Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield]

My Lords, I have immense respect for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Would he accept that bicameral legislatures work best in conditions of respectful mutual restraint? If one or the other Chamber pushes its powers to the maximum, it tends to produce a spiral of escalation that leads to Parliament becoming much less than the sum of its parts. It would be impossible for your Lordships’ House to serve as a Chamber of what Walter Bagehot called “respected revisers” if the other place pushed its undoubted financial privilege to the maximum in anything but the most exceptional circumstances. We have, very neatly, great wisdom from the past on this from a remarkable Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Gladstone, who said of the British constitution that nowhere in the wide world does a constitution presume,

“more boldly than any other the good sense and the good faith of those who work it”,

and I underline the verb “work”.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, it is extremely helpful of the Leader of the House to set out the position so clearly, and it is what I have always understood it to be. May I make one practical point? The amendment comes back from the other place, privilege having been claimed. The convention is that one does not send back an amendment which is likely to invite the same response. The trouble is that the simple point which is made when they claim privilege is “We can’t afford it”, and one might send back an amendment which costs somewhat less. We do not know whether they “can’t afford it” to the extent that such an amendment would be acceptable. Therefore, it may be quite reasonable for this House, if it gets back an amendment that has been rejected on grounds of financial privilege, which effectively says that we cannot afford it, to send an amendment back that would cost less than the one that was originally proposed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very pleased that I have taken the opportunity this afternoon to clarify something that I know a lot of Peers feel strongly about, particularly former Members of another place. Given that since the general election more than 100 Peers have joined this House, it is worth from time to time re-explaining some of the reasons behind the relationship that exists between the two Houses. I say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, with all his historical perspective, that he may well be right that it has not been a seamless web since the 17th century. But the settlement has been very much recognised and has worked respectfully between the two Chambers over the past 100 years, not least during the course of the Labour Government since 1997.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as Leader of the Opposition. I understand that there has been widespread comment in legal, academic and constitutional circles, although it has not always been accurate. But I hope that part of what I have laid out today will help those outside commentators to understand the position as I see it and as I believe the House of Commons does. It is a long-standing convention, for reasons which are entirely obvious, that the two Houses do not debate each other’s internal procedures. I am not entirely sure what would be gained by having a further debate on this. After all, today we have a very full House and we have had a useful and interesting debate on this issue.

In everything that I have said and that we are doing this afternoon, there is no extension to the issue of legal privilege. As I said in my opening remarks, the situation is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, when she was Leader of the House, laid out in 2009. Nothing has changed. That is why I join with my noble friend Lord Tyler in being somewhat bemused about the noble Baroness’s view on House of Commons privilege. I was rather hoping that she would leap to her Dispatch Box and agree with every word that I had said, at least on the basis that I had agreed with everything she had said. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, for his important intervention.

Let me clarify one aspect of this. As the Clerk of the Parliaments put it in his 2009 paper, until the Commons asserts its privilege, the Lords is fully entitled to debate and agree to amendments with privilege implications. It is right that we should have the ability to do so, not least because it allows the Minister to give the Government’s point of view. That will continue and rightly should continue.

It is always good to hear from former Speakers of the House of Commons and I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who harked back to an age when there was clearly more flexibility and more discussions in the usual channels in the 1990s. Of course, my noble friend Lord Naseby explained about the ways and means.

Perhaps I may confirm to the noble Baroness that there is no threat to this House in terms of its powers and role. To respond to my noble friend Lord Fowler at the same time, the only purpose in having the Bill on reform of the House of Lords and debating that reform is that this House should be reformed only if it can be more assertive, stronger and better able to hold the Government to account and if it can challenge the views of the House of Commons. Otherwise, why on earth would we bother with all of this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am another of those who very much backed the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I was amazed and encouraged by the immense cross-party support for what he aimed to achieve. I remind noble Lords that the majority was, I think, 142 votes. However, I find this situation difficult. I certainly have been briefed again by Gingerbread and other organisations, which very much support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. She has told us that she will move the amendment on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

Looking at the scene as it is now, the statutory maintenance scheme exists because it is in the interests of society that all children are properly supported by both parents, including when they separate. It is right to encourage and support parents to do the right thing and to make the arrangements, which of course we have all heard about, as a means of people sorting out their own affairs. It is equally right for the state to step in to secure maintenance for children—the emphasis is on the children—if the non-resident parent, despite being given every chance, still fails to pay of his own accord.

