Economic Leadership for Cities
Lord True Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. I guess I am a sort of city dweller. I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for introducing this important debate. We have heard two remarkable maiden speeches already from my noble friends and I am looking forward with confidence to a third one.
It is true that the road to the city across the centuries has been the road to the hope of a better and fuller life. We see that in waves of demographic movement even today in many a megalopolis in the developing world. Cities must be centres of new enterprise and we must encourage and cherish successful businesses and business leaders who we need to keep our cities great.
However, no city is immune from change. The greatest cities of England before 1700 were, after London, Norwich, Bristol, Newcastle, Exeter, York and Great Yarmouth, in that order. Of course we can regret past decline in places such as Lowestoft or Nottingham, which shaped my childhood. But for Lowestoft or Yarmouth you cannot put the herring or the gas back in the North Sea. In Nottingham you cannot reverse the war on tobacco, the fall of lace from fashion, the sourcing of textiles from the developing world, or the environmental movement’s successful felling of “king coal”.
History shows that cities cannot stand still in resentful nostalgia. Today they must diversify, embrace new technologies and invest in education and skills, as other noble Lords have said, working with employers, such as in the new enterprise and education campus we plan in our own authority. I welcome so much what the Government have done in assisting that through city deals, partnerships, educational reform, support for small business, infrastructure investment and much else. It is quite a long time since the Government took such a committed interest in our cities.
While I agree with much that other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goddard, have said, I have some concerns. I share the views of the noble and right reverend Prelate on this. I do not share the rather faddish obsession with new statutory political structures in what seems, at times, a rather hasty response to the referendum in Scotland. I do not think the answer to city decline is more law about local government structures. Waste, churn, conflict and cost have followed almost every past statutory interference in local government structures.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that we need more joint working, co-operation and bottom-up partnership, but there are mechanisms already for that. We also need local flexibility and freedoms and not single institutional models pedalled in clever professorial lectures and imposed by statute. Each city must choose for itself, but it is ridiculous, for example, in my own city of Nottingham to say that it cannot solve its economic problems unless the suburb of West Bridgford is put under the same authority. If the fad for constitutional change leads to the submergence of the concerns of those who work in cities but live in small communities around them—and to governance without consent—then I would not board that band -wagon. I say yes to partnership and yes indeed to devolution, but with super-authorities I am not so sure. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, who understands suburban communities very well, will make it clear that these will not be imposed—by our side, at least—whether by statute or by the effective blackmail of conditional resourcing.
I underline this issue for London. We already have a regional super-authority in London. The most slow-moving, bureaucratic and least accountable parts of London government are the Molochs of the GLA’s transport and planning departments. Co-operation and partnership work well across London and are developing further from boroughs upwards. It would be folly if, in a constitutional spasm, we were to identify more devolution with more central powers for a mayor, or sanction new governance that enables the piling of ever more taxation on already heavily taxed suburban communities.
In conclusion, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. There is a spiritual element, in the largest sense, to the conundrum of city revival. After all, cities were once identified by their cathedrals and enhanced by local philanthropy. People today are crying out for a sense of being rooted, with some idea of permanence and security. The spirit of place matters enormously in that. It is a great motivating force and a binding element. Whatever change we may contemplate in our cities and their surrounds, do not let us stifle that spirit of place, wherever it is found, or fail to hear the diverse voice of smaller communities.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Lord True Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I have an amendment coming up, Amendment 14BBA, but had I known how the discussion on this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would proceed, I would have asked for it to be grouped with these amendments, so it is possibly better that I make my comments now and consolidate the entire process somewhat. Otherwise, I fear that Amendment 14BB will have stolen a large part of my thunder, apart from anything else.
I queried the majority of independent members issue on Second Reading. I am mindful of what the Minister said on Monday: that the panel would not need to be large but that independence was important. I can certainly relate to the question of whether you have a committee and a panel as a term of art, with the duplication that that involves, to which I referred earlier. I think that the principle of an independent chairman is a given, but it appears to me from my much lesser knowledge of these procedures than that of other noble Lords that some councils might have few politically independent members. I do not know how many would have none at all, but there must be some. Even political independence, it seems to me, is no guarantee of freedom from bias, if that is the point that the Bill is intended to address. The subtitle of my amendment would be, “Precisely what do we mean by independent in this context?”. That ought to be explained.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, it seems to me that objectivity and competence, rather than independence, would be a better test for this purpose. I am bound to admit that I am at a loss to know which would be the more readily capable of definition and, if necessary, enforcement, so to some extent I can see it from the Government’s side. I think we are all agreed that we are trying to get a true and fair picture of an authority’s financial affairs. Up to a point, that works back to the basis of oversight from within the council.
