voted on these proposals, more Conservative Members voted against the party’s official policy of 100% elected than for it? That policy, enunciated in manifestos, has been repeatedly repudiated by the majority of Members of the Conservative Party.

[Lord Rennard]

Indeed, but the question must be put as to why the party stood on that manifesto in 2010 as clearly and unequivocally as it did. The Conservatives stood on that basis over 10 years, with three manifestos— whether there would be a substantially or predominantly elected element or changes to the House of Lords. It was on that basis that they were elected. That is a matter for others to judge them on.

It will be to the relief of the House that I will not quote every Labour manifesto on the subject of House of Lords reform. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, tried to refer to 11 of them in brief. I will quote just one, which happens to be the one on which the last Labour Government were elected. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is not in his place. He suggested that whenever the Labour Party advocated Lords reform, it lost. I seem to recall that the Labour Party won the 1997 general election, and did so decisively with a majority of 179.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My recollection is that we also won in 2001 and 2005. I think the noble Lord said that it was the last time that we won.

[Lord Rennard]

It was the beginning of the last Labour Government. The manifesto said in 1997 that,

“the House of Lords must be reformed ... to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”.

In particular, the 1997 Labour manifesto said that,

“the legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered”.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have noticed—as has the whole House—that he has not attempted at all in his remarks to contest my hypothesis that the Lib Dem party is, in this matter, pursuing an entirely selfish party-political agenda. While we are quoting manifestos, can the noble Lord explain to the House why the Lib Dem party appears to have abandoned its commitment in favour of a referendum on this issue, which was certainly in its most recent general election manifesto in 2010?

[Lord Rennard]

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, there was absolutely no promise of a referendum on the issue of Lords reform in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2010. I believe in representative democracy. I think there are many problems with referendums, as I shall elaborate. The Liberal Democrats did not promise any such thing in 2010.

In answer to the noble Lord’s basic premise that the Liberal Democrats are acting out of pure self-interest in this matter, I point out the major flaw in his argument. In common consensus around the Chamber tonight, we have talked about there being perhaps 400 or 450 Members of this House who are particularly active. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there are now 90 Liberal Democrat Peers. That is not far off some 23% of the active membership of this House. I also point out to noble Lords that many people who talk about the effectiveness and work of this House have said that it is effective because no one party has an overall majority. No one party has an overall majority if you have a system of proportional representation.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords—

[Lord Rennard]

I will give way to the noble Lord in a moment. It is not inconsistent for the Liberal Democrats to argue that there should be a system of proportional representation for electing Members of your Lordships’ House to prevent there being a majority for one party in both Houses at any one time.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again but, on a point of detail, there is a system of proportional representation in Scotland and Scotland now has a majority Government.

[Lord Rennard]

Indeed it has. That is because the Scottish National Party secured almost a majority of the votes. My noble friend serves also to remind me of the other flaw in the argument advanced by some noble Lords during this debate that proportional representation would mean that the Liberal Democrats were permanently in government. That was suggested a few moments ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, we have PR in Scotland and Wales and the Liberal Democrats are not in government there. That does not follow.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

It does if you look at the proportion of votes that the party gets in the whole of the United Kingdom, focusing on England.

[Lord Rennard]

I simply think that PR is a matter of democracy and we need democracy within this House.

Given the Labour Party’s recent history on House of Lords reform, I am surprised by this new-found enthusiasm for a referendum on the issue. I note that that was in the Labour Party’s manifesto in 2010 but not previously. In the 1996-97 period, leading Liberal Democrats such as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, together with the late Robin Cook and other noble Lords and Baronesses—some of them present in the House tonight—agreed a fundamental reform of the House of Lords in the event of the Conservatives losing the 1997 general election. There was no suggestion that there should be a referendum on the proposals. It seems that if there is to be a referendum on the issue it would be because parliamentarians in the other place have failed to do the job that they were elected to do.

I would like to refer briefly back to the report on referendums—

[Lord Cormack]

How does my noble friend square his championing of the referendums for electing mayors of our cities and for AV with resolutely being against a referendum for the biggest constitutional change in the composition of our Parliament that we will have seen for over a century?

