Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have probably made more speeches than any other Peer arguing in favour of a referendum rather than a general election to reach a resolution on Brexit, so I am sure that many noble Lords find it rather perverse that I and my colleagues are supporting the Bill today. I last spoke in favour of a referendum, as opposed to a general election, as recently as 19 October, as the noble Baroness helpfully reminded the House. I did so in the belief that securing a referendum before the passage of the withdrawal Bill was possible. I was being assured by Members in the Commons from across the parties that that was so and that, by being patient, a pro-referendum majority would emerge.

However, to secure such a Commons majority, at least two out of three things would have to happen and, by the end of last week, it was crystal clear that none of them would. First, the DUP could have supported a referendum. It made it clear that it did not. All experience shows that when the DUP has adopted a firm position, it does not easily shift from it. Secondly, the bulk of the 21 Conservative rebels, who had at that stage had had the whip withdrawn, could have supported a referendum. Instead, with barely a handful of exceptions, they swung firmly behind the Bill. Many of them have now had their reward by getting the whip back. Thirdly, Labour could have united behind a referendum. It did not. From my conversations with Labour Back-Benchers, it became clear that people were so dug into their positions that they could not find a way to justify changing tack, even if they were minded to, which they were not.

By the weekend, it was clear to me that my long-held hopes and expectation that, at the last minute, there would be a majority in the Commons for a referendum, had been dashed. This view was shared by my colleagues in the Commons and by all serious commentators, and it was time to face that reality. If a referendum was off the table, only two courses of events were then possible. First, the Government could have secured an amended timetable Motion for the Bill and sought to get it through the Commons and the Lords in coming weeks. I believe that, had the Government pursued this course, they would have prevailed and a substantially unamended Bill would have passed. We would have been out of the EU by Christmas.

Secondly, we could indeed have an election that, imperfect as it might be, at least gives the people the chance to express a view on Brexit, as well who is best fitted to lead the country. To me and my colleagues in the Commons and your Lordships’ House, this is by far the better of these two evils. It is why we gave the Bill our support at Second Reading in the Commons yesterday. There are undoubtedly ways in which it might be improved, whether relating to the exact date of the election, the franchise or detailed election rules. There are also broader issues about the future of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, to which I am sure Parliament will wish to return after the election. However, I believe it would be a mistake to seek to delay the Bill today. The Commons has given it overwhelming support as it stands. Now that a decision in principle to have the election has been made, we should simply get on with it. I suspect the rest of the country shares that view.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

Will my noble friend make clear that it would still be open to a Government, after the election, to hold a confirmatory referendum?

[Lord Newby]

It is indeed open to a Government to do that. In the unlikely event of there not being a majority Liberal Democrat Government, I heartily hope that that happens.

This will be the 10th general election in which I have been closely involved, since the formation of the SDP in 1981. In virtually every case, politicians argued at the start of the campaign that it was the most important election in decades. Of course, it was not and, in some cases, the election simply took the form of a rather fractious procession, but this election could be the most important in my political life.

At the end of each of the last nine elections and many more, the framework of party politics emerged fundamentally unscathed, but Brexit has been like a seismic shock to the system. This was most obviously seen in the European Parliament elections, where both Labour and Conservative did so badly. The conventional wisdom is that voters revert to type in a general election and, like a holiday fling, their infidelity in June will be forgotten under the harsh winds of December. But I am not so sure. The million people who marched 10 days ago in London, in opposition to Brexit, and the millions of others who could not make the journey, but shared their views, rightly see Brexit as the defining issue of the age and it will define their votes. Behind their determination to vote to stop Brexit lies a broader view of the kind of society they want: one that sees the positive value of working together to deal with the huge challenges facing humanity, be they climate change, migration and human trafficking or how to harness the potential of artificial intelligence; and one that embraces the future, rather than recoils from it. It is to those millions that the Liberal Democrats will direct our appeal over the coming six weeks, and it is a prospect that we relish.

House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report

Lord Steel of Aikwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, the Leader of the House was commendably frank in her speech in saying that the Government have no stomach for fundamental reform of this place. That is a pity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I hope that one day we will have a Government who will grapple with the need to cement our devolution settlements in this country and create a new upper Chamber, which could be a federal Chamber for the devolved Administrations. Bearing in mind the commission report of Mr Asquith’s Government and the committee report of Mr Attlee’s Government, the House of Commons does not wish to see another directly elected Chamber in the land. Nevertheless, a Chamber that is indirectly elected by the House of Commons and the other devolved institutions is surely long overdue. I would welcome that.

In the meantime, I warmly welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is of course predicated entirely on the 2014 Act, whose provisions I introduced three times in this House over three Sessions on behalf of the Cormack-Norton committee, as noble Lords will remember. Thanks to Dan Byles MP in the House of Commons, that Act eventually became law and enabled Peers to leave this House, either voluntarily or through the House removing them. The minute the law was changed, I took the view that changes could be made thereafter by resolution of the House, which is why I welcome the general thrust of the Burns report. I congratulate the noble Lord and his committee on its excellence.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Newby is wrong when he postulates the possibility of the Prime Minister introducing a swathe of new Members in the new year; if that happened, I am afraid that it would drive a coach and horses through the committee’s recommendations. I very much hope that it will not happen. I have only one criticism to make of the report, which is that it will take too long to get the numbers down to 600. Need it take 11 years? I do not believe so. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about older Members retiring. I see no reason why we could not have an automatic clear-out of Members aged over 80 at the end of every Parliament. I see no difficulty in that. The House of Commons has a clear-out at a general election—why should this House not do the same? The age of 80 seems reasonable to me.

There are two objections to that proposal. One is that it is ageist. Is it ageist? In other public services, people retire at 60 or 70; the oldest age I could find was 75 for lord-lieutenants and deputy lord-lieutenants. An age of 80 and above, which is what my proposal suggests, seems generous and reasonable. The other objection to what I propose is the ad hominem objection. There is nothing to stop retired Members from going on the airwaves, giving lectures or writing to the newspapers. All they would do is stop being legislators, which seems utterly reasonable. The argument might be, “Oh, you can’t do that because you would lose Nigel Lawson”, to which I say, “Well, so what?”. You would also, as of next time round, lose David Steel—and that might be a very good thing.