Apart from asking the Minister whether she can enlighten the Committee on the question of independence, I remind your Lordships, who all know it far better than I do, of the veritable layer cake of qualifications and eligibility criteria that already applies to audit and to auditors, to which the Bill in this respect risks adding further complexity. I relate to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about the independence and objectivity of auditors as professional people embedded in their culture, training and ability to retain their professional status. As a member of another profession altogether, I very much relate to that. Ultimately, it is the auditor who is doing the scrutiny, not the committee or panel. They are there simply to select—if selection be needed; we will get to that later. If the auditor is given the proper tools and the freedom to act and attacks it with the independence of mind necessary, that is the fundamental safeguard sought by the Bill.
Lord True
My Lords, I declare an interest myself, as leader of a local authority, and apologise for not being able to take part in these proceedings before. I shall make a very small point, which need not be clarified now but perhaps could be before Report.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the tenor of comments being made universally around the Committee about the risks of overlapping. I strongly follow the noble Earl’s comments about the importance of the integrity and role of audit as it is practised by local authority officers at the moment. I was going to raise my query later, but I shall follow the noble Earl, because it affects independence, which is the subject of this amendment. Paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 4 would not disqualify somebody from being a member if,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee of an entity connected with the authority within that period”—
that is, for five years.
The only thing that needs to be made clear and perhaps can be made clear on Report is whether that means the authority or the individual. Let us posit a case of somebody who has been an officer of a body and has gained a great deal of lifetime experience, and has retired early, perhaps eight years ago—we do not want any age complication, so let us just say that he no longer works for that authority. After his departure, some years later, that body becomes a connected authority, whereas he has had no connection with it for some time. His experience might be useful, and one does not want to exclude potential individuals by idle wording. I take it that the Bill means that somebody who has been working for, or connected with, the authority in the past five years should be excluded. However, the way in which it is written could mean that if you have worked at any time for a body that becomes connected in the previous five years, you would be excluded. I think that the second category might be considered, as somebody could be useful in pursuing this role.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the definition of independence is set out in Schedule 4, which says that a person is independent if they are not a member or officer of the authority and have not been within the past five years, or a “relative or close friend” of such a person. Questions of objectivity and competence, particularly competence, are, apart from qualifications in accountancy, a little more subjective. Professional competence is defined by qualifications rather than by other things.
The intention here is to allow flexibility rather than to be too prescriptive. I am told that 80% of local authorities already have audit committees; 31% have at least one independent member and 15% have more than two independent members. If panels can be constituted from members of the audit committee, that is fine, provided that they are independently chaired and have an independent majority. There could be two independent members of the local audit committee, plus one other, to make the specific appointment for external audit. I assume we all accept that there is a difference between the continuing internal audit process and the appointment of external auditors. We are trying not to be too prescriptive on this, but that is the distinction that we are drawing.
There are concerns that audit committees will get in a muddle about having audit panels alongside them, but that is not at all necessary, particularly in larger authorities. We are not convinced that we need to make audit committees a statutory requirement in local government, although, of course, practice is such that the overwhelming majority of large and small local authorities have audit committees. Local authority audit committees may wish to set up a small auditor panel, which may be connected with the audit committee, provided that it has an independent chair and an independent majority. There can be important links between the role of a panel and the audit committee, but their specific roles are distinct.
We do not think that there is a wider case for imposing statutory majority independent audit committees on local government for internal audit, for some of the reasons mentioned, but for a panel that appoints the external auditors that case should stand. Under the accounts and audit regulations, local authorities are already required to ensure that a committee, or a meeting of the whole body, reviews arrangements for the internal control and effectiveness of internal audit, approves the annual governance statement and considers and approves the statement of accounts. That is what the audit committees in most local authorities already do, usually led by back-bench councillors and, as noble Lords have said, very often by opposition councillors. However, the Government are not prescriptive about the precise structure that local bodies use to meet these requirements. Based on these existing functions, guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy suggests that members of audit committees should be independent of the executive but need not be fully independent of the council.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the Committee. I just hope to have a response in writing before Report. My point about paragraph 2(2)(b) to Schedule 4 was simply whether it meant that,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee”,
within the past five years,
“of an entity connected with the authority within”,
the past five years, rather than, as it reads,
“the panel member has not been an officer or employee of an entity connected with the authority within”,
the past five years: namely, that he could never have worked for that authority at any time in his life. That is the point that I was hoping to clarify, but it can be clarified in writing.