[Lord Rennard]

My noble friend and other noble Lords will never have heard me argue the case for referendums for mayors. Noble Lords present during the debates last year on the Localism Bill will have heard me express strong reservations about referendums. There are often major problems with the conduct of referendums. The only exception I have thought of to my general belief in representative democracy above referendums is that the system by which Members are chosen in the place that has primacy should be chosen not by those Members themselves but by the voters.

A number of noble Lords have suggested this evening that electors a year ago chose first past the post and rejected proportional representation—that was the implication of a number of arguments. I remind noble Lords that the option of proportional representation was never offered to the voters last year because noble Lords from other parties and Members of another place were too fearful that people might decide to have that system rather than first past the post.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is not one of the advantages of a referendum on House of Lords reform that, if the vote is won in favour of reform, Parliament is then locked into that decision? Parliament would find it very difficult to say no when the people have said yes.

[Lord Rennard]

I agree that it would be difficult for Parliament to say no in that event. I do not totally rule out the idea.

Let me first refer the noble Lord back to the report on referendums by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. In the debate in this House on that report, it appeared to be generally agreed by almost all noble Lords present that referendums should be rare and that there were significant problems with holding them—not least the propensity of the electorate to vote in response to a different question from that which appeared on the ballot paper. However, the report concluded that it would be appropriate to hold a referendum if abolition of either House of Parliament was considered. It is probably on that basis that some noble Lords consider the justification for a referendum. Yet when we look back to the 1911, 1949, 1958 and 1999 Acts, they were never considered to be Acts of abolition, even though they significantly changed both the powers and the composition of the House.

Gradually reforming composition does not amount to abolition. The draft Bill and the proposals of the Joint Committee suggest a transitional period that would not be complete before 2025—some 114 years after the 1911 Act and 15 years after all main parties promised in their manifestos to work for such an outcome. Ending the hereditary principle, removing patronage from party leaders and allowing people to choose their legislators do not amount to abolition of this House, so I do not see any case for a referendum before 2015. In the mean time, I believe that in 2015 we should begin the first phase of real reform by electing a small proportion of the membership of your Lordships’ House and finally ending completely the hereditary basis for membership. There may be more of a case for a referendum later, on proceeding to the second or final stages of reform.

I also want to address briefly another important constitutional issue in the gracious Speech—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can the noble Lord clarify that? Earlier in our debate, the proposition was made that the coalition is now considering a new option, which is essentially to go for a small number of elected people in 2015—rather following the Wakeham and Irvine proposals at the beginning of the previous decade—and then pausing to ponder whether we move on from that position, perhaps by referendum. If the noble Lord is saying that, it is important, given that he speaks with a great deal of authority on those Benches.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I hope to speak with authority, but I have to say that I speak for myself on this issue. It is logical that if we were to consider a reform which meant that 92 hereditary Peers were no longer Members of your Lordships’ House—which was of course the aim of the 1999 legislation—and if, for the sake of argument, we were to elect 120 Peers in 2015, that would not be a great change. It would not be revolutionary and it would not justify a referendum. We might consider it at some point in the following Parliament—perhaps on the same day as the country was voting in the European elections in 2019, to minimise the cost of a referendum. Then, when people saw the House working effectively without an hereditary element—although I have great respect for many hereditary Members of this House—with a small elected element of, say, 120 Members, that would not be dissimilar to the initial proposals of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We could then say, “That is how it is working. Do you want to proceed with the remaining life Peers going in phases and a wholly elected House?”. We could vote on that at some point. Complete change is abolition of this House. I suggest that if we were proceeding along that way by 2015, there would be no need for a referendum before then.

I have spoken a number of times about the important issue of individual voter registration. I would like to say little about that as it was also referred to in the gracious Speech, but I will be brief. It is of considerable importance in all elections that we have a complete and accurate electoral register.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, despite the fact that my noble friend has been intervened on several times, I hope that he has his eye firmly on the clock.

