Vol. 736 Monday No. 295 30 April 2012

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions House of Lords: Stonework Abu Qatada Police: Race Relations Policies Migration: University-sponsored Students Business of the House Motion to Agree Public Bodies (Abolition of Courts Boards) Order 2012 Motion to Approve Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL] Second Reading Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Motion to Take Note News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Statement Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Motion to Take Note (Continued) Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/index/120430.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2012, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; email: [email protected] 1927 House of Lords: Stonework[30 APRIL 2012] Abu Qatada 1928

Until this drought is over, we may have to put up with House of Lords that. As for the provision of waders to noble Lords, a Monday, 30 April 2012. few years back there was a project of issuing umbrellas. That was not a success as most of them disappeared 2.30 pm rather quickly, largely on account of the fact that they had the House of Lords logo on them. I believe that Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford. they could be found on eBay relatively inexpensively. House of Lords: Stonework Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is this not the last occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, Question will answer Questions in his present capacity? We 2.36 pm thank him and congratulate him on what he has done over the past 10 years. Asked By Lord Flight To ask the Chairman of Committees whether Noble Lords: Hear, hear. there are any plans to tidy up and clean the stonework The Chairman of Committees: I am most grateful to in the inner courtyards of the House of Lords on a the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and for the expression similar basis to the work done on the Royal Court, from the House. It is indeed the last time on which I Speaker’s Court, Commons Court and Commons shall answer a Question on these sorts of matters. But Inner Court. I can tell noble Lords that the issue of the works going The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of on in the palace will go on for a lot longer and many Tara): My Lords, the Parliamentary Estates Directorate more of my successors will be dealing with it. is planning to begin trials of stone-cleaning work in Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if Mr Clegg Chancellor’s Court and State Officers’ Court in October has his way with the House of Lords, does the noble 2014. It is hoped that work on these courtyards will Lord think that the value of those umbrellas on eBay be completed by October 2015, after which work on will go up or down? Peers’ Court will begin in October 2015 to be completed by October 2016. I should point out that these are The Chairman of Committees: I am not certain that only estimated timings at the moment and that the I should try to answer that question, mainly because I programme of works may change. do not know the answer, but I would have thought that they would go up in value as historic items. Lord Flight: My Lords, this is somewhat of an end-of-term Question but I am delighted for the Chairman Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I wonder if I might of Committees to announce the plans for cleaning the return to the subject of the original Question. Will the seven internal courtyards of the Palace of Westminster. noble Lord consider retaining one of our courtyards For 15 years, it has struck me as a great pity that, while in an uncleaned state as a permanent reminder to all two or three had been cleaned, the majority in the of us of the casual environmental damage we sometimes middle were a dirty mess. I would just comment that cause, which reveals itself only many years after we we have had announcements of cleaning, but what have caused it? about tidying up? The Chairman of Committees: That is an interesting The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there are suggestion. I am old enough to remember the great a great many other works going on in the palace— London smogs that caused this damage to the building principally fire safety, mechanical engineering and in the first place, and therefore on the face of it the cast iron roofs. All those require facilities for contractors noble Lord’s suggestion is a good one. However, I on the estate, which on the whole means portacabins. I would resist it because of the damage being done to am afraid that they will be around for as long as is the building as of now, and therefore it is necessary required. As for other bits of tidying up, we obviously to get on with cleaning and repairing it. do our best to make sure that there is not too much clutter in the courtyards but it probably is an inevitable Abu Qatada result of the great deal of work that is going on Question elsewhere. 2.41 pm Lord Touhig: My Lords, during last week’s heavy rain, much of the new footpath across Abingdon Asked By Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Green was under water, as was the area in front of Old To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the Palace Yard. Can the Chairman of Committees do current position regarding the deportation of Abu something about the drainage in those areas? In the Qatada. mean time, if we have any more warnings of severe rain, could those of us who do not have offices in the The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): palace be issued with waders? My Lords, we await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on whether to accept Qatada’s The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, having referral request. We wrote to the Strasbourg court to come from home yesterday, I can say to the noble ask that it reject this application both on the merits of Lord that there was a great deal of rain around there the case and on the timing of his request. Qatada, too. A lot of the roads and pavements were flooded. meanwhile, remains in detention. 1929 Abu Qatada[LORDS] Abu Qatada 1930

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, let us forget Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the the shambles of last week. Will the Minister explain noble Lord says at all. All I said was that I thought exactly how and when this terrorist is going to be that the declaration represented a substantial package deported? of reforms. There could be many more reforms to that court. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that it very often exceeds its functions and goes beyond what was Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give a precise ever intended in 1950 when we signed up to the answer on when he will be deported because that original convention on human rights. matter is in the courts. However, I do not accept what the noble Lord says about there being a shambles last week. It was quite clear from all the advice and all the Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the procedural issues precedents that the three months for making the referral are important but so, too, is the substantive issue. expired at midnight on 16 April. My right honourable With the Government having reached what they regard friend made her decision on that basis. We now await as an acceptable memorandum of understanding with to see what the courts are doing. the Jordanian Government as to the evidence that will be used in a trial in Jordan, can the Minister tell the Lord Faulks: My Lords, on 7 February, the last House how that process will be monitored to ensure occasion on which the noble Lord answered Questions compliance with the memorandum of understanding? about Abu Qatada, he was asked whether the Government could provide a new reassurance that this sort of Lord Henley: My Lords, we will maintain very close situation would not recur, and he referred to the fact contact with the Jordanian Government when we manage that the Government were hoping that reform of the to extradite this man to Jordan and he faces his trial Strasbourg court might make it less likely. We have there. We will make sure that we keep fully cognisant now had the Brighton declaration. Can the Minister of what goes on in the trial in that country. tell the House whether the Government think that this is more or less likely to happen again, and if it is less likely to do so, why? Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, when I was the Security Minister I was constantly struck and somewhat surprised by how my opposite numbers in a number of Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is a lawyer European countries seemed able to return terrorists to and therefore will know that we can never give an the countries to which they belonged. Perhaps we absolutely cast-iron guarantee about what the courts could ask those countries how they manage to circumvent or lawyers might or might not do, but I can say to him the rules and how they avoid getting into the complete that the agreement reached at the Brighton conference muddle that we seem to have got in. represents a substantial package of reforms and marks a significant step towards realising the goals that the Prime Minister set out at Strasbourg. Lord Henley: My Lords, other countries do things in other ways. The important thing to remember is that this country abides by the rule of law and listens Lord Anderson of Swansea: Will the noble Lord to what the courts say, however unpalatable that might give the best guesstimate he can of how much, over the be. I think that what that court has done is unpalatable. past decade and under both Governments, the British We hope that it will see reason on this occasion and taxpayer has had to pay to keep this man and his accept that his referral is out of time and that there are family in this country by way of social security payments no merits in the case whatever. and legal aid? When will this end?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, whatever Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give that figure to the merits of the 24 hours that were being debated at the noble Lord, much as I would like to because I the beginning of this matter, did my noble friend think it is one that the public ought to know. If I can notice that the infection can spread to the Back Benches make some sort of guesstimate, working with my own opposite? The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, suggested in department, the Ministry of Justice and the Department his supplementary that the dramas had happened last for Work and Pensions, I will certainly do so. However, week when in fact they had happened the week before. I can give him an assurance that my understanding is Seven days is an even longer period to lose. that he is not to have his costs paid in the current matter of the referral to the European Court of Human Rights. Lord Henley: My Lords, I would not want to comment on the sense of timing of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Lord Tomlinson: Has not the Minister rather overplayed the importance of this when compared with the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Minister Government’s objectives in the Brighton declaration? has already referred to listening to the court. In terms Will he give an assurance that we will abide totally by of lost days, he will know that the Prime Minister told the Brighton declaration, that we will cease as a country the BBC that his officials had checked with the European to suffer the humiliation of having our Government court the deadline for the appeal. Will the Minister condemn the European Court of Human Rights, and give the House of Lords chapter and verse as to when that we will regard it in the way that it always should the Home Office checked with the European court have been regarded, as the bulwark of our civil liberties? and what the court said? 1931 Abu Qatada[30 APRIL 2012] Police: Race Relations Policies 1932

Lord Henley: My Lords, the Home Office and other would like to see this man deported as soon as possible. parts of the Government have been in regular contact He represents a very real risk to this country, and this with the court ever since the judgment back on 17 January. has been going on for 10 years. However, we must We are absolutely clear, and both precedent and legal abide by the rule of law and we must wait until the advice are clear, that the deadline for the referral was court makes its decision. I do not know when the within—I stress “within”—three months, by midnight European court will deal with this referral case. As far on 16 April, and that the judgment comes into effect as I am concerned as a very simple lawyer, this looks after three months; that is, after midnight on 16 April. like a pretty simple case that the court could deal with That could hardly be clearer and the precedents could pretty quickly, if for no other reason than that it is hardly be clearer. obvious that he is out of time in his referral.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, as this is a leap year, Police: Race Relations Policies does not the Home Secretary have a day in hand? Question

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am advised that leap 2.51 pm years do not come into it. Asked by Baroness Howells of St Davids Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, it appears To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they that all the discussions and advice were handled verbally. will encourage HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Are we to believe that that is the case? Is there nothing to undertake a thematic review of race relations in writing or a paper trail to say specifically that these policies within police forces in the United Kingdom. deadlines were properly arrived at? If not, why can that not be published? The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government take recent allegations of Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only repeat the police racism very seriously. The firm actions taken by answer that I gave to the noble Lord’s noble friend, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police are exactly Lord Hunt. I said that we have been in constant those that we would expect other service leaders to contact with the court, that all legal advice and legal take if faced with similar issues. We do not believe that precedents indicated that this was the case, and that a thematic inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate the difference between the timing for the referral, of Constabulary is necessary at this stage. which had to be within three months, and the timing for the judgment—that is, after—made it quite clear that midnight on the 16th was the moment in question. Baroness Howells of St Davids: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He will recall that on 29 November he assured the House that there was no racism in the Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the police force. Circumstances have shown that he was Minister has not given the information on exactly wrong. Will he consider again encouraging the police when the court advised the Government that that was force to begin racism awareness training among the the date. He referred in his answer to my noble friend constabulary? We need to get rid of the Aryan myth of Lord Hunt to legal advice and general advice in white superiority once and for all and I believe that it correspondence with the court. What is the exact date is necessary that we should all understand what that is. on which the court in Strasbourg gave advice to the The Commissioner’s statements were very encouraging. Government that the final date was the one which the Is the Minister able to arrange a meeting between Government used? those of us who are very interested in this subject and the commissioner so that we can explain to him what Lord Henley: My Lords, the point I was making, if is really meant by institutional racism and the the noble Baroness would be fair enough to listen to recommendations in Macpherson can be acted on? me, was that we had been in regular contact with the court on these matters. It was quite clear from precedent Lord Henley: My Lords, I owe the noble Baroness and legal advice that the case that I have put forward is an apology if I suggested that there was no racism the right one. Therefore we were satisfied that we were within the Metropolitan Police. It is obviously wrong right to consider that the last possible moment for to suggest that any organisation has no racism within referral was 16 April at midnight. it. What I was trying to get over on that occasion, and on the two occasions last week when I dealt with Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, this is a questions of this sort, was that institutional racism serious question—with respect to those opposite—and within the Met has largely been dealt with. It was the Minister has still not answered the questions about encouraging that the most recent cases of racism were the future. What are the Home Office’s plans for reported by the police themselves and therefore this dealing with this man and when can we expect him to was a strong sign that these matters were being dealt be deported? Please can I have an answer? with. I would be more than happy to assist in arranging a Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, and meeting between the noble Baroness and others and like the previous Government—who tried to do something either the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, about this for 10 years—I and all other noble Lords whomever she considers the most appropriate person 1933 Police: Race Relations Policies[LORDS] Migration 1934

[LORD HENLEY] so that all police forces can represent the appropriate to deal with these matters. Meanwhile, as I made clear diversity of their individual areas. That is the important on the Question from my noble friend Lord Sheikh thing: to make sure that they can then continue to and the Statement that I made on another occasion police their area with the proper consent of those when I believe the noble Baroness was present, I being policed. believe that the Met is making considerable strides in this area. Baroness Afshar: My Lords, in the current atmosphere of Islamophobia, could we have an assurance that Lord Condon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree race includes religion? It seems to me that Muslims are that the wider police service must show great vigilance becoming disproportionately targeted. They are of and endeavour to respond well to race and diversity many races and can come in all colours and shades, issues? They must not become complacent and somehow but because of their religion they are being singled see race as yesterday’s problem or yesterday’s issue. out. This is an ongoing challenge that the service must respond to well at all times. Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point and one that I am sure is taken into Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord account in initial and all further ongoing training. Condon, with his great experience, is absolutely correct to express those points. I fully agree with him. I Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister remind him and the House that an important part of agree that successive Governments, probably over the the regular reviews by HMIC—the inspectorate of the last 40 years, have found it extremely difficult to constabulary—is that any force inspections should recruit the maximum number of officers from among always include some detail of an assessment of equality, ethnic minorities? Can he assure the House that the diversity and those matters. greatest effort will be made and the heaviest emphasis placed upon this crucial factor? Lord Dholakia: My Lords, at least 27 police officers are under investigation for racist behaviour. The noble Lord Henley: My Lords, I can say that great progress Baroness, Lady Howells, is rightly concerned about has been made over the last 40, 30, 20 and even that. She has done a tremendous amount of work 10 years on increasing the diversity of the police force following the death of Stephen Lawrence on the so that it better represents the areas that it covers. That adversarial contact between the black community and will obviously vary from Wales to the Met. I can also the police. While we appreciate the action taken by the tell the noble Lord—and this is important—that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is it not figures from black and ethnic minority communities right that we should have a thematic inspection of on their satisfaction and confidence in our police racial issue policies, particularly in relation to training, forces seem very similar to figures from white communities. recruitment and retention, bearing in mind that the cuts to police expenditure are likely to impinge on these areas? Migration: University-sponsored Students Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the Question question from my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I stress that I did not rule out a thematic review—I just said 2.59 pm that I did not think it necessarily appropriate at this Asked By Lord Clement-Jones stage. I can assure my noble friend that there have been thematic reviews in the past. If necessary, that To ask Her Majesty’s Government what could be looked at again. I repeat the important point consideration they have given to excluding university- in the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, sponsored students from the United Kingdom’s net that this is already part of any inspection of the police migration statistics. force. Also, on the very unfortunate recent cases that have appeared in the Met, the great thing is that such The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): cases are at least being reported by their fellow police My Lords, the UK uses the internationally agreed officers. That is a sign that something is being done. It definition of a migrant, which is someone coming to is progress. or leaving the United Kingdom for a period exceeding 12 months. It is right that students intending to stay Lord Soley: Does the Minister agree that, over the for that period should be counted because during their years, training of the police on racism has improved stay they are part of the resident population and dramatically but there is a real problem when they contribute to pressure on public services infrastructure. then finish their training and join forces which are not It is not appropriate to discount them from net migration representative of the diversity of this country? Should statistics. we not put all the emphasis on recruitment and retention of people from across the range so that our police Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the department forces represent this country? In that way, you would makes no distinction between temporary and permanent do far more to resist racism in a force than you would migration. Many other countries do, and still fall simply in the classroom alone. within the UN definitions. That means that the Home Office is targeting net migration figures that include Lord Henley: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble overseas students, which is directly contrary to the Lord. Training is very important but it is also important policy of the Department for Business, Innovation to make sure that recruitment and retention continue and Skills. Surely now that the e-Borders system will 1935 Migration[30 APRIL 2012] Migration 1936 be able to track very closely non-EEA students and from foreign countries and not left but remained here, other citizens coming into this country, it is time to making great difficulties? Is not that point at the heart exclude those students from the net migration figures of this difficulty? and have a unified government policy. Lord Henley: My noble friend is right to point out Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that in terms of that quite a large number of students stay on, but the migration my noble friend has got it right. I do not other point to make to her is that quite a number of think he would want me to adjust the figures purely to people coming over in the past—not the university achieve the ends that he suggests, as there might be students that we are talking about—were coming over complaints from the House that we were fiddling the to colleges that did not really exist and were there figures, and I do not want to be accused of that. We purely as a scam to get around migration statistics. stick by the long-standing international United Nations That is what we have been trying to deal with. measure that students who come to the UK for more Lord Morgan: My Lords, is this policy not the than a year are counted as migrants. result of a basic intellectual confusion that has very serious and harmful effects? First, it distorts the statistics Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, I have just returned on immigration, which causes concern. Secondly, as from the annual UK-India round-table meeting, and we have heard, it is extremely harmful to universities this very question was raised. Why cannot the Government and deters many would-be bona fide students from exclude foreign students from the target? Foreign students overseas countries, with a great loss of revenue. Thirdly, bring up to £8 billion of revenue into this country. In it seriously imperils relations with Commonwealth fact, the Government should be trying to double the countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and India. Should number of foreign students from 440,000 to 800,000, we not think again? bringing in another £8 billion. Does the Minister agree—I know this from experience, as my family was Lord Henley: I think that if the noble Lord looks at educated in this country from India for three the statistics he will find that there has actually been generations—that by encouraging foreign students you an increase in the number of students from Malaysia build generation-long links, with huge benefit to this and Singapore. I appreciate that there has been a country? decline in the number from India, but there have been increases from elsewhere. Here we are talking about Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally agree with the university students, and we have not seen an overall noble Lord in that I accept that students coming to drop in those numbers. universities—and I stress that the Question is purely Again I go back to the point that it is quite obvious about students coming to universities—provide very that the noble Lord seeks to ask me to fiddle the great value to this country, and we want to see their figures. I do not want to do that. numbers increase in many areas. They have increased over the past year or so, as I understand it, but we Baroness Brinton: My Lords, if the Government are want to get rid of some of the bogus students who not happy to change the system of permanent and come here not to study but to work—and that is what temporary migration figures, and given that in the we are doing. past they have said that they cannot always track students leaving the country, will they please consider It is important that we stick to international UN using the HESA statistics, which record students when definitions. As I said, there would be considerable they leave the country—or, even better, get the border criticism of me if I suggested that we should fix those agency to ask students as they leave whether they have figures purely for our own purposes. completed their studies rather than just where they are going? Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if the Government were to accept the proposal put to them Lord Henley: My noble friend goes on to a somewhat by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would they more detailed point, which I will have to look at. I not thereby confer a great benefit on UK universities would certainly be more than happy to do that and and on bona fide international university students, as write to her. well as on our international standing, and at the same time be able to hit their own immigration target figures, Baroness Afshar: My Lords, as a student who stayed which they have otherwise not a hope of achieving? and was educated at school and university here, I have to say that many of us do not come here just to work but to contribute. We have a lot to contribute, and the Lord Henley: The noble Lord is, yet again, another current limitations mean that students from the Middle one who wants me to fix the figures. I do not want to East, particularly from countries such as Iran but also do that. We want to do these things in a proper way, elsewhere, cannot get access any more because the and the definition of migrants is that they are people limits are so tight that anyone from outside the staying for over a year. We welcome students and do Commonwealth has enormous difficulty getting in. what we can to get them, but we are not going to fix Some of us do make good. the figures in the manner that he suggests. Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the whole House is Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it not grateful that the noble Baroness came and stayed here, the case that the situation has been made very much and for the contribution that she has made to the worse by the numbers of students who have come here House, but she will also recognise that we have a duty 1937 Migration[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1938

