Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that at Report on the Bill there will be issues which relate, however indirectly, to the finances of the National Health Service. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House whether the Government could give an indication of the procedural implications for this House on the Welfare Reform Bill following a Statement on financial privilege by the Minister earlier today in the other place.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind invitation for some procedural advice. We will be dealing with the Welfare Reform Bill when it comes back from another place. I should say that matters for privilege are not a matter for the Government but a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons on advice from his clerks. The position of privilege has of course been jealously guarded by the House of Commons since 1671. It is well precedented and there is nothing unusual, although the second Chamber might always think that the Commons using financial privilege is a little unfair.

We will get to that Bill in due course. I cannot comment on the Health and Social Care Bill, which is of course the subject of the Motion before us now, as to what the Government’s attitude will be on defeats. But, as I said earlier, there is nothing unusual about financial privilege being prayed in aid. Since there are many former Members of another place present in this House I am sure that they will readily understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps I may come back to a point he raised. I am sure that the procedure was followed appropriately in the other place and I assume that the Government made application to the Speaker. The question is whether it was wise for the Government to use this process in this place, because, essentially, they are hiding behind parliamentary procedure to curtail consideration of the amendments that your Lordships passed on the Welfare Reform Bill. In essence, my noble friend has put it absolutely right: if the Government continue to do this on these Bills, our role as a revising Chamber is effectively undermined.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I simply disagree with the noble Lord. This situation has existed for 350 years. It was as though the noble Lord were suggesting that the Government had found some new ploy to stop the will of the House of Lords. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will agree that we are an unelected House. The House of Commons is an elected House. It has protected its financial privilege since 1671. Nothing has changed for the debates that we will no doubt have on the health Bill and the welfare Bill.

House of Lords: Scottish Referendum

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the proposed referendum on Scottish independence on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the Government can proceed only on the current constitutional framework. We will of course take all relevant factors into account when planning the timetable for reform.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that illuminating response. Remarkably, it appears that Mr Clegg’s Bill is to be the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme for the next Session. However, this will be in advance of the outcome of the Scottish referendum which could—I am sure the noble Lord will agree—have profound constitutional significance for the United Kingdom. How will the Government take that into account? Furthermore, as Scotland is to have a referendum, why on earth are the British people not to be allowed one on Lords reform?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there were a number of questions there. The noble Lord is right that it would have profound constitutional implications for the United Kingdom if there were to be a referendum result in Scotland in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom. However, as I said in my Answer, we can proceed only on the current constitutional framework. If there is a Scottish referendum, I for one—and, I am sure, the noble Lord for another—will campaign in favour of retaining the United Kingdom. The Government of course considered the case for a referendum on the future of the House of Lords. However, given that all three manifestos in the most recent election were remarkably similar on reform of the House, we feel that people's views have already been taken into account.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with both points that my noble friend makes. However, the fact is that if we end up with a wholly elected House or a partially elected House, and if the relationship between the two Houses becomes strained, it is up to parliamentarians in both Houses to find the best way of sorting that out.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to this as a Christmas question, but I do not detect too many turkeys in your Lordships' House this morning. He cannot get away with that. When he quoted from the draft Bill, he omitted the second part of Clause 2(1)(c), which states that nothing in the proposed Act affects the,

“conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses”.

The noble Lord should go back to the 1911 Act’s preamble, which makes it clear that those conventions were developed to allow for a relationship between an elected and an unelected House. They cannot apply to two elected Houses. This draft Bill and previous draft Bills are defective because they do not get to the crunch of the issue, which is the relationship between the two Houses.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the conventions can apply but they may well evolve in the years after we have an elected senate.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, no is the answer to the last part of my noble friend’s question, but he is right that, if we do not fundamentally change this House, at the start of every new Parliament where there is a change in the Government the House would continue to increase. The Constitution Unit at UCL has done a useful piece of work examining this. On the current general election figures, if we were to put the policy into effect immediately, it would mean an increase of 82 Conservative Peers. I can tell the House that we are not about to announce 82 Conservative Peers.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, given the uncertainties as to whether the Government will achieve substantive reform in this Parliament, why do they not say that they will take over the Steel Bill?

Hereditary Peers

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am not sure that I detected a question. The Government believe that it is time to deal with the issue of succession to the Crown, and there is no simple read-across to succession to the hereditary peerage, which is infinitely more complicated and affects many more families.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that it would be difficult to implement, but will he suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that he perhaps should seek to amend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel? On that matter, can he tell me whether tomorrow the Government intend to support the noble Lord, Lord Steel?