With something like 46 per cent of parents with care receiving less than £20 per week in maintenance—I find that figure slightly at odds with the enormous figures that the Minister has given us today on the amount that will go to children and single parents—the risk is that those likely to receive only modest amounts of child maintenance will look at the collection charges and decide that it is hardly worth all the hassle from the non-resident parent to insist that CMEC collects the maintenance. However, is it in the best interests of the taxpayer if such parents are priced out of the system or money for their children is reduced by collection charges? Making children poorer in this way surely will not benefit children or society in the long run. It is all likely to cost us more, as we probably all recognise.

I have had an indication from my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss that she is unlikely to press her amendment. I must admit that my concern, and the concern of most of us, is for those families who are on their own and where possibly, if not certainly in too large a number of cases, there has been violence at home and the family is perhaps living in dread of any form of contact with the father. However, they are still expected to pay—what is it?—a 7.5 per cent or 7 to 12 per cent continuous fee as long as the money is collected. I really do not like that situation.

I have to admit that if there was a Division, I would certainly vote for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but if there is to be no vote, I cannot exercise my right to do that. I think that I have said enough.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, after almost 10 years on the opposition Front Bench as spokesman on social security, and despite the attractions of debating intellectually with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was the Minister throughout the period, I decided never to speak on the subject again, but I fear I am provoked. Like others who were involved with the then Child Support Agency, I bear quite a number of scars. On one occasion I invited all those who had written to me about it in a constituency to come to a meeting. I must say that I have rarely experienced such bitterness as was expressed by a second wife who was determined that the husband should not pay anything either to the former children or to the former wife. This, I am afraid, underlies much of the problem.

I want simply to say a word or two in the context of the statement made by the Leader of the House earlier today with regard to parliamentary privilege. I think that I agree with absolutely every single word he said, but none the less it left a degree of ambiguity because he pointed out that amendments in lieu to a Commons amendment should not be put forward if they are likely to invite the same response. The problem with that, if the privilege amendment is claimed in the other place, is that it is essentially about quantity and money—and here we really do not know. Clearly if the amendment in lieu costs even more than the previous amendment, it is not likely to be accepted and therefore is probably inappropriate. On the other hand, if the amendment costs somewhat less, we really do not know whether it would actually be regarded as invoking the same response. Basically, we are in that situation this evening.

No one is more determined than I am to cut the government deficit; I think that that is crucial. The argument that we are going too fast and doing too much is simply not the case. Many of the proposals for cutting expenditure have simply not happened yet. It was estimated the other day that only around 20 per cent have taken place, so that is very important indeed. Having said that, we have to beware of the Treasury going for cuts which are in fact not likely to affect the economic situation or, as was suggested the other night on a trivial amendment from the Front Bench, which would result in our borrowing costs in international markets going up. We need to assess things within a reasonable range on the basis of the quantities involved.

I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say what the loss to the Revenue would be if the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Boswell were to be accepted. I get the impression that there would be no costs at all, in which case it would certainly be a legitimate amendment for us to make. It is more difficult on the other amendment, so it would be helpful to have some figures on that. But I suspect, as my noble friend Lord Newton has said, that in the present economic situation we are likely to find that this will come back yet again, and I am not sure whether that is something we ought to undertake. Given that it is a difficult situation, it would be helpful to have a factual statement from my noble friend on the actual quantities involved.