House of Lords
Lord Sewel Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful and wise contribution. It reinforces the point raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Clark: it is particularly difficult for those of us who come from afar, because the costs to get here are that much more. You do not get paid. In fact, you really do need a pension or a private income if you are to serve in this Chamber from anywhere outside of London. That is true. I am lucky to have a pension from the other place, so I am able to do so.
The main point I want to make is that we cannot consider size in isolation. We must also take account of the other constitutional changes that are either under way or planned, including further devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it is not just to Scotland. People say, “Scottish Members of Parliament shouldn’t vote and Scottish people shouldn’t participate”, but there is devolution to Wales and there has been for Northern Ireland for a long time. I never heard the Tories say, “These Ulster Unionists shouldn’t participate in matters that affect only England”. We have to deal with that as well. We also have to try to resolve the democratic deficit in England. That could include an English Parliament, a regional government, a combination of both, or more power to the cities, but it could also include some changes in this place, which I will come to.
The Library Note has been mentioned. That Library Note was helpful, particularly on the statistics. I was particularly sorry that it did not cover the Labour Lords’ report, to which my noble friend Lady Taylor referred. Perhaps they are being rather pure and non-partisan and do not want to mention it because it comes from one party, but I think it is one of the best contributions to this debate—I am a little bit biased as I was on the committee that helped to draw it up.
Among other things, it recommends that the size of this House should be smaller than the House of Commons. I say this to my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane—my really good friend—and to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: there is something symbolic about making it smaller than the House of Commons, to reinforce the primacy of the other place. It has to be reinforced in different ways and that helps to do it. In our report, the aim was 450 Peers, but I must say—I hope I am not giving any secrets away—that we were swithering upwards and downwards when we discussed that. There is not an obvious number. As others have said, we need the number to do the job. The Select Committee I serve on, the European Union Select Committee, with its six sub-committees, needs personnel to keep it going—I must not say to man it. We need enough for that as well.
We also recommend the abolition of hereditary Peers—at least of their participation in this place, not anything worse than that. I have not heard any arguments in favour of keeping them; if there are any I look forward to hearing them. The ones who have been useful have been made life Peers anyway. We also recommend a minimum attendance and participation level. That has been discussed; I will not go into it further.
We also recommended retirement at the end of the Parliament in which Peers reach 80. I have just been appointed to do something new. Many years ago, when I was young, I was director of Age Concern Scotland. I then got elected to Parliament and I had to retire from that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend Lord Sewel has said it is a pity that that happened. I have just been appointed a trustee of Age Scotland, the new body that replaced Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged in Scotland. The director, Brian Sloan, said to me when I was appointed, “Of course, George, you’ve got more of a direct interest in our work now”. He was absolutely right. This is the kind of thing that we should be doing. We are not in favour of arbitrary retirement ages; I should not advocate that. However, I do not think this is arbitrary. We have looked at it carefully and made a serious recommendation.
We then come to the longer term, which is the more important debate—no disrespect to what my noble friend Lord Williams and others have raised about the current matter. In the longer term, we need to start with the purpose of this House: not how many we are, but what we are here for. First of all, do we need a second Chamber? An argument has to be made against unicameralism in favour of a second Chamber. I used to be a unicameralist, but if you go to Scotland and see what has happened with the Scottish Parliament, where there are no checks and balances on a Parliament controlled by one party, with a First Minister, the Presiding Officer, and the majority of the Select Committees of the same party, you begin to see the advantages of a second Chamber.
If noble Lords agree with that, how should the second Chamber differ from and relate to the House of Commons? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who said that it should be complementary to it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised the question of the council of experts that we have here. This is a really important dilemma about what we are here for. If we want to be a council of experts that is one thing, but it does not have the legitimacy of a body that has some form of election, whether direct or indirect. That is difficult. It is difficult to argue that a nominated body, however expert and brilliant it is, should be part of the legislature. That conflict needs reconciling.
Procedure of the House
Lord Sewel Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Committees
That this House takes note of the 6th Report from the Select Committee (Backbench Debates) (HL Paper 151).
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, as I said when moving the previous Motion, the committee has made no recommendation on the issue of a Back-Bench debates committee, and the House is invited merely to take note of this report. My position on the appointment of a Back-Bench debates committee is therefore neutral. My task is simply to facilitate the debate and, after the debate, the taking of a decision.
The background to these two Motions is summarised in the report itself. Two years ago, the report of the Leader’s Group on working practices, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, was published. Among the group’s recommendations was the establishment of what the group called a Back-Bench business committee—a committee of Backbenchers whose task it would be to schedule certain types of Back-Bench debates. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been a Backbench Business Committee in the House of Commons since 2010, when it was established following the report of the Wright committee.