[LORD HENLEY] treatment, and to have to discuss it at two or three to make sure that we have some control over our o’clock in the morning would be unacceptable. I start migration figures. We are trying, as I was trying to by paying tribute to the Clerks of this Joint Committee. make clear earlier, to get some control over some of From this House we had Mr Rhodri Walters, the the more bogus applicants who claim that they were Reading Clerk, and from the House of Commons coming in to study, whereas in fact they were coming Mr Liam Laurence Smyth, Principal Clerk. They jointly in for other purposes. led a group of committee clerks who were, frankly, as powerful and formidable as any group I have ever Business of the House come across. We are all indebted to them for their skill, Motion to Agree determination and commitment to the committee’s deliberations. I am extremely grateful to them and 3.06 pm wish to acknowledge this publicly. Moved By Lord Strathclyde It is important, too, at the outset for this House to That Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the be clear as to what precisely the Joint Committee was Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 1 May asked to do. Our mandate, in a sentence, was to to enable the resumed debate on the Motion in the examine the draft House of Lords Bill. The committee name of Lord Richard http://www.parliament.uk/ consisted of 13 Members from each House, a total of biographies/lords/26702 to be taken as first business, 26, who I think were carefully chosen to represent as and that no Oral Questions be taken on that day. best they could all the views that existed in each House. For the Lords, there were four Conservative Motion agreed. Peers—one of whom, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is an hereditary Peer—four Labour Peers, two Liberal Public Bodies (Abolition of Courts Boards) Democrats, one Cross-Bencher and the right reverend Order 2012 Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. From the Commons, there were six Conservative Members, five Labour, Motion to Approve one Liberal Democrat and one Ulster Unionist. On 3.07 pm any view of the matter, this was a large committee. While that of course made it more difficult to achieve Moved By Lord Henley consensus, it nevertheless meant that almost every That the draft order laid before the House on variety of view found expression. 31 January be approved. We had 15 evidence sessions, stretching from October Relevant documents: 53rd Report from the Merits 2011 to the end of February this year. We heard Committee, 41st Report from the Joint Committee evidence from 20 witnesses, including the Minister for on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Mark Harper, Committee on 25 April. who we saw no fewer than four times. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg, gave evidence to us in Motion agreed. a lengthy session. We also took evidence via videolink from members of the Australian Senate, particularly Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL] on the issues of primacy and constituency representation. Second Reading In addition to all that, we received 227 written submissions of evidence. I would not recommend that people read 3.07 pm every word of the evidence, particularly in relation to MovedByLord Henley the scope covered, unless they are extremely enthusiastic, but I urge them at least to glance at it. Taken together, That the Bill be read a second time. the oral and written evidence represents as full and The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): comprehensive a survey of the current position, and My Lords, a Second Reading Committee considered of possible ways of reforming the House, as it is this Bill in the Moses Room on Wednesday 25 April, possible to get. I cannot think of any major issue that and I therefore beg to move this Motion formally. was not covered and was not therefore firmly before the committee. Bill read a second time. May I now say a word about the function of the committee? It was not a royal commission. Had it been, I hope it would have been smaller and its Draft House of Lords Reform Bill membership less political and more widely drawn, and Motion to Take Note it would certainly have been more wide-ranging in its 3.08 pm terms of reference. We did not start by being presented with a clean sheet of paper. We were not told to Moved By Lord Richard produce a plan for a future House of Lords; that was That this House takes note of the report from not the purpose of the committee. We had a Bill to the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords consider, which itself had specific provisions. The Bill Reform Bill. (HL Paper 284) had 68 clauses and nine schedules, and was accompanied by a detailed White Paper. That had to be our starting Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I might say right point. However, in looking at the Bill we had to at the outset that I am glad this debate is now to examine virtually all the major issues around the extend over two days. The subject deserves proper central themes of an elected House versus an appointed 1939 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1940

House, the primacy of the House of Commons, the relationship would evolve but that on balance Commons electoral system, the size of the House and its functions primacy could be maintained. In the end, the committee, and powers. by a majority of 12 to 10, That the committee was divided was not, perhaps, “while acknowledging that the balance of power would shift, surprising. The issue has proved divisive now for well consider that the remaining pillars on which Commons primacy over a century. It would have been remarkable had this rests would suffice to ensure its continuation”. not been reflected in the committee itself. There were The vote was 12 in favour and 10 against. Of the 10, divisions within parties and within the Houses. There one was an MP; of the 12, eight were MPs. I could not was no clearly visible Labour view versus a Conservative help observing at the time, and, indeed, still do, that it view. There was no clear Lords view versus a Commons is passing strange that if the primacy of the House of view. Opinions inevitably differed. However, we managed Commons is such a burning issue to the House of to create a genuine atmosphere of what I would call Commons, only one MP voted against the proposition rational discussion. The mood in the committee was, and eight MPs voted in favour of it. One would expect on the whole, equable and tolerant; I pay tribute to its that Members of the House whose primacy is deemed members for that. Thankfully, we avoided a “Lords to be so much under attack would be reluctant to versus Commons” direct confrontation. Both sides accept that the Bill ensured its continuation, but far and all members of the committee felt that the issue from it. The committee agreed with the Government’s was a bit too serious for that. proposal for election under the STV system, with the variation to take in the practice currently used in New I turn now to some of the specific recommendations South Wales, which gives voters the right to express a that the committee made. First, and perhaps most preference between parties as well as individuals. importantly, it agreed by a majority that the reformed second Chamber should have an electoral mandate. The committee agreed that conventions governing That was agreed after a division in which 13 voted in the relationship between the Houses cannot be legislated favour and nine against. Of the 13 in favour, nine were for and that such conventions would evolve further MPs and four were Peers. Of the not-contents, seven once the House of Lords was reformed. We recommended were Peers, one was an MP and one was the right that any new conventions, or modification to existing reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. It was a clear conventions, should be promulgated by the adoption vote and a clear majority. In relation to the alternative of a concordat in the form of parallel identical resolutions report, I am somewhat fortified in saying that by the prepared by a Joint Committee and adopted by each remark on page 31, which says that that a vote of 13 to House. In a sense, this is the daughter of Cunningham, eight was a considerable and substantive margin. if I can use that phrase. It provides a framework within which the two Houses can operate, work out Secondly, it was agreed that 80 per cent of Members their relationship and within which primacy can be of the reformed House should be elected and 20 per maintained. cent should be nominated. In the vote on that, there On the size of the House, the committee unanimously were 16 contents and six not-contents. Of the contents, agreed that a House of 300 Members was too small nine were MPs, six were Peers and one was the right and that the size of the House should be 450. We also reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. Of the six accepted that Members should serve a 15-year, non- not-contents, two were MPs and four were Peers. renewable term. The vote on that point was somewhat Again, it was a clear vote and a clear majority. interesting: the contents were 20; the not-contents One of the most important points that the committee were two—the two being the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne discussed—and discussed, and discussed—was the and Lord Trimble. Every other member of the committee primacy of the House of Commons. We unanimously then present voted in favour. agreed that Clause 2 was of little use and should be One of the most important issues that we discussed discarded. It was, in the committee’s view, declaratory was the transition from the existing House to the one only and risked becoming justiciable. Again, there was proposed in the Bill. I wish to say one or two words a vote on primacy of the House of Commons. This about the transitional arrangements because I am very was a topic on which we spent a great deal of time. conscious that they are of great importance to Members Those arguing in support of the proposition that of this House. Of the three transitional arrangements primacy could not be safeguarded based their case proposed in the White Paper, the committee agreed primarily on the belief that once the House of Lords with that preferred by the Government and set out in had an electoral mandate it would behave in an the draft Bill. However, the committee also recommended unpredictable and confrontational way and would not an alternative option, which makes a bigger cut in the accept its subordination to the House of Commons. It transitional membership in 2015 with no further cut was argued that that would apply even in the case of until the end of transition in 2025, so that there would finance and taxation. be one cull, so to speak, at the beginning of the The other side of the argument pointed out that the process and the remainder would go at the end of it. Commons would continue to be the House where That proposal has the following three characteristics: Governments were made and destroyed; that the first, a transitional membership in 2015 would be Commons had the exclusive right to determine financial equal to a benchmark figure derived from the total and taxation policy; that the House of Lords would be number of Members attending two-thirds or more of elected on a different electoral system; that 20 per cent sitting days in the 2011-12 Session. Those transitional of the membership would be appointed not elected; Members would remain in place until the final tranche and that the Parliament Acts would continue to apply. of elected Members arrived in 2025—at which point The Government’s position was that the current all the transitional Members would leave. There would 1941 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1942

[LORD RICHARD] Both Peers considered that the issue could be resolved be an allocation of the transitional seats to parties and by suitable wording in the Bill. That seemed to me to Cross-Bench Peers in proportion to the current be persuasive evidence. membership. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, I should like to say something about costs. We parties and Cross-Bench Peers would determine for accepted the recommendation of the Government that themselves the persons to serve as transitional Members. the salary of an elected Member should be somewhat The transitional Members would continue to receive below that of an MP but above that of a Member of a daily allowances rather than salaries. We agreed by devolved Assembly. We also accepted that the sort of 13 to 7 votes that Bishops should continue to have constituency allowances that were paid to MPs should ex-officio seats in the reformed House of Lords, and not be available to elected Members of the House of we agreed by 13 to 5 that that number should remain Lords. So far as transitional Members were concerned, at 12. they should continue to receive a per diem allowance. In the course of our deliberations, we dealt with This was also to be applicable to appointed Members—the many other issues—all of which are set out in the 20 per cent. What we could not do was go into the report. We made recommendations, for example, on costs of the whole exercise, very simply because although the operation of the Appointments Commission, we asked the Government to produce some figures, disqualification of Members and the position of Ministers they did not do so. I regretted that very much because, parachuted into the Lords as Ministers. However, I apart from anything else, it prevented us having a should like to say a word about two of the more sensible discussion on the issue. prominent issues that troubled the committee. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s It became apparent that one of the issues concerning time with the details of the report, but in view of some Members of the House of Commons was the relationship of the comments that have been made, I thought it was between an elected Member of the House of Lords important that the House should get a clear picture of elected, as he would be, by STV on a large constituency what we actually recommended. We undertook a thorough basis and an individual Member of Parliament and detailed analysis of the proposals put forward in elected by first past the post for a particular constituency. the Government’s draft Bill. It is now for the Government MPs were clearly worried that elected Members of to consider our proposals before coming forward with the Lords would involve themselves in personal the final Bill, which they can present to Parliament for casework of the kind currently undertaken by MPs further scrutiny. on behalf of their constituents. We therefore Finally, I say one or two words about the alternative recommended that IPSA should make no provision report. By the rules of the House, there could not be a for Members of a reformed House to deal with personal minority report. There was, however, nothing to prevent casework, as opposed to policy work, or to have members of the committee issuing their own commentary offices in their constituencies. We did, however, consider on the process, and this the alternative 12 have done. I that elected Members would inevitably be concerned have read the alternative report with great interest and and be approached about regional, local and legislative some surprise. I see that the alternative 12 now call for matters. reconsideration of the 15-year term. I cannot help but The possible use of the Parliament Acts was a observe that 10 of the 12 voted for it in the committee. subject we considered. We had evidence from the However, the main problem I have with the alternative noble Lord, Lord Pannick, both written and oral, and report is the suggestion of a constitutional convention the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Their on further reform of the House of Lords. It would be evidence raised two issues. The noble Lord, Lord lengthy, time-consuming, diffuse and, judging from Pannick, told the committee that the Parliament Acts the report, distinctly overpopulated. I will not bore the could properly be used to reform the Lords, and that House by reading out the provision in the report the courts would uphold such a decision. As to whether which sets out the dramatis personae of those who are the Parliament Acts would continue to apply to a supposed to be eligible to take part in the constitutional reformed second Chamber, the noble and learned convention. I recommend Members of the House to Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that there was at least read it and observe the ominous words at the end of doubt that the Acts, or all their provisions, would the list: apply. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that the “This list is not exhaustive”. better view was that the present Acts would not apply to a reformed second Chamber. The noble and learned More important than that is the fact that there is Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that it would, however, be really nothing much left to say about this issue. We open to Parliament to legislate now—now, my Lords—to have been round this course now year after year after make clear that the Parliament Acts should operate in year for more than a century. In the 22 years since I the same way in relation to an elected second Chamber, have been in this House, it has been the subject of although the present clause was not acceptable for intense discussion in the course of which the same that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that points are made, remade and re-remade again, again it was vital that the reform Bill specified clearly whether and again. I see no virtue whatever in setting up a or not the Acts would continue to apply to a reformed convention to reiterate the differences which already second Chamber, and he agreed that Clause 2 did not exist and which we all know about. adequately address the question. The Joint Committee The idea that somehow there is a mechanism whereby therefore recommended that if the Government wished all those differences can be fused and that there will to ensure that the Parliament Acts applied to a reformed then be a general agreement about proposals to reform House, they should make statutory provision for it. the House of Lords is fanciful. It is an absurdity. 1943 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1944

There are divisions in the House as to whether we reform of this House exists or can emerge, and that is want an elected House or not, whether we want people to introduce a Bill and then to allow Parliament to to come here as a result of a democratic election or to take a view. By publishing a draft Bill for pre-legislative continue to be appointed. It is high time that people scrutiny, the Government have taken the first step in recognised that the time has come for a decision on that process. If a Bill to change the composition of these issues, not further discussion and then further this House is included in next week’s Queen Speech, it discussion after that. will be in Parliament that we establish whether the I think that the committee has produced a better consensus which the Government believe exists can be Bill as a result of our deliberations. I think that that drawn upon to take the Bill forward and on to the Bill is important constitutionally, indeed, it is important statute book. After all, is that not what Parliament is enough that it should be presented to the people in a for? referendum. That way, we will begin to make some Today is an opportunity for the Lords members of real progress. I beg to move. the Joint Committee to elaborate on the conclusions they reached in the course of the pre-legislative scrutiny, 3.28 pm and for other Members of the House to comment on those conclusions with a view to informing the The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Government’s deliberations as we consider how best Strathclyde): My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to to adapt our proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I know that I do so on has been frank that his chairmanship was a far from behalf of the whole House. I reiterate the Government’s simple task. The issues around reform of your Lordships’ thanks to him and to all noble Lords who served on House have been vigorously contested over the years the Joint Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord feels like and it is no surprise that there were robust debates and a juror who has sat on an especially long, complex and differences of opinion among the members of the lurid trial, and he may wish to put in a plea to be committee. Those culminated in an alternative report, excused from any further service to the House of this to which no doubt some noble Lords will refer. nature; I am sure that we would readily accept it. It is none the less the case that by a majority the With me and a few others, he shares enormously Joint Committee agreed a report that lends support to long experience in debating these issues on the Floor many of the central elements of the Government’s of this House. He was right when he said at the end of initial proposals, and the Government welcome that. his speech that the time has surely come for Parliament The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already addressed to decide once and for all what we want to do. some of those in his opening speech. Most importantly, The Joint Committee has produced a detailed and the Joint Committee’s report concurs with the comprehensive report which will undoubtedly leave its Government’s view that a reformed second Chamber mark on the Government’s final proposals. The report should have a strong electoral mandate, that 80 per is a milestone in a process that began in 1997, shortly cent of Members should be elected under the STV after Mr Blair first described this House as an affront system for 15-year non-renewable terms and that 20 per to democracy, and which led to the enactment of the cent of Members should be appointed, with reserved House of Lords Bill in 1999. Since then, Labour in places for the Lords Spiritual. Of course, the devil is in government sought to find a policy for the second the detail—it always has been—but that is what the phase of House of Lords reform, since when the parliamentary process, of which the pre-legislative future of this House has been hanging in the balance. scrutiny is the first stage, is for. During that period we have seen a royal commission in We have a second Chamber in order to keep the 2000, a first White Paper in 2001, a Joint Committee Executive in check, and the Government believe that a in 2002-03, a Green Paper in 2003, a second White democratic mandate obtained through direct elections Paper in 2007, a cross-party working group in 2007-08 would enhance the House’s ability to perform this and, finally, a third White Paper in July 2008, with, function. If anyone has anything to fear from the during that time, also votes in the House of Commons. proposed reforms, it should be the Executive, not least Following the general election in 2010, this coalition because it is likely that with elections by PR there Government established a further cross-party committee would never be an overall majority for the Government and went on to publish for the very first time a draft in a strengthened upper House. Bill alongside a White Paper in May last year, and that is the Bill which has now been subject to pre-legislative The Joint Committee shares the view that the election scrutiny by the Joint Committee. of 80 per cent of a reformed House will make the That chronology alone should serve to demonstrate House more assertive. Intriguingly, however, it concludes that the search by successive Governments for consensus that a more assertive House would not enhance on a second phase of reform of this House has been Parliament’s overall role in relation to the activities of very nearly as exhaustive as the Joint Committee’s the Executive. I should be interested to hear from the report. Although it may have proceeded in fits and noble Lord, Lord Richard, or from other members of starts, the broad parameters of those discussions have the committee who are due to speak today why they remained constant for some time. Indeed, the central reached that particular view. elements of the Government’s draft Bill—the scaffolding, The Joint Committee concurs with the Government so to speak—are derived from the accumulated wisdom that the reformed House should be much smaller than acquired through cross-party deliberations over the the current House of Lords, but recommends a House past 13 years. In the end, however, there is only one of 450 Members rather than the 300 proposed in the way to test whether consensus on the second phase of draft Bill. The committee appears to have been persuaded 1945 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1946

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] I observe in passing that some Members of the by witnesses who suggest that 300 Members might be House, who have been most vociferous in their concern insufficient to carry out the current functions of the about securing the primacy of the House of Commons, House. Some of those who gave evidence also introduced are the very same Members who have recently urged a distinction between full-time and part-time Members. us to break with convention and challenge the financial The Joint Committee went on to recommend that privilege of another place. appointed Members should not have to attend as On the Parliament Acts, which the noble Lord, frequently as elected Members and appears to justify Lord Richard, raised, the Joint Committee received the 450 figure on that basis. Of course, the Government evidence casting doubt on whether the 1911 Act would will consider carefully the committee’s recommendations apply once the House had been reformed. The committee on the size of a reformed House, but I invite those who opted to leave that evidence from the noble Lord, served on the committee to elaborate on the arguments Lord Pannick, and from the noble and learned Lord, for the specific figure of 450, their comparison with Lord Goldsmith, to speak for itself. Let me be clear: today and the expectations that they propose in respect we produced a draft Bill on the basis that the Parliament of attendance. Acts will continue to apply to a reformed House. We For my part, I am not clear what is meant by full believe that they are well understood and would provide and part-time membership of a reformed House. A the backstop guaranteeing the primacy of the House significant proportion of Members of the House today of Commons. None the less, we shall consider carefully attend almost every sitting yet the current House is the evidence given to the Joint Committee by two rightly described as a part-time House, most obviously distinguished Members of this House. because the House does not sit for long periods of the The Joint Committee’s report concludes by year. In other areas of our political system, such as recommending that, in view of the significance of the local government, individuals manage to hold down constitutional change brought forward for an elected a full-time political office, such as being the leader of a House of Lords, the Government should submit the council, alongside other remunerated employment. I decision to a referendum. The committee argues that am not clear whether the Joint Committee envisages otherwise there would be no opportunity for the electorate that only appointed Members would be able to maintain to provide a mandate for these proposals. I hope that professional expertise elsewhere. Elections and expertise the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he winds up—and are not in themselves incompatible, as some Members if not him then other members of the committee of another place continue to remind us. present today—will elaborate on the reasoning for this and set out why they concluded that the reforms to the The Government welcome the Joint Committee’s composition of the House proposed in the Bill merited support for our proposals that Members of a reformed a referendum, bearing in mind that the 1999 reforms upper House should no longer serve for life but for a that produced the current composition of the House single 15-year non-renewable term and that elections were not endorsed in that way. It is worth reminding should take place in thirds at the same time as general the House that at the last general election, the manifestos elections. We are also pleased that the Joint Committee from the three main parties were remarkably similar, endorsed our proposal for elections to be held by a whereas this was not true in 1997. single transferable vote and we will examine its argument I also invite noble Lords to explain how the committee in favour of the STV system used in New South Wales envisaged that a post-legislative referendum might as an alternative to the STV system proposed in the work; what kind of question might be put to the draft Bill. The Government and the Joint Committee electorate; and when it should take place. I particularly are also agreed that there should be no change to the hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition powers and functions of the two Houses. will seize the opportunity to set out her party’s approach The Joint Committee argue that the election of to these matters, not least because it endorsed the 80 per cent of Members will make this House more principle of a referendum in its last manifesto. I should assertive and affect the balance of power between the also like to hear her objections in detail to the Houses in favour of the upper House, even if its Government’s initial proposals which, as many noble formal powers remain the same. However, a majority Lords pointed out, bear a passing resemblance to of the committee considered that the existing conventions those drawn up by Mr Straw in 2008. To many of us, and other pillars on which Commons primacy rests the Labour Party always appears to be in favour of would suffice to ensure its continuation, and that reform but never quite follows through. I very much therefore Clause 2 of the draft Bill may be unnecessary. look forward to hearing the noble Baroness on this Clause 2 was included in the draft Bill in order to put point. beyond doubt our intention that the House of Commons The Joint Committee made valuable observations should retain its primacy. We note the committee’s and recommendations in a number of other areas, warning that Clause 2 could lay the conventions governing notably in proposing an alternative transition arrangement the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and in recommending a per diem allowance in lieu of open to judicial intervention, and its insistence that no a salary for transitional Members, and potentially for provisions in the Bill should afford such opportunities appointed Members. I will not set out all those areas in a manner inconsistent with Article 9 of the Bill of now, trusting that other noble Lords will touch on Rights. The Government agree with the committee them in the course of the debate. that the conventions governing the relationship between It will be pointed out rightly that the Joint Committee the Houses cannot be legislated for and will, inevitably, did not agree with everything that the Government continue to evolve. proposed, and that there were considerable differences 1947 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1948 of opinion within the committee. However, it should People across the country are deeply worried. They be clear from what has been said thus far that there are are worried about their jobs, prices, whether they can very considerable areas of agreement between the afford to put meals on the table, whether they have Government and the majority of the committee. I enough money to fill up their cars, the health service, noted at the outset that we had embarked on this education and crime. What is this Government’s response process in order to explore whether a consensus existed to their worries? It is House of Lords reform. It is no on the second phase of reform of the House. The Joint wonder that the polls are day by day a disaster for this Committee’s report encourages us in the view that it Government. Yesterday, the Tories’ ratings were below does. 30 per cent for the first time for eight years. The day We have not yet reached the final decisions on the before, 67 per cent said they thought that the Prime Government’s proposals and will therefore consider Minister and the Chancellor were out of touch. Sixty-eight carefully the Joint Committee’s recommendations, as per cent think that the Budget shows that they can no well as the House’s response to the recommendations longer even try to claim that we are all in this together. expressed in today’s debate. Although we may not in What is the Government’s answer to being thought the end agree with all the answers that the Joint out of touch? It is Lords reform. When the Government Committee and individual noble Lords offer, much of are described as incompetent, what is their answer? It the value of the process will have lain in throwing up is Lords reform. the right questions to the Government and, in the The reform of your Lordships’ House is an important course of the debate, to the Joint Committee. issue and one that we need to get right, but the idea that it is the most pressing issue facing the country is Lord Elton: Will my noble friend tell the House risible. We on these Benches will have more to say on what he means by “consensus”? these matters and on the Government’s priorities when we begin to debate the Government’s legislative Lord Strathclyde: A consensus will be the majority programme next week, but we have in front of us in the House of Commons that passes the Bill. I will today the report from the Joint Committee on the add, for noble Lords who need tutoring, that if there is Government’s draft House of Lords Reform Bill, and no majority in the House of Commons, no Bill will alongside it we have the alternative report from the come to this House. minority group of members of the Joint Committee. Both are important contributions to the debate on the 3.43 pm future of your Lordships’ House. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I echo the The Joint Committee’s report makes many important thanks of the Leader of the House to my noble friend points, but I particularly want to highlight just four: Lord Richard for his speech opening this important first, its conclusion that this House should have an debate. I also thank my noble friend and all those who electoral mandate provided it has commensurate powers; served on the Joint Committee, especially those from secondly, its conclusion that Clause 2 of the Government’s all sides of this House, for the enormous amount of draft Bill, which seeks to preserve the primacy of the work and effort they put into their task. The House House of Commons simply by asserting it, is not in has every reason to be grateful. itself capable of preserving the Common’s primacy; We are told that further reform of your Lordships’ thirdly, that work should begin as soon as possible on House might form the centrepiece of the Government’s re-examining the conventions between the two Houses legislative programme for the forthcoming Session, to of Parliament as specified in an earlier report by the be set out in the gracious Speech to this House next Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble week. Even this close to the Queen’s Speech, it seems friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, which is something incredible to those on these Benches—and, I believe, that I advocated a long while ago and in doing so was to the whole country—that, given the problems facing accused by the Deputy Leader of this House of being the whole country, the coalition Government think a reform refusenik; and fourthly, the Joint Committee’s that the issue they need to focus on above all is the recommendation that, future reform of this House. “in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought After the Budget there were rows over the granny forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum”. tax, the pasty tax, the caravan tax, the charities tax, the conservatory tax and the churches tax—virtually These are important points, but I accept that they every kind of tax. The Government provoked panic are not points on which every Member of your Lordships’ petrol buying, there was a cash-for-access row, the House will be able to agree. I know, for example, that embarrassing mishandling of the Abu Qatada case, some Members of this House, on all sides of the social cleansing in public housing, attacks in the most House, are not in favour of this House having an dismissive terms from their own Back-Benchers, personal electoral mandate, although I am sure that the Joint abuse from MPs such as Nadine Dorries, and searching Committee’s insertion of the important qualification strategic criticism from MPs such as Bernard Jenkin. that an elected House of Lords needs to have powers Then came the entanglement of Culture Secretary commensurate with that electoral mandate will interest Jeremy Hunt. Worstof all are the Government’s economic all Members of the House. policies: the spending cuts going too far too fast, and I also know that there will be Members of your the absolute lack of a growth strategy tipping Britain Lordships’ House who are not convinced of the need back into recession. All of them are linked by one for a referendum. In this, I do not mean Members on theme and are driven by what the Government have the Liberal Democrat Benches who are following the done. They are all self-generated and self-inflicted. bizarre insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister that a 1949 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1950