Baroness Eaton
Perhaps I may raise one small issue about the independent members of an audit panel. I do not see, unless I have missed it, how the process is expected to take place, and I have some concerns about the clarity of the job description and expectations. In some local authorities, particularly in the appointment of people such as coroners, these have not always been as transparent as they should be. It would be helpful if we knew what process is expected for authorities to achieve the genuine independence and quality suitable for the needs of the panel.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are, in a sense, continuing the previous debate. Before I directly address the amendment in terms of defining “independent”, I shall speak with another hat on. As noble Lords will know, I speak for the Cabinet Office on issues of civil society and I am struck by the fact that the largest single part of the population that is becoming more active in all civil society activities is the fit retired. There is a very large and growing element there and it is precisely the area from which local bodies are likely to find the independent members that they are looking for. Looking around this room, I note that many of us would fit into that category but, unfortunately, we are not retired. Therefore we have less time than we would otherwise like to have. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is particularly fit, although I like to think that I am fitter than he is.
We are happy to look into the question of how one defines “close friend” and of course we will have discussions on a range of these issues between Committee and Report. However, I reiterate that a third of audit committees already have independent members and 15% have two independent members. We see the independent panels which will appoint external auditors as not having the heavy weight of work that audit committees have but as fulfilling a rather more distinctive function.
The proposal in the amendment for mandatory audit committees is addressed more directly in other amendments but, as I understand it, this specific amendment is intended to ensure that, as well as being independent of the authority, members of an auditor panel or audit committee do not have wider conflicts of interest that might compromise their independence. I agree that potential conflicts of interest should of course be taken into account in appointing members of auditor panels. However, the Bill already includes a duty for relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to their independent auditor panels.
We intend that such guidance will cover exactly these sorts of issues, such as how auditor panels will operate and who should sit on them. We intend to work closely with the sector and interested parties on developing such guidance and identifying what wider interests should be considered in appointing members of a panel. I hope these reassurances are sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, or perhaps to ask for further discussion between the Committee and Report stages.
Lord True
My Lords, I should apologise to the Committee. It was probably my fault that we got confused. I was following my noble friend Lord Lytton and my eyes went to page 40, and we therefore drifted on to the next group.
Perhaps I may ask a brief question. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the question of a “close friend”—it is good to know that the noble Lord has many close friends—and he is right to be concerned about the definition. Where is the question of political friendship dealt with in this? While it is good practice in local authorities, including my own, to have an opposition chairman—we are conscious of the political issue—is the situation of independents having close political associations but not close personal ones dealt with, in this or other legislation, in a way which would enable the work of panels not to be distorted by political considerations? In some authorities which are perhaps not as well governed as others, those kinds of considerations can be just as important as personal friendships.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are willing to look at that as well and I will write to the noble Lord. After all, we are talking about panels that may consist of two independents and one member of the audit committee. We are not talking about a vast number of people to be found outside. However, my understanding is that “independent” will exclude close political friendship. My experience of close political friendship also tends to mean close personal friendship, but we could discuss that in the bar or on another occasion.
Lord True
My Lords, I need not speak at length on this because I made a relatively lengthy intervention at Second Reading setting out the reasons for my concern about the need to be assured of proper public accountability for the actions of NHS bodies. I think that public accountability is important, and there is material in the Bill about what should be done with reports, but it is essential that a body cannot just receive a report and sit on it.
Reference has been made to a case in which a primary care trust lost £28 million. At Second Reading, I described to noble Lords what happened. A supervisory body called in an auditor but the audit report was not ultimately published. Instead, a commentary was published with various recommendations—some good and some bad—but it was written on the basis that, as no one had really lost any money, we could all proceed and other bodies would make up the money. It was entirely unsatisfactory.
Since speaking at Second Reading, I have been contacted by the leader of another local authority, who thought that I was rather mild in what I said and felt that I should probably have named some names in connection with this affair. I have reflected on that. I think that my decision not to do that at Second Reading was right, and I maintain that position. Since Second Reading, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Hanham and with officials from the Department of Health. My noble friend had very kindly drawn the attention of her colleagues in the Department of Health to this issue.