The report of the Leader’s Group has been extensively debated in this House but until today the House has not had the opportunity to take a formal decision on this particular recommendation. That we have this opportunity today is thanks to eight noble Lords, listed in the report, who put a paper before the Procedure Committee in February. They will speak for themselves in today’s debate, so I shall not summarise their arguments.
Shortly before the meeting of the committee in February, the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, put a further paper before the committee, in which he set out, on the one hand, his wish to improve the opportunities afforded to Back-Benchers to table business and, on the other, his opposition to a Back-Bench debates committee. The committee did not reach a decision at its February meeting but, instead, invited both the supporters of a Back-Bench debates committee and the Leader of the House to reflect further and to bring back further proposals to our March meeting.
That led to a welcome degree of consensus on the desirability of increasing the range of opportunities for Back-Benchers to table debates. Essentially we have identified various portions of time which either already are or could in future be set aside for Back-Bench debates: first, those Thursdays—one a month from the start of the Session to the end of December—that are already set aside for Back-Bench balloted debates; secondly, additional days in Grand Committee—at least one day for every six sitting weeks in the Session, or around six in total over a typical Session; and, thirdly, an additional one-hour slot on Thursdays, which would be allocated from the start of the Session to the end of January to a topical Question for Short Debate.
These slots of time have been agreed. The decision that the House has to take today is how to fill them. Our report briefly outlines the two proposals put to the committee. One involves the appointment of a Back-Bench debates committee; the other, proposed by the Leader, is broadly based on existing processes, such as ballots and first come, first served, with some variations. I shall leave the supporters of these two approaches to describe them in more detail. That is all I wish to say.
The third Motion in my name on the Order Paper has been drawn up to give the House an opportunity to decide on a fundamental issue of principle to do with how business in your Lordships’ House is selected and tabled. The committee has not sought to explore the options presented to it in detail and, as paragraph 19 of the report makes clear, further detailed work will be needed, whatever the House decides today.
This is an open debate, and I do not wish to limit it in any way, but it may be helpful to the House to hear, first, from one proponent for each of the two options set out in the report. I understand that the Leader of the House would like to speak early, which I think is appropriate, so I suggest that he speaks once the Question has been put, and then perhaps we might hear from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who brought the proposal for a Back-Bench debates committee before the Procedure Committee.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Will the Lord Chairman clarify the position that he has outlined? The Motion implies to me—and I may have misunderstood it—that in order to secure the additional slots for these debates, it is first necessary to approve the new Back-Bench Members committee. If this Motion is rejected, will the new slots still be scheduled but just by a different means?
Lord Sewel
Yes, I am happy to give that clarification. The new slots have been agreed. What we must decide today is how those slots are filled and who has responsibility, whether they are selected by the traditional method of ballots and first come, first served or by a Back-Bench committee. So even if the Back-Bench committee proposal is rejected, the new, identified slots remain. I hope that that is helpful. In conclusion, I beg to move that this House takes note of the 6th Report from the Procedure Committee.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)
Would the noble Lord, Lord Butler, like to speak first? It might make more sense and, if he would like to do so, I should be delighted to give way.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
In general, I am in favour of progress, modernisation and change, but I am not in favour of a Back-Bench debates committee at this point because it is unnecessary in view of the Leader’s proposal. In the light of that proposal, a Back-Bench debates committee would be a huge sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut. It could easily turn into a bureaucratic and expensive procedure, if full accountability was desired. One just has to think about it. Peers tabling subjects for topical QSDs would have to give reasons in papers or e-mails, and signatures of support would be sought. Minutes of the committee would have to be prepared; all conflicts of interest, not just financial, would have to be declared; and all lobbying, either ignored or debated, would have to be declared. A clerk would be required, plus an assistant to prepare papers. The committee would not be cheap and, if there is capacity for another committee, I would much rather the money was spent on more pre-legislative or post-legislative scrutiny.
As for transparency, the government Whips’ Office has given a very clear and welcome explanation of how debates and QSDs get on to the Order Paper. As for balloted debates, what is more transparent than pure chance, with all Peers having as good a chance as each other of having their subject debated? Do we really want to go down the road of having a group of our fellow Peers deciding which debates are more important than others? Why do we not give the Leader’s proposals a trial and, if there is dissatisfaction after that, come back to the idea of a Back-Bench debates committee?
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we have had a good and thorough debate, and I believe that all the possible arguments have been aired. At this stage, I beg to move that this House takes note of the sixth report of the Procedure Committee. After that, we get to the substantive Motion on the decision.