[Lord Rennard]

I have indeed. I have lost about 30 seconds, but I will not worry too much about that. I simply want to say that I welcome the change in approach by the Government since the publication of the White Paper, which originally proposed treating the list of people entitled to vote as little more than an optional mailing list to which people could subscribe if they could be bothered. The principle that it should be a legal requirement to be on that register, subject to a fine if you do not comply with a registration officer’s request to be on the electoral register, is long established, going back to 1918. Labour and Conservative Governments have subsequently significantly increased the fines for not complying with the registration process. Relatively recently, we have had the implementation of individual electoral registration in Northern Ireland maintaining the principle of a fine of up to £1,000 if you do not comply. I simply draw the attention of the Minister to my view that we would need to see the detail and secondary legislation of exactly how new civil penalties might be applied in the registration process before we can say that we support the principle of the Bill. Finally, I believe that that Bill may also be an opportunity to have a proper debate about how we can increase turnout, make it easier for people of working age to vote, and reduce inconvenience for schools and families by properly considering weekend voting.

Electoral Register

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Rennard]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent Electoral Commission report on the accuracy of the electoral register.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have funded research by the Electoral Commission to discover how deep the problems with the existing system are. It shows that the register has become significantly less complete during the past 10 years. The register is around 85 per cent accurate and, as of December 2010, was 85 to 87 per cent complete, with around 6 million electors missing from the register compared to an estimated 3.5 million in 2000. The data show that the current system is not as good as many people thought it was. These findings show that now, more than ever, it is important that we take steps to improve registration rates as part of the move to individual registration. This includes looking at how we can most effectively reach those groups most likely to be missing from the register.

[Lord Rennard]

Does the Minister agree that we need talks between all the parties, the Electoral Commission and others so that we have confidence that we are handling the transition to individual voter registration in such a way as to ensure that many more people are not missing from the voter register in future? Given the consensus shown in this House in last Thursday’s debate, does he agree that the sanctions which currently apply to households and make most of them conform with the process should continue to apply to individuals?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, my noble friend asks several questions. We value the independence of the Electoral Commission as an umpire for this system. We recognise that the integrity of the system depends on the trust and confidence of all parties involved. We noted the calls from around the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, last Thursday, for a new all-party group to ensure that confidence is maintained. I have fed that in to fellow Ministers.

Electoral Registration

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate. It comes at a good time because the recent report by the Electoral Commission highlights a number of weaknesses in the current electoral registration process, especially in the completeness of the voting register. It suggests that perhaps 6 million or 7 million people who should be on the register are not. The current household-based processes for registering voters in Great Britain are not consistently applied. The system is not accurate and is antiquated in that it requires action by someone acting as head of household—a position that does not exist in any household that I would recognise.

Any unnecessary change to the system beyond a simple switch from household to individual responsibility that might risk missing out many more voters while doing nothing to improve accuracy would be a very bad step in the wrong direction. I am pleased that any changes will now be open to very considerable pre-legislative scrutiny. Many representations have been made suggesting that the recent White Paper probably puts accuracy above completeness as a priority in the registration process. However, both principles are very important. Fraudulent entries on the register are abhorrent, but the absence from the register of people entitled to vote fundamentally weakens our democracy. I am pleased that the idea of encouraging voters in effect to disfranchise themselves through a so-called opt-out box on the registration form has been dropped; it would have sent a totally wrong signal about responsibility.

There is agreement among the parties on the principle of individual electoral registration, but, in considering any other changes to the process, clear evidence of the benefit of the changes to the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register must be shown if they are to be made. Many people consider that the main strength of our existing registration system, and the reason for widespread compliance, is that it is based on a legal requirement. Electoral registration officers clearly consider this requirement to be vital to the process, because the registration forms that each officer designs make the requirement clear above anything else.

I shall quote from some of the forms that I have been able to collect from different local authorities which are sent to every household as part of the registration process. Exeter City Council’s form says in bold near the top of the form:

“You are required by law to give the information requested on this form”.

Wandsworth Council’s form says in large print at the very top:

“You are required by law to provide the requested information even if you do not qualify to vote”.

Elmbridge Borough Council’s form says in large bold type under the address of the recipient:

“By law you must return this form every year even if there are no changes to make”.

Edinburgh’s form emphasises that the information is “required by law” by emboldening those three key words. Lambeth Council’s form says at the top:

“By law you have to register every year”,

and this form, like many others, also leads with the fact that,

“You can be fined £1,000 if you do not reply”.