We have a fast-evolving world in health and local government, and these worlds are now encouraged to overlap. Indeed, my own authority, along with another local authority, is currently negotiating with clinical commissioning groups and, we hope, a foundation trust to set up an integrated commissioning organisation. That is the way in which the Government wish everyone to go within eight years. Alongside that, other elements of the health service will continue.
I believe that we now have the very odd situation where there is one strand of law which is semi-engaged in this legislation and which derives from the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended in 2012, and a whole strand of local authority-related legislation concerning audit and accountability. As the two empires come together, so should those two worlds come together. In my judgment, they need not necessarily be identical, but the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a fair point when he said that the clinical commissioning group is being treated very differently in this Act from the way in which local authorities are treated. I do not make a case for identity but I do for accountability.
Local authorities have a public responsibility to ensure that what is done in their area is done for the good of their local populations, and that it is done effectively and openly, as we would expect it to be done ourselves. I made the point at Second Reading that there were various issues relating not only to audit but to scrutiny and its important role. I would like to think that while it may not be possible to achieve it in the short term, as I understand it from my discussions so far with my noble friend, in the time that this Bill is before Parliament—perhaps even when it is in the other place—it might be possible to think with a little more foresight about how we are going to adjust to this world and ensure full accountability. It is simply not acceptable that a body existing in an area and other parts of the health service, as happened in the case that I reported to noble Lords at Second Reading, should simply refuse to respond to questions from a public authority about the use of resources, certainly considering the scale involved.
We have to find a method somehow, whether or not it is through guidance—and there is existing guidance—although I would perhaps prefer it to be stronger than that. This Bill should provide us with opportunities, as local accountability is not just about local authorities and neither is this legislation. I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said so far. We may be able to find some improved structures, which may be simplified in some respects, as other noble Lords have said in Committee. They should be structures which ensure proper behaviour in the first place, effective independent audit and effective and open accountability. All those strands need to be addressed. If an internal audit document is published with a commentary and then scrutiny is refused, it is not a satisfactory outcome where there is evidence of large-scale ineptitude. That is a kind way of putting it regarding the use of £28 million of public resources. I am sure that there are other examples.
I am not going to repeat all the circumstances of the case but I urge the Committee to see those great public entities of local government and the National Health Service as two great elements of the state, providing vital services to our country and overlapping in many ways. We should therefore find the opportunity to construct an architecture that meets those three strands: effective and proper governance; effective and ultimately independent audit, although internal audit is vital in all those things and I do not denigrate it; and the strand of openness and, ultimately, scrutiny. This is really a probing amendment although my noble friend encouraged me to think that were this to be laid, she might perhaps be able to give some encouragement to me and to the Committee that the Government would be prepared to look at these matters in the months ahead. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I would simply urge the Minister to give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord True, who has raised a very important point, as he did at earlier stages in our deliberations. I hope that the Minister can help him at least a bit.
Lord True
My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. Certainly, I would be extremely interested in seeing this guidance in draft. I am sure that the leaders of the other five local authorities involved might also be interested as well, and perhaps other people in the local government world. I do not know whether it might be possible to extend that offer but, as far as I am concerned, I accept the courteous proposal and am very grateful for it.
As for the individual case, my noble friend referred to the 2006 legislation. The blunt truth is that the body concerned was happy to volunteer one individual, but the unfortunate thing was that that individual was not involved at all. Those who were involved—some of whom no longer worked for the body and therefore could not be volunteered by the body—need to be accountable. Others declined to be presented. Effectively, the authority was told that it could have this individual, but those who had actually given the instructions and done things were not available.
I would have to examine very carefully the wording of the guidance and the regulations to ensure that that situation could not be replicated. What we do not want is a kind of legalese compliance—that of saying, “We sent someone along who stonewalled at the scrutiny committee, but you have to be satisfied with that, not act unreasonably and not want to actually hear from the people who were involved”. That is a very important rider. It is very easy to say that the body can do something, but scrutiny must go to the individual. It is no good the Government saying, “You can talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer”, when it is actually the Minister of Defence whom you want to talk to. That is an issue that I would want to elucidate in the discussions that my noble friend has kindly offered with officials.