Procedure of the House
Lord Sewel Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Committees
That the 1st report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 25) be agreed to.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I congratulate the Chairman of Committees on an excellent and sympathetic report. However, could he arrange for the Procedure Committee to look at another matter: namely, the accountability of Ministers to this House, particularly the accountability of the noble Lord, Lord Green? I have here a table that shows that his attendance in the current Session was less than 10%; whereas, just to take a random example, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was here nearly 100% of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Green, was absent yesterday when there was a PNQ, which he knew was coming up, about his attendance. He is absent again today. I do not know where he is, but he is certainly not here. However, he is going to make a statement today, not to this House but to Jeff Randall on Sky television.
It is appalling and a discourtesy to this House and to Parliament as a whole when the noble Lord considers that it is appropriate for him to make a statement on television and not to this House. Since we have the noble Lord the Leader of the House here—I shall wait for a reply to the Committee—he will say that at a time when the Prime Minister is under tremendous pressure with his former press adviser and good friend having been charged with very serious offences and when his judgment is in question, it would add to that for his adviser on banking, a senior Minister of State, not to come before this House and be accountable to the place where he ought to be.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend puts it extremely well. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, a Written Ministerial Statement on the loan guarantee scheme was made by my noble friend Lord Sassoon because it was a Treasury matter. The noble Lord was able to ask him a Question a few minutes ago.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, it seems so long ago, but if I remember correctly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, began by commending the report. I thank him for those very few words on the report. He raised issues that have been dealt with by the Leader of the House. The only thing I should say is that if anyone wishes to take these matters further in light of the Procedure Committee, they can always write. I do not think that any points, let alone points of substance, have been raised on the content of the report, which makes a number of important advances in how we enable people with disabilities to contribute fully to the business of this House. I commend the report to the House.
Liaison Committee: Third Report
Lord Sewel Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, it will not come as a surprise to the House to hear that I fear that the Liaison Committee has got the importance of our European committees badly out of focus.
It is welcome that the European committees have been cut from eight—seven plus one—to one and six sub-committees. However, that still leaves 84 Members of your Lordships’ House on the sub-committees, a further 14 on the main committee, with the result that the time of 98 of your Lordships is taken by the European Select Committee. I have mentioned this before. There is a long series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, answered by the Government, which show that the European Committee has virtually no influence on the legislation that comes to us from Brussels. As your Lordships know, that is quite a substantial proportion of our general legislation and easily the majority of—
Lord Sewel
There is the vexatious question of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Has the noble Lord looked at the Green Paper that the Fisheries Commissioner has published? Is he aware that it borrows—I dare not use the word “plagiarises”—significantly from the report of the committee of this House?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I understand that the decision of the European Commission to review the common fisheries policy is due more to the series on television by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall than to your Lordships’ Select Committee. And anyway, we await reform of the common fisheries policy, as we have for the past 30 years.
I do not want to turn this into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the European Union, but I want to explain to your Lordships why seven European committees is still far too many. I referred to the series of Questions from the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Vinson, the answers to which show that the Select Committee has had virtually no influence on legislation coming to us from Brussels. That is not surprising. Your Lordships may be aware of the process of European legislation, which is proposed in secret by the Commission, negotiated in secret in COREPER and passed in secret in the Council. There is nothing that your Lordships’ House or the other place can do when it has gone through that process.
House of Lords: Reform
Lord Sewel Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I propose to address that argument during this speech, but I do not agree with it. I will set out my reasons for that in detail.
The primacy of the House of Commons, I suggest, is not affected by the proposals in the draft Bill for a number of reasons. The second of those reasons is that the substantial differences in composition that are proposed between the two Houses, along with the effect that those differences will have on their relative roles and importance, support the primacy of the House of Commons. Nor does the argument take into account the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses, which, while they may develop, will set the ground rules for how the new arrangements operate if and when the draft Bill is enacted in whatever form.
As to the law, the effect of the Parliament Acts is that this House has no more than a delaying power of one year and no power at all over money Bills. As Members of this House have said many times, the Parliament Acts were all about the powers of the House of Lords in the context of a less developed democracy, where the composition of this House was not in question. However, one should not forget the political importance of the power to appoint Peers, even in that context. The 1911 Act was passed only because of the agreement of George V to create up to 400 new Liberal Peers—not a threat, I note, that the present Government have been prepared to replicate.
Yet the Parliament Acts set conclusive limits to the powers of this House. It follows that the primacy of the House of Commons is founded on the rock of statute and not, as is sometimes implied, on the shifting sands of parliamentary conventions. After all, parliamentary conventions could not and did not prevent this House from defeating the House of Commons on the Hunting Bill and then standing firm. This House maintained its determination not to pass the Bill. The House of Commons then asserted its will, and therefore its statutory primacy, by relying on the Parliament Acts.