Eastbourne’s form also states most prominently in bold print the legal requirement to comply with the process and also features the sanction of a fine of up to £1,000 if you fail to do so. In fact, every single form that I have been able to collect strongly emphasises this point of legal requirement. I suggest that this is clear proof that the statement is considered to be of significant value by those most concerned with the detail of the process.

Of course, prosecutions for failure to comply are very rare, but the threat of legal sanction is considered to be very effective. The Electoral Commission has relayed to me the views of the Association of Electoral Administrators. These administrators are the people who employ those who go round visiting homes and chasing the forms to try to ensure that they are returned and that the register is as complete as possible. The association says that interrupting households to ask them to fill in a form is never easy, and if completion becomes a voluntary activity—simply a polite request—it does not think that the forms will be completed. The fact that it is a legal requirement is what persuades the vast majority of people to comply with the registration process.

The Electoral Commission clearly agrees. It concludes that:

“Without some form of sanction, we would expect a lower rate of response to requests for information than is currently achieved”.

The threat of legal sanctions is what makes the existing register as comprehensive as it is. Without them, the completeness of the register is likely to fall considerably. Removing legal sanctions would put the quality of our democracy at great risk—for no benefit to that democracy. That is why I will not support any change that does not satisfactorily preserve this legal requirement to comply with the registration process on everyone who should fill in a form to register to vote. Registration to vote is not a personal choice in our system and it should not become one. It is voting or not that should remain a personal choice. This is not just about the fairness of elections but about the fairness of the way in which constituency and ward boundaries are drawn up.

I am sure that Ministers will remember the many occasions last year on which they defended the electoral register—as it now is—as the basis for drawing up constituency boundaries. They said that we could be proud of an estimated 92 per cent compliance with the registration process. They must now realise that if we change the basis of the register in fundamental ways, it may no longer be fit for purpose for redrawing boundaries.

There are many issues that I would like to raise in relation to this, particularly the need for a full and comprehensive canvass in 2014. We know how important that is, but for reasons of time I have chosen to concentrate on that specific issue, which I consider to be of paramount importance. I hope that my noble friend Lord Tyler will shortly take up some of the other issues about which I am also very concerned.

Constitutional Change: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, as a relatively new member of this Select Committee, I found it to be an interesting inquiry. We produced a useful report and I greatly admire the skill with which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, steered us through our deliberations. For some people, the report would make entertaining reading about some of the key features of our uncodified constitution—of which some, perhaps, are unaware. The report highlights what some would consider to be significant flaws in our constitution. The committee itself did not favour that which I have always favoured: a written constitution. When I asked the Deputy Prime Minister giving evidence to the committee about this long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, he made it plain that the coalition Government have no intention of introducing one. One of the many benefits of a written constitution would be that it would contain within it a prescribed mechanism for constitutional change. I therefore listened to members of the committee and found it somewhat ironic that so many were genuinely keen to see significant procedures followed if there was to be any constitutional change, but not keen to see what the constitution actually is, or how to change it, written down in a codified manner.

The report elucidates what I think is a key problem with our constitutional arrangements at paragraph 23, stating:

“Aside from the limited power of the House of Lords under the Parliament Acts to delay or reject legislation, there is no formal system of checks and balances by which the integrity of the UK constitution can be safeguarded and protected. Thus there is little to constrain the ability of a government which commands a majority in the House of Commons to get its way”.

That is the fundamental problem with which we were concerned in this inquiry. Attention was drawn to this problem by the astute political commentator Andrew Rawnsley, in Servants of the People, his study of Labour’s first term after 1997. In that book he said:

“Within his own universe, no democratic leader is potentially more powerful than a British Prime Minister with a reliable parliamentary majority and an obedient Cabinet”.

On re-reading our committee’s report, I felt even more strongly than I did at the time that its central recommendation—that a clear process be followed when constitutional change is proposed—would have a much more limited effect on executive power than proper, codified constitutional arrangements would. However, short of such a constitution, it is welcome that a written ministerial statement of this kind should be proposed.

In the mean time, I will of course continue to argue for more far-reaching changes than such a statement to address the problems of excessive power that the committee outlined in paragraph 23. First, I would still argue that the most effective curb on excessive executive power is for the Executive not to have a majority, as is the case in the House of Lords and as would normally be the case if we had a more representative system for elections to the House of Commons. Secondly, I would point out that the introduction of a stronger check and balance on the dominance of the Executive would come from a democratic second Chamber, which would be emboldened more regularly to say no to the Executive.

