House of Lords Reform Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point very quickly and elegantly.

The Bill is being pushed through the Commons by the Government—before the summer, on a whipped vote and with a guillotined debate—but the central question concerns the likely constitutional crisis that will arise from the Bill, which will transform the Lords into a Chamber competing with the Commons. The result will be gridlock, cronyism and a rise in special-interest politics.

The US offers a useful cautionary tale. The American political system is manifestly struggling: beset by gridlock; vulnerable to powerful special interests, from the gun lobby to the American Association of Retired Persons; and its politicians elected by corporate lobbyists through political action committees, recently liberated by the Supreme Court from any spending constraints under the first amendment. The two Houses have repeatedly found it impossible to achieve consensus on important legislation. Pork-barrel has been replaced by stand-off. President Obama’s health care Bill is a classic example and it ended up in the Supreme Court.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Is not my hon. Friend adverting to the fundamental conundrum at the heart of the Government’s presentation of the Bill? On the one hand, they are arguing for a more legitimate House; on the other, they are arguing that there will be no change in the relationship between the two Houses. It does not add up.

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. As my noble Friend Lord Forsyth put it, what would be the point of electing these people if not to give them more power? Exactly the same thing as has happened in the US will happen here. I refer my colleagues and Members across the House to Lord Pannick’s brilliant memorandum on the issue, which has been published this afternoon. Lord Pannick is widely regarded as one of the most excellent lawyers and advocates of his generation, and is specifically expert in the Parliament Acts. He is also precisely the kind of person who would never be willing to stand for election to a new Senate. In his words:

“The Bill does not adequately address the central issue of constitutional concern: the fact that a House of Lords most of whose members will be elected will almost certainly be much more assertive than the unelected House of Lords and reluctant to give way.”

Lord Pannick states that the Parliament Acts

“only relate to the end of the legislative process, and not the day-to-day conventions which (at present) result in the Lords giving way to the Commons. Indeed, the Parliament Acts do not apply at all to Bills introduced in the House of Lords or to subordinate legislation.

The crucial question is this: should the Bill seek to regulate all these matters, or leave them to convention? If it leaves them to convention, then the result will be disputes between the two competing chambers. If it regulates these issues, then the result will be that relations between the chambers become justiciable in law, as they did over the Hunting Act, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I will not follow immediately on from the tempting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because I want to direct the bulk of my remarks to the parliamentary Labour party.

I should begin by making my position clear because, as colleagues in my ranks and across the Floor of the House know, I have something of a reputation in this Parliament as a coalition sceptic, having not supported its formation. It is therefore with all the more enthusiasm that I am speaking strongly in favour of the coalition proposals, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon.

One of the things that has driven me in politics over the decades is that when one comes into the British House of Commons in a third-party position—I have been part of the Social Democratic party, the Alliance and the Lib Dems—there is an overwhelming sense, which we are seeing in this debate, that the forces of small c conservatism within both the principal parties are ranged against one. Today, colleagues on both sides of the House have said, “Of course I am in favour of the principle of House of Lords reform.” To listen to their rhetoric or to read it in Hansard, one would think that they had been lying awake at night for years fretting about this issue. They go on to say, “But not this reform,” “Not at this time,” “Not in this way,” “Not for these reasons,” “Not because of that political context,” and so on.

This debate is reminiscent of one of the first cross-party debates that took place when I was first elected in 1983, which was about televising the House of Commons. When I look at those, particularly from the House of Lords, who have been in the public prints over the weekend warning of the pestilence, plague and Niagara falls of misfortune that will descend upon our nation if we try to reform the House of Lords as outlined in today’s proposals, I recall, funnily enough, that many of the same voices, many of the same names and an awful lot of the same arguments were raised against the pernicious effect that televising the House of Commons would have. Had they lived in a different generation, those people would have had the same instincts and the same conservative gut reactions against votes for women. It goes on and on. That is why I make my plea to the Labour party in particular.

I listened to the Labour leader on BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” at lunchtime today, speaking no doubt with sincerity. When he says that Labour will oppose the programme motion, while supporting the principle of reform, in the best-case scenario he is being breathtakingly naive in parliamentary terms and in the worst-case scenario he is displaying abject party political cynicism. I hope that it is not the latter, because I think a lot more of him than that.