Lord Sewel
Does the noble Lord accept that the whole justification and rationale for the Parliament Acts was conflict between an elected House and a non-elected House and the reluctance of the elected House to have its will frustrated by a non-elected House? That was the whole argument behind the Parliament Acts.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Certainly I accept that, but I do not accept that it follows that the Parliament Acts will somehow be changed without further statute because of the passing of this draft Bill, or something like it, concerning the composition of this House. The powers of this House are determined and limited by the provisions of the Parliament Act passed, as the noble Lord suggests, in 1911 for the purpose that he sets out.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Sewel Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
I was very tempted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, because I should like to see a wide-ranging debate about all forms of electoral reform in this country. I am very tempted indeed by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Rooker, which go for a two-party arrangement, first seeking the people’s opinion on whether in principle they want change and then asking them what system in particular they want. That is an amendment that deserves the support of many people on our side of the Chamber.
So far as concerns the general question of why we need a debate on this issue, I think that we should set aside questions of party advantage. I know that people will laugh at that but I think that we should do so and ask ourselves whether the present system has legitimacy. The first general election in which I canvassed and campaigned was the 1964 general election, when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party got more than 85 per cent of the votes cast. The two parties were overwhelmingly dominant in our politics. But when you look at the result of the last two general elections—2010 and 2005—you see that the two major parties won only about two-thirds, 65 per cent, of the votes cast. This is not legitimate. You cannot have a system, which is an alleged two-party system, in which the voice of 35 per cent of the electorate is not being effectively heard. That is why we have to have a big debate in our country about electoral reform.
There are many arguments made against electoral reform, such as that it will result in weak government because there have to be coalitions. However, although I do not agree with the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, I do not believe that it is a weak Government. I think it is quite a decisive Government who are getting on with doing a lot of things I do not particularly like. It blows a hole, however, in one of the arguments against proportional representation, which is that it would result in a coalition politics that would mean that nothing would ever get done.
There is a strong argument to be made for the sake of the country. The late Lord Jenkins, of whom I was a great admirer, attached a lot of importance to the belief, based on his experience in the 1980s, that it was a very bad situation indeed when there were no Conservatives in the county of Durham and no Labour people in the county of Surrey. What you got was a polarisation of the country when in fact what you want is a system of representation where there are Conservatives who have to represent the deprived areas of the north of England and there are Labour MPs who represent the more affluent districts. That would be good for the country and would produce a more legitimate system. That is why I support electoral reform; why I am tempted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but am not going to support it; why I would definitely support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; and why I very much support the principle of a referendum on some change.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, in a previous existence I used to teach something called social science research methods, which was basically reduced in large part to constructing questionnaires and getting undergraduates to go out and ask people in various ways which way they would vote if there was a general election tomorrow. There never was a general election tomorrow, so the results were always slightly erroneous and had no predictive basis whatsoever.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, says:
“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons”.
Then we get this wonderful sentence:
“It is proposed that the system should be changed”.
Let us note the two words “proposed” and “changed”. You are actually sensitising the respondent to the desired response, because everyone accepts on that basis that it is proposed, so it is a good thing: and “change”, as we know, is a very powerful word—think of Barack Obama. It is a false question in terms of equal balance because you are making clear the direction of the desired response just by using those two words: “proposed” and “changed”.
We then get on to the more substantive issue of linking the first past the post system, which is actually undefined, with the alternative vote system. The one thing that we have learnt during the debates and discussions on this is that we do not know whether there is “the” alternative vote system. Very different types of systems claim to be the alternative vote system, but there is not one “the” alternative vote system.
Lord Strathclyde
I would reply that this is the system passed by Parliament: that, in particular, the House of Commons agreed on the system, as we did—if that is what has happened—and that is why we have the choice of AV. As to why we have AV above the other systems, no doubt we will get to that in other debates. Of course, AV is the one that preserves best the link between elected Member and constituency.
Another issue is that the wording in the amendment could influence voters, as it says:
“It is proposed that the system should be changed”.
The Government are neutral on which voting system should be used, and that statement could be misleading.
In these amendments there is not even an indication of the kind of proportional voting system that the public would get if they voted for this option or of how this type of system would work. One attraction of the approach taken in the Bill is that for all the arguments there might be about how AV works, the Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and in Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill, which would not be the case with these amendments. The results might be a lack of clarity and voter confusion.
Lord Sewel
For the sake of completeness and comprehensiveness, would the noble Lord agree, given the weaknesses of the definitions under proposed new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), that for the sake of completeness there ought to be mention of the additional Member system that has at least been tried and used in parts of the United Kingdom?