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] Individual Members of your Lordships’ House will referendum is not necessary. No one would suggest for make up their own minds and come to their own a moment that this opposition to a referendum is conclusions on the areas in which the minority group anything to do with the outcome of last year’s AV makes clear that it does not agree with the Joint referendum, a referendum that the Deputy Prime Minister Committee—in most cases because it wanted to go embraced with as much enthusiasm as he has in refusing further than the Joint Committee felt it was able to go, to embrace a referendum on Lords reform. As an given its narrow remit of scrutinising only the aside, I am not a betting woman—well, not often—but Government’s draft Bill. These areas include the I just put the notion to this House that if there is a Bill importance of the primacy of the House of Commons— on Lords reform in next week’s Queen’s Speech, at and I note the emphasis given in the alternative report some stage during what I suspect will be a very difficult to the authoritative view of Erskine May of what the parliamentary passage without necessarily a clear primacy of the House of Commons rests on and conclusion in prospect, proposals for a referendum why—as well as issues such as accountability, constituency will go into the Bill. issues in an elected House of Lords, transitional Far be it from me to offer advice to the Government, arrangements for Members of the current House, and but it would be much better for the Government, the cost of an elected House. whether the Tory part or the Lib Dem part, to We on these Benches support the criticism made by acknowledge what I believe is the inevitable and accept my noble friend Lord Richard earlier today and by the that a constitutional change of this level of importance minority group of the Government’s refusal to provide requires a referendum. The Government should stop proper costings for an elected House, and I pay tribute trying to deny the British people a voice on this issue, to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for the work that he and that is the position of these Benches. has done. We give notice that we will seek to hold the Government to their commitment, given just last week, Labour will make it clear in its response to the that in the wake of the publication of these reports Queen’s Speech that it will take a close look at whatever they will now provide accurate figures of what an proposals for further Lords reform the Government elected House of Lords will cost so that at a time of bring forward. We have seen the Government’s draft national austerity the public can take those important Bill but, for instance, we do not believe that the views and facts into account. Government can seriously attempt to proceed with The minority group makes a strong case for all Clause 2 of the draft Bill, mentioned by the Leader, these issues to be considered by a constitutional given that, as the Joint Committee’s report makes convention. The case made by the minority group is clear, it has no support at all beyond the ministerial interesting. The reform of your Lordships’ House is opinions of Mr Clegg and Mr Mark Harper. important but it suggests that such a convention should We do not know what Bill we will get yet, but we on also consider what would happen to the House of these Benches will test it against three criteria: a Lords, the House of Commons and Parliament as a referendum, dealing properly with the issues of powers whole, as well as to the union itself if the people of and conventions, and our policy of a fully elected Scotland were to vote in a referendum in favour of House. I know that there are those around this House, independence. The vexed issue of the West Lothian including a number behind me, who would not agree question also remains on the table, and that should with all those criteria. I acknowledge and accept those not be considered in isolation. A constitutional convention differences, which reflect views that are strongly, might also be suitable for considering the impact of passionately and legitimately held. I know that we will such issues on the other devolved areas and the Assemblies hear those differences in the two days of debate in of Wales and Northern Ireland. front of us, and they are clearly displayed in both the Since 1997, we have seen a significant programme report of the Joint Committee and the alternative of constitutional reform, which we on this side of the report of the minority group. However, I urge that House believe was well considered, well thought through these differences of view are respected, whether they and well grounded, such as devolution in Scotland, are held by Members of your Lordships’ House or by Wales and Northern Ireland. This reform was necessary individuals and organisations beyond. Strong argument and has the support of the people. However, since on the issue is right and to be welcomed. 2010 we have seen proposed constitutional reform that Significantly, I believe that what we see in the has been none of these things: for example, the political alternative report from the minority group of the gerrymandering of what is now the Parliamentary Joint Committee is just a difference of opinion. We Voting Systems and Constituencies Act; the political see clear disagreement, but I welcome the fact that partiality of what is now the Fixed-term Parliaments the minority group has set out with equal clarity the Act; the decisive outcome of the AV referendum; and, areas and issues on which it agrees. These areas finally, the bad Bill that is the Government’s draft include: the functions of this House; the greater legislative proposal on further House of Lords reform. assertiveness that an elected House would unquestionably These issues should have been properly thought through, wield against the House of Commons; the role of the and they were not. I therefore understand the argument Bishops in your Lordships’ House, the prospect of made that the constitutional convention has merit in introducing representatives of other faith groups, and being a vehicle that could consider these and allied the importance of diversity; the application of the issues. Parliament Acts; and the importance of a referendum. I am sure that there will be great interest in the I am sure the whole House will agree that these issues recommendation of the consideration given to indirect are vital. elections to the House of Lords, including the idea of 1951 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1952 the secondary mandate. I welcome the proposals put 3.58 pm forward in evidence to the Joint Committee by the Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, speak as a survivor of the Joint Select Committee. In formerly of these Benches, for what she described as doing so, I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord ground-clearing reforms. Of course, I welcome too the Richard, for his very able chairmanship. I should also advance that the legislation put forward by the noble like to echo his remarks about the work of the clerks Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has made and hope that and my colleagues on the committee. About a year or it can be expedited in the coming Session. so ago, I would have agreed with the consensus in this There are many constructive proposals that would House that constitutional reform of this nature should aid the reform of this House and which I believe be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. But after six many on all sides consider to be necessary. The Joint months on this committee, I am much less sure. Committee and the alternative report have raised a It is certainly true that there are advantages in plethora of vital issues that have not been properly having a committee of both Houses and I think that thought through in the Government’s draft Bill, we benefited from that. We have certainly produced a including the application or otherwise of the Parliament vast array of material for the delight and delectation Act to a reformed House. We shall see what comes of noble Lords even if they do not read every word. before us when the Government set out their legislative But there are problems with pre-legislative scrutiny programme in the gracious Speech next week. The Bill on topics such as Lords reform because it is always on further reform of this House may be better than tempting to move on to the broader constitutional the draft Bill considered by the Joint Committee. I questions which, although relevant, are outside the certainly hope so. direct scope of the Bill. I would have liked to have The reform of this House has a long history. In its spent some time scrutinising the current arrangements most recent incarnation, it has been going on for the with the same rigour used to scrutinise the proposed past 100 years. For some, such as the Deputy Prime arrangements, but I believe that the chairman was Minister, it is an absolute priority. However, I am right to rein us in and to stick to the confines of the doubtful that the public, facing the problems that they draft Bill. It would have been very odd indeed, on a are facing, would agree with that priority. Real reform piece of legislation in which one of the key issues was of your Lordships’ House is not a matter for easy the ability of the Government to get their business, to slogans. Constitutional reform is a deeply serious matter, have spent 18 months or two years doing pre-legislative the purpose of which cannot be to try to glue the scrutiny. coalition together, albeit at the top. As my right honourable The other problem is that constitutional matters friend Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Secretary of State cannot really be scrutinised in quite the usual way for Justice, has forcefully said: because all members of the committee are to an extent “Avoiding the promotion of political and constitutional reform themselves experts, and often know as much about the on the basis of short-term expediency is imperative”. topic as the people from whom they are taking evidence, Reform is a matter of careful consideration. I am and of course all the members tend to come with confident that over the next two days, Members of views which are pretty well entrenched. It is also your Lordships’ House will bring precisely that approach difficult in this case because there is a draft Bill that of careful consideration to the issues before us. I stands on the simple proposition that the second Chamber believe that both reports before us today are an important should be elected. For those who disagree with that contribution to that, and I look forward to the debate view, scrutiny of the rest of the Bill is very difficult. We ahead. found that arguments became very circular and at times frustrating, and of course the requirement to Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Perhaps I may ask the reach enough of a consensus to produce a report runs noble Baroness a question. The coalition agreement the risk of compromising the work. Perhaps that provided for the Deputy Prime Minister to establish answers the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who asked an all-party group, which would come forward in a in his opening remarks why we came up with some of Motion, I think from memory, by December 2010. our conclusions. So we need to think very hard about The noble Baroness served on that group. My noble the sort of Bills that are put forward for pre-legislative friend Lord Strathclyde in his remarks implied that scrutiny. the draft Bill, which has been considered, was somehow Two phrases are constantly used in the context of connected with the deliberations of that group. Will Lords reform. The first is the one about turkeys voting the noble Baroness tell us what happened to the Deputy for Christmas. It is an expression I have come to Prime Minister’s committee and how its conclusions loathe. We supporters of an elected House will have to are in any way related to this Bill? do better than that in support of our case, and I believe that we will do so. But, equally, those who Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I was proud argue “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, which is my and privileged to be a member of that group, as the second hated phrase, will also have to do better. If our noble Lord said. However, during our deliberations, system is not broken, it is certainly showing signs of it became clear that there were various issues on wear and tear, and I do not believe that we can ignore which there was no meeting of minds. Towards the those signs indefinitely. end of our deliberations the group stopped meeting. A First, we are the creatures of patronage, either draft Bill was published that, it might be fair to say, ancient or modern, and we should recognise that that did not have the full support of all members of that is increasingly anomalous in an age where transparency committee. and open process are the norm. People are entitled to 1953 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1954

[BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET] support throughout this House for the proposals in understand how and why those who influence their the Steel Bill, it has been completely filleted. laws come to arrive in this place. When I do outreach In the final analysis, even we must rule by consent. visits, I am always asked if I live in a castle. Many There is a danger that if we turn our faces against all people believe that we are still an aristocratic House, reform, those who argue that there is no need for a and the titles we hold reinforce that. The real diversity second Chamber will grow in number. For the opponents that we have here is not well understood outside. of change, there is a danger that we will win this battle As a Member of the House of Lords Appointments but lose the war. Commission, I know how hard we work to ensure transparency by publishing on the website the processes 4.06 pm and our criteria for selection, but we appoint only a Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield: My Lords, I declare small percentage of the people in this House. On the an interest as a member of the Joint Committee and as majority—the political appointments—the commission a signatory to the alternative report. Perhaps I may has a more limited role. One of our main concerns is add my own words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord addressing the question of party donors, because whether Richard. His was not an easy task, as we slogged our we like it or not, there is a perception outside that cash way towards a total of 30 meetings—a record, I gather, for honours is widespread. for a Joint Committee. I am perhaps a touch unusual My second concern is about the increasingly political in getting seriously excited by constitutional matters, nature of this House. I have been here for 12 years and but as the tally of our sessions mounted, even I was in that time I have seen the House become more reminded of that shrewd observer of our country, confrontational and less courteous. Debate is much George Bernard Shaw, who said that the English invented more partisan and the majority of votes are cast along test match cricket in order to give the British people a party lines. At some point in the future, having a sense of eternity. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, got political house with no equivalent electoral mandate is us through and on time, and I am grateful to him and going cause us a problem. to our clerks, though I should point out to the noble The third and most serious problem is the size of Lord that there were two Cross-Bench members of his the House. We all believe that this House is too big. It committee, not one as he suggested. is too big to run efficiently and so big as to risk Every generation or so, we take a crack at the bringing ourselves into disrepute. The experts in this question of Lords reform. We throw the particles in House find themselves making three-minute contributions the air and hope that, this time, they will fall in a way to important debates because there are so many of us. that paves a path on the road to consensus. Once But the size of the House is inextricably linked to the again, we have failed, as the voting figures in volume 1 power of the Prime Minister’s patronage, and it is a of the Joint Committee’s report show, as does the response to the growing politicisation of the House. existence of the alternative report. The noble Lord, People say, “Well, the Prime Minister should stop Lord Strathclyde, spied the outline of a consensus. appointing people”. Let us hang on for a minute. Over those 30 meetings of the Joint Committee, I have Every Prime Minister for the past 50 years has had the to tell the noble Lord, there was not a flicker of right to appoint Members at a time and in the numbers consensus. The noble Lord the Leader of the House is of their choosing. Under the current arrangements, succumbing to an attractive outbreak of Pollyanna-ism, how on earth should we decide when Prime Ministers which is always pleasing but in this case is utterly should stop appointing and when they can start again? misleading. We have no constitutional framework for deciding So, what next? In the coming Session of Parliament, how large this House should be and what its political we could immerse ourselves in the constitutional mire, make-up should be. If you believe in the status quo, dissipating copious quantities of parliamentary time that is fine, but you then have to answer for the and political nervous energy on the Government’s consequences of it—and the consequences are that proposed Bill, probably boring the country and ourselves every Prime Minister seeks to rebalance the numbers rigid except at moments of showdown and all with no in this House. guarantee that the statute will emerge at the end unless Between the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 the coalition is prepared to reach for the Parliament and the formation of the coalition in 2010, there was Acts in what could well be the near twilight of its only one change of Administration, in 1997. If during term. Is it wise to attempt to settle the future of the that 31 years we had had a change of Government at second Chamber before we know the outcome of every election, and more Peers were created to make another grade 1 listed constitutional question, Scottish the political balance work, we would have had to face independence, which is to be the subject of a referendum up to this problem much earlier. If we have frequent in autumn 2014? changes of Administration in the future, this is an There is an organic, incremental alternative to the issue that we will have to deal with. invasive surgery proposed by the coalition for your Of course, there are ways of addressing this problem Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, other than through election, and I have no doubt that described it with great eloquence in her oral evidence many of them will be put forward genuinely today. to the Joint Committee, as did Peter Riddell, director The trouble is that I see no evidence that we could ever of the Institute for Government, in his. Put their get agreement to, for example, a single 15-year term, thoughts together with the content of the Bill in the or a retirement age, or a cap on the size of the House. name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and Many of the proposals put forward by the Goodlad the proposals under consideration by the usual channels committee have been rejected, and despite widespread from the Leader’s Group on Working Practices chaired 1955 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1956 by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and you have in the occurs to me that after his work on the Joint Committee, making a substantial and hugely worthwhile reform the noble Lord, Lord Richard, might consider allowing which would have the additional benefit of being his name to go forward for that position. In speaking fuelled by a high level of genuine consensus. today, I apologise to the House that urgent business in The Joint Committee’s report acknowledges this in my diocese will make it impossible for me to be in my paragraph 11, which reads: place when this debate concludes tomorrow. I am “Other approaches to reform are of course possible. A number grateful to the Leader’s office for making an exceptional of our witnesses advocated an incremental approach, focusing on concession for me on this occasion. issues on which there exists a large degree of consensus: the mode In the mid-summer’s day debate on the draft Bill in of appointment, the size of the House, retirement, disqualification and expulsion”. your Lordships’ House last year, I reminded the House that on these Benches we recognise along with very The paragraph continues: many of your Lordships that some reform of this “Lord Steel of Aikwood’s private member’s Bill attempted to House is long overdue and that the test of any reform address some of these issues. The Joint Committee was established to consider the draft Bill, however, and we have kept within our is that it helps to serve Parliament and the nation remit”. better, not least by resolving the problem of its ever- The alternative report, on pages 78 and 79, goes increasing membership. To measure that, I pointed to further and actively urges the Government to, four tests that we might apply to any proposal to “consider including further proposals for immediate reform, including replace this House with a wholly or largely elected those put forward by Baroness Hayman, the former Lord Speaker, second Chamber. The Joint Committee’s work has in and those contained in the Leader’s Group report of working my view made it very clear—to me at least—that these practices in the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Goodlad”. tests have not been met. Among the candidates for what the alternative report The first was whether the proposals flowed from a calls “immediate reform” are: reducing the size of the clear enough definition of the functions of a reformed House to about 500, future appointments to carry a House. Because of the limits put on the Joint Committee’s fixed term, the Appointments Commission to be made work referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of statutory, an end to the link between peerages and the Needham Market, this matter has been addressed in honours system, a retirement scheme for Members, some detail by the alternative report, which I signed. the matter of expulsion and exclusion and the ending That report makes it clear that the overwhelming mass of by-elections following the deaths of hereditary of evidence received by the Joint Committee pointed Peers. I know that the last will not find consensual to the difficulties that will arise between the two Houses support from several noble Lords whom I respect and as a result of the Government’s determination to hold admire. to the position that the primacy of the Commons will be undisturbed by the advent of an elected House of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I am listening Lords. very carefully to the noble Lord’s interesting proposals. The second test is related and is of course about Do any of them relate to the issue of democracy and primacy. It rests on the assertion that the Bill contains election? nothing that will affect the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses. The unanimity Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield: In the purest sense, of the witnesses on this point is beyond dispute. It is no, but the virtue of our system, as I have always seen manifestly unreasonable to argue that you can change it, is that the undisputed primacy of the House of one part of a delicately balanced system and leave the Commons, if I can put it bluntly, takes care of democracy. other parts unaffected. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, I know that the noble Lord and I will not agree on this has argued that this appears not to concern Members although we agree on so many other things. of Parliament but he knows that at least two MPs on The danger is that while anticipating the so-called the Joint Committee expressed consistent and vehement big-bang answer to the question of the Lords, nothing concerns on this very issue. will happen, needed reforms will be stymied and the Thirdly, I proposed a test relating to the independence planning blight that has afflicted your Lordships’ House of the upper House from party political control. The since the departure of the bulk of the hereditary Peers Joint Committee explored whether any of the available in 1999 will continue. The ingredients of a substantial voting systems offered the possibility of electing people reform are lying at our feet. Let us pick them up, who would take an independent view and speak from fashion them into something coherent, something valuable, time to time with a voice distinctive from that and let us implement that bundle of reforms before the overwhelmingly influenced by party discipline. It is next general election. clear that a mainly elected House would become a creature of the party system, whatever mechanism for 4.12 pm election was chosen. On this test, too, the proposals The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, as a fail. I welcome the recommendation for further member of the Joint Committee, I add my tribute to consideration of a nationally, indirectly elected House. the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as chair for his skill, Fourthly, I sought to apply a test relating to the staying power, stamina and achievement in delivering claims of democratic legitimacy. Would a non-renewable, a report on time. I recollect that the retiring most 15-year term provide this House with a sense of conscious reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury connection to, awareness of and responsiveness to the recommended that his successor should have the skin changing priorities of the electorate? I remain persuaded of a rhinoceros and the constitution of an ox, and it that this kind of democratic legitimacy is so diluted in 1957 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1958

[THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER] demonstrate Parliament’s capacity to respond to the the draft Bill as to be almost pointless. Here lies the mood of the day and raise our sights to the urgent intellectual incoherence of the draft Bill. On the one need to address the common good at a time of severe hand, the Government want a House that is accountable economic risk. My fear is that in three years’ time we to the electorate but, on the other, seem to recognise may have achieved a reformed Parliament but, in the that any such House might assert itself to the point process, have unintentionally created one that feels where it radically disturbed the fine balance between even less relevant and responsive to the people’s needs. the two Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Government will heed the voice of this We are left with a Bill predicated on the encouragement House today. of greater assertiveness by an elected upper House yet one so circumscribed by the electoral proposals and so 4.20 pm dependent on the Parliament Act that a reformed Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, as a supporter of upper House would soon either find itself frustrated the Government perhaps I may say how encouraging in its attempts to behave representatively or assert its it is to note that on the definition offered by my noble determination to test the present conventions to breaking friend Lord Strathclyde, so far in this Parliament the point. Either way, the risks are considerable. I have no House of Commons has managed to reach a consensus doubt that this House will look carefully at those risks on every measure brought forward by the Government. today and conclude that the benefits of radical reform I was also interested to hear that we will not be having as proposed cannot justify them. a referendum because all three party manifestos agree, In spite of these concerns, on this Bench we are including the Labour Party manifesto, which promised pleased that the Joint Committee was persuaded that a referendum. in a reformed House there should remain a place for I too served on the Joint Committee and I too pay the Lords spiritual. This question was not at the front tribute to my fellow members. As we have heard, the or centre of the committee’s attention, but I am grateful committee devoted considerable time and effort that the committee found time to hear evidence from to examining the draft Bill. However, it was fundamentally the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, hampered in two respects. The first was that the who spoke tellingly about the grounded relationship Government presented us with a Bill of which we had between the Church of England and the communities the detail but for which we had no justification. Assessing in which our parishes and churches are set and drew the Bill on the Government’s own terms is not possible the committee’s attention to the particular role of the if the Government make no attempt to say what they Church of England in supporting, encouraging and are. convening other faith communities, especially in our If one reads the White Paper, one can extract from great cities. His views were endorsed by significant the disparate comments two criteria, each of which is voices from the Jewish community, the Muslim Council asserted rather than justified: that is, that the Bill of Britain and others. I am pleased that the Joint delivers an elected House—a “fundamental democratic Committee has pressed for the increasing presence of principle”, according to the White Paper—and that it leaders of other denominations and faiths. A reduction maintains the existing relationship between the two in the proposed number of Bishops from 26 to 12 will Houses. The report of the Joint Committee demonstrates be testing and challenging for the Church of England, that the Bill fails by the Government’s own criteria. It but we will work hard to achieve a consistent presence may provide for election but the attempt to ring-fence from this Bench. We recognise that this will entail the position of the House of Commons through Clause 2 careful consideration of the processes by which members is inadequate to the task. Indeed, if you read the of the Bench of Bishops are selected. evidence, it is fairly clear or would suggest that you It was a privilege to serve on the Joint Committee, can have one but not the other. The committee, as we not as a professional politician. I learnt a great deal have heard, took evidence on the Parliament Acts. As from my colleagues and my respect for those who the report mentions, it would be possible to make spend their lives living a vocation to politics has been statutory provision for them to continue in force. substantially enhanced. But if I have brought a particular That, though, is to say what could be done, not what perspective to the discussions, it may be that I was should be done. But even if the Acts were maintained, continually asking myself how these proposals will that would not be sufficient to maintain the existing serve the people of the diocese in which I live and relationship between the two Houses. As one reporter work. With the passing months of the committee’s put it to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at last week’s work, my puzzlement increased. At a time like this, press conference, how exactly do you prevent an elected when we need leadership that unifies our country and House from ignoring conventions? You cannot. vision in Parliament that addresses the needs of the The second limitation was that of time. The committee people, why are we embarking on proposals for reform did the best that it could with the Bill before it. It may, which will be manifestly divisive? At a time of continuing as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, have set a recession, these proposals run the risk of setting the record for the number of meetings it held. Despite two Houses of Parliament against each other, dividing that, there was not time to examine the Bill in depth. Parliament from the country’s evident needs and Even if the Parliament Acts were maintained, they suggesting that the political leadership is out of step are blunt weapons for determining outcomes, and to with the membership. That is why I felt it right to vote rely on them on a regular basis would likely create for a referendum. significant tensions within the political process. The Surely it is partly the responsibility of the Lords draft Bill provides no deliberative means for resolving spiritual to raise questions about those things that can disputes and, given the pressures we were under, the 1959 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1960 committee did not address how such disputes should 4.27 pm be resolved. We dealt with it only in the negative sense Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, of finding that Clause 2 was inadequate for maintaining too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his the present relationship between the two Houses. introduction to the debate and for his chairmanship of I take that as illustrative of what was not considered. the Joint Committee. His stamina and determination The report is as important for what it omits as much as were both fully tested in his chairmanship of a very for what it includes. That is not a criticism of the diverse and opinionated group of parliamentarians. I committee but of the limitations under which we declare an interest not only as a member of that operated. I know the response adopted by some—we committee but as one of the signatories to the alternative have already heard it—is that we did not need to report. There were 12 of us—just one short of half the address the fundamentals of what was proposed, and Joint Committee. Our group of 12 was also diverse, that further time was not needed, because the issue of with MPs and Peers from both the Labour and Lords reform has been discussed for the past century. Conservative Parties, and with Cross-Bench and episcopal There is, in their view, little more to be said on the support. Some of us supported a fully elected second merits, and it is a case of agreeing the detail. Chamber; others did not. However, the crucial and fundamental starting point That view is not only wrong but dangerous. The on which we all agreed was that the draft Bill and case for an elected House and hence for the Bill is White Paper offer a misleading prospectus for change. based on contested concepts and philosophies. We Reading them, that is apparent from the start. The hear trotted out claims as if they are self-evidently introduction to the White Paper, strongly emphasised true. There will be other opportunities to address these by the Deputy Prime Minister in his evidence, says claims; here, I just wish to focus on the assertion that that, the issue has already been extensively considered over the course of a century or more. “it is important that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those laws apply”. Consideration of the future of the second Chamber, The House of Lords is of course part of the legislative and its relationship to the first, has been sporadic and process—we scrutinise legislation and suggest amendments very rarely undertaken in terms of first principles. to the Commons—but every single decision that goes There has been little consideration of the role of into law is ultimately a Commons decision. When I Parliament in our constitutional arrangements and was a young civil servant, I was told that that is why the place of the second Chamber within Parliament. the Commons votes Aye and No and we in the Lords The two principal exercises were those of the Bryce vote only Content and Not-Content. The lawmakers—the commission in 1918 and the Wakeham commission in ultimate decision takers—are the Commons, because 2000. Otherwise the debate, though extensive at times, they are elected. has been at a rather superficial level, essentially of Another questionable premise is set out in the detail rather than principle. Even in 1911, the debate summary of proposals which deals with powers. The on the Parliament Bill was not a principled debate summary says that it is proposed to elect the Lords about the place of the second Chamber in the constitution without changes to the fundamental relationship with of the United Kingdom. It was shaped by politicians’ the Commons which, it claims, rests partly on the stances on Irish home rule. Parliament Acts and on Commons financial privilege. Commons primacy rests on the simple fact that the We need to address the issue from first principles. Commons is elected and we are not. Erskine May We need to consider how the second Chamber, and makes this absolutely plain in the section that deals indeed the first, is composed once we are clear as to with the power and jurisdiction of Parliament. On what we expect of Parliament. We have not really done primacy, Erskine May states: that. There is reference to parliamentary reform at “The dominant influence enjoyed by the House of Commons times, but that normally refers to procedural and within Parliament may be ascribed principally to its status as an structural change in the Commons. Lords reform usually elected assembly, the Members of which serve as the chosen refers to changes to the composition of this House. representatives of the people”. There have been few attempts to address change from On financial privilege, it states: the perspective of Parliament as Parliament. “As such the House of Commons possesses the most important That is why I am a signatory of the alternative power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public report. I have previously argued the case in this House service”. for a constitutional convention, to undertake an exercise Moreover, the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 in constitutional cartography. Significant constitutional states that the Act was necessary because the Lords change is difficult to reverse. It usually has significant was not, consequences for other parts of our constitutional framework. We need to get this right. Contrary to “constituted on a popular … basis”. what some have said, the place of the second Chamber That is, it was not elected. Once the Lords is elected, has not been thoroughly thought through. The report the reasons for the Parliament Act are eroded. Both of the Joint Committee has demonstrated what is Houses will be constituted on a popular basis and wrong with the Government’s proposals. The report, contain, as Erskine May says, though, should not be the end of a process of examining “the chosen representatives of the people”. the place of the second Chamber, but rather an impetus Despite these arguments, it is still possible to argue to look holistically at our constitutional arrangements. that, as part of the legislative machinery, Members of We cannot afford to get it wrong. this House should indeed be elected. One can mount a 1961 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1962

[BARONESS SYMONS OF VERNHAM DEAN] much bigger and more serious question of House of logical and sustainable argument to support that. What Lords elections. Electing the Lords would change the is not logical or sustainable is to argue that Commons political and constitutional landscape of this country primacy and the current relationship between the two and would affect the Scottish Parliament and the Houses will be unchanged. The Government were Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies. It demands obviously aware of the problem and proposed Clause 2 serious consideration of electoral systems, including of the draft Bill. We took a great deal of evidence on indirect elections, but above all it needs an honest and Clause 2. Only two supporters gave evidence in favour clear determination of what the new relationship between of it—the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, and the the two Houses will be. To achieve that we need to do Minister responsible, Mr Harper. The entire Joint two things. First, we need to reconvene the Joint Committee agreed that Clause 2 is a nonsense— Committee on Conventions originally chaired by my unworkable and misconceived. However, many of us noble friend Lord Cunningham. The Deputy Prime believe that there is more to it than that. There is a Minister says that the conventions will evolve. We fundamental flaw in the Bill, which is the unbridgeable cannot run a country on a “let us see what happens” gap between the Government’s proposals for electing basis. That would be constitutionally disastrous and the House of Lords and the continuation of Commons utterly irresponsible. No Government worth their salt primacy. should even contemplate doing so. An elected House of Lords may well strengthen The second thing that we need to do is to set up a democracy. Having campaigned, canvassed and got properly comprehensive constitutional convention to support, Members would be elected on the basis of a work through all the questions that need answers. I mandate. They would represent their electors and be know opponents of this say that it constitutes kicking expected to exercise a mandate on behalf of those the measure into the long grass, but that is a feeble electors. The Government seem to think that democracy answer to such a serious question. A constitutional is solely about elections, but it is about the elected convention is the responsible and sensible way to acting on behalf of their electorate. Why should an resolve the huge questions that the supporters of the elected Peer subjugate the wishes of his or her electorate Bill have so conspicuously failed to answer. We did it to those of an elected MP? What is the logic of for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why not continuing Commons primacy after the Lords is elected? do it for the United Kingdom as a whole? Why should The Government have one basic answer to that our constitutional settlement be treated with any less question: do as much as possible to distance the care and respect than those of our constituent parts? elected Peer from his or her electorate. The supporters Of course, political decisions need to be taken on this of the draft Bill claim that, if enacted, it would strengthen matter but we need to do so much more than that. We our democracy and the House would be more democratic need to hear from the people of this country what they and legitimate. However, at every point, the draft Bill think. and the White Paper seek to distance the elected Peer Therefore, ultimately, we need a referendum. I from their electors. They are quite open about this. understand why the Liberal Democrats are so The 15-year term is designed to ensure that the Commons opposed to that; the AV result must have been a mandate is always fresher. The non-renewable nature terrible shock to them. However, they argue, and the of the Lords’ term and the block on an elected Lord noble Lord the Leader of the House has argued, that standing for the Commons have nothing to do with there is no need for a referendum because at the 2010 democracy and everything to do with protecting MPs election all three parties supported the election of the from locally elected Peers who may become just a bit House of Lords. However, the noble Lord needs to too popular. remember that no one actually won the 2010 election. In fact, like us, the Liberal Democrats lost seats. The The huge multi-constituencies of more than 500,000 only party that won seats was his party, which said people will ensure distance between the electors and that this was a third-term issue. Real democracy means the elected. These measures will not achieve their electing the Lords with commensurate powers, as the ends—that of protecting the Commons. Nor are they main report says—a point left out by many who have anything like as democratic as they should be. Elected spoken on this issue this afternoon. We were agreed on Peers with a 15-year term, representing more than the need to have commensurate powers and for the 500,000 voters, will be alongside MPs with five-year individual to have the power to act on behalf of his or terms and constituencies of around 76,000. Will a her electorate as a Minister, Secretary of State, even Peer who is entrenched for 15 years, representing Prime Minister, and to be part of a properly constituted 500,000 and possibly elected by thousands more democratic body. than the local MP, have more or less weight than the local MP? In a speech that he made in December last year, the Deputy Prime Minister accused this House of having Secondly, there is self-evidently little or no only a “veneer of expertise”. I put it your Lordships accountability in this system. At one point in the Joint that this Bill will not do because it has only a veneer of Committee’s discussions, I was told that this is not democracy. about accountability. I may be wrong but I thought accountability was part and parcel of a modern democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is quite Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Before the noble right: of course, we need reform. I support the sort of Baroness sits down, I entirely agree with her remarks reform put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and about primacy, but is there not also a concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We could take that such a system would rob us completely of the independent forward now, but then we would need to turn to the Peers in this House? 1963 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1964

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of commissioners in Brussels are able to make laws imposed course, the position of the independent Peers is very upon the people of Britain. But we are undemocratic—we important. It is addressed in the main report. That is, participate in that process. of course, why so many people want to see the House I was imagining what kind of argument might be being elected on a 20:80 basis, which would address made if we were discussing Italy. People would have the point about the Cross-Bench Peers. However, what said, “The present Italian Prime Minister is not directly it does not address is independence within the parties elected, but is elected only by Parliament”. We are because, as we all know, the Whip would be cracked a elected by no one. As my noble friend Lady Scott said bit more effectively over all of us than it is at the earlier, we are placemen here—no more and no less. I moment, and that would rob us of a degree of our thought that that went out with the Stuart kings. We independence. are the creatures of patronage. There are only two ways to get into this place. One is because you are a Lord Tyler: My Lords, would the noble Baroness friend of the Prime Minister, or at least he does not like to reiterate her support for a 100 per cent elected object to you, and the other is because your great- House? grandmother slept with the king. There is no other way of getting into this place and the votes of the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I people have no hand in this process whatever. do, if this House is to be elected with commensurate powers. That is my starting point. We did not vote Lord Elton: My Lords— simply on electing the House. The committee agreed that there should be commensurate powers. If there Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I will give are commensurate powers—that is, doing away with way, but allow me to make a little more progress. Commons primacy and everything else to which I The truth of the matter is that this place, whether have just referred—yes, I do support a 100 per cent you like it or not, is a creature of the Executive. When elected House on that basis, but only on that basis. the new Prime Minister comes in, the first thing he or she does is help themselves to a replica of what exists 4.40 pm in the other place in order to give themselves the Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, I power to push through this place the legislation that think it was Oscar Wilde who once said that in a they require. Are we really content with that? democracy the minority is always right. I have to say, I recall well, because I was partly involved, that in as a Liberal Democrat, that it is a saying that has given 2004 the world’s greatest Muslim democracy, Indonesia, me much comfort over the years, and I have a suspicion went to the polls. The European Union issued a view, that it will have to give me some comfort today. I rise, a wish—not an instruction, of course—that when of course, to argue the case for a democratically those polls were finally counted there would be no elected second Chamber—a case made by my party placemen to alter the democratic judgment and that for 100 years. The time was ripe for that 100 years ago. there would be no act of patronage to add to the It is essential now. legislatures people such as army officers or even bishops I just ask my noble colleagues in this place whether to alter the voice of the democracy. Yet, so we are here they find it acceptable, at a time when people are dying today. for democracy, that we should have in this place somewhere that infringes the fundamental principle of Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords— a democratic state, which is that the people’s laws Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I shall make should be made by the people’s representatives. my point and then I will happily take my noble friend’s point. Noble Lords: They are. On this day, Egypt votes for a new president. The Muslim Brotherhood has recently constructed the Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: They are Egyptian constitution. Imagine if it had said, “We will not. We are not the people’s representatives, but we have a constitution in which the primary House, which make and amend laws, and are part of the process of we control, will give us the right to appoint who was in producing the laws of this country. We infringe that the second Chamber”. Would we not have declared principle daily. I was sitting here and listening to the that to be a democratic outrage? Yet we are replicating arguments made around the Chamber, many of which that precise position here today. I give way to my noble were, “Yes of course we are in favour of democracy, friend. but not now, not on these proposals, but at some time in the future”. St Augustine should be living at this Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful. I hour. always listen with huge attention to what my noble However, the question is this: when we frame the friend Lord Ashdown says, not least because he put laws of this country—you cannot say that we do not me here. participate in this—we do so because we carry with us a democratic mandate. That is the principle of democracy. Noble Lords: You are a placeman. I was imagining what kind of a debate we might be having if, instead of debating our institutions today, Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am a placeman, fair we were debating the institutions in Brussels. I can enough. My noble friend said, with emphasis, that we imagine the kind of thunderous rage that would be are a creature of the Executive. I ask him then, what he expressed against the fact that those undemocratic makes of the following statistics. In the 13 years of the 1965 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1966