I am very grateful for what she said and for the earlier discussion. With a warning that I will be coming to look in those corners, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Clause 16 concerns the resignation and removal of the local auditor, and the amendment refers in particular to circumstances relating to the removal of a local auditor, although on reflection it could refer equally well to circumstances in which a local auditor resigns.
The purpose is to ensure that the procedure specifically encompasses the right of a local auditor to make representations to the auditor panel or supervisory body, or the audit committee, if that is what is in place, and that might encompass a right to make representation to members. The removal or resignation of an auditor is a serious business. Under the Companies Act 2006, an extensive process is set down where somebody is removed or resigns. These include, in the first case, the right to make representations to members when removed and a statement of circumstances when resigning. It is these Companies Act processes which the Government are seeking to import into the Bill, and we support that.
Under the current regime, there is no need for regulation on the removal or resignation of local public auditors because it is the Audit Commission that appoints and removes them. However, a change in auditor could be straightforward—arising, say, from a new potential conflict of interest—or it might be indicative of a fundamental difference of view as to the accounts, where an auditor feels that they can no longer carry out the audit effectively because of concerns over the governance of the body or a fundamental breakdown in the relationship. Ensuring that there is a right for auditors to make their case at an appropriate level is therefore very important.
The Bill includes, at Clause 16, regulation-making powers which cover a range of issues. Doubtless, the Minister will say that they are broad enough to cover the thrust of this amendment. So be it, but perhaps we can hear from the Minister what the plans are in respect of resignation and removal to cover circumstances where the appointment has been made by the local body, jointly with another body, or in transition by the Audit Commission. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point which in certain circumstances could touch on issues of public accountability, although referred to on another matter. It may well be that he could be satisfied in that Clause 16(3)(d), at the top of page 12, allows a regulation-making power in relation to,
“the role of the relevant authority’s auditor panel or … supervisory body”.
On this issue of a right of audience, or a right to make representations, my noble friend might well be able in discussion to consider including the point which the noble Lord has raised. It is a significant one and he is right to refer to Companies Act procedures. Perhaps it could be clarified whether it is potentially encompassed in that area, which might help some of us on the Committee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14E would add to the regulation-making powers under Clause 16(1)(b), which relate to the circumstances of an auditor being removed, as the noble Lord said, by a local public body before their term of office expires. It would enable regulations giving local auditors the right to make representations to the authority’s auditor panel or to the auditors’ “recognised supervisory body” in those circumstances. The noble Lord asked what would happen if it was the Audit Commission; as we have already said, that commission will have an interim body between it being abolished in 2015 and when this changes. That will be a responsible transfer, which is the main thing.
We are sympathetic to the intention of this amendment, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the removal of an auditor. However, as the noble Lord suspected, we consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Subsection (3)(c) already provides a regulation-making power about,
“the steps that may be taken by the local auditor in connection with the local auditor’s removal from that office”.
As set out in our consultation paper on the draft Bill last year, we intend by regulations to enable the auditor to respond to a relevant authority’s notice of intention to remove them, with that response to be considered by the relevant authority’s auditor panel. So the auditor panel now has a role in overseeing that in an independent way.
The auditor panel would then be required to advise the authority on the proposal to remove the auditor. In light of the auditor’s response, we intend that the authority’s final decision to remove the auditor would be subject to that advice. As with appointment, we intend that where a body does not follow the audit panel’s advice it would need to publish the reasons for not doing so. We also intend to require that the recognised supervisory body is notified of a removal. Therefore, we do not consider that it is necessary to include this additional wording in the Bill. We think that there are enough safeguards in it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Draft House of Lords Reform Bill
Lord True Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, who adorns this House, and will continue to adorn the House even if the composition of the political Benches in the House is decided by the people rather than by patronage.
Many would say it is unenviable to be the 73rd speaker to address your Lordships in the last debate of a 293-day session, but I can conceive no more enviable privilege than to be able to address your Lordships’ House. However, I suspect I may have caught the selector’s eye this morning, since I do not share the certainty of many who have spoken in this debate that election of Peers to this House is unthinkable. Given the reaction of Peers to speeches yesterday and the witty speech of my noble friend Lord Forsyth this morning, perhaps as last man in I should have prayed for rain and stayed in the pavilion.