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Sewel Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
I regret to say that I have not brought my New Zealand file with me. I could not get away from the Chamber and my file is across the road, so I do not know. It was a hot issue and I have copies of the information that at the time was distributed to people by the equivalent of the Electoral Commission to explain the systems and what was going on, together with copies of the ballot papers.
I am not going to spend this debate deploying the whys and wherefores of the system. The principle is clear: first, we should ask the people, “Do you want to change the system?”. I can make the case for that but the change, when it occurs, has to be cemented, and that is my anxiety about what is being proposed. This is not intended to be a cemented change, because it is clear that, assuming it is carried, the Liberal Democrats will come back later for a move to PR. Were I in favour of PR, I would go straight to PR, but that is not the point that I am making here.
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. As I understand his argument, he wants to have an initial decision on whether to change from first past the post. If there is a majority in favour of change, that becomes a trigger for a list of alternatives, which, according to the first decision, excludes the retention of first past the post. Would it not be possible to have, say, 45 per cent of the people voting for first past the post and then, when you come to the alternatives, to have any one of the alternatives securing less than 45 per cent of the support of the electorate? What would happen then?
Lord Rooker
Amendment 30 takes care of that. I know that I shall be criticised for Amendment 30 but, if you are going to have multi-choice answers, you have to be able to rank them so that there is a clear winner. What I have here are two questions that are intended to be on one ballot paper: “Do you want to change the system? Yes or no?”. If the yes vote wins, which will not be known until the papers are counted, then the second question comes in: “Which family would you choose?”. In New Zealand, there was a year’s gap between the two referendums. The first referendum was not binding but the second one was. It was do or die between one system or another. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the second referendum required a yes or no answer and so was absolutely clear.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I join my noble friend in calling upon the Conservative Benches to take a view because I do not know whether they really understand the danger that would arise in the event that an AV referendum was successful. It has huge implications for the Conservative Party. They sit there and say very little, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and it leaves me quite bewildered.
I can now answer the question that I asked my noble friend about what happened in New Zealand because it is in Review of Voting Systems: the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997. On page 136, it sets out precisely what happened and it is very interesting, so I shall put it on the record:
“New Zealand provides a particularly interesting example because it has changed its electoral system from FPTP to the MMP”—
mixed member proportional—
“system (similar to AMS in the UK) in recent times. The first election to be held under MMP was in 1996, following referendums”—
which my noble friend referred to—
“in 1992 and 1993 which first rejected FPTP and then selected MMP from four proportional options. The 1993 referendum, which was binding, took place at the same time as the 1993 election where 84.5 per cent of voters favoured replacing FPTP and 70.3 per cent chose MMP”.
That shows that, when you ask the electorate what have been deemed in these debates to be complicated questions over the detail of various proportional systems, they actually understand what they are being asked and they are prepared to go out and vote and state a preference. The evidence is there in English-speaking New Zealand. It did it, and it shows the way forward. It is interesting to note, in the following pages in this section, that the turnout in New Zealand elections following the change in the electoral system in 1990 has consistently remained around the 80 per cent mark. That is almost as high as in my former constituency in one election, but it is vastly higher than the average within the United Kingdom. Again, we may have something to learn from New Zealand.
It is also worth noting what the review says is the impact of the system that New Zealand chose in this well-supported referendum.
“Since 1996, New Zealand has been governed by coalitions, usually with a minority of the seats in Parliament. Obviously this makes it more difficult for the leading party to achieve all of its policy aims but, arguably, policy decisions reflect the views of a wider coalition of voters. Tina Day, a Director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust interviewed 21 MPs in the 2002-05 Parliament for her research. She argues in her 2005 paper Increasing the representativeness of parliament … that there has been a shift of power from the Executive to Parliament, with select committees (whose composition reflects the multi-party Parliament) assuming a very powerful role”.
That reservation, expressed during the course of that consultation, might well be the one to which my noble friend refers.
The review continues:
“There is also a greater representation of women (around 30 per cent of members), Maori and the Asian population in Parliament. She argues that this has increased the legitimacy and standing of Parliament (notwithstanding the early unpopularity of coalition government). It also means that divisions in opinion within the country are played out in Parliament to a greater extent”.
The point I am making is that if you trust the people and give them the information in a form that they can understand, and put realistic options on the paper, they may well surprise us and actually choose a system that—
Lord Sewel
I am grateful to my noble friend, my near neighbour, for giving way. Could he resolve this dilemma? He mentioned that there was the early unpopularity of coalition Governments at the same time as there was popularity for a change to a more proportional system. A more proportional system will more than likely—I put it no stronger than that—lead to coalition Governments. How does he square the circle of the popularity of the voting system with the unpopularity of the product it produces?