[LORD PHILLIPS OF SUDBURY] clearing up the mess behind the elephant at the other Blair Government, the Commons defeated the Executive end of the Corridor, but when it comes to stopping the six times. In the same 13 years, this place defeated the elephant doing things, when it comes to turning it Government 528 times. In the coalition period, the round, when it comes to delaying it on the really big Commons has not yet defeated the Government, except things that matter, we do not succeed. How can we on a debate which had no legislative purport; and we challenge the Executive on big things when we are a have defeated the Government 48 times. It does not creature of the Executive? sound to me as if it is we who are the creatures of the I do not believe that if we had had a reformed, Executive. democratic second Chamber, we would have had the poll tax, but we did. I do not believe that we would Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I will come have gone to war in Iraq either, but we did. The last on to my noble friend’s point in a moment, except to time that I said that, there was much twittering saying, say this. The question is not what we do; the question good heavens, should a second Chamber have the is how we are created. We are created here with a right to say whether a nation goes to war? Yes it balance in this place that reflects the balance that the should. I see no problem with that. There is no problem Executive enjoy in the other. I will come on to my with the Senate in America. That has not stopped noble friend’s point, but time is relatively limited, as America going to war. There is no problem with the we were advised, so allow me to make a bit of progress. Senate in France, one of our closest and immediate allies in Libya and which put more troops into Bosnia Lord Trefgarne: My Lords— than any other nation and suffered greater casualties. Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I hope that Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords— the noble Lord will forgive me. We have been advised to speak for seven minutes; I am already at six. Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I will make Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord made a highly the point and then I will take the noble Lord’s intervention. offensive remark just now and I would like to challenge There is one nation in Europe which may be insufficiently it. He said that some of us were here because our able to take decisions about military action when it ancestors had slept with a queen. I am the second needs to, and that is Germany. The Bundesrat, the Lord Trefgarne; my father was the first Lord Trefgarne. second Chamber in Germany, has no say over going to He was a Liberal MP. war. However, there is no reason why a second Chamber should not be asked whether to ratify treaties or Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: He came whether it is reasonable to go to war. Why is that here by an act of patronage, then, which is the point I possible everywhere else in the world but impossible was seeking to make. here? Let me cite some statistics that may illustrate the point. Despite all the arguments made about primacy, Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, if a second et cetera, all the arguments made that we have to work Chamber can block the nation going to war, what does out the new relationship, here are the figures. The that tell us about the primacy of the first? House of Lords Library tells me that there are 71 bicameral legislatures around the world of which, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: Of course leaving aside the micro-nations in the Caribbean whose the first Chamber is going to have primacy. That is constitutions were written by us to reflect ours, only readily established in every other bicameral system in seven are not elected second Chambers, seven have no which there is an elected second Chamber. However, connection with democracy, and seven are appointed, on the issue of whether to go to war, in the United as we are—leaving aside Great Britain. One of them, States the President has to get the agreement of both for reasons that utterly perplex me, is Canada. But the Houses of Congress. Has that seriously prevented the other six may give us cause to pause for a moment. United States going to war? Quite the contrary. This is They do not include great democracies. They are an issue on which this House, as an elected Chamber, Belarus, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Jordan and Lesotho. should be able to exercise its rights. That is the company we keep. Those are not great The time has arrived to bring this place up to date. defenders of democracy. How is it that in every other The time has arrived when we have to stop what is not legislature, all of them with elected second Chambers, only an anachronism but an undemocratic anachronism. issues of primacy, the issues which hold up people’s We send our young men out to fight and die and, agreement with democratic reform in this place, are perhaps worse still, to kill others in the name of not great problems? democracy but we do not have a democratic second Here is the reason why it is said that we do not have Chamber in this country, as is the case with the vast to observe the principles of democracy. My noble majority of bicameral systems throughout the world. friend alluded to it a moment ago. It is because, Why can they cope with democracy but not us? Is our apparently, it works—in that curious, untidy, rather democracy so ineffective and immature and are our British way, nevertheless, it works. And if it ain’t institutions so weak that we cannot cope with what broke, don’t fix it. It does not work. There are two they can cope with and we have to resort to the kind of functions of a second Chamber. The first is to revise principles that operate in Bahrain and Belarus? and the second is to hold the Executive to account. This place is an anachronism and an undemocratic The first of those we do rather well. We are graciously anachronism, and I am in favour of a fully elected permitted to follow along with a gilded poop-scoop, second Chamber. However, if the proposition put 1967 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1968 forward by the committee as a compromise is the best meeting, as many as 40 Back-Bench MPs are said to one that we can achieve, I shall happily vote for it. By have opposed it; several PPSs are against elections; the way, I also believe that it should be supported by a and perhaps as many as six Cabinet Ministers have referendum. The reality is that this is a reform that can expressed severe reservations about the Bill. Oliver no longer wait. Our democracy is in danger. We have Heald MP, former shadow Secretary of State for to start renewing the democratic structures of this Constitutional Affairs, apparently changed his mind country, and the reform and democratisation of the after listening to expert witnesses. That is what we second Chamber is part of that process. We cannot want to hear. The Conservative manifesto speaks only keep this waiting any longer. We have a proposition; of working towards building a consensus, and it is we should take it up and do the business now. already clear that there is no consensus on this issue. As we have heard, there are positive reforms that Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that could be enacted at once, building on the work done noble Lords are speaking for quite a time. If all noble by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, the noble Baroness, Lords take as long, we shall be sitting very late indeed. Lady Hayman, and others. They appear in Chapter 5 of the alternative report, on pages 78 to 79, but I have Lord Stirrup: Before the noble Lord sits down, put them in my own order of priority: first, as the perhaps he can help me on one extremely important noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has already demonstrated, point. I think that he referred to the most important the establishment of a statutory appointments commission element or principle of democracy as the right of the well away from Downing Street, which has been people to elect those who represent them. Rather, is it recommended for years but patronage still prevails; not the right of the people to remove those who secondly, ending the hereditary by-elections, the principle represent them—something for which I believe there is having already been removed by the 1999 Act, although no provision in this Bill? the public do not know that we are still electing hereditary Peers; thirdly, cutting the link between the honours system and membership of the House of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, Lords; fourthly, reducing the size of the House, with a there is a provision in the Bill, although one might moratorium on new Peers; fifthly, improving the balance argue that a 15-year term is rather long to make that of membership with more attention to diversity and as effective as it should be. I am not claiming that the the representation of other faiths; and, sixthly, provisions Bill is perfect—of course I am not. There are things for the retirement and exclusion of Members of the that I would wish to see that are not there, not least House of Lords. I personally feel that one year’s that it should be a fully elected second Chamber. I am expenses would be a reasonable offer to older Members simply saying that we have an opportunity to reform. of the House who might wish to retire voluntarily. You have to choose between keeping this place as it is, which in my view is totally insupportable, or moving I do not accept schemes based on attendance because towards democratically based reform of the sort proposed so many of our most valuable independent Peers by the Bill. The second of those may be a compromise attend only occasionally. I do not see the point of a but it is one that I embrace with enthusiasm because it constitutional convention proposed in the alternative will at least start the process. report, which will only delay reform even further. It cannot be said too often that the coalition still has an 4.54 pm opportunity to carry out these reforms now, and it is possible that during the passage of the Bill there may The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am a 1660s be openings for concessions that would lead to that placeman and I am very proud to have been in this situation; otherwise we will have an inevitable debacle House to represent my family for such a long time. I with the present Bill, which the Joint Committee has shall try hard to keep exasperation out of my voice shown to be defective, especially on primacy and today but, in my view, the coalition is propelling us powers in Clause 2. towards certain constitutional disaster. The draft Bill will run straight into the sand and I can find very little When there are already so many urgent matters, as comfort in the Joint Committee’s report—partly because the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out, why are we have read it all before but also because we have seen this Government so keen to squeeze all other legislation that it is a clear expression of the spectrum of discontent into a corner while the juggernaut of reform proceeds and confusion about our present situation and the way over the next two years, dominating time in both forward. However, it covers new ground and I know Houses? One can foresee colossal blockships ahead, that a lot of serious people have contributed to it. multitudes of amendments, night after night of pure frustration on a greater scale than we have already Like the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the endured with recent Bills on parliamentary reform. noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, I do not see elections to Long before the Parliament Act is invoked, which is this House as a necessary route to legitimacy or democracy. still a highly contested issue, there will be havoc and Indeed, I am among those reformists who value and destruction. Morale in this House will sink to its cherish the traditions of this House and the practices lowest level, as surely it must, if we are talking of the of our revising Chamber as they are now. They just destruction of this Chamber. need to be improved. An increasing number of Peers and MPs think that a Bill advocating the abolition of Having spoken to one member of the Cabinet last the present House, or even contemplation of it, is week and indeed attempted to entertain him with nothing less than madness and perhaps political suicide. teacakes next door, with mixed success, I have tried to MPs recognise that. At a recent 1922 Committee read the Government’s mind and have come up with 1969 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1970

[THE EARL OF SANDWICH] anything about it—a paragraph jumped out and hit this; Lords reform is the glue that keeps the coalition me, and I thought, “That doesn’t quite reflect the going. There are enough passionate Liberals to keep it evidence we got”. I went and read the evidence and on the list, although many of them disagree. On the felt that my initial reaction was right. I confess that Tory side, as we have heard, the 1922 Committee when we nodded through the paragraph I did not meeting showed that much more trouble is brewing. notice the points that I will make now; that was my Public opinion is claimed to be on their side but I have error. I am referring to paragraph 213, which summarises my doubts about that. There has been a surge of the evidence that we received from the Australian opinion in favour of the Lords after amendments to Senators. the legal aid, health and other Bills proved to the We made a considerable effort to take evidence public that this House is essential to the democratic from Australia because we felt that it might give us a process. good comparison with what might happen here if we Abolition would certainly not carry public support had an elected upper House. It is a Commonwealth in a referendum, and many people will smell a rat if country, it operates within a common-law system, and the coalition disguises it as reform. Public attitudes to it has an elected upper as well as lower House. We this House are quite complex and contradictory, as wanted to speak to Australian Senators to hear their a House of Lords’ Library note makes clear, and a views on a number of issues. That of constituencies is referendum could be very misleading and damaging. dealt with in paragraph 213. I freely admit that there are some in the Commons The paragraph starts off properly by referring to who believe that two elected Houses can work together the view of a member of the Government of Australia, as well as the present ones, and that the existing Senator Stephens, who stated that the people of Australia conventions can endure, but most MPs are thinking regarded Members of the House of Representatives as about the composition and not the powers of the two their local representatives and identified very clearly Houses, which are bound to collide as they do in the with their Member. The Senator went on to say: United States. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, was right about war-making there. “I will ask Senator Rhiannon to respond to your question about constituencies. I will just explain the Government’s method Finally, the Government understandably are avoiding of dealing with that. As a Member of the Government in the the question of costs. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, Senate, I am allocated a number of seats that are not held by the and others demonstrated conclusively that the transition Government in the lower House in my state. I look after those to an elected House would cost a lot. The Treasury constituents who do not have a government representative. Those will hardly advertise such a waste of resources now. people might come to me about issues and legislation”. There is an excellent group in this House, led by the We should bear in mind the point about the way in noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Norton, that which constituencies are allocated to Senators for genuinely seeks a compromise on reform and would them to nurse. The Senator then referred to Senator like us to move now towards an effective rather than Rhiannon of the Green party, who said that the issue an elected Chamber. I again urge the Government to of working with constituents was very important and listen to the group, as more and more Members of took up a lot of their time. another place are doing, and to take this last opportunity There was then a reference to the views of Senator to drop the Bill or to accept amendments that will lead Ronaldson, a member of the opposition Liberal Party, quickly to a solution and avoid the expensive quagmire although he kept describing himself as a conservative—I that otherwise will be inevitable. feel that there must have been a simple explanation for that. The report says that he thought that elected 5.01 pm Members of the Lords might engage in constituency-type Lord Trimble: My Lords, I was a member of the work if in an area with other elected representatives Joint Committee and I begin by echoing the compliments from other parties. What he said was: paid by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and the noble “I do not think that you can make the assumption that you Baroness, Lady Symons, to the chairman and the will not be engaged in constituency-type work”. clerks. I also signed the alternative report, and I think That is putting things a little more strongly. This may that between that and the full committee report one be a nuance, but it is a significant nuance. He is quoted finds a devastating critique of the Bill. However, I will as saying that, in terms of elections: not try to cram all my views on all aspects of the report into seven minutes; instead, I will pick one “Senators do not campaign as Senators. They campaign for one of the lower House Members of their own party in a issue. It was one of the two issues that the noble Lord, marginal seat, or … against a marginal lower House Member Lord Richard, acknowledged as being the primary from another party”. concerns of the Commons. We have concentrated quite a bit on the first question, which is that of the On this point, it would be good to look at Senator primacy of the Commons. The other is the way in Ronaldson’s comment. He was asked a question by which Members of another place are very nervous Eleanor Laing from another place: about having other elected persons tramping over “I think that I am right in saying, Senator Ronaldson, that you their patch; they want their constituencies to remain said that we should not assume that Members of the upper House inviolate. will not be involved in constituency work. Does that also mean that they campaign in constituencies? Could we explore a little I will focus on that issue because, as so often further what happens on the ground … Is it normal for Members happens, when I read the report after we had finished— of both Houses to be campaigning in a constituency all the after it had been printed and it was too late to do time?”. 1971 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1972

Senator Ronaldson replied: I welcome the fact that the Joint Committee report “The Senators do not campaign as Senators. They campaign supported elections. That is the fundamental point for one of the lower House Members of their own party in a about what it did. Of course, the Bill has many flaws, marginal seat, or they vigorously campaign against a marginal and I want to deal with them in a moment or two. lower House Member from another party. Senator Stephens Clause 2 is one of them. I have also read the alternative talked about arrangements where we, as parties, will look after report with interest; I spent much of yesterday doing various seats. They are described by the Conservative Party as patron Senators. I am patron Senator for a number of seats, some that. While I agree with parts of it, there is a fundamental of which are winnable, including one that I very much hope we point that is inimical to the thrust of policy. It says: will win and then become the Government. Senator Stephens will “We believe there is an unbridgeable gap between an elected be similarly campaigning in Conservative seats to ensure the House of Lords and the primacy of the House of Commons”. election of a new Labor Member or to support the incumbent Labor Member”. I contest that absolutely. I do not think there is an unbridgeable gap; I think that gap can be managed The picture that comes from the passages that I have and dealt with. quoted very clearly shows that Senators are heavily involved in political work in areas. They are quite Public opinion is not terribly interested in this obviously put by their political party into areas where debate, except for a small element of the public and the party does not have a Member and hopes very the media who will think that we are doing ourselves much to get one, and they are engaged in campaigning and the country a disservice if we do not move forward not just during elections but all the time throughout towards reform. However, I have talked at public the area. I am bringing this out so that Members of meetings—mainly Labour Party and Fabian meetings—all another place can get a clearer picture of what might over the country over the years, and with one exception happen when this comes. I am not sure that we should they all supported an elected House. I will be honest be saying that it ought not to happen. and admit that I went to speak to some students in I must say that the provisions that the report suggests Cambridge. I took a straw poll before I started and for limiting the finances available to Members of the about 60 per cent wanted an appointed House. By the elected upper House with regard to constituency work time I had finished, 90 per cent wanted an appointed are unfair and unworkable. They are unfair because House. Well, I did my best. However, the rest of the they will mean that a rich elected Lord or Senator will meetings and indeed most of the people I speak to all be able to finance an office and have an advantage think it absurd that we do not have an elected House. over those who cannot. A person may not have an The key issues are clearly accountability, elections allowance for an office, but parties will make offices and the primacy of the Commons. Yes, I support available, and I am sure that political parties will make elections, at least partly because of accountability. Of sure that newly elected Members of the upper House course, as the alternative report says—and the Joint work just as hard as their Australian counterparts in Committee report disagrees—anybody elected will have campaigning all the time, especially to undermine to do some constituency casework. I do not see how opposition Members holding seats in their patch. one can apply to be selected in a local constituency and say, “I am not going to do any work for local voters”. It is untenable; it just cannot be done. None 5.07 pm of us would be selected if we applied on that basis. Of course there has to be casework, and I am pleased that Lord Dubs: My Lords, I congratulate my noble the alternative report actually says that. It says: friend Lord Richard and his committee on the work “Elections are, in themselves, principal methods of accountability. they have done, even if I dissent from some of their A candidate stands for election, and if elected, is held accountable conclusions. We have already reached the point in the for the platform and proposals on which they stood”. debate when everything has been said, but perhaps not yet by everybody. I campaigned very hard for the Labour Party in the last elections and I was happy to support the manifesto If we had had reform in 1997 or 2001, I would have on which I was door-knocking for Labour candidates, been happy to stand for election to this House. In fact, including our commitment to an elected second Chamber. I would have preferred to be an elected Member of this House, although I think it is a privilege to be here I am not happy about being elected once for 15 years. anyway, and I appreciate it. I have always believed in It seems to undermine the basic principle of accountability. an elected second Chamber. When the right reverend Accountability is not just how one gets there in the Prelate spoke earlier, he said that we do not have too first place; it is also being accountable for the decisions much by way of party politics. Although the Whips one makes, the votes one casts and the positions one may not have many sanctions, and although we have takes. Quite frankly, I sometimes say to my friends and Cross-Benchers who are not subject to discipline, the others, “I vote on issues that affect your lives and the fact is that we have party politics pouring out of our lives of other people, yet I am not answerable to ears here. We get a Whip every week, we have three-line anybody”. If anybody asks me why I voted in a Whips and anybody who says that there are no party particular way, I do not have to justify myself; I can politics here does not understand the way this place just say, “Because I am here”. Of course, I do not take works. Without party politics, the Government could that attitude, but that is the position we are in. not get their business through. So let us be clear, we A point that has not been made so far is that having are talking about a House that is political—party-political a basis in a constituency makes a politician a different in the main—that exists to get the Government’s business sort of person. Elected politicians get their sustenance, through or to dissent and hold the Government in at least in part, from engaging with their constituency, check. maybe doing casework, dealing with their local parties 1973 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1974