Public Disorder

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, would like to associate myself and these Benches with the sentiments that have been expressed and to extend our condolences to those people who have lost so much in the terrible events from Saturday onwards. I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minster’s Statement today.

There is absolutely no excuse for the terrible scenes that we have witnessed on the streets of London and beyond in our cities over the past few days. Our deepest sympathies must go to those families who have lost their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods. As we have heard, we must work to restore hope and confidence in our cities.

I have lived in Hackney and Islington all my life. I served as a councillor in those areas, which were among those where we have seen terrible unrest. I worked in Tottenham for almost a decade from the mid-1990s; in fact, I was there earlier on Saturday before all this happened. I know the area and the people well. I know that the vast majority are law-abiding, decent people who care deeply about their community. They are absolutely traumatised by what has happened to their neighbourhood. They did not have very much to begin with; all they had was their high street and that is now destroyed.

Whether we like it or not, the young people who rioted, looted and trashed their streets are part of our society. As the Prime Minister’s Statement acknowledged, there is a deep-rooted problem with gangs in many inner-city areas. We know that in London, for example, there are more than 250 active gangs. The police know who they are and who the leaders are. These gangs have been allowed to grow and to take a hold for more than a decade—for 10 or 15 years. They draw in young people who are out on the streets and they spread criminality. When I was a councillor, mothers would come to my surgery begging me to get them transferred because they were so terrified of living on these estates and because of the way in which their families and their children were intimidated if they tried to resist joining these gangs.

These social problems did not happen overnight in our inner cities, where there are huge inequalities and a big social divide. We have to acknowledge that. We have a disconnection in a section of our society—an underclass of young people who have poor education and no skills and who come from dysfunctional families. They feel that they have nothing to lose. They have no fear of authority. Who are their role models? Millionaire footballers and rock stars. They want the latest gadgets, trainers or mobiles. This is what they aspire to.

The solutions for these riots must come from within our diverse communities. Please can we ensure that we do not demonise all young people? We certainly should not demonise all black young people. In future proposals to rebuild these communities—I am pleased that my noble friend the Leader of the House announced in the Statement that funds will be made available—can we ensure that these young people play a role in the rebuilding so that they feel a sense of ownership and pride in those communities? Let them have some work to do to rebuild their own communities.

It was clear that the police were often overwhelmed and could not protect property or stop the looting. On Monday night, in Dalston in Hackney near where I live, a large group of Turkish and Kurdish shopkeepers came together and successfully protected their businesses from rioters. They told me that they had no option. They prevented their high street from being trashed. I pay tribute to such people. I pay tribute to the Sikhs of Southall and the Turks and Kurds of Dalston. When strength was needed and they needed to stand up in their communities against this thuggery, they spontaneously demonstrated what was very good in our community. They did this in a good and peaceful way and nobody was harmed. We have seen what is very bad in our communities and society but we have also seen what is very good. We need to recognise that and pay tribute to it. We should not focus just on the bad.

I ask my noble friend the Minister how we can restore confidence in the police, because a lot of people feel that they cannot rely on them now. Vigilante groups are being formed up and down the country, which we must feel are not welcome. How can we restore confidence in the police and prevent the need for the rise of these groups of vigilantes around the country?

On a final note, I think that a lot of us were very moved during the break by the words of the Norwegian Prime Minister, who said that at times like this we need more democracy and more humanity. We need to be guided by that and to reflect on it before we make any knee-jerk reactions in response to what we have seen.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for agreeing to answer specific points on policing and the role of the Home Office. I have no doubt that the actions of police forces up and down the country will come under intense scrutiny in the next few weeks and months but none of us should underestimate the bravery of thousands of police officers and other emergency workers in the face of the shocking and indefensible lawlessness that we have seen in the past week. On Monday night, 44 officers were injured in London alone. They have done us great credit and we are very grateful to them.

In criticism that has been made—and will presumably continue to be made—of decisions by a number of police forces, we should not underestimate the complex challenge faced by police chiefs in these difficult circumstances. I, too, want to pay tribute to my own chief constable in the West Midlands, Chris Sims, for the careful and measured statements that he made yesterday and the leadership that he has shown. That calm response to a highly dangerous situation was influential in ensuring that the forecast troubles in Birmingham yesterday did not happen.