At the outset of our deliberations on all these issues, the committee benefited greatly from the membership of some of the former Ministers responsible for a very good period of constitutional change—or constitutional reform as you may wish to define it—between 1997 and 1999. As my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said earlier, this period’s success could be demonstrated by the way in which we were able, relatively rapidly, to reach agreement through both Houses of Parliament on devolution to Scotland and Wales, the introduction of proportional representation for the European elections, freedom of information legislation and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. However, the basis of achieving such rapid progress in the first two years of a Government was that two parties were able to co-operate in opposition over a significant period, and with independent academic expertise advising us.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and say how much we miss the late Robin Cook. Between the two of them, they successfully chaired that committee in the autumn of 1996 and early 1997. I was privileged to be its joint secretary and it did a great deal of good in advancing the process of constitutional change.

The committee also had a concern, set out in paragraphs 27 to 29, about the lack of an overarching programme of reform with coherent values running through it. The committee was generally more critical of the first year or two of this Government than it was of that period in 1997 and 1998. I share the committee’s concern about some of the process of constitutional change since the general election and was happy to endorse the report’s criticism. However, I also fear that in some senses there could have been more of a public backlash against a very overarching programme. The problem is that if you had a more clearly explained overarching programme, which belonged simply to one party, some people might consider it to be an overreaching programme. If a Government then tried to act more rapidly than has perhaps been the case—in a big-bang, too-big-too-fast way—there would be public opposition to such a programme of change. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about public engagement but, following his remarks, a safeguard against any one party in a future Government making changes too rapidly and in an ill thought-out way would be to have more consistent public engagement.

Reformers of the constitution have long talked about different forms of constitutional convention that could be established, involving different parts of civic society—perhaps a cross-section of Parliament and randomly selected members of the public. Indeed, the Scottish Constitutional Convention gave us a very good model of how different parties, people not involved with parties at all, the church and religious organisations et cetera could get involved in suggesting a way forward so that, when a Government are minded to act, there is a blueprint for how to proceed. If we are to have an overarching programme, it may well be that such a convention would have to be its genesis to prevent the same sort of controversy attaching to it as has perhaps been attached to the opening years of this Government’s constitutional reform programme.

Voluntary Sector Funding

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, it is six months since I was in the very beautiful cathedral of Ripon, speaking to the synod of the diocese of Ripon and Leeds in its debate on the big society and the role of the church. I welcome the debate this afternoon. In many ways, it will mirror that debate last June, which can still be found on the very good diocese website.

The discussion in the cathedral that morning actually reminded me of rather more political gatherings in many ways, as it revolved around what first seemed to be simply a technical amendment. The main motion said:

“This Synod welcomes the opportunities for the Church's contribution to the common good represented by the Big Society".

The amendment that was carried changed this wording to say:

“This Synod recognizes the opportunities for the Church's contribution to the common good represented by the Big Society".

The difference between those two positions reflects a dilemma faced by many people, communities and voluntary organisations. This is a dilemma about, on one hand, the principles of the big society, which some of us have always called community politics and some may call the good society, and, on the other hand, the practicalities of recognising the need at present to reduce government expenditure.

My invitation to speak at the cathedral arose from the fact that earlier this year I had been asked by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations to chair a commission looking at the role of the voluntary sector in the big society. By the time we reported in May, I had met more than 60 charities and voluntary organisations working in many different parts of this country.

I would say that all of them and indeed all the members of the commission—they came from different backgrounds in the voluntary sector, all the major parties and the church—agreed principles about the big society that are relevant to our debate this afternoon. They all recognised that power and responsibility are shifting in our society; that individuals and communities now have more aspiration, power and capacity to take decisions and solve problems themselves; and that we all need to take greater responsibility for ourselves, our communities and each other. However, just as these principles were commonly agreed, so were the dangers clearly seen that cuts in local council budgets risk undermining many of these principles.