I would like to consider one of the refrains running through this debate—the primacy of the Commons. I suggest that we fret over that too much. Yes, the Commons has primacy, but the question is how well it uses it. I agree with the noble Lord, Norton of Louth, that we need to begin from the functioning of Parliament as a whole. Frankly, you would not begin constructing a strong and free Parliament by putting it under the primacy of one House shackled by executive-dominated procedures and telling the other House, however constituted, that it must not say boo to that over-mighty place.
The main case for introducing election to this place is—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said the other day—that it would enable this House to hold by what it believes to be right, rather than knuckling under whenever the other House shouts “unelected”, “primacy”, “privilege” or what have you. Parliament is a trinity of the Crown, Lords and Commons, and in modern times one part of that trinity has, because it is elected, usurped effective power within it. It was not always so, and need not always be so. Indeed, for many centuries your Lordships were the dominant House, though after the 1670s generally accepting Commons privilege in finance. That did not stop your Lordships occasionally rejecting money Bills—for example in 1860, when you rejected paper duties as a tax on knowledge, then being circumvented by Mr Gladstone’s invention of what has become the modern curse of a multi-decker Finance Bill, which your Lordships could not touch, and still cannot, without bringing the whole House down, as happened in 1911. One consequence of an elected House—and the other place has to realise this, just as much as us—could be that if the Parliament Act is to be amended, as some propose, we might look again at the way that money Bills are defined and consider the Joint Committee of both Houses, which was offered by Mr Asquith and Lloyd George to the unionists in 1910, but was not ultimately accepted.
Our acceptance of Commons primacy on finance was rooted in the fact that, even then, the Commons was elected but it was mirrored, after the great privilege battles which raged between the two Houses back in the 1670s, by Commons acceptance of this House’s primacy in justice. Here, at that Bar and in the Benches before it, was embodied the supreme court in the High Court of Parliament and almost all of us will recall the noble and learned Lords who came here, or will have heard of the mighty Lord Chancellors who sat there in olden times, centuries ago. That was the historic, if largely unspoken, deal about primacy between the two Houses: primacy of the Commons on finance, primacy of your Lordships in justice.
I did not hear the other place troubling too much about your Lordships’ primacy on justice when they drove through the expulsion of the Law Lords and dismembered the Lord Chancellorship in the past few years. For my own part, if we are invited to embark on a reform which involves election I do not feel that your Lordships, if elected, need be too squeamish about the other side of the bargain, the Commons primacy on finance, and still less other, all-embracing claims to primacy that have quite recently been laid upon it on the basis that it is elected and we are not. When Parliament is functioning so badly in its prime role of checking the Executive and protecting the citizen against bad counsel—as they used to be called right back to the 13th century—and unjust and incompetent law, why must we always meekly be expected to say: “Oh, but the Commons has primacy and must not be challenged”?
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the case for election is that challenge might become more confident in that case and stimulate another place to do its job better. A stronger House here, armed with the authority that comes from election, could deliver that refreshing and, to my mind, necessary challenge to an imperfectly functioning sister House. Yes, there would be a need for resolution procedures, as the noble Lord said, but in the history of these Houses, when they were roughly co-equal in power, there were perfectly good systems for addressing those problems and others could be devised.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can my noble friend help me and perhaps explain how it would be that if we had this elected second Chamber, it would not suffer from the same problems of the other place in the domination of the Whips and the power of the Executive, given that it was elected? How would we avoid that?
Lord True
My Lords, it is avoided precisely by the concept of the long mandate, which is non-renewable and with no right to go on to the House of Commons. That means that someone coming here would not be able to develop a political career and go forward to be a senior Minister of the Crown.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I have known him for many decades and I would never accuse him of naivety, but I have been following his speech carefully. If the other House continues to automatically guillotine every piece of legislation, what is to prevent this House from doing exactly the same and therefore being a mirror image of the other House by not revising legislation properly?
Lord True
My Lords, the procedures of this House are not currently in a state which would enable the Executive to impose the guillotine. Nor would that be the case in a House in which the political element would be smaller but selected in a different way. If I may, I would like to get on.
I accept that election would change the relations between the Houses, and of course the absurd Clause 2 of the draft Bill is froth, but the balance of power between the Houses is in my submission not a zero-sum game. Both Houses, acting more assertively, could claw back powers surrendered to the Executive, and perhaps other authorities too. However, and here I agree with others, there is no point in reform to include election if you also try to restrain the powers elected Members might exercise. Aside from the risk of letting in the courts, you simply secure all the confusion that follows radical change with none of the benefits that might follow from constructive and confident challenge. If that is the game, I want no part of it.