I pay tribute to Mr Tariq Jahan and his extraordinary courage in the comments he made yesterday following the tragic death of his son and two others, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir. Community leaders in Birmingham, Members of Parliament, councillors, the police and representatives of the community worked very hard yesterday to defuse any potential racial tension. I am proud of what they achieved. I endorse the remarks of the most reverend Primate that we should seize the moment. Surely the noble Baroness is right in terms of using this to bring our communities together.

There will be many inquiries and reviews of policing. In my brief time, I just want to put three or four points to the Minister. We know—my noble friend referred to this—that it essentially took four days to ensure that London was secure for its citizens. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the situation in London was due not to a lack of powers available to the police or a lack of willingness to use them but to the sheer lack of police numbers? The police were able to respond and restore order when they had a massive injection of police officers into the capital, an increase from 6,000 to just under 16,000.

Secondly, I want to come back to the important issue of funding. Can the noble Baroness give me some assurance that the Government will revisit the intention to reduce police funding by 20 per cent? Many Ministers have responded to this point in the past few months saying that they do not believe that those cuts will impact on frontline services. The noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated that this morning. Can that seriously be maintained in the face of actual reductions in frontline officers, in the forced retirement of some of our most experienced policemen and the indications that some frontline officers are being withdrawn to provide back-office services because of the redundancies of civilian staff within police services?

The estimate is that there will be a reduction of 16,000 police officers at the end of this four-year period. That is the very number of police officers who are now staffed in London over the next 24 hours to secure the peace of the city. Will the Minister respond to ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde, who wrote today of the challenges that those cuts are having on each force up and down the country? Will the noble Baroness the Minister give some assurance that the Government will take this opportunity to review their intention to take the police Bill through Parliament?

Faced with a series of reviews and a huge set of challenges, the last thing that the police forces in England and Wales need is the imposition, less than nine months away, of elected police commissioners in place of current police authorities. The risk of the politicisation of our police forces and the inevitable undermining of the authority of chief constables can serve only to reduce further the morale of our police men and women and the confidence of the public.

What of the Metropolitan police force? Who could underestimate the challenge that they face in maintaining public order, in the continuing investigations into phone hacking, in their counterterrorism responsibilities that they face and in the Olympics? There is no permanent police commissioner in place at the moment. When one is appointed, he or she will be the third commissioner who will serve under the auspices of the Mayor of London in a four-year term. How on earth can that provide the leadership and stability that the Metropolitan Police so need? Surely that cannot be the model that the Government want to extend to the police forces of England and Wales. How can the Government justify the expenditure of £100 million on the election of police commissioners when police forces up and down the country are facing such reductions in their overall funding?

The Government also need to think about their overall law and order policies. The Prime Minister said today that we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong. I thoroughly endorse that proposal. But why are the Government so disparaging about some of the measures that the previous Government brought in, such as closed-circuit TV or dispersal orders—the very mechanisms that have been used effectively in the past few days? And why are the Government encouraging softer sentences to complement the reduction in prison numbers and prison places? In view of the utterly outrageous behaviour that we have seen in the past few days, surely that should be an opportunity for the Government to review their policies again and ensure that the public are given the security and confidence in public order that they need.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, the report by the Procedure Committee simply demands that leave of absence be pursued more rigorously, which I am sure will be welcomed in the House but is unlikely to make a noticeable contribution to reducing our numbers. However, the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, set up by the Leader of the House, recommended that,

“the House should introduce arrangements to allow Members to retire from membership of the House on a voluntary basis”,

and accepted that legislation would be necessary to achieve this.

The committee further argued that a reduction in numbers would result in an overall saving to the taxpayer and that part of that saving should be used to offer a modest pension. It called for this to be investigated in detail, but this has not yet been followed through. Perhaps in reply we could hear whether the House authorities intend to take actuarial advice on this matter, as recommended by that report. Because we are unpaid, it cannot be a pure pension and therefore requires a new statutory provision. The Chairman of Committees may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill awaiting Committee provides such statutory authority.

When this was previously discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that any such payment,

“would … not be understood by the British people”.—[Official Report, 16/11/10; col. 675.]

Of course, if he is talking about extra money from the Treasury, he is absolutely right, but I suggest that if it is money from savings of expenditure within the House of Lords budget, contrary to that view redundancy pay is well understood in the country at large and accepted as saving money. The current redundancy lump sum permitted tax free is £30,000, which is less than the annual attendance payments for those who come to this House, say, 75 per cent of the time.