[LORD DUBS] I may remind your Lordships that, over the years I and all the other organisations that lobby an elected have been here, we have largely neutered Parliament politician. It seems to me that being under that sort of by giving away powers of immigration, employment, pressure makes one a different sort of person. Quite a social policy, trade, agriculture, fisheries and energy—to few Members of this House have been elected and name just the most obvious. they understand that; others have not and make a fist I recently asked a Question for Written Answer of it. But some do not, and I think it is an important about the Budget put forward by the Government point. when they said that they were going to increase the I remember that there was a by-election in south price of alcohol in supermarkets. I asked, London while the House was sitting and I spent the day tramping the streets knocking on doors. I got an “whether their proposal for minimum pricing on alcohol is compliant earful on housing, transport, social security, planning, with European Union law”. education, the NHS, et cetera. Unless we as individuals The Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord go out and canvass in elections, we do not get that Henley, was: earful from voters, and there is nothing healthier in a “The Government are currently in discussions with the EU democracy than hearing what voters have to say—even Commission on this issue”.—[Official Report, 23/4/12; col. WA292.] if they are saying to us, “We will vote you out if we do not like it”. That is where we have got to. Parliament, whether it is the House of Commons or this House, cannot even Of course I believe, as everybody else does, in the decide the price of drink in this country without going primacy of the Commons. Individually elected Members to members of the Commission in Brussels to tell us of the second Chamber would be able to assert themselves what we can or cannot do. a bit more. If I were elected, I certainly would have more confidence to go to the Labour Party conference Before putting my name down to speak, I asked and say my piece; because I am not elected, I feel myself why there is all the fuss. Arguing about the constrained from doing so. reform of the Lords sometimes seems like two bald I worry about the idea of a constitutional convention, men arguing over a comb. It is just not worth it. Then I unless there is a time limit of about a year. I fear it is a reminded myself that, over the past two years, all recipe for long delays and there are other ways of recent opinion polls have shown that a great majority achieving such ends—but the point has been made of the people of this country want a referendum on already. One of the strengths of the Joint Committee’s our membership of the European Union. I was also report is the idea of a concordat between the two encouraged by a poll in the Sun the other day that Houses. Work on that could start quickly. I very much showed that UKIP has recently overtaken the Liberal welcome the detailed suggestions in the report on the Democrats as the third most popular party in the idea of a concordat as regards the conventions. country. After people in this country have been given the right to vote in a referendum on membership of I also am advised by people who know more about the EU, Parliament will get its powers back. Therefore, this than I do that the Parliament Act could be discussing the reform of the House of Lords is valuable, strengthened to deal with secondary legislation. It and I am delighted that we have the opportunity to do could work whether legislation starts in this House or so today. in the Commons and would enable the Commons to retain its primacy. I am more attracted by the alternative report than Finally, reference has been made to Erskine May by the Joint Committee’s report. I do not think that but, for all its strengths as a document and a tome on the alternative report should be spoken of as a minority parliamentary procedure, it is not a constitutional report. Looking at the figures, it seems that, excluding document. It is a treatise on law, privileges, proceedings the chairman, the alternative report was produced by and usage of Parliament. That is made very clear in exactly half the members of the committee; so it has, the alternative report. Ultimately, I hope that reform to my mind at least, at least equal validity with that of will not be based on the views of this House. I hope the main committee. I am quite surprised that some of that it will come from where it should start, the those who produced the alternative report felt able to Commons, and that, if the Commons makes that sign the committee’s report at all, given the list in the decision, we will give it our support. alternative report of the fundamental areas on which they differed from the committee’s report. 5.15 pm On page 33, the report lists: Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful “Primacy … Electoral mandate … Powers … Electoral democracy to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and members of the … Constituency issues … Funding limits … Ministerial voting … committee for their report, but more particularly I am Transition”. grateful to the members of the committee that produced On all these points the alternative report argues the excellent alternative report. The noble Lord, Lord persuasively against the conclusions of the committee. Ashdown, said that democracy is in trouble or danger, I hope very much that we will not have to waste a lot I think because of the lack of power, or the weaknesses, of valuable time vetting the Deputy Prime Minister’s of this House. I should like to say to him that democracy Bill, but if we do, this House owes a vote of thanks and Parliament are in trouble because, over the years, to the members of the committee who produced the we have given away so many powers to the European alternative report—the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, Union. That is why our democracy is in danger. It is and others—who have given a lot of time to producing not because of any shortcomings of this House. Perhaps this valuable document. I support its conclusions and 1975 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1976 the recommendations for incremental reform based on We are now debating the report of the noble Lord, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and for the Lord Richard, on the draft Bill that was produced by establishment of, the Government almost a year ago. We all owe the “a new Constitutional Convention to consider the next steps”. noble Lord and his colleagues on the committee a In preparing for this debate, I looked back to the great debt of gratitude. However, he very honestly said 1911 debate in this House on the introduction of the that his committee was constrained, dealing not with a Parliament Act, which was held on 10 August 1911, clean sheet of paper but with a draft Bill. He decreed, two days before the beginning of the grouse-shooting quite rightly, that that was what they had to concentrate season. My grandfather led the opposition to that Bill on, which is one reason why the noble Baroness, Lady as leader of the so-called “die-hards” or “last ditchers”. Symons, and others decided that they wanted to produce I realise of course that the noble Baroness, Lady a more far-reaching report, for which we are very Symons, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the others much in their debt. who produced the alternative report would baulk or That the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his committee recoil at the thought of being called “last ditchers” or were very constrained was underlined by my noble “die-hards”, but I hope the one thing they will share friend Lord Norton of Louth, who talked about going with my grandfather is the conviction to stand up for back to first principles. The committee had no opportunity their beliefs. I will certainly stand with them if the to do that. It was dealing with a document and a battle is ever joined. premise that were essentially flawed—the premise that you could maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons if you had two elected Chambers. The 5.21 pm committee of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, drove a Lord Cormack: My Lords, I am delighted to coach and horses through Clause 2 and made it quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for plain that that just was not the case. two reasons. One is that he very properly paid a One therefore has to face up to the question of compliment to the alternative report, and—in declaring what the relationship between the two Houses is to be. an interest as the co-chairman of the Campaign for an Here again was the flawed premise, because, in Effective Second Chamber, to which the noble Earl, constitutional matters, form should follow function. Lord Sandwich, referred—I can say that, from moneys That is why the noble Baroness has suggested in the subscribed by Members of your Lordships’ House report that she and her colleagues have produced that and coming from nowhere else, we have been able to there should be a constitutional convention to look at fund the publication in a permanent form of this first principles, to look at function and then to determine admirable document. There are copies in the Cloakroom, form. We are asked to agree to form without regard to the Library and all the Whips’ offices, and any Member function, which is wrong. It is illustrated particularly of the House who has difficulty in obtaining one has in that—I must choose my words with moderation only to ask me or the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and care; I would have said “fatuous”—strange proposal and it will be presented to them; in her case, it will be that there should be a hybrid House. autographed. What happens in a hybrid House if you have 20 per The other reason I am delighted to follow the noble cent of the Members appointed and the others elected? Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is this. He referred You have two categories, two classes, of Member. As to the part his grandfather played in those momentous the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out at a meeting days in 1911. That gives me an opportunity to remind that I attended only last week—and I made the point your Lordships’ House that we often talk as if nothing in my own evidence to the committee—if you have a has happened since then. How ridiculous that is. This situation where the non-elected 20 per cent carry the House has altered more during the reign of Her Gracious day, you have the makings of a constitutional crisis if Majesty Queen Elizabeth II than almost any other the Bill is important. If you recognised the validity of institution in this country. When the Queen came to that proposition and therefore had a 100 per cent the throne, there were no women in this House, and elected House, you would do away at a stroke with that there were no life Peers. I remind your Lordships that valuable ingredient in your Lordships’ House to which it was a Conservative Government who produced the the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, referred legislation which led to the advent of women Peers in her intervention: independence. and life Peers. I sat at the other end of the corridor for 40 years. Then we had that other momentous change at a During the whole of that time, we had virtually no time when I was privileged to lead on constitutional independent Members elected to the House of Commons. affairs in another place, when the Government of Mr There were those who bore the label, but it was either Blair decided on a mass expulsion of hereditary Peers. because there had been some constituency spat— I was unhappy about the way that was done, but it has sometimes within the political party concerned, as in altered your Lordships’ House beyond recognition. I one of the Welsh seats; I think that it was Ebbw might say in parenthesis that if the noble Baroness, Vale—or because there had been a local issue such as Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, had Wyre Forest and the Kidderminster hospital, but there only accepted a Bill I introduced in another place in was no phalanx of independent Members. So even if 1984 which would have cut down the number of hereditary those who are here because of their illustrious careers Peers—they would have elected so many of their number in the Foreign Service, the Civil Service and all the rest at the beginning of each Parliament—we might not of it sought to stand for election, which many of them have had the traumas of 1997 to 1999, but that is would believe was not the right and proper thing to do another story. in a political contest, they would not get here anyhow. 1977 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1978

[LORD CORMACK] starkly with the draft Bill and the White Paper into What if one values a House with an independent which it inquired. I would not be surprised if the two group of experts? As I speak now, I look across and hefty volumes of oral and written evidence stand for a see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris—our long time as the best repository of informed opinion experts do not all sit on the Cross Benches. The noble on this hugely important constitutional issue. Lord, Lord Winston, informs every debate in which he The immediate conclusion that I draw from reading takes part in this House with his superb knowledge. I the report is that the draft Bill as a vehicle for reforming may not always agree with what he says, but, by Jove, your Lordships’ House is not fit for purpose. As the he enriches the place by his presence. You would not emergence of a well-reasoned alternative report confirms, get that in the sort of assembly that would result from the conclusions and the recommendations reached by a cobbled-together Bill such as we are now threatened a bare majority of the committee members reflect a with, and I hope that it will not come to pass. glaring lack of consensus. In short, the draft Bill will In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of just not do. It is obvious from the start, as many have Needham Market, said that we were suffering from pointed out, that it is fatally flawed. The absurdity of wear and tear—some of us more than others perhaps. the assertions made in Clause 2 relating to the preservation But she is completely right. This House needs reform. of the primacy of the House of Commons undermines However, as others have pointed out, there is a Bill, the very premise on which the drafters of this Bill the so-called Steel Bill, which addresses most if not all sought to build their case for an all or partially elected of these issues and on which I believe that it would be Chamber. possible to have consensus. We could reform this House in a way that would be acceptable and much less To me, the logic is that, in the face of this total lack expensive than the elected House with which we are of consensus on how to proceed, we should not proceed now threatened. I urge the Government to consider it on the basis of the draft Bill, the White Paper or the very carefully and consider the convention suggested recommendations of the report before us. Has not the by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. It merits serious Prime Minister told us more than once that reform of and sympathetic consideration. this House must be achieved by consensus? Or has he changed his mind? Am I naive in suggesting that the We are talking about the British constitution. We Government’s threat to use the Parliament Act makes are not talking about something that should be the an utter nonsense of his call to reform by consensus? plaything of any particular political personality or Or—as the noble Lord the Leader of the House something that should be regarded, as someone said, intimated earlier—does he intend to exclude the opinion as the glue that holds the coalition together. We are of your Lordships’ House from such a consensus? To talking about the future of our country and there are my mind, that would be outrageous. That said, I could other things that could be done in the future. The scarcely blame the Prime Minister if he has changed noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who will address his mind, since it must now be blindingly obvious even us shortly, has an idea for electoral colleges, which he to him that consensus is unreachable on any reform will explain, which has some merit and is worth serious remotely resembling that so dear to the heart of his consideration and debate. Deputy Prime Minister. He has only to listen to a I end on this note. I have two points. When he gave substantial bloc of his own Commons Back-Benchers evidence to the Joint Committee, the Clerk of the to recognise that. House of Commons said that at the moment the House of Commons and the House of Lords are In preparing a necessarily short speech I had difficulty complementary to each other. If we had two elected in deciding on which of the report’s many arguments, Chambers, they would be in competition with each conclusions, options and recommendations I might other. If we are to move to that undesirable state, focus. So, mindful that there are more debates to come surely the people must have the ultimate decision. in the new Session, I decided to focus on the overall How fatuous to wave the flag of democracy but say, message that I received from a first reading of this “You can’t have a vote on it”. That is the ultimate report. I recognise that others will have received a insult to the British people, and up with that we different message, but the message to me is that if the should not put. coalition is still hell-bent on abolishing this House and replacing it with an all or partially elected Senate, it will have to go back to the drawing board. 5.32 pm But not just any drawing board. Because the Joint Lord Grenfell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow Committee, by its mandate, was restricted to the the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The congruence of examination of those subjects covered by the draft Bill our views on Lords reform are long-standing and and the White Paper, it had insufficient scope for the determined—and as a long-standing and determined kind of broad consideration of the functions and opponent of an elected second Chamber, I have difficulty powers of both Houses, without which the contribution with many of the conclusions and recommendations of a reform of the Lords to the enhancement of in this report. However, that in no way diminishes my government simply cannot be devised. The authors admiration for the extraordinary achievement of the of the alternative report state that while they agree Joint Committee and its chairman, my noble friend with the findings of the Joint Committee’s report as a Lord Richard. The fruits of nine months’ hard work whole, the content and constitutional significance of are impressive. As a piece of pre-legislative scrutiny, it the draft Bill needs consideration in a much broader fulfils the requirements of rigour, comprehensiveness, context. That, they claim, is best achieved through a focus, careful argument and a clarity that contrasts constitutional convention, which would consider the 1979 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1980 next steps on further Lords reform and any consequential want to suggest a way forward around which a consensus impact on the Commons and on Parliament as a might be built. As I say, for this to happen, the issues whole. That surely is the right way to go, and I warmly must be divided in two. support it. First, there is already a lot of consensus around a Of course defenders of the draft Bill, or of a hastily number of changes that need to be made—short of amended version of it, will cry, “Delaying tactics!”. So elections. We have heard about them in a number of be it. The Government have had their chance and have speeches this afternoon: reduction in the size of the blown it with this deeply flawed draft Bill. They now House, the need for a cost-neutral retirement scheme, have no right to impede the efforts of those committed an end to hereditary by-elections and a proper statutory to finding, through a truly fit-for-purpose mechanism, basis for the Appointments Commission, as well as a more comprehensive and workable solution. the reforms contained in the Bill of the noble Lord, I end with three short points. First, I deplore the Lord Steel of Aikwood. That has already passed this petty-mindedness of the Government in their attitude House and simply awaits the imprimatur of the Commons. to the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord A package of reforms could be put together around Steel of Aikwood. They cry, “There is really nothing these changes in this Parliament which would attract in it”, as if it was not on the Conservative Benches widespread support. Even if nothing more were done, here that the evisceration of the Bill was plotted. How that would constitute a legacy of House of Lords cynical can you get? I hope that rumours that there reform that the coalition could point to as a substantial may be some second thinking on that are well-founded. achievement. I am pleased to see that the alternative My penultimate point: whatever the method used in report agrees with this. It is only the vain quest for the a further attempt at consensus—through a constitutional holy grail of a final solution which has prevented convention, as I would plead; or without one, which I agreement on such a package in the past 10 years. Up would strongly warn against—the resulting agreement, to this point, I am on all fours with the remarks of the if any, must, imperatively, be put to the people for noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. approval through a referendum. It is far too significant Secondly, more can be done with a much broader a constitutional matter to be decided otherwise. Let base of support than can be mobilised for elections as me be blunt about this. The Government are opposing currently proposed. That may take a little longer. As a referendum for short-term political advantage, not regards the final solution, I do not believe that this can for the long-term betterment of government, which is be arrived at until the shape of the United Kingdom what the people deserve and on which their voice has been decided. I am against elections, at least of the should be heard. kind currently proposed. I will not rehearse the arguments. My third and final point: how on earth could the YourLordships have heard them far too often to make coalition Government get the ordering of their priorities that necessary. Suffice it to say, I am in accord with so wrong? Is it not absurd that the Prime Minister Professor Sir John Baker, who is cited by the Joint should bow to his deputy’s insistence that Parliament Committee as saying that the House’s essential scrutiny invite upon itself a lengthy and acrimonious period of role, legislation on an issue that strikes no chord with a public who are rightly demanding that the Government “does not require the sanction of a ballot box to give it legitimacy any more than the judicial role, because the House of Commons and Parliament focus urgently on the double-dip recession, can insist on the last word”. on unemployment, on housing, on schools, on health, on welfare, on pensions, on the Scottish question and In other words, he drew attention to the House’s a host of other life-changing concerns? It is our duty complementary but different role as a revising Chamber. to make the Government think again. Of course, if you do not have elections there is still the question of patronage to deal with, as the 5.39 pm noble Baroness, Lady Scott, reminded us. With Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, it is a privilege to acknowledgement to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, follow such a weighty and impressive speech. First, I for the trailer, I favour a system of appointments by an congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his Appointments Commission as at present, but greatly committee on having produced a comprehensive analysis strengthened by supporting it with a system of of the issues and arguments in, all things considered, a nominations from a series of electoral colleges representing remarkably short space of time given the amount of the different branches of civil society. In other words, work undertaken. It will be an invaluable resource in it would be a form of indirect election. I was pleased the debates to come. I also congratulate the authors of to see that both the Joint Committee and the alternative the alternative report on having produced a trenchant report called for further work to be done on this. critique and a number of valuable ideas that represent The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said that only a constructive contribution to taking the debate forward. seven countries do not elect their second Chambers. I will make two points. The issues need to be According to the Joint Committee, 34 second Chambers divided into two: elections and the rest. My contention—I are indirectly elected and 16 of them wholly so. This think many would agree with it—is that progress on would not be election as conceived of by those who the rest has been hamstrung by the absence of any favour elections, but it would represent a significant agreement about elections and the desire in some democratisation of the appointments process. It would quarters to get agreement to a comprehensive package retain the emphasis on expertise, experience and distinction that contained them. Indeed, some insist that there in their field by which those who do not favour elections cannot be a package that does not contain them. I set such store. 1981 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1982

[LORD LOW OF DALSTON] There has been some confusion over these costings Of course, indirect election can take a number of in the press. They are what they were billed to be or forms. Oliver Heald MP,a member of the Joint Committee what it says on the tin: costings of the Government’s and chairman of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, original proposals, given by me in evidence to my issued a pamphlet through that society to coincide noble friend Lord Richard. They are not and could with the publication of the Joint Committee’s report. not be costings of my noble friend’s proposals, simply In that, he proposed a secondary mandate system in because that report only became available last Monday. which each party would publish a list of its candidates As the committee failed to give costings—because the and gain seats in the House of Lords in exact proportion Government failed to give them—someone has to fill to the share of the electorate’s support won in the the gap, and I will have a go. I am working with the general election. There were at least four submissions assistance of the Library to do a costing of the Joint to the Joint Committee proposing a system of indirect Committee’s proposals. election or something like that. I say nothing of my I say two things about that. First, it is likely to come own humble contribution. Dr Alex Reid of Cambridge out a little lower than that the costings I have already proposed a system in which the 80 per cent elected done of the Government’s proposals. Secondly, it will element of the House would be indirectly elected via come out lower because some of the Joint Committee’s political parties. John Smith of Stamford, Lincolnshire, recommendations seem to be wholly unrealistic. Under submitted a well worked out scheme of indirect election them, you would have one lot of new Peers with from constituencies of expertise with a general college salaries and support allowances and another lot—the for those not affiliated to any particular constituency transitional Peers—who would just get our current and a parliamentary college for politicians. Finally, allowances. Whatever happened to the rate for the job? Dr Martin Wright would have the colleges that represent If you take out that assumption, the Joint Committee constituencies of expertise make the nominations but proposals will cost more than the Government’s proposals, elections would be by members of the general public. simply because it proposes more elected and new They would vote in the college of their choice for the appointed Peers. candidates of their choice on the basis of statements or CVs circulated for the purpose. Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs Minister, described my costings as “speculative”. In one sense, It seems that there is much merit in the alternative Mr Harper is right, as they depend on assumptions report’s suggestion of a constitutional convention to about what precisely will be in the Bill when it eventually go into more detail than the Joint Committee possibly appears and, indeed, on assumptions as to how the could on these different proposals, as well as the Bill’s proceedings will be implemented in practice. To multitude of other issues identified by the alternative that extent, the costings are speculative, as indeed will report. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, be the Government’s own costings, which he has promised poured such scorn on the idea of a constitutional to publish, belatedly, if and when the Government convention. I thought that the alternative report made publish a Bill. The costings of every single policy the case quite well that a good deal more work needed adopted by this House and Parliament are speculative, to be done to bottom these issues out. in the sense that you cannot know exactly what will happen until it has happened. What a convenient 5.47 pm brush-off the word “speculative” represents. Anyone Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I apologise in advance for who knows the first thing about government will lowering the very high tone set just now by the noble know that cost estimates would have had to be given Lord, Lord Low, and the speakers who preceded him. to the ministerial committee considering the White I will stick to my special subject, as the House’s Paper, to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime resident geek—namely, the cost of what is proposed. Minister. Why should we not see them too, as those Some noble Lords might not think that that is the kind who have to legislate about those proposals? of thing we should debate this afternoon but I can Here is a thought for your Lordships. Let us suppose assure the House that it matters a good deal to the that the costings given to the ministerial committee, people out there who have to bear the cost. the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister The Joint Committee puts no cost on its proposals, had shown that the new House would cost not more, although my noble friend Lord Richard said in presenting as it will, but less. Does anyone seriously suppose that them that we will not get a second Chamber for free. that would not have been broadcast from the rooftops, That is one thing that he said that we can certainly all with the Government showing how marvellously they agree with. However, the alternative report produced a were economising with our politics with their proposal? costing—mine. This is the cost of the Government’s Of course they would. They have decided not to tell us original proposals drawn from my evidence to the the cost for one reason and one reason only. The cost Joint Committee, although the alternative report omits of these proposals is an Exocet heading straight for the six footnotes and 13 detailed references attached the engine room of their ship. So they hope to manoeuvre, to that evidence which set out the assumptions that zig and zag, this way and that to avoid the impact, at underlie it. The headline numbers are that the extra least until their ship is a bit nearer port than it is today. costs of the reforms will be, in year 1, £177 million, That is of course why they resist a referendum, as and over the five-year Parliament of 2015-20, £433 million. recommended by the Richard committee, as they know To put that in a more down-to-earth way, it is the that the chances of the public voting yes to reform will equivalent of 80,000 hip replacements—a comparison melt like a snowball in the midsummer sun once that should appeal to Members of your Lordships’ people understand the bill that they will have to pay House—or a year’s salary for 13,000 nurses. for this folly. In this age of austerity, does anyone 1983 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1984 seriously believe that the public will agree to hand that with the Bill as drafted primacy will move measurably huge chunks of their hard-earned money to a whole away from the House of Commons to the new Senate, new gang of second-rate elected politicians? notwithstanding the aspirations of Clause 2 which, in Let me issue this challenge to the Minister. I have the committee’s view, would be quite ineffective. published my costings—let us have yours. Opinion is I turn to the intervention of the new Senators—the free, but facts are sacred and, in this day and age, most likely title for these people, it would seem—in ought to be freely available for all of us to debate. constituency affairs. It will be difficult if not impossible Unless the Minister, in answering this debate, agrees to to prevent Senators taking up local issues brought to this, he will confirm what the whole House in its heart their attention if they so choose. Frankly, it would be knows: this is a cover-up, which disgraces those who wrong to attempt to do so. Perhaps some modus have perpetuated it. operandi can be found, but this matter will need to be resolved if friction is not to ensue. 5.53 pm Noble Lords will have observed that both the draft Bill and the Joint Select Committee report anticipate Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, was a member of that the new Senate will be chosen by PR, probably the Joint Select Committee and I, too, pay tribute to some variation of STV.Whatever may be the merits of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his chairmanship. PR—and the British people were pretty unconvinced As is self-evident from the report, his task was a when they were asked about this issue last year—it will difficult one, which he fulfilled with skill, courtesy and surely mean that one or more of the smaller parties, balance. I pay tribute, too, to the clerks who served such as the Lib Dems, the Greens or even UKIP, or our committee, who had an enormously difficult and maybe a cocktail of all three, will hold the balance of voluminous task; a huge volume of work was theirs, power in the new House. No doubt that is why my and they discharged it with skill and efficiency. right honourable friend Mr Clegg is so keen on the Very few members of the Joint Select Committee proposals. Other party leaders, not to mention the agreed with everything in the report. Indeed, a number electorate, may be less sanguine. of us, including me, agreed to an alternative report—but, I have previously taken the liberty of detaining again, views were not unanimous. May I say, in parenthesis, your Lordships on the question of the 92 hereditary that your Lordships may wish to consider the Peers. My position on that remains unchanged. I agree arrangements for widely held dissident views on a that if this Bill, for all its shortcomings, were to Select Committee to be more easily expressed than is become law, that would mean the end of the by-elections at present the case? But let that be a matter for another and eventually the departure of the 92 hereditaries day. along with the life Peers. However, if the proposed Bill I turn to the substance of the issues before your does not reach the statute book and some more limited Lordships as considered and reported on. The essential interim measure is proposed, I would wish to reserve proposition set out in the draft Bill, supported by the judgment for the present of what my view might be White Paper and by the right honourable gentleman, with regard to the by-elections. the Deputy Prime Minister, when he gave evidence, is I was also an adherent to the alternative report now that there should be a fundamental change to how before your Lordships. I do not agree with all of it, but Members of the upper Chamber are selected while the I agree that the constitutional forum that the alternative powers and role remain unchanged. The introduction report proposes would go a long way to meet the of a process of election is said to be required to meet a undertaking in the Conservative manifesto that we perceived democratic deficit. As I shall say later, I do should seek a consensus. That is surely the right way not necessarily disagree with the concept of a properly forward, and a referendum would clearly complete elected Senate, but I most strongly disagree that that that process, and it is supported by the Joint Select can and should be achieved while the role and powers Committee and myself. remain unaltered. I dare say that I am seen as some kind of hereditary I believe with complete conviction that if we move dinosaur opposed to all change, but that is not so. I to a wholly or largely elected second Chamber, the am in favour of what I see as proper reform—namely, new House will straightaway use its existing powers a fully elected Senate with full powers perhaps along more aggressively and very soon be agitating for more. US lines. This Bill seems to be the worst of all possible The Parliament Act 1949, which reduced allowable worlds, and I hope that it will not reach the statute delay from two years to one, as originally proposed in book. 1911, will no doubt be an early target. Indeed, the 1911 Act itself, according to some authorities, may well become inapplicable, given its preamble, with 6pm which your Lordships will be familiar, on the temporary Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I declare an nature of its provisions pending a properly elected interest as a supporter of the Campaign for a Democratic House of Lords. Upper House, and as a long-standing member of the Furthermore, the conventions, which are not part Labour Party—a party which, within its DNA, has of statute law but which form such an important part sought to reform the House of Lords and to move of the present relationship between our two Houses, towards an elected second Chamber in this country. are likewise very soon to come under pressure. I see That is not to say that I am in agreement with everything the Salisbury convention, for example, being the first that the Campaign for a Democratic Upper House has of these to be questioned and, perhaps, abandoned. been saying in this context over the past few weeks and So I have to say to my noble friend and your Lordships in its submissions, any more than it means that I 1985 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1986

[LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE] our conventions. They have resisted doing that so far, supported the Government’s White Paper and draft and I have looked at the arguments that they have Bill when it first came out. Indeed, when it did I was advanced when they have gone before the committee, quite critical in a number of respects, particularly in but I still believe that those issues need addressing—as regard to Clause 2. I was unhappy about the 15-year do other topics that are still left over. We need a term and the absence of accountability which I believe dispute resolution procedure beyond that which has this House needs to have introduced. been presented by the Government, and further work I have been in this House since 1997, and when I on codification or addressing the conventions of the first came in I believed that the House should be House. When we examine the report which the noble reformed. Much as I have come to love the place and Lord has produced, we see that within it there is an the people in it, and to respect the very significant answer to most of the problems which have been contribution that it makes to society through its work, presented hitherto by those who are opposed to us knowledge and expertise, I have over the years felt the shifting on this ground: that the primacy of the Commons embrace of the House on me to shift my position. The would be challenged. noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has left the I urge noble Lords to re-read the report because it Chamber, but I have been almost seduced to switch my provides us with a foundation on which we can build position by the efforts that he has made with his in moving forward. It also provides for those, perhaps several Bills. However, I have not shifted it. In that particularly on the Cross Benches, who are fearful respect, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his about the possible attack on that primacy from the committee for reaffirming my position. Lords if we had elections. There is a scheme within it I want first to say that over the past months I have to cover that. I suspect that the minority on the Joint watched people trooping through the Lobbies who for Committee have realised that there is quite a lot in this many years were opposed to what they were voting for report, sufficient to have moved them to provide an in regard to health and social care—and that is what alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has done the public see, too. They were people who for many his best today to make sure that everybody reads it. years had fought for benefits, particularly for the Again, I urge people to read it fully, because it is a very disabled, but who were voting in a manner quite useful document, although in some areas it does not contrary to anything I had previously seen. I am thus quite represent the full position. reaffirmed in the view that the public are entitled to In conclusion , I will pick up a point from the have a say on who is in this House. alternative report. In its executive summary it says I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord that the Government’s Bill “purports” to set out a Richard, and all the members of his committee for the system of an elected second Chamber that will not report which has been produced for us. It has not been challenge the primacy of the Commons, but it fails to an easy task, as we all recognise, but they have moved do so. I asked noble Lords to ask themselves: why us forward. This momentum has been under way since should a Government—indeed, why should the previous the 1990s, and it will not stop. In particular, I am Labour Government—whose power depend upon their pleased that a majority of them embraced the position in the House of Commons set out to do any circumstances in which we, as representatives, cannot such thing to undermine their power and primacy? resolve this issue and find a consensual approach, and Why should they do it? Nobody has looked at or have recommended that the people should decide what answered that question. The simple fact is that the should be done with the second Chamber. On that Commons will continue to have their power there. there was, fortunately, a very substantial majority in Governments will want that, whether they be Labour, the committee. Lib Dem, Conservative or coalition. That is the way I am pleased that my leader in this House has they will want it, and they will make sure that the laws reaffirmed in the Lords today the Labour Party’s of the land are structured so that that primacy is position in favour of a referendum. We indicated that retained, even if they have to change it en route. in our manifesto. However, I was disappointed earlier I look forward with great interest to seeing where to hear the Leader of the House, when speaking on we end up with the Bill, when it comes to us. I look behalf of the coalition, say that the Government saw forward, too, to the people taking a decision on this. I no case for it. I hope that the Government are going to will be one of those canvassing and fighting hard to reflect on that and change their minds, that that will make sure that those people who have the right to not become a point of dissent between and within the make the law are there through the votes cast by two Chambers, and that we can move forward and let people who have to live under those laws. We will then the people have their say. When they have had their see where we end on the primacy issue. If the Commons say, it should rest with a House of Commons, whose come out with a majority in favour of change, as primacy we want to see maintained, to take a decision seems likely from the way that the voting has gone on the composition and powers of the House of within the Joint Committee, this House should be Lords. That was a big change and is a big step forward, willing to accept it. and I thank the committee for it very much indeed. In a sense, if the proposal goes through the committee will have taken it away from the warring factions, 6.09 pm which have so far been unable to move forward on it. Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, for Finally, I want to say something on Clause 2, which those who have the earlier version of the speakers list, I have been very unhappy about. I have long been an perhaps I could explain why I am speaking now. I put advocate of the Government working on codifying my name in last week but, by mistake, it was left out 1987 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1988 and there is a new version. The noble Lord, Lord At the regional level that they will represent—the Richard, had a difficult task and he has my sympathy. wider constituency level—there will be many issues I understand and can see that he approached his that are not related to individual constituency cases chairmanship with thoroughness and sympathy, and but are of great concern to all the constituents, over he approached it well, but at the end of the day this which there will, frankly, be rivalry between the Members was clearly a divided committee. As the noble Lords, of this House and those of the other House, particularly Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Grenfell, pointed if they represent different parties. It is obvious that out it is 13 to 12 because one member of the committee, there will be constant conflict then. The Government as I understand it, attended hardly any of its sessions. have attempted to solve this with 15-year terms and no There are therefore almost two versions of the report. re-election. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that I strongly support the alternative report. I commend this completely destroys the democratic accountability members of the committee on their impeccable logic, case on which the Deputy Prime Minister hangs his the cogency of their analysis and the conclusions of whole argument. I agree very strongly with the right their report. We have had excellent and convincing reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester on this point. speeches today from some of its signatories. I shall I now turn quickly to two points that have not been make just four points in the time available. Inevitably, I covered so far. The first concerns who will stand. I will be somewhat repetitive but there is nothing wrong find it very difficult to work out who will stand for the with that as this debate needs to reflect the overall alternative House that is being proposed. It certainly response of the House. will not be those who wish to seek a proper political First, on Clause 2, the committee was unanimous. career. In the other place, one can be re-elected every Indeed, the overwhelming evidence that it received five years and, if not re-elected for one constituency, from nearly all the witnesses meant that it could can stand in another. Members thus have the opportunity hardly have concluded otherwise. It is pretty devastating. of a long-term political career. At the age of 37, The committee was, someone who wants a political career will not be very “firmly of the opinion that a wholly or largely elected reformed happy to come to this House for 15 years, with no House will seek to use its powers more assertively, to an extent possibility of being re-elected to the other House. which cannot be predicted with certainty now”. Also, if they have proper ministerial ambitions and It went on: want to play a part in the policies of the Government to which they hope to belong, those ministerial ambitions “We concur with the overwhelming view expressed to us in oral and written evidence that Clause 2 of the draft Bill is not will be best satisfied in the other place. Of course, if capable in itself of preserving the primacy of the House of they stand for this House in the hope that it will lead Commons”. to a career in the other House, under the proposals It also stated that the possibility of judicial review was they will be prevented by the case that has been put “profoundly undesirable” and said: forward. Therefore, I cannot see why people who want a full political career will wish to stand under the “The Government’s approach in Clause 2(1)(c) of the Bill … present proposals. risks judicial intervention”— Nor can I see those in other professions and which— occupations—who it is apparently hoped will bring “would be a constitutional disaster”. the expertise and specific experiences that many of the Those are pretty strong words. Given the unanimous Cross-Benchers here now offer—wishing to stand for opinion of the Joint Committee, the opinion of most this place in mid-career. Neither the salaries offered Members of both Houses and all the expert opinion nor the career prospects are very great. If you are 37 or outside Parliament, I cannot see how the Government 40 and thinking of coming to this place for 15 years, can bring forward a Bill without a wholesale taking a complete break from your career, what chance reconstruction of Clause 2. It would be a travesty of will you have of going back to that career after 15 years? consultation and almost an insult to the parliamentary Therefore, it would tend to be rather an elderly process to do otherwise. That covers the problem of House. Most probably, those who do not have political conflict between the two Houses. ambitions would think of standing for this House in Secondly, I turn to the problem of conflict in the the late stages of their other careers. They would seek constituencies. Some people have suggested that this a further few salaried years and perhaps find them would not happen. Here again, the alternative report, interesting. That would be like the Cross-Bench Peers half the signatories to which have long experience of in the present House. However, it would be a House elections and being elected, got it right. It says: that challenged the primacy of the House of Commons, “We believe that this is a wholly misplaced notion of the which the other place strongly opposes, and at much reality of practical politics”. greater cost than the present House, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out. The electorate will My noble friend Lord Trimble went into some detail almost certainly dislike that, to put it mildly. I am on that today. It is pretty obvious that there will be deeply worried by the thought that this would be an conflict at the constituency level, not least because in attractive career opportunity for many, and I doubt today’s world of the internet and e-mail anyone can that any reform would bring the expertise and experience put their views forward very quickly, either to their of this House as it stands. elected MP from the other place or to anyone else that they wish. I simply do not believe that elected Members Having listened to the speakers before me, I probably of this House would not be subjected to large numbers carry most Members with me so far, but in my final of such e-mails and correspondence. point I may have a little more difficulty. While I 1989 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1990

[LORD MACGREGOR OF PULHAM MARKET] composed in the same way? Ten of the councillors strongly support the proposals in the Bill of the noble would be hereditary. Some of my Liberal friends on Lord, Lord Steel, and have always done so, and strongly that county council have admirable sons and support the additional points made so properly by the grandsons who could inherit their seats. Some 50 noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which are appropriate would be appointed for life by the local constituency for the reform of this House, there is one issue on parties. I am sure that they would be very glad to be which I urge a word of caution. I do not think that we relieved of the sort of things they are doing at the have properly addressed it yet. It concerns our most moment, such as knocking on doors, giving out leaflets vulnerable point: the size of the House. We have and canvassing. Then we would have to think of the recently adopted proposals for voluntary retirement, others—perhaps the Bishop of St Asaph; the former which have had a puny—almost minimal—response commanding officer of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers TA; and will obviously not solve the problem. We need to the former commodore of HMS “Rhyl”, and various go further. I do not find at all attractive the suggestion other people of a similar variety. The suggestion that of appointing no more new Members until the grim drew the sharpest intake of breath was that former reaper has played his part and the numbers have come chief executives of local authorities should be appointed down. It is important that this House is constantly to this body for life. refreshed with new people, new experiences and new It is absurd, is it not? I am entirely with the noble expertise. Therefore, we have two options, which we Lord, Lord Dubs, on elections. There is nothing wrong will have to address—that is, retirement on the grounds with knocking on doors, meeting people and talking of either length of service or age, which happens in to them about their problems or pushing leaflets through pretty well every other profession and occupation, doors, as I have said. We on the Liberal Benches are including for judges. I believe that we will have to not “too posh to push”. We would welcome elections include this in the Steel-Hayman reforms and it is if they came along. something that we have still to address. It is said that this place works, but only because the That does not detract at all from my overwhelming other place fails. Noble Lords who were present during view that this House is right to say that the alternative the final moments of the passage of the legal aid Bill, report is the right one, addressing the right issues and as I was, will recall that many on the opposition and making the right point, and that the Government’s Cross Benches complained about the lack of time that proposals therefore remain deeply flawed. had been given to that Bill due to the guillotine and programme Motions that had been applied in the other place, which meant that the issues that we discussed 6.17 pm at length had not been taken up in the House of Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I suppose Commons at all. This place works only because there that, like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is a void that we have to fill. We are the people who are I must declare an interest, as I am the newly elected lobbied and have to make changes to hastily introduced president of the Lloyd George Society. YourLordships legislation. may recall that Lloyd George did not have much of an What we are facing here in opposition to the Bill opinion of this place. Indeed, he said that it was are the forces of inertia, however it is described. Lloyd 500 ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among George understood and even sympathised with this the unemployed. Your Lordships will gather from that notion. After all, he had spent six years in coalition that we do not do deference very well in north Wales. with the Tories. He was the Nick Clegg of his day, you It is part of my DNA; I can tell the noble Lord, Lord might say. He had the Nick Clegg experience. Speaking Brooke, that. at the National Liberal Club in 1924, Lloyd George It will not surprise your Lordships to know that in said: my first election, in West Flintshire in 1964, I campaigned “Toryism undoubtedly makes an appeal to one essential mood on three principles. The first was a Parliament for of human nature—that of fundamental inertia; and that is sometimes a real human need … every man tends to become a Tory himself Wales; the second was proportional representation; when tired, disinclined for exertion, wishing to be left alone, cross and the third was abolition of the House of Lords. I with anyone who proposes new efforts, and, may I add, tempted found a fellow toiler in my friend, colleague and to view the drink traffic with an unusually friendly eye. Toryism adversary, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, who makes an inherent and instinctive appeal to very prevalent moods came from 20 or 30 miles from my home town and was in human nature—contentment with your own lot; indifference to educated similarly to me. Although we were in different the lot of others, often through ignorance of the conditions or the parties, we shared the same values. On past occasions imagination to realise them; rooted habits and prejudices”. when we debated House of Lords reform, he and I However, Toryism, as Lloyd George defined it, is just walked almost alone, together, through the “100 per as active on the opposition Benches as it is on these cent elected second Chamber” Lobby. We continued Benches. “Not now”, says the noble Baroness the to do so over all that time. former Leader of the House, “Not like this”. “Give us a constitutional convention”, others cry—anything Some three weeks ago I was invited to speak at a except action. Toryism on all sides of the House, said dinner of Flintshire County Council, at which I was Lloyd George, would, if left alone, do nothing. Liberals told not to be too political. You are not allowed to be would break the soil with the plough. political at these events where there are lots of people in chains from all the county councils and local councils around. I indulged in a little fantasy. Since the House Lord Morgan: Will the noble Lord kindly explain to of Lords is so perfect in many people’s eyes, what the House why Lloyd George was against an elected would Flintshire County Council look like if it were House of Lords? 1991 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1992

Lord Thomas of Gresford: He was for the abolition of professional politicians who are only too well aware of the House of Lords, as I recall. of the transient nature of their individual influence, which is subject to the whim of the electorate. 6.24 pm In all the contradictory thinking displayed by the two reports, one thing is clear. This Parliament, with Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Lloyd George just three years to run at most, has absolutely no came here. Perhaps the noble Lord does not know authority, despite the coalition agreement, even to that. Anyway, that is by the by. attempt to impose a permanent change to our constitution The so-called reform of the House of Lords—I use for generations to come. I await to see whether the “reform”with a degree of irony—has been an intractable Government will be rash enough to introduce the question bedevilling those interested in the constitution defective House of Lords Reform Bill, which has for more than 100 years. Despite the distinguished received absolutely no unequivocal support from the membership of the Joint Committee, I have to say committee set up to consider it—nor, it should be said, with the greatest of respect that the report does not from most of the media, from many politicians of all carry the issue any further forward. The problem that parties, and in particular from the public. I predict an the committee had to face was that its terms of reference exceedingly rough ride in both Houses and outside did not permit it to reach the conclusion—the only Parliament if they do so. I was going to say “if they conclusion at this time in my opinion—that doing are stupid enough to do so” but I had better not use nothing, or practically nothing, was an option. that word, especially as Members of the House of It is clear from the majority report and the persuasive Commons are present. alternative report that the committee was divided across the parties, within the parties, and between the Houses. 6.29 pm In one case, however, the committee’s report is unanimous. Lord Desai: My Lords, the answer to my noble It states that, friend’s question to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of “a wholly or largely elected reformed House will seek to use its Gresford, as to why Lloyd George did not support an powers more assertively”, elected House is very simple. At that time, the unionist and that, opposition was proposing an elected element for the “a more assertive House would not enhance Parliament’s overall House of Lords precisely to make it more powerful. role in relation to the … executive”. One thing that Lloyd George did not want was a Is it likely that the Members of the Commons will House of Lords more legitimate and powerful than he meekly vote for losing their acknowledged primacy? already had facing him, which is why the 1911 Act The report makes it clear that Clause 2 of the draft carefully avoided going down the elected path. All the Bill is defective and fails to preserve the primacy of the themes that we have discussed—an elected House, the Commons, and insists that it will be impossible to way to reconcile a quarrelling House of Commons, legislate to that effect. If we are to have a major joint sessions and referenda—were rehearsed way back constitutional change, it must be by Act of Parliament before the Parliament Act 1911 was passed. You have and not by the nods and winks of an unwritten only to read Roy Jenkins’s book, Mr Balfour’s Poodle, convention. The committee was unable to agree on to find that out. Again, given where we are, do we such vital issues as the composition and powers of a want to make the House of Lords more powerful than changed House—I decline, even here, to say “reformed it is? House”—the method of election, the term of office, I compliment my noble friend Lord Richard on the the running cost of the House, how the Members excellent report of his Joint Committee, but I should should be remunerated, whether they should be say that one of the central contradictions is that the Peers, and so on. In fact, we are still where we were a Government have proposed a draft Bill but have been century ago. somewhat timid with their reforms. Had they been In the end, the committee abdicated the need for a really bold, they would have said, “We want an elected firm conclusion by proposing a referendum—a classic House of Lords, but it would be difficult to retain the case of kicking the issues into the long grass. This is primacy of the House of Commons unless some drastic not Switzerland. We do not govern by referenda. We things are done along with the Bill”. Everyone has expect our legislators to take on the responsibility of agreed—including the Joint Committee’s report, the making difficult decisions. A referendum is not an alternative report and many of the witnesses—that exercise in democracy but a way of passing the buck, Clause 2 will not do because it will not resolve the which this report proposes to do. My final word on issue of the primacy of the House of Commons. The referenda is that no matter how many people vote for a question would then be: is the primacy of the House bad idea, it is still a bad idea. The alternative report, of Commons there not because it is elected but because acknowledging the committee’s failure to provide a we are unelected? If we get elected, will the primacy of conclusive answer, has suggested the setting up of a the House of Commons make sense any more? That is constitutional convention. How many have there been the question that people ought to pose. The financial in the past on the same topic? However, it must be a privileges of the House of Commons derive from way properly constituted commission with impartial, non- back in the 17th century, before it was elected in political, non-party members, with expertise in history anything like its present form. That had to be reaffirmed and constitutional law who must also have knowledge and established in statute in the 1911 Act because of the workings of other legislatures. Its members those privileges were not guaranteed by the conventions must have ample time to take and consider evidence of that time. If we are again to assert the primacy of and not be constrained by the social engineering ambitions the House of Commons, we have to establish that in 1993 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1994