Elected Members with a mandate will not wish to be restrained. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was quite right yesterday to say that nothing is so transforming as seeing those pieces of paper with crosses by your name being tipped on to a trestle table. This House would be different and would behave differently. I agree that it is equally absurd to say that an elected Peer would not respond in a representative capacity; of course he would. My noble friend Lord Trimble described the realities in Australia. Is it really suggested that a Senator should write back to an elector saying, “I’m not able to help you because I’m not allowed an office and I might upset an MP”? The idea is a farce.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth that no one in either House, particularly in the House of Commons, should be blind to the uncomfortable effects for them of creating a stronger House here which, if we go through all the trauma of change and reform, would and should be ready to challenge aspects of Commons primacy. It so happens that I differ from my noble friend because I believe that, done correctly, the benefits of such challenge might outweigh the problems many have described.
To conclude, I am not going to be the first to proclaim the merits of the Bill. I cannot accept, for example, that in the form of election we should send back to the British people another version of the proportional voting systems that have only lately been rejected in a referendum. That may be okay overseas, but I expect rather better from my Government. The voting paper on page 123 of the Joint Committee’s excellent report reminds me of one of those hospital menus where you tick the box for roast beef and Yorkshire but end up with a vegetable omelette and mushy peas. If we are to have election, please let it be simple and first past the post. I also agree that introducing election here would be a major change to our Parliament and should be put to the people in a referendum. However, I cannot agree that faced with the manifest failings of our 21st-century Parliament and the crying need—the age-old need around which Parliament grew up—to control better the actions of the Executive, the Members of this House should sit back and say to the British people, “Leave us out of it. There is no remedy in changing the composition here”. There might be, and we should consider the Bill maturely when, or if, it arrives.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Lord True Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient for your Lordships if I addressed Amendments 234 and 241, as they both relate to Clause 12. I am firmly in favour of the clause in principle and have no objection to it. My amendments in Committee were to seek clarification. I have since tabled Amendment 234, which proposes that a Session should exceed six months rather than three months, which seems fairer to noble Lords who might not be able to turn up.
The important amendment of the two is Amendment 241, which relates to subsection (2), which states that the reason given should be of reasonable merit for subsection (1) not to apply. I am not a lawyer, and I am always grateful for any advice and support from one, but it seemed to me that by putting down “merit” we were opening up a Pandora’s box of discussion, which would not be helpful. The Bill would seem much clearer if it replaced “of reasonable merit” with “reasonable”, so that if anyone had what was regarded as a reasonable reason not to attend, that would be satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said in Committee that he would consider the amendment. I was grateful to him for that and, on that basis, I have brought it back.
I intend to withdraw Amendment 234, but I hope that, if I do so, the noble Lord will consider carefully accepting Amendment 241, taking out “of reasonable merit” and inserting “reasonable”. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 234. I have had other amendments passed over which I am content to have had passed over because I had no intention of pressing them, although in the matters that are dealt with in Amendment 229 the House should proceed with the utmost openness and accountability. However, I do not want to stray out of order. I hope that my noble friend Lord Steel will accept the amendment that would replace three months with six, because, speaking from the standpoint of a local councillor, I know that you can be absent from a local council for six months without having to go through any procedure in order to establish whether you are away bona fide. We do not expect there to be short Sessions of your Lordships' House of three months, but, given the natural age profile of this Chamber, it is quite possible that people may be ill, and six months would probably be a fairer time. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend considered that amendment.
“Refusal or failure to repay wrongly claimed expenses
A member found by the House of Lords, or a Committee of the House of Lords, to have wrongfully claimed expenses and who has been suspended by the House in connection with a fraudulent claim for expenses, and who refuses or fails to repay money, or make provision for the repayment of money, whose repayment has been required by the House of Lords within a year, shall cease to be a member of the House of Lords.”
Lord True
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I make it absolutely clear that I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House. However, there is an important issue here on which I should like to hear some response from the Government, as well as from my noble friend Lord Steel. There is an important point that is very much in the public eye and undoubtedly reflects on the reputation of the House, as it reflects on the reputation of the other place. That matter is the misuse and wrongful claiming of expenses and the consequences that flow from that. I submit that if wrongfully claimed expenses are not repaid—my amendment suggests that up to a year might be given for repayment—for whatever reason, the person concerned should be excluded. Just as a person who commits an offence under the law serves some time, the person who refuses to heed the desire of the House and make restitution for wrongful action should be excluded from this House. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
In its Long Title, the Bill says that it would,
“provide for the expulsion of members of the House of Lords in specified circumstances”.