Therefore, I hope that in due course, the Government may come forward with a modest payment proposal of a lump sum of, say, £30,000 to those choosing to retire after, say, 10 years’ service or having reached the age of 75, provided that they have had an attendance record of at least 50 per cent in the previous two Sessions. Those in the business world tell me that a modest lump sum of that kind is much more attractive than the financial sum appears. One can imagine Members of your Lordships’ House discussing with their spouses whether they might buy a new car for their retirement or go on a world cruise and listen to lectures by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—or choose another one to avoid that peril.

In any event, that a scheme is needed to get the numbers down is not in doubt. Of course, the Hunt committee was right to suggest that if that were pursued, Members who chose to retire should enjoy the same use of House facilities as former hereditary Peers do. I hope that this matter will be pursued as recommended by the Hunt committee and not simply neglected and brushed aside by this report, which we nevertheless welcome.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I was a member of the Leader’s Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to whom I pay tribute for his leadership of the group. He led it with great distinction and I very much support the conclusions of the group and the recommendations of the Chairman of Committees’ Procedure Committee report before the House today. I also welcome the initial and positive response of the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when the report was first published. We on this side certainly support the Motion before the House.

I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but in rather a different vein. The note in the report to the House says that the Procedure Committee has not considered those elements of the Leader’s Group recommendations, such as the provision to override entitlement to a Writ of Summons, the scheme of associate membership and extension of legislation. Nor has the committee considered the financial aspects of any scheme for voluntary retirement, which, if the House agreed to the report, would be a matter for the House Committee. I do not know if the House Committee will consider this report, but I imagine it will need to consider the implications very carefully.

I return to the issue of the potential for primary legislation. I hesitate to return to last week’s enjoyable debate on reform of your Lordships’ House. I realise that the Chairman of Committees cannot speak for the Government; perhaps we can tempt the noble Lord the Leader of the House to intervene helpfully in this debate. However, I wonder whether the Government have given thought to the potential for primary legislation on the issues to which I have just referred. The Government may take the view that they took last week on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel: since they have published a draft Bill on substantive reform, they cannot contemplate the noble Lord’s Bill. That, in essence, would accept that the Government do not think they will get very far with their own substantive Bill. Having been there myself, I understand the line that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, used last week.

However, it is just possible that, at the end of the work of the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend, the Government might decide to pause on reform. We might not see a substantive Bill before your Lordship’s House in the next Session of Parliament. In that case, there must surely come a point where the matters in this report and the items covered by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, ought to be considered. If we simply carry on in a situation in which Governments cannot contemplate sensible interim changes because they will always have a proposal for substantive reform on the table at some point, the business of this House will become more and more difficult.

All I should like to do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to give some consideration to these matters. It may, in his eyes, be extremely unlikely that the Government will not proceed with a substantive Bill in the next year. However, there will come a point when such sensible interim reforms need to be considered.

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, we can wring our hands about the House being too large. We may, unintentionally but unfairly, have made newly appointed Peers feel less than welcome, but until now there has been no serious consideration of what might be done. This is, therefore, a much needed report and a step forward. The real difficulties with which the group has had to grapple are very clear, but at least the issue is now being addressed.

The only feasible option is that of voluntary retirement. However, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Steel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I feel this cannot be achieved in significant numbers in the absence of some form of payment. I recognise that there is a public perception issue here about additional costs. However, we may be looking at a saving. My maths may be somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, but the outcome is the same. By my reckoning, if a Peer attends even irregularly—on, say, 100 out of 150 days—at the lower daily rate of £150, the cost over a year would amount to something like £15,000, plus travel costs of around £2,000. We are looking at something like £85,000 over five years.

Why would it not be possible to make the saving and offer something between £20,000 and £30,000 in order to promote and encourage Peers to take voluntary retirement—voluntary is a word that might not always be entirely appropriate here? It would be a major incentive for many Peers who have given years of service, some at the expense perhaps of a full professional salary, and would most probably achieve what this excellent report aims to do. However, for this to be effective there must also be a moratorium on appointing new Members and possibly a cap on numbers for the future.

The House is too large. It will be pointed out that many turn up only irregularly, but perception is important. As long as the media continue to talk about a House of well over 800 we will continue to appear ridiculously overstaffed. For this reason those who rarely attend should be asked in no uncertain terms to avail themselves of the retirement option. As I said before in this Chamber, there are a few among the Cross-Benchers who have not shown their faces for something like 10 years, which is ridiculous. I also feel that those who, through infirmity, are unable to attend might welcome the option of a dignified retreat from this House with the offer of some dining rights plus a lump sum. I think that the Cross-Benchers could be reduced by something like 30 Members, which would be very welcome news to those who think that there are too many of us. The truth is that over the past 10 years there has been a net gain of 55 Cross-Benchers, which is just over five a year. I do not think that that is a flood.

