Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Tuesday 1st May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Baroness misunderstands the position. I am totally relaxed about a post-legislative referendum, which is how we have undertaken referendums in the main in the past in this country. I will certainly support one when the time comes.

More people are in favour of the abolition of your Lordships’ House—three or four times more—than in retaining a fully appointed House. I hope that Members will recognise that that is a real danger ahead of us. Going back to the noble Lord’s question, that is why, if this House resists clear public pressure for reform, there will come an opportunity for the public to have their say. The longer Members of your Lordships’ House seek to obstruct the public, the more the will of the public will have to be given an opportunity.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords—

[Lord Tyler]

I am trying to keep within my time. I have already been interrupted on a number of occasions and other Members managed to go beyond their time. I am personally very relaxed about referendums. I very much hope that the time will come when the public will be able, as they did 100 years ago, to express their fears about the way in which this House has become so undemocratic.

As I said, I was here for all the speeches yesterday, bar two or three, right through until past midnight. This debate has been notable for the small number of courageous Peers who have stuck to the promises that they have campaigned on for so long. I hope that, when the time comes, they will stick to their principles, too.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Was the question put to the public for a mandate to serve on a similar term to that in the Commons or for Peers to be elected for 15 years and then be unable to stand again? To me, that is not democratic accountability; it is an appointment for someone to say whatever they like for the next 15 years.

[Lord Tyler]

I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not feel able to speak during the debate yesterday; she could have made that point. I will happily discuss with her the four major polls that have been undertaken and that clearly demonstrate support for the evolution of the democratic principle as the basis of representation in this House.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tyler and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am sure that when other Members of your Lordships’ House who have experience of Fridays in the other place looked at the Marshalled List today, they thought that we were in for a similar sort of experience. I know that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood certainly had that tedious experience all too often of cloak-and-dagger assassins killing off Private Members’ Bills. I hope that that will not become a habit in your Lordships’ House because it is not only tedious but extremely frustrating.

Among the amendments today were a number of contradictory amendments—some from the same author. I thought that the expressions of good will in Committee indicated that we had consensus that the Bill in the form that my noble friend was pursuing had considerable support on all sides of the House. From the changes that have taken place today, in response to the wealth of amendments, it is clear that the Bill we thought we had dealt with in Committee did not have consensus across the House. Some 300 amendments would take out some very important provisions. We have been told on so many occasions in the past two or three years that my noble friend’s Bill would not only enjoy widespread support but would deal with all the major defects in the stature, authority and reputation of your Lordships’ House. The removal of Clause 10, as my noble friend said in his opening speech, emasculates the Bill. It would take out the most important provisions.

As so often at this end of the Building, the compromise that has been reached has been grabbed out of the jaws of chaos. We have to recognise that; it would be silly not to do so. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood would be the first to admit that nobody can be under any illusion that this exercise will result in even a modest step forward towards reform, hence his realistic assessment that this is no longer a House of Lords Reform Bill but simply a House of Lords amendment Bill, and we should recognise that.

The only logical conclusion must be that the sooner the government Bill comes forward—no doubt it will be improved by the very assiduous pre-legislative scrutiny that has been undertaken by the Joint Committee on which I served under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—the better. When that Bill comes before Parliament I hope that we will not have another of these episodes when everyone says that they are in favour of doing something but, when it comes to the opportunity to do so, we have this sort of shambles that we would have faced today had all the amendments been moved. That does no good for the reputation of your Lordships’ House. I hope that, having had this experience today, we will take a lesson for the future. We should have a methodical, careful, meticulous process, but we should draw a very important conclusion from the way in which we might have been faced with a similar experience that Members of the other House have every time there is a Private Member’s Bill on a Friday.