Lord Campbell-Savours
It is because it was only in the early days prior to coalition that public prejudice on the issue of coalitions led to this general view that coalitions cannot work; whereas following the referendum decision and the creation of the coalition, and a recognition by the public that the system did work, the coalition then gained in popularity. All I am saying to my noble friends is that I find this particular amendment very appealing because it offers the public the opportunity that many of us believe they should be given during the referendum.
Lord Strathclyde
I am sure that the noble Baroness believes that the option system is better, but the commission’s report noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of the referendum campaign, as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The commission believes that for the sake of clarity it is better to campaign on a yes or no basis.
Lord Sewel
It is not a matter of asking yes or no; it is a matter of asking what the substance is behind yes or no, which is either first past the post or the alternative vote system. That is the difficulty. If you are presenting content in the question that is being put, options are clearly the way of presenting that to the public. In other referendums, the question has been put more simply as do you want something or do you not want something. It is not a matter of wanting one or the other. That is what we are presenting to the people at this time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I find the argument given by my noble friend Lady McDonagh much more convincing. With respect, she has been involved in a number of elections and referendums, as have a lot of us in this House. With no disrespect to the Electoral Commission, until recently it did not have anyone on it who had either been elected to anything or been involved actively in elections or referendums. It is only very recently, with a change in the law, that we have had people on the Electoral Commission who know what they are talking about in relation to elections and referendums. Surely the argument given by my noble friend is right. Yes is a positive argument and no is a negative argument. Therefore, yes is seen to be something far more attractive than no. If you are putting the option, you have to explain the option; you do not just go around sloganising. You have to explain in more detail what first past the post or the alternative vote is about. That is a much more sensible suggestion to put forward. I urge the Leader of the House to think carefully about that and not just to accept something because the Electoral Commission has said it. There is a tendency in both Houses for some people just accepting things because the commission says it. Now we have changed the commission’s composition and added to it some people who know what they are talking about with regard to elections and referendums. Its suggestions in future will be better informed. But will the Leader of the House listen to my noble friend on this?
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Sewel Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the noble Lord giving that the strength that was given to his people’s undertaking on tuition fees?
Lord Sewel
My Lords, when it comes to major constitutional change, there is some benefit in looking at what has happened in the past when Parliament has confronted the best way of proceeding—a way that enables Parliament clearly to have the decisive say but nevertheless has reference to the directly expressed will of the people.
I hope that the House will forgive my making reference to Scottish devolution. There were two attempts to establish Scottish devolution. The parliamentary processes of those two attempts were markedly different. In 1979 there was a Bill that was amended by Mr George Cunningham—in the Cunningham amendment. This is where we pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. Because it was effectively a referendum to implement the Bill, the Cunningham amendment was a threshold amendment. The Secretary of State was required to move an order abandoning the whole project because the threshold was not met.
In 1997 the process was different and, I think, sounder. Then the party went to the electorate with a manifesto commitment. It then produced a White Paper and held an indicative referendum on the White Paper. Parliament then considered the Bill in the light of the referendum. That seemed to be the better way of doing things. It enabled a fully informed debate to take place on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper. There was a national debate on devolution in Scotland and Wales, which people could understand much more clearly and meaningfully from a White Paper than through the technicalities of a Bill. There was the clear expression of the people’s choice through a referendum. Parliament then proceeded in light of that to produce a Bill that satisfied both the manifesto commitment and the referendum outcome.
That is the best way forward. If the Government do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, they will face the problem of thresholds. Thresholds are difficult; they have an element of subjectivity and politics-playing comes into them. It would be much better, clearly, for this referendum to be indicative, with Parliament then making the final judgment on the basis of its outcome and the degree and strength of the views expressed by the people through it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, it would be a good deal safer, and therefore wiser, for the referendum to be indicative rather than mandatory. One reason is the hasty and, frankly, slipshod manner in which the proposition in the Bill has been formulated, has been presented to Parliament and will be presented to the people. These are decisions that have been made in haste and without adequate consideration by all parties.