I say that because of my experience, some 20 years ago, of the Maastricht treaty. That is what this occasion reminds me of more than anything else. Labour held themselves together in opposition brilliantly under John Smith’s leadership. He had the rallying cry of the absence of the social chapter, which united Eurosceptics and Euro-enthusiasts in the Labour ranks. That kept the Labour party together and kept the heat on John Major’s Government. We found ourselves having to vote on many an occasion, in circumstances that were bitter, controversial and politically damaging in the short term, to enable the Maastricht business to proceed, because Labour was seeking to thwart it. We are in a similar position here.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Kennedy]

I will give way in a moment, of course, because the hon. Gentleman is a fellow survivor of that era.

The votes on Maastricht were a bad experience for the Conservative party because of its rebels. I fear that its rebels on this issue will find that they are stoking up an awful lot of trouble within their own parliamentary ranks later in this Parliament. The other message of that experience was that, no matter how much one tries to feed and placate the sceptics, they come back for more. They want more and more red meat, and eventually they end up devouring you. That will be the danger if the programme motion is not passed.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am in danger of agreeing with one or two things that the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The Maastricht debates were a disaster for Parliament because of the way in which they were conducted. The solution then would have been to have a referendum, and the solution now is to have a referendum to avoid the kind of disaster that he is talking about.

[Mr Kennedy]

We will see, assuming that we have the parliamentary progress that is required, what happens on that issue. I was a European spokesman for my party at the time of Maastricht and voted in favour of a referendum. Folk of my generation voted for a referendum, while people of David Steel’s generation voted against. If we have a vote on a referendum in the course of our proceedings, which I dare say we will, it will be interesting to see what happens. It might yet become a way of breaking the logjam—who knows? I am not going to declare on the issue yet because I want to get through 10 o’clock tomorrow night first. We will take it one step at a time.

I was deeply disappointed by the opening contribution from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on behalf of the Labour party. If that represents the Front-Bench apotheosis of Labour enthusiasm for Lords reform, then God help us, whether we are debating the matter for 10 days and nights on the Floor of this House or for a longer period if the programme motion is defeated tomorrow evening. I can only assume—I am being charitable to him—that his speech on this occasion had to be a non-committal holding operation, while Labour weighs up the advantage, sees what happens tomorrow night and decides where to go from there. He showed studied ambiguity about what the Opposition would do if they were successful in thwarting the programme motion tomorrow night, and how much time they would insist upon for debate on the Floor of the House. The repeated delphic absence of a response to those questions spoke volumes. I plead with the Labour party: do not just play the Bill for narrow party advantage, play it for the historic opportunity that it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

That depends entirely on what the Bill looks like when it is presented to the British people. Hon. Members who have sat through the past seven hours of the debate will realise that the vast majority of Members of the House want the Bill debated thoroughly and amended to make it fit to put before the British people. The Joint Committee agreed unanimously on that point. It remains a mystery to Opposition Members that the party that was so keen to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system is so shy of supporting a referendum to determine the essence of our democracy and our parliamentary institutions. What on earth are they afraid of?

[Mr Jenkin]

I remind the hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrats were not keen to have a referendum on the AV system; it was forced on them by circumstance.

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

The Bill clearly needs improvement if it is to work effectively to strengthen our democracy and our law-making processes. It needs to be informed by rigorous debate and further consideration of constitutional expertise. It needs scrutinising not only in relation to the issues I have already referred to, but in relation to the size of the proposed Chamber, which was mentioned by a large proportion of the Members who contributed to the debate; the proposed length of terms of representation; the transition period; and the voting system for the election of its Members. The Bill currently recommends a semi-open list system, as opposed to the single transferable vote proposed in the draft Bill. Today, however, we have witnessed a lack of clarity about what the numerous variations of proportional representation mean, so once again the need for thorough debate has been firmly underlined.