Although the charities and voluntary organisations that I met were very realistic about the country’s economic problems, many of them feared genuinely that they would suffer disproportionately from cutbacks and that this would particularly affect their work in many of the most deprived areas of this country where their efforts are most needed. This resulted in a debate in our commission about how far local authorities could or should be directed to provide services directly themselves or via the voluntary sector. We concluded that it was not compatible with localism to direct local councillors in this way, but we all agreed on the need for much greater transparency in the way in which local councils decide to provide services directly or via alternatives involving the voluntary sector, and how they calculate the costs and benefits of these different approaches.

Frequently, we came across problems arising from government expenditure decisions being taken at different levels and based on far too narrow a consideration of the costs and benefits to that particular part of government in isolation—what they often call a “silo” mentality. We also saw the application very often of too much short-term consideration, which prevented proper evaluation being made that might otherwise have justified some of the expenditure that was being reduced.

Early on in my role as chair of the big society commission, I was challenged on the “Today” programme about whether promoting big society values and the role of the voluntary sector in general was simply a question of spending money and that doing that was not compatible with making the savings in public expenditure that everyone knows are presently required. As ever in my experience, it is always to rebut a charge with a clear and specific example. I was able to quote in the programme the case of what was then Age Concern in south Staffordshire, an example of where funding a voluntary organisation actually led to savings in public expenditure. It was working with seven hospitals to look after older people prior to admission and again as soon as they were ready to come out. By helping to prepare these older people for going into hospital, and helping to support them at the earliest possible time for returning home, their stays in hospital were of a much shorter duration, and of course they were much happier to be in their own homes for more of the time.

The funding to help 3,000 people a year in this way was £500,000 per year, but it saved the NHS around £3 million per year, as these people were in hospital for a much shorter period. It saved £6 for every £1 spent. However, shortly after the programme, I was asked not to use the example again because the £500,000 funding had just been cut—an example of short-termism and the silo mentality. That approach in how decisions over public expenditure are taken needs to change.

The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, known as ACEVO, has given me many similar examples, not all of them based on local authority cutbacks but where the same issues arise. When I was chairing the commission, I spoke to many charities and voluntary organisations that needed professional support and help with things such as the cost of maintaining premises. They explained to me that these organisations could exist only with some significant help from the public purse, especially in low-income areas, but by undertaking the work that they did they could often cause significant savings to be made in the long run to the public purse. The common problem, they explained, was that the haste in which the Department for Communities and Local Government had agreed cuts in local authority budgets meant that some local authorities were able to make their cuts in the required time only by making them disproportionately at the expense of the voluntary sector, and probably also at the cost of additional expenditure to the public purse in future. Of course, some but by no means all local authorities saw the voluntary sector as a softer target in any event.

The Government’s transitional fund helped that problem to some degree and was a welcome £100 million for a year, but it was for one year only and against cuts that the NCVO estimates at about £3 billion over four years. One of the projects that I visited, the Liverpool Lighthouse project, benefited from the transitional funding. It raised substantial funds itself but also explained that it was simply not realistic to expect it to continue all its activities so successfully in future without continued significant public support. I saw for myself how it was succeeding in helping to educate young people who would otherwise be skipping school, often beginning a life of crime, at great expense to their neighbourhood and to all of us if they follow routes leading to imprisonment. The project was helping to get people off drugs and out of criminal activity through volunteering so that they had at least the prospect of gainful employment. However, the long-term value of such projects is not properly factored into how public expenditure decisions are made at present.

In our commission report, Powerful People, Responsible Society, we called for much greater transparency in how local authorities fund the voluntary sector and how they decide on the best long-term providers of services. Many local authorities are very sympathetic to these points; they want to see a rapid and massive rollout of community budgeting to reduce the problems of allocating expenditure by one part of government without taking into account the effect on other parts. Voluntary organisations always want the Government to help them to co-operate better by sharing services without the unfair imposition of VAT bills if they cross-charge services to each other and try to get best value for money. Above all, there needs to be much greater respect between government at all levels and the voluntary sector.

The compact between the government and the voluntary sector was refreshed at the end of last year. It will help and it must be fully implemented next year, and local authorities should all adopt the recent best-value guidance setting out the reasonable expectations that the voluntary sector can expect in its dealings with them. I hope that the impact of cuts to the voluntary sector will be closely monitored, especially in deprived areas, and that this subject is one to which we will return in future.