We have just discussed the circumstances relating to criminal offences. At some point, which may not be in this Bill but in the other monster Bill that we keep hearing about, not only this House but Parliament needs to address the question that would arise in such a case. I am not referring to anyone in particular in making these remarks; it could be any of us down the line. If these circumstances arise, we should ultimately have the power to exclude such a Member.
Currently, the suspension powers have been used by the House with the full support of the House. It is not a matter for inclusion in my noble friend’s Bill, but I think he would agree that it is a matter that needs to be looked at. I do not know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench will comment on whether this is a matter that the Government have under consideration. Maybe my noble friend Lord Steel has something to say. Ultimately, the public will not understand if we do not get to grips with this issue, which is why I took the trouble to put it before noble Lords—not, I hope, too much to their dissatisfaction. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I referred to this matter in my speech. This is the point that my noble friend Lord Dobbs raised some weeks ago. I am very sympathetic to the amendment that the noble Lord has moved but I am not sure that it is entirely watertight. It suggests that the House would not have the power to expel someone right away if it was felt that they had behaved extremely badly. I wonder whether I could persuade my noble friend not to press his amendment today, subject to what will be said from the Front Benches. However, we should certainly come back to this on Third Reading.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Perhaps I may add that I discussed this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister some time ago, and the last time we did so he agreed to look at it again in the new year. Once the Bill has had its Report and Third Reading, we will know exactly what is in it and what is not, and I will propose a further discussion with him. I am well aware of the difficulty of former party leaders telling current party leaders what to do, but I will do my best.
Lord True
My Lords, I suppose that was a reply from my noble friend to the amendment. I made very clear at the start that I did not intend to press it, so I can certainly reassure the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on that—and of course I hear what he and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about the need for room to appeal. Indeed, we have just had that discussion on the criminal offence. I do not believe it is that complicated to bring the two elements into line in the drafting, and although I am perfectly content and recognise the need to make progress, and I always intended to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, we really must grasp this nettle. If that does not happen, however uncomfortable it is and whatever reasons are given in different places, it simply will not be understood.
I am willing to take part in any discussions, as is my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who cannot be with us. I completely disagree with my noble friend Lord Cormack—I do not think that this House has to be in line with the House of Commons, which has rules simply because it has elections every five years. We do not have elections every five years. The problems for us are different and relate to the Writ of Summons, and we are increasingly passing legislation that overrides it. There is a potential House of Lords solution and I would willingly take part in any discussions on those matters. I am encouraged by what was said by my noble friend on the Front Bench and, in light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I disagree with the amendment. Although I do not think that a few votes will make much difference in the general election, it is a matter of principle: no taxation without representation, on which a famous tea party was held by the Americans a long time ago. We may not vote on anything to do with financial issues. That has risen to the top recently with a whole lot of amendments by your Lordships on the matter of financial privilege, which is just stated to be such in another place. With the growing awareness of the split whereby we are not allowed any vote over financial and taxation policy, and with the increasing power of the Executive because it has so many members also sitting in another place, it makes it more and more logical to revisit the ancient principle.
When things were more balanced, it did not matter. I begin to wonder whether we should look at how the balance of power works. Perhaps this is a small move in the right direction, to give us some rights.
Lord True
My Lords, I rather agree on constitutional principle with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, but I do not think it is that significant a matter. I thought that one of the few advantages of becoming a Peer was that when a general election was called, canvassers representing my noble friends did not come to my door any more. It appears that, after this, they will.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will consider this point. Clearly it is an important principle whether Members of your Lordships' House should vote in general elections. In the context of wider reform, noble Lords need to consider very carefully what are the implications of your Lordships' House saying that Members of this House should have a vote for the other place. Members of the other place might take that as being an invitation, when the substantive Bill comes, to think about parity. That has wider implications.
Secondly, we surely agreed just now that if the Bill is to proceed in the other place, it has to be as simple as possible and to provoke as little debate there as possible. I worry that this issue might provoke a great deal of debate. The noble Lord might consider that between now and Third Reading.