I confess that it was something of a surprise to me when the Labour Party adopted the alternative vote as party policy. I am not aware that there had been intensive internal consideration within the party. Perhaps I was not listening or was looking the wrong way; or perhaps people, rather wisely, decided not to ask my opinion on the matter. At all events, it was a hastily arrived-at policy shift. If it was hastily arrived at by the Labour Party, it was a good deal more hastily arrived at by the Conservative Party and, I dare say, by the Liberal Democrats. As we all know, the Liberal Democrats did not want AV and the Conservatives did not want AV, yet in this curious fashion they found themselves united in proposing that, after all, it would be a good way to reform the voting system of this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in the previous debate, you can hardly imagine a more momentous constitutional decision. It is important to think extremely deeply and carefully about how we alter our voting system. Few things could be more important to how we live and how we will be governed, yet self-evidently there has not been any careful pondering of this question. The haste of the timetable that is proposed in the Bill means that, just as Parliament and the political parties will not have thought about it with the care that it warrants, nor will the people have had the opportunity to do so. It is, therefore, all the more important that the referendum should be indicative, in that it would give Parliament the opportunity to think further about what it may be appropriate to do in the light of the advice given by the people.
That is more the case now that the House has not approved the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It would have been a wise device to enable the merits of alternative versions of alternative voting to be expertly and objectively considered, so that Parliament would have the opportunity to think more carefully than it so far has about which system of alternative voting—if it is to be the alternative vote—should be proposed to the people. If that process is not to go forward, that is another reason why it is important that all concerned should be able to deliberate on these matters for rather longer.
It seems to me also that if we have an indicative rather than mandatory referendum, it will preserve the rightful authority both of the people and of Parliament. I am not an enthusiast for referendums but an exception should be made where the question at issue is major constitutional change and, perhaps most importantly, how the electoral system might be altered. We are trustees of the constitution on behalf of the people who elect their representatives to the other place. In this House we have an important watching brief—a kind of trusteeship of the constitution—to ensure that things are not done recklessly, shoddily, hastily or, in so far as we can influence and determine this, unwisely. Therefore, I am not against a referendum on a major constitutional issue. The people who confer political authority on parliamentarians to act on their behalf should have the right to determine by what system they do so.
Equally, if we subject issues routinely to referendum, we undermine Parliament. I am not an enthusiast for referendums but it is appropriate in this case. If it is indicative rather than mandatory, not only do we give the people the opportunity to have their considered say but we uphold the authority of Parliament finally to determine these matters. For both those reasons I hope very much that the House will approve the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker.
Lord McNally
Of course I do, and I would not be at this Dispatch Box advocating them to the House if I did not. After all, for a while, I earned my living dredging up quotes from political opponents, sometimes out of context, for Lord Callaghan to use. I would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of using researchers—I know him too well. He probably did the research himself. Nevertheless, we go back to the central point recurring in this debate. The Opposition put forward various ideas, all of which have within them an element of delay.
Lord Sewel
The central issue in the debate is the recognition by Members of your Lordships’ House that there is a very real danger of introducing major constitutional reform through a referendum with a small majority on a low turnout. Will he answer that?
Lord McNally
I would suggest that you have the threshold debate on Clause 8. The threshold debate that I have just quoted, however, was in fact a device of an opponent of devolution to delay devolution. Let us not pretend that a threshold does not turn every abstention into a no vote. We will have that debate under Clause 8, and an interesting debate it will be. These three amendments seek to turn it into—
House of Lords: Allowances
Lord Sewel Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has said in his amendment, but I wish to address the question of the all-party parliamentary groups, of which I am a great supporter. The country groups—I do not exclude the others but my experience is with the country groups and I declare an interest as an officer of three of them—are great added value for your Lordships' House because they bring us into contact with the Parliaments and Governments of other countries.
However, there seems to be a problem which may be an inconsistency. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear it up. Under “Type of business” in Annex A, it says that the daily allowance would be available for,
“Committee Visits and official business
Members of parliamentary delegations
Travel as a Representative of the House
Lords outreach programme”.
But paragraph 21 says:
“There are three categories of such business as follows”,
for parliamentary business away from Westminster.
Paragraph 21(b) refers to,
“travel in connection with certain authorised business, such as CPA and IPU business”.
Unless that covers the activities of the all-party groups, we have a problem. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the phrase,
“such as CPA and IPU business”,
would cover all-party groups because so many of them are in relation to the IPU? We need to know that. A lot of Peers would like to go on some of these all-party group visits but are somewhat deterred by the fact that when they are away they are deprived of some of the allowances to which they feel that they are entitled.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, a centrepiece of the proposals, which perhaps causes some of us great difficulty, is the abolition of the separate overnight allowance and its wrapping up in a uniform fee of £300 for all Peers. Before I speak on that, I want to speak briefly about the matter of the £150 dealing with committee visits and delegations. For some years now I have been a member of and have chaired various sub-committees and committees of your Lordships' House. I have found an understandable reluctance among some Peers to travel away from Westminster on specific days when the House is sitting. My fear is that the proposals before us today will increase that reluctance. Can we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that if it is evident that it is becoming more difficult for Peers to go on delegations and, for example, committee visits to Brussels on a day basis, that that will be looked at fairly quickly? We get enormous value out of short visits to see the Commission and other European institutions, so it would be a sad thing if those were to attenuate over time.