The Bill proposes the biggest constitutional change our country has seen since the Parliament Act 1911, which is why we need to take care over its progress—we need to get it right. It would damage our democracy if the House were to force through the Bill without adequate debate and scrutiny—an argument that has asserted itself at every twist and turn of this debate. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett)—to mention just a few.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough pointed out that a range of views are present in this debate. The fact of those views absolutely makes the case for a period of thorough scrutiny. I would particularly mention the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who pointed out rightly that Members need to read carefully the comments of the Clerk of the House about the reforms, particularly in relation to Commons primacy. That is a really important point. Members need to acquaint themselves with those comments and concerns before making up their minds about the Bill on Third Reading. Moreover, it would help the Bill if the Commons arrived at a consensus on the way forward by hammering out agreed positions via a process of debate and amendment.

The Opposition welcome reform of the House of Lords, and want to secure its progress and conduct the process constructively. My concluding words are therefore directed at the Deputy Prime Minister, who was asked in a letter sent to him last week by a Member of the other place to show a little more respect for our ermine-clad colleagues:

“If the future of one of the key parts of our British Constitution is to be debated in a responsible way, it is surely important that deliberate factual errors and insulting insinuations should not be part of the debate.”

The House is familiar with the cavalier manner that the Deputy Prime Minister deploys when making his arguments, and we are well accustomed to his tendency to exaggerate to make an argument, but today’s debate has underlined the point made by the other place. For the most part, this debate has been good humoured and civilised. He should respond by curbing his excesses and working with colleagues, not against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I do not think that any self-imposed injunction on personal and disparaging comments could have been breached quite so promptly as it was by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) just then, with her reference to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, in which 36 Back Benchers have had the opportunity to speak so far—and of course, it is only half-time.

There has been good support for the Bill—some qualified and some wholehearted—and it has been expressed by many. We have heard good speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson). Let me single out for special comment the exceptional speech by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who made the important point that what we have before us builds on what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) started and what Robin Cook produced in conversation with other parties, which is the bedrock of the consensus—which I hope we can still reach—on reform of the House of Lords.

There have also been speeches against the Bill. I am afraid that some have erected straw men so as to knock them down, mentioning things that have simply never been suggested by the Government, but which hon. Members nevertheless felt the need to speak against. However, some speeches were well argued. I would like to single out the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who I know will have had difficulty making the comments she did today. We can disagree with people but still respect the arguments they put forward. Of course I do not agree with them in opposing the legislation, but I respect the way they put their arguments.

Some Members are simply against an elected House. I respect that, although of course I do not agree with them. It is not what their respective parties put before the electorate—it is not what they said in their manifestos—but it is frankly a pointless endeavour trying to bash round the head someone who is committed to unicameralism, such as the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) or for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), or the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) or for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). Someone who believes that there should be no second House will not support proposals for reform. I understand that: it is a perfectly proper argument.

Many others appear to think—this is a view shared by many appointed peers—that any system that appointed such exemplars of legislative acuity and perfection as themselves must be an exceedingly good system indeed. I do not necessarily share that view. I have great respect for the quality of much of the work of the present House of Lords—and, indeed, for the quality of many individual peers. However, that is not a sufficient argument for a system that, I believe, is simply not sustainable.

Many Members—particularly, I have to say, those sitting on the Government Benches—are those who I remember railing against the prospect of a House of cronies when we last debated this subject, but they seem content with the idea of a fully appointed House. It is not a view I share.

[Mr Jenkin]

I remember the hon. Gentleman railing against Governments who impose timetables and guillotines when he was in opposition, so how can he now come to this House and guillotine a constitutional measure—which would have been unthinkable under Winston Churchill, incidentally—which is not going to be subject to a referendum and may be Parliament Acted, so that when it is being scrutinised by the other place, he will have no option but to propose that the same damaged and inadequate Bill go back to the other House, as he tries to force it through?

[Mr Heath]

I will return to the issue of the programme motion in just a moment, but let me deal first with the rather familiar arguments that have been marshalled.

There are those who say that they are for reform, but not yet. They say it is too precipitate and that there has been insufficient scrutiny. This process has been about as precipitate as the reckless progress of a particularly arthritic slug. We have had what I would describe as pre-legislative scrutiny on this for 101 years. This is not a quick process.