Amendment 306, with Amendment 312A, makes the simple fact absolutely clear—piecemeal is not a way to approach the most important reforms to your Lordships’ House that we will have to consider in the months to come.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

One of the things that I learnt in my youth is the saying, which I am not sure is parliamentary language, “Quit while you’re winning”. I think that we should, and not debate it further. My experience in this House is that often when one of us speaks, intending to calm things down, somebody somewhere gets offended.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who has unrivalled academic expertise and authority in matters of this sort. I am a mere practitioner, so my contribution to this debate is very much probing, rather than definitive. I am generally concerned about the drift that would appear to be the theme of this group. The Committee is provided with three options. One would remove the 14-day period for the formation of a new Government if the existing one falls; one would extend that period to 28 days; and the other would keep it at 14 days but change the process by which it would happen. We therefore have a spectrum of three amendments, representing a scale: one with no period at all in which another Government could be formed; one with a 14-day period; and one with a 28-day period. Those of us of a centrist disposition might be naturally inclined towards the middle option—Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. However, strictly speaking, Amendment 39 is not necessary, since it barely departs from the principle that the Government have already adumbrated in the Bill itself.

Therefore, I will concentrate principally on Amendment 35, which is the “back me or sack me” amendment. It would offer a Prime Minister who had lost the support of his or her party in the Commons the opportunity to go to the country instead of to the Palace. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. It might have provided some clear guidance to Thatcher, Major and Blair at moments when factionalism was on the cusp of becoming fratricide. However, again, the amendment is surely unnecessary. The Bill already allows for the Prime Minister to resign or for a new Prime Minister and a new Government to be appointed. What the amendment does is to take away from Back-Benchers in the House of Commons the power actively to insist on the replacement of the Prime Minister with another. That is the principle behind this change. Instead, it places the decision on going to the country, as now, back with the incumbent of No. 10. I thought Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House thought that was not necessarily the best result.

Under the Bill as it stands, a Prime Minister could effectively be disposed of, as Labour wanted to do with Blair for so long. A clear period would then exist for a new Government to be formed. Members of the Committee can imagine that, when Tony Blair eventually stepped down, the Bill’s provisions would have allowed Gordon Brown to form what he called a new Government, in much the same way that John Major did when Margaret Thatcher resigned. It is not, therefore, clear to me whether my noble friend seeks a move away from the principle that votes of confidence in the Government need not precipitate an election—the status quo—if another Government can be formed. Here is the nub of a very important principle. I wonder whether my noble friend is trying to move away from the principle that the Prime Minister must have the authority and confidence of the House of Commons to continue; and whether he is, therefore, moving towards a principle that there ought, automatically, to be an election if there is a change of Prime Minister.

In February 1974, Mr Heath said, “Who governs Britain?”. He did not say, “Back me or sack me”. We have referred to that election on several occasions in your Lordships’ House in recent months; it is one that many of us recall very well. I have no doubt that my noble friend could find much public support for that principle. However, on balance, I have always thought that British Governments should depend simply and solely on the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office. That is a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential one.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Will the noble Lord explain to me why I am mistaken in recollecting that Mr Heath did say, “Back me or sack me”? That is my recollection of the interpretation that everybody I knew had of what he said.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Tyler and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the issue of individual registration cannot possibly make any difference as far as the amendment is concerned, because we are of course referring to the electoral register of December 2010, which could not possibly be affected by individual registration? I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has introduced a completely irrelevant red herring.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will have read the report cover to cover and could enlighten the Leader of the House?

Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House

Debate between Lord Tyler and Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, the noble Earl should take credit for persuading me, as he has this afternoon. He said that the public would never wear a really generous package to persuade people to retire. That has been echoed by other noble Lords. I believe he is right, but my view is that if we were to go down that track, it would simply increase pressure for the real reform package that I hope will come in due course.

I come to my conclusion. I believe that we are living in a fool’s paradise if we really think there is a huge reservoir of public enthusiasm for your Lordships' House in its present form, just because the other place is so unpopular. Therefore, we have a risk ahead of us. If we were to introduce such a generous new regime to persuade people to retire in the interim period, it would damage the reputation of this House. If this issue is addressed with the usual mixture—which we have had this week—of self-satisfaction and isolation from public opinion by some Members, the public will say, “Roll on reform” and amen to that.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, can the noble Lord correct what may have led to a misunderstanding on my part? He appeared to be advocating a system of removing people, or people going from your Lordships' House, on the basis of how often they have spoken or intervened at Questions. As a former Whip, it rather filled me with terror to think that those reading it could think that their way of guaranteeing their place in future would be related to how often they spoke from now on. Would he like to correct that quickly?