Let me return to the main issue. On 28 June the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in referring to the advantages of the £300 uniform fee, said:
“How much Peers spend on each item would be entirely up to them”.
Yes, but that is not the entire story. He also said in summing up that one of the major advantages would be that:
“This will mean a reduction in the amount that some Peers have claimed in the past”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; cols. 1512-13.]
Again, yes, but that is not the whole story. First, how much real choice do Peers have on how they spend the daily allowance? There is actually not much choice at all if you live a significant distance from London. If you live 300, 400, 500 or 600 miles from London—I should declare an interest as I live in Aberdeenshire, which is just over 500 miles away from Westminster—and come down on a Monday, you are here for the rest of the week. You cannot go backwards and forwards, so you have to have accommodation for an entire week.
I do not think that Peers should be expected to live out of a suitcase. It is quite reasonable that they should be able to rent or obtain a modest one-bedroom flat. The going rent for that, on checking with estate agents and The House magazine, is somewhere in the region of £350 a week, which is £18,200 over a year, plus council tax and utilities. That is approximately £20,000 a year that someone needs to pay out in order to maintain a presence in London, which is an absolute requirement to attend your Lordships’ House. It is not a matter of choice; it is an imperative and a requirement.
Under the proposals, a payment of £300 over 145 sitting days—over a five-year Parliament there are actually fewer than 145 sitting days, but we shall take that figure for the moment—produces support of £43,500 a year. Those living a significant distance from London are locked into a system where almost 50 per cent of their total possible support will be taken up by the housing costs that are a pre-requisite of attending your Lordships’ House. That is not something which is faced by those whose primary residence is in London.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that some will lose. Yes, that is absolutely true, and we pray in aid austerity to defend it, which is reasonable. We ought to be prepared to make sacrifices in a situation where our fellow citizens are making sacrifices. So let us look at the 24-hour rate. The claimable amount for those whose principal residence is outside London will go down from £335 to £300 a day, which on a weekly basis is a small reduction of £140 a week. For those whose principal residence is in London, it is a move from £161 a day to £300 a day. That does not seem to be a contribution to austerity. How is that figure squared?
I recognise that there were two problems with the overnight allowance: some people did not tell the truth; and some people were confused because we had never defined what was a principal residence. We went through the pain of establishing a robust, common-sense and sensible definition of what is a principal residence. That is now followed-up by a paper trail by which you can clearly demonstrate that your principal residence is outside London. Why do we not use the robust system that we have introduced?
As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said, equity does not mean that you treat everyone the same but that you recognise the differences that people have to face in order to perform the same task. That is the essence of the problem. I accept that what is proposed has been brought forward in all honesty, that it is not perfect but deals with a number of problems, that everyone is treated the same and superficially it looks fair and simple and provides rough justice. My problem is that it has within its heart the possibility for great injustice, and that has not been addressed.
Lord Strathclyde
It is entirely typical of my noble friend to ask such an excellent question. My figures were, of course, on a like-for-like basis. He will recognise that phrase from his time in government.
Lord Sewel
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he any calculation of the effect of moving from £161 a day to £300 a day for those who do not claim the overnight allowance?
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords, because I do not know how many of those who claim the £160 amount would claim the £300 amount, so I cannot help the noble Lord with that. It is my view that, on a like-for-like basis, it is broadly cost-neutral. The House is increasing in size, but was in any case, so it was going to cost more. I hope that we will get a worthy and worthwhile contribution from the new Members of this House who come here to play their part.
I was just saying that it is now 40 years since the original expenses scheme was introduced. I have no idea whether it will be another 40 years before we return to the issue. I know that it is the dream of the Deputy Prime Minister—and me—that long before that, we will have a fully reformed House, in which case there will be an entirely different regime.
The resolutions and Motions before us today will allow us to return in October to start afresh with a new scheme of financial assistance for Members. They allow us to put past indiscretions very much behind us. I believe that they will give us the confidence to look forward and concentrate fully on the excellent work that this House does in holding the Government to account. I very much hope that the House will now approve the resolutions before us.
Government Spending
Lord Sewel Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bates is quite correct. I have said that the Government believe that the effect of not making cuts, feeding through into higher interest rates, would be vastly worse for small businesses and for unemployment than the effect of making those cuts.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, will the Minister finally give an answer to the question on the assessment of the effect on unemployment of the cuts that the Treasury has made? Will he simply give those numbers?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I can only refer the noble Lord back to my earlier answer that the effect would be worse if we did not make these cuts than if we do.