We will have to bite the bullet, grasp the nettle, acknowledge that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Leaders of each of the groups will have to approach those who attend very rarely, or make no contribution to the work of the House, with a firm proposal to take up the option of retirement, but this can be done only, in fairness, if there is to be some monetary compensation.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, I have two preliminary points. First, in eight minutes it is inevitable that one can touch only on certain issues, and after a long debate it is also inevitable that one will be repeating many of the comments made on the key issues. I make no apology for that because it indicates the strength of feeling on these issues. Secondly, when I was in the other place I consistently held and expressed the same views and support for an appointed House that I hold now—a House, of course, greatly enriched and changed by the reforms relating to life and hereditary Peers.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said yesterday:

“What on earth is this House doing spending two precious days debating an issue that has no interest outside the Westminster village and for which there is no demand in this country at a time when we are facing a domestic crisis of major proportions?”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1208.]

I take issue with that. I think that he was wrong; these two days have been very well spent. I agree, though, about the reaction that there will be in the country when we spend two years and much parliamentary time dealing with this issue when the country is still having to face the inevitable and continuing economic and other pressures in dealing with the fiscal deficit and many other things. This leads to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, made, when he said, in justification of the Bill:

“The public have made it very clear that they do not trust our electoral system in its present form”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1189.]

I was in the other place for 27 years. I go along with many others who say the same as me: I never had a single letter on House of Lords reform during the time when I was there and I get very few representations even now. Such reaction as one does get to the House of Lords, when people know that one is in it, is largely favourable. The adverse public reaction concerns the House of Commons. I regret that because I have a deep respect and affection for the House of Commons, which has been unfairly denigrated in many ways in recent years. However, there is no doubt that the Commons expenses issue and the kind of yah-boo politics that is inevitably conveyed in prime-time television coverage has greatly diminished the public’s respect for the House of Commons. Therefore, it is the House of Commons which gives cause for concern, not the House of Lords.

I am constantly told by many members of the public who talk to me about House of Lords reform that the last thing they want is a clone of the House of Commons. I say this as someone who, as I say, has deep respect for the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that if we had a referendum on reform of the House of Lords as proposed, I am fairly certain that the public would give the same response as they did in the AV referendum, and they would do so because so much of the media comment from serious newspapers and other commentators is against these proposals. Therefore, there would be heavy pressure against these proposals in any referendum.

There has been a subtle move in the language from democratic accountability to democratic legitimacy, and I can see why. Earlier proposals on House of Lords reform ran into considerable difficulties because they were based on regular elections to the House of Lords on the same basis as elections to the House of Commons. This caused great concern among Members of the House of Commons in relation to the challenge posed to their position in their respective constituencies and in the House, as this House would be elected on the same basis. There was also a concern that those who wanted to come to this place might well be those who had failed to get into the House of Commons and therefore might use this as a stepping point to getting into the House of Commons. Those two fears and criticisms were dealt with by proposing a 15-year term and no re-election. However, that immediately removed any question of democratic accountability. There is no democratic accountability if you are elected for a single term. I somewhat suspect that there is no democratic legitimacy either as many Members, knowing that they were here for 15 years with no possibility of re-election and no possibility of getting to the House of Commons, might not even attend very often because no one would demand that they did. That is very different from being a Member of the House of Commons and having to face re-election. I take very much the point that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, made on this. The democratic legitimacy versus democratic accountability argument has lost a lot of its credibility because of these proposals.

The key weakness of the Bill is Clause 2, which relates to functions and powers. This part of the Bill has already been holed in the water, and I think is already dead in the water. It is simply unsustainable. Inevitably, there will be clashes as the Lords asserts its democratic legitimacy. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said yesterday in favour of House of Lords reform:

“I cannot imagine that the decision to introduce the poll tax and the decision to take this country to war would have got through a Chamber elected on a different mandate and in a different period”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1190.]

They would certainly not have been challenged by this Chamber on the basis of the proposals in this Bill because it would have no power or rights to do so. They could have been challenged only—this is the giveaway—if the House of Lords asserted the powers to do that, which it has not got but which it will have if it is democratically elected. I am constantly surprised that Members of the House of Commons have not understood this point in the past, but I think that they do now. There is a growing understanding in that regard. It was very significant that in response to Mr Clegg’s Statement in the House of Commons on 17 May, 16 of the 29 who were opposed to the proposals—rather more than those who simply asked questions or were in favour—referred to the clash between the two Houses and the challenge to the supremacy of the House of Commons. I suspect—this is also significant—that many Members here who are raising this issue have been Members of the House of Commons and understand the point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it may not be only in this House that a lot of challenges will arise to this part of the Bill.

I wish to make two other points in that regard. One concerns finance and supply. It seems to me inevitable that if this House were elected it would demand many more powers in relation to finance and supply. Already there are demands from outside Parliament that this House should play a much more substantial part in scrutinising Finance Bills. That would become inevitable if this House were elected.

A point that I do not think has been made already is about Ministers. I am a little perplexed by the paragraph on Ministers but it seems to me to be absolutely clear that there would be a need for a growing proportion of Ministers in this House if this House had democratic legitimacy. I pay great tribute to Members, on both sides, on the Front Bench for the roles that they play and have played as Ministers. They do a tremendous job under huge pressures but the job would become much bigger if this House was democratically elected. There would be a need for many more Ministers in this House from individual departments. We could not have one Minister responding for six departments. There would be many fewer Ministers in the other place and those who aspire to being Ministers in the other House should think about that point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is that not an argument in favour of that?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it is my understanding that we are now operating on the assumption that Amendment 31 has been consequential on what happened with Amendment 1. I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 31, which says:

“Insert the following new Clause—“Police Commission … There shall be a body corporate for each police area listed in Schedule 1”,

and that it,

“shall consist of … a police and crime commissioner, and … a police and crime panel”.

That provides the basis for discussing a number of amendments that concern the role of people who will now not be directly elected police and crime commissioners, but who will continue to have a number of functions to which the amendments, which include some tabled by noble Lords whom I see on the opposition Benches, apply. It seems entirely appropriate that we should continue to do that. A number of amendments in Part 1 also apply to the mayor's office for crime and policing, so there is useful, detailed business to discuss.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this is ridiculous. Noble Lords know that the Government should have made a business statement at 8.30 pm to adjourn the House and allow the consequences of this to be fully considered by the Government and Opposition, and through the usual channels. It would have been helpful to have known earlier from the Chief Whip that Amendment 31 had been accepted as consequential. Clearly that is an important factor.

This is nonsensical. I am tempted to move the adjournment of the House. I plead with the Government at least to let us adjourn for 10 minutes to allow the usual channels to have a further discussion. I can see that I would win a vote on a show of hands. Surely the Government have the good sense to see this. Why are we going to waste an hour debating a theoretical amendment? It is ludicrous.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, there are a number of problems with Amendment 31. The first is that we have not debated it yet. We have not agreed it. Logically, if we are to have a structured debate, it should start with Amendment 31. The problem is that we would be debating Amendment 1 all over again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I would like to speak to the generality of the noble Baroness’s amendment. I will not comment on exactly where we are; a period of reflection would be very helpful. She has raised a very important point. Assuming that the outcome of the Bill is that we move to a new system—we are not entirely sure what system it will be—the substantive question in the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there ought to be a shadow period of operation. I agree with that.

On the question of whether it should last for a year I am not at all sure. One has had experience of reorganisations and when new appointments are made when people think it is a good idea to have two people or organisations working in tandem. Often it leads to conflict because no one is entirely sure about who is in charge or not. From the Opposition’s side, I hope we will be able to pursue this, although I think that the Government’s Bill is rather dead in the water as regards elected police commissioners. On the general principle, I am sure that a certain shadow period is right, but I suspect a year is too long. We can have further discussions on this very helpful matter.

House of Lords: Life Peerages

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is good to see my noble friend speaking in this House, as he has done for many years, and long may that continue. Different people will take a different view of what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said but he has been entirely consistent since coming here in wishing to preserve the House more or less as it is. It is an important point of view, although not one with which the Government agree.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, too, has been entirely consistent in being a passionate exponent of an elected House. But yesterday he told the House that he expected that dozens, indeed hundreds, of new coalition Peers would be appointed over the next few years. Can I take that as indicating that he is therefore not very optimistic about the prospect of substantive reform?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, neither is the case. While there is an appointed House, it is always open to the Prime Minister to appoint new Members to it on a cross-party basis and the noble Lord will have seen the coalition agreement on that. However, if Parliament passes a Bill for an elected House, elections would take place.