[LORD DESAI] element would also have some legitimacy. These sorts statute—perhaps as a separate Parliament Act, not of schemes have been proposed for the British constitution mixed up with the House of Lords Reform Bill. If you over the past 100 years; there is nothing new about do not do that you cannot rely on conventions because, that. In that way, we will have an elected element in as the balance of power changes, conventions will your Lordships’ House, it will not threaten the legitimacy change—and previous conventions will, no doubt, be of the House of Commons, and we will definitely have challenged. One of the things we therefore have to do a better House than at present. is make quite sure that if the two Houses of Parliament I shall say just one more thing. It is a fallacy to want to preserve the primacy of the House of Commons think that elected people do not have expertise. You we must spell out what that primacy consists of and have only to go to the House of Commons, which over establish it by statute, because nothing can be taken many years has included professors, lawyers and scientists. for granted in an unwritten constitution whereby one I recall Dr Jeremy Bray, whom I used to know well; he Parliament can change what another Parliament does. was a distinguished scientist and a very good MP. The nub of the problem is the nature of the elections Elected people can have expertise. You do not need to to the House of Lords, which a lot of noble Lords be unelected to be an expert. have spoken about. It is clear that if we have elections on whatever territorial basis—either singly or as a 6.38 pm group, as we do for the European Parliament—the House of Lords will replicate the House of Commons. The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, as has been If the Lords is elected by PR, that would in at least pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that some people’s eyes be more legitimate than first past the committee did not have a blank sheet. That is fair the post; and a House of Lords elected on the same enough, but it is worth bearing in mind that the draft territorial basis as the House of Commons, by what Bill that the committee looked at is called the House some may think is a better method, will no doubt of Lords Reform Bill. It is not called the “Composition challenge the legitimacy of the House of Commons. of the House of Lords Reform Bill”—important though One should not be surprised by that. One ought to that area of reform will of course be. look at that issue in advance and do something about it. In that spirit, I want to use my intervention to hold What I proposed in my submission to the committee a magnifying glass over a specific topic of House of somewhat overlaps with what the noble Lord, Lord Lords reform that has not yet been mentioned and Low, said earlier. It was that we should have elections was not in the report but that would be a significant to the House of Lords for 80 per cent of its Members—I and timely measure for reasons of transparency, public would prefer 100 per cent, but I pass on that—but the confidence and modernity. My topic is the official elections should be on a regional basis. Of course, we recording of abstentions. This issue also throws up are not a federation and it is difficult to justify a interesting questions about underlying attitudes that second Chamber if the country is not a federation, as reform should address and challenge. many experts told the Joint Committee. We already While this matter is not exclusive to the reform of have three devolved Parliaments, and England is supposed the second House, our continuing refusal to record to have 10 regions. I know that the regions do not abstentions in either House is emblematic of the continuing actually want autonomy, but we shall have to impose emphasis in Parliament as a whole on a rigid two-party some autonomy on them. If we elect an equal number parliamentary system, despite the current reality that of MPs from the 13 regions—quick arithmetic tells me we have a coalition as well as renewed public interest that if we have 20 from each region we would have 260 in the notion of party politically independent candidates. elected Lords in a House of 300; and the number It is a style that remains primarily confrontational, the could be adjusted to 450—and the list is regional and very thing that the public do not like and are reacting not attached to any constituency, the Members elected against, and a style that, it has to be said, was reaffirmed will in some sense be representative but will not be by the decision to keep the first-past-the-post system rivals to the way that the House of Commons derives for election to the Commons. Although tempered in its legitimacy. the Lords, this system is nevertheless the foundation There is another advantage—a House of Lords on which both Houses are currently built. elected by regional lists will fill the one big gap in our This system is of course reflected and reinforced by system. Your Lordships’ House is at present always the very geography of both parliamentary Chambers, accused of being too London-biased and that a regional where Dispatch Boxes and rows of Benches are set up dimension is missing from our Parliament. If we could in opposition to each other. We are not of course the get a regional dimension into Parliament through only Parliament in the world to use this layout, but it is elections, either directly or indirectly, it would provide a geography that, in relation to other more modern for an elected element to the House of Lords that Parliaments that use a more open and often semicircular would not challenge the legitimacy of the House of layout for their Members, can appear inward-looking Commons, which is based on an entirely separate and hermetic. constituency system. In an exchange in the Commons on 3 February last That is one way of reconciling two difficult problems. year, Caroline Lucas, on the subject of abstentions, As for the 20 per cent who would be appointed, I said that people had told her, “If you can’t make up entirely agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, your mind, you shouldn’t be in politics”. That is Lord Low. We have many electoral colleges, including clearly a view that people still hold. What occasioned the Royal Society, the BMA and the Law Society. that exchange was six Lib Dems voting the previous Each could elect one representative, and the appointed evening in both Lobbies on the forestry debate. It is 1995 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1996 possible to vote in both Lobbies in the Commons but that it might be possible to introduce that through a not in this House. The Deputy Speaker reiterated that Standing Order, as another measure considered by the voting twice in the Commons was “unparliamentary”. same committee, the practice of deferred Divisions, I agree, and I am sure that if the public were to be was introduced in that way in 2004—although an asked, they would heartily disapprove of that practice. amendment might also be brought to the House of It is also obviously an inelegant and cumbersome Lords Bill. The measure might well be trialled in the solution if one takes abstention seriously. Lords as part of current reform. A more sophisticated and sensitive system and a I do not think that we should wait for the introduction more sensitive Parliament would appreciate that there of electronic voting systems, which is something of an are often shades of opinion on, for example, amendments excuse not to introduce this measure. There is no to Bills. An amendment can sometimes carry within it reason why abstentions could not be recorded with the two principles which Members of the House may feel clerk in the Chamber itself. Neither is it a measure that are both valid but are in conflict. Indeed, there was a depends on the final composition of this House. It prime example of such a case in this House just last would be a significant improvement in the democratic week during the Protection of Freedoms Bill when, as workings of Parliament as a whole, not only for itself noble Lords will recall, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but as a sign of greater transparency and accountability. in his speech from the opposition Front Bench, asked all opposition Members to abstain on the amendment 6.44 pm of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on entry to premises, on the basis that protecting the privacy of Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, Parliament has never occupants and the protection of consumers’ rights before faced a situation in which a draft Bill sent for were equally important. consideration by a Joint Committee has been totally demolished by the members of that committee. That is The fact is that abstentions happen and will certainly the effect of the two reports produced by its members—the happen even more, with or without recording, particularly Joint Committee report agreed by all and the alternative if we are to continue to have coalition Governments. report signed by 12—which have to be taken together. Disagreements between partners ought to be They create a balance of opinion more significant acknowledged as a fact of coalition life and are not than the individual votes—on which the noble Lord, necessarily something that Parliament needs to be Lord Richard, laid much emphasis—a balance of embarrassed about. Hardly a vote has gone by when opinion vividly and wonderfully described in a tremendous there have not been abstentions on some of the very speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of complicated Bills that we have discussed recently. Leicester. If we introduced recorded abstentions, we would Clause 2, the keystone of the Bill, supposed to hold simply be getting up to speed with the more modern, up and guarantee the continuing primacy of the House and in my view more progressive, systems of many, if of Commons, was pulled out and discarded as worthless not all, European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, by the whole committee, and the alternative report Belgium and Germany—and locally now including argued that, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. “the proposals represent an unbridgeable gap between the election The main argument is that we need a more transparent of the House of Lords and the primacy of the House of Commons”. Parliament. This is a time when many are concerned It is now clear that what is involved is not just the about bringing a truer picture of Parliament to the introduction of elected Members to the Lords but a public. If you are in this Chamber at the time of a titanic upheaval with massive implications for the Division, you know full well who has abstained. Members Commons. If the Bill is introduced, Parliament is then will often make it very clear when they sit down to be confronted with the necessity of trying to bridge the counted—to coin a phrase—often in no uncertain unbridgeable by making fundamental changes that terms, that they are abstaining. That is a significant seem bound to include amending the Parliament Acts, aspect of the business of this place and could make a review of codification of conventions by a Joint the difference between whether a vote is won or lost. It Committee and the examination of a plethora of vital is insulting to the public that that information is in issues that have not been thought through, to cite the effect kept secret and not made available. It might not noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. They be the wilful neglect of the public, but it is wrong. include the future of Scotland and the devolved That goes hand in hand with the scornful attitude in Administrations, among others. some quarters to websites such as TheyWorkForYou The report identified other consequences that are and the Public Whip, which number-crunch the votes almost equally damaging, among them the very large and are all part and parcel of the larger public interest cost of introducing an additional 450 paid politicians in Parliament. to Parliament, 360 elected by a system of PR likely to The possibility of recording abstentions was last ensure that a minority party always holds the balance considered in 1998, when the Select Committee on of power. I say to my friends on the Liberal Democrat Modernisation of the House of Commons produced a Benches that they should not optimistically assume consultation paper on voting methods, finding that a that they will be that minority party. They may find majority—slim, but a majority nevertheless—of 54 per that others of whom they strongly disapprove hold the cent of Members were in favour of introducing that balance in that situation. There is the lack of accountability measure. It is high time, 15 years on, that that was of those politicians elected for a 15-year term and looked at again. My understanding from research by unable to seek the endorsement of the electors for a the House of Lords Library, for which I am grateful, is second term. There is the absurdity of the proposition 1997 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 1998

[LORD CRICKHOWELL] back at Labour Party manifestos from 1997 onwards, that, having been elected, they should not take up I see that we called for House of Lords reform in all of constituency issues, with restrictions placed on expenses them. We were very specific in the last Labour Party provided to enable them to do so. The case for the manifesto, when we said: necessity for a referendum has been compellingly made “Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second and the arguments against exposed as shallow and Chamber will then be achieved in stages. At the end of the next unsustainable. Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general It is abundantly clear that there is now no consensus election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all about the way to reform this House. To cite the noble groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now. We Lord, Lord Richard, chairman of the Joint Committee, will consult widely on these proposals, and on an open-list there is division within the parties and within the proportional representation electoral system for the Second Chamber, Houses. I disagree very strongly with his view, supported before putting them to the people in a referendum”. by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that we should It has been interesting to hear the views expressed just press on ahead with what has been presented to us today. Some have been in favour of reform, and I so far. In this situation, it would be political madness think that I speak for the minority when I say that I and deeply unsound constitutional practice were the am very much in favour, although I would prefer to see Government, after only the briefest consideration, to a 100 per cent elected House. However, I can see the commit themselves in the Queen’s Speech to the argument that has been made for 80 per cent of introduction of the same Bill or one closely similar. Members to be elected, with 20 per cent being appointed. For Parliament to attempt on the Floor of both Houses We have had a long debate about the primacy of the to reconstruct and make sound a Bill that has been so House of Commons and the Bill will be going to the comprehensively demolished is likely to wreck Commons. As my noble friend Lord Richard made parliamentary business for the whole Session, threaten clear, of the MPs on the committee, only one opposed and perhaps destroy the coalition Government—goodness the proposition. Therefore, primacy will be an issue knows, they are facing enough troubles as it is at and it will be discussed, but I do not believe that it is present—and produce a deeply flawed and unsustainable an obstacle that cannot be overcome. As I said, after reform. To use the Parliament Act to force through a the Bill has been considered, we shall make a decision Bill in those circumstances would be a constitutional on that matter and it will evolve as time goes on. Both outrage. Houses, as well the people, will have a say on how it The manifesto commitment of the Conservative comes about. Party was to, The other point I should like to make is that about “work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber 400 people, give or take a few, regularly sit in this to replace the current House of Lords”. House. It is not always the same 400 people, so I think The Prime Minister repeatedly made it clear to members it is right that the number of Members envisaged in of his party that it was not a priority or a task likely to the Bill is increased to about 450. be attempted until after a subsequent election. Now Of course, people have been talking about this that it is abundantly clear that the work to build a matter for a long time. When proposals for reform consensus has failed, I hope that he will have the have been put before us in the past, they have failed courage and good sense to insist that adequate time is because there has not been time to carry them out. taken carefully to consider the proposals made in the However, that will not be the case if such a Bill is put alternative report and the ideas for incremental reform forward in the Queen’s Speech. It can be delayed but at that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord the end of the day there are going to be changes, and Steel, and others. this House should address itself to the kind of change If Ministers simply press on and attempt to force that it wants to see. It is no longer good enough to say through Parliament a Bill similar to the draft, I will that staying as we are will do for the future. The base my actions on the firm belief that, confronted question may be asked—it has been asked today—whether with a choice between supporting a legislative programme this is a measure that should be raised. That sort of that includes a deeply flawed reform Bill or defending question is always asked. The big thing at the moment fundamental constitutional principles and an effective is obviously the economic situation, but nobody is Parliament, my clear duty lies with the constitution suggesting that only the economic situation should be and Parliament. I will make my speeches and cast my dealt with; other things should be looked at as well. votes accordingly. I am optimistic that I will be just As I said, the need for us to look at this matter is one of a very large number of Members of both long overdue and I look forward very much to the Bill Houses who will act in the same way. being introduced. I hope that account will be taken of the report of the committee led by my noble friend before the final Bill is put before us. It will be very 6.51 pm sensible to look at the views expressed in the committee. Lord Hoyle: My Lords, there has been debate over However, one thing that we should realise is that the whether this is a decision that should be made now or current composition of this Chamber cannot remain in the future. Many want to see it made in the future in the future. The future lies with a predominantly but I suggest that we have been waiting a very long elected Chamber. As I said, I should like to see 100 per time for this reform—since 1912—and it is time that it cent of its Members elected. was acted upon. We cannot continue to pretend that I have no doubt that we shall return to this matter this issue does not exist, and pretending that we have a time and again before legislation is passed, but I wish democratic constitution is absolutely ridiculous. Looking to put myself firmly on the side of reform and an 1999 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2000 elected House. My noble friend Lord Dubs said very Of course, an electoral mandate is not an abstract eloquently that he would feel far happier speaking as concept; it is thousands of citizens trooping into a an elected Member of a second Chamber. He said that polling station and electing their Member of the second he had found universal support from all sections of Chamber and, as a direct consequence, looking to him the Labour Party wherever he had been, apart from or her to respond to their wishes and deliver the Cambridge University, where unfortunately I do not goods. I am absolutely certain that a reformed House think they listened carefully enough to the eloquence in respect of its elected Members would have a with which he expressed his views. representative function, because the electors would I am conscious that many other noble Lords wish demand it and the second Chamber would evidently to speak, so I shall not go on any longer other than to be more assertive, not to say aggressive, in using its say that not only is this decision due now but it is long powers. overdue. It is a decision that this House will have to The events of last week on the Legal Aid, Sentencing face up to. Whatever the method of election, we have and Punishment of Offenders Bill provided a good to face up to the fact that the second Chamber of this example of what happens now and what would be country will be largely elected in the future. likely to happen if Parliament were to consist not of one but of two democratically elected Chambers. 6.58 pm Representative organisations and many members of Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I join other the public already recognise that in draft legislation Members in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the House of Lords is now the principal revising and the Joint Committee for their report. It seems to Chamber. I had 256 e-mails last week from such deal well with the issues directly covered in the draft organisations and others mostly recommending or Bill, as was the role of the committee, and to avoid pressing for specific changes in draft legislation—and becoming too deeply enmeshed in questions that are I have not even been elected yet. I am amazed that a not covered in the Bill and which are clearly not press that reports on the House of Commons gives subject to any consensus. I also thank the members of little or no publicity to the fact that important parts of the committee who have made their alternative report draft legislation are not discussed or debated in the available. House of Commons or are dealt with only cursorily in However, it is our duty to look a little beyond the a very short time because a guillotine is almost universally terms of the draft Bill when we consider that some of applied. the consequences that would follow from a move to a Currently, the House of Lords scrutinises thoroughly largely elected second Chamber are not dealt with, or and proposes amendments, where appropriate, but we are dealt with only cursorily, in the draft Bill. That is are quite reticent about pressing them if the House of particularly true in relation to the future powers of the Commons cursorily rejects them. Evidently, that situation proposed largely elected second Chamber and the would not prevail between two democratically elected likely effect on the operation of Parliament as a whole— Houses. Some mechanism for conciliation between the that is, a new sharing of power between the two two Houses in such cases would be needed. I do not Houses. These matters are dealt with in recommendations think that it would have to be statutory because we 2 to 16 of the conclusions and recommendations of would run into judicial interference, some sort of the Joint Committee. They are also dealt with more mechanism for conciliation would be an inevitable trenchantly in points one and two of the executive consequence of two democratically elected Houses. summary in the alternative report. Secondly, there is the specific question of the There are hundreds of points in the draft Bill that conventions between the two Houses. Clearly, those will need discussion, and there are 87 conclusions and would need to be reviewed, and where necessary changed, recommendations in the Joint Committee’s report, but to reflect the role of the two democratically elected the House will be glad to know that I shall not deal Houses. I strongly agree with the Joint Committee that with them all today. There will no doubt be opportunities the current text of the Bill in Clause 2 risks making to do so in the weeks, months, probably years and judicial intervention possible, contrary to Article 9 of possibly decades ahead. Today, I shall deal only with the Bill of Rights, and is to be rejected. The conventions the question of the powers of the two Houses if there themselves will almost certainly need to be redefined, were a largely elected second Chamber. and that could be done in a concordat between the two I start with the simple proposition that the draft Houses. Bill would have one tremendously important consequence: it would bring to an end the House of Commons’ In my view, that should apply to all legislation, monopoly in democratic legitimacy. That is just about including secondary legislation, which has hardly been the most fundamental change that could happen to the mentioned today. The House of Lords has shown first Chamber of a Parliament. It is difficult to detect almost complete restraint in dealing with secondary in the draft Bill a full comprehension of the consequences legislation, despite the fact that 10,662 pages of almost of that change for Parliament as a whole. However, wholly home-grown—not Brussels—secondary legislation the Joint Committee has understood it and I would went through this House in a recent year. In the new like to pick out and approve what it says on a number circumstances, the second Chamber would clearly be of points. First, the Joint Committee imposes an important more ready to strike off secondary legislation of which condition where it records that a majority of its members it disapproved. consider that a reformed second Chamber should have Thirdly, and finally, like many other Members I an electoral mandate, and that condition is, shall say a word about the primacy of the House of “provided it has commensurate powers”. Commons, which is central to the Bill, although the 2001 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2002

[LORD WILLIAMSON OF HORTON] it. He was not required to ask or to follow such advice, Bill does not deal with it adequately.The Joint Committee but he did so. He acted fairly and impartially and in points out that Clause 2 is not capable of preserving line with the advice of his Permanent Secretary. Indeed, the primacy of the House of Commons, so if it comes as he set out in his Statement to this House last forward in that or a similar form, I am sure we shall Wednesday, he acted against the interests of News have serious problems when the Bill itself comes before us. Corporation on four key decisions: on being minded I believe that the issue of financial privilege is more to refer the bid to the Competition Commission; on complicated than it has appeared to be in the discussion refusing to accept News Corporation’s undertakings today, because we cannot have a situation in which we without advice first from the OFT and Ofcom; on have two completely free tax-raising Chambers of extending the consultation; and on going back to Parliament. On the other hand, a democratically elected Ofcom for further advice about the impact of phone second Chamber would need a way of dealing with hacking. I have seen no evidence to suggest that in issues that are important but that had some financial handling this issue the Secretary of State acted at any consequences. I saw the south-west news at the weekend, stage in a way that was contrary to the Ministerial which showed many people holding up banners that Code. said, “The pasty tax is a nasty tax”. I am sure that that In terms of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities would be thought about by a Senator who came from towards his department let me say this. The Permanent Cornwall if we had change in the structure of this Secretary of the department approved the approach House. his department took to the quasi-judicial process, I also believe that we need to maintain the structure which included a small number of people acting as under which there is a weapon of last resort, which is contact points with News Corporation, as is required currently the Parliament Acts. I have noted the views and normal in such a process; and the Permanent of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and Secretary of the department has stated that he was of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the report, but if ‘aware’ and ‘content’ for contact to be made between the new circumstances come about it would be necessary the Culture Secretary’s special adviser and News to make statutory provision for some form of last Corporation. However, it is quite clear that this contact resort—yes, more time and perhaps more controversy. became improper and inappropriate and went beyond the requirements set out by the Secretary of State or the Permanent Secretary. That is why the special adviser News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary resigned and he was right to do so. of State for Culture, Media and Sport There are correct procedures to follow in this regard Statement and they need to be followed scrupulously. That is why last week I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy 7.06 pm Heywood, and the head of the Civil Service, Sir Bob The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Kerslake, to write to all departments clarifying the Strathclyde): My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate rigorous procedures that they should have in place for time to take a short break from the debate on the handling cases of this nature. report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, This leads to the second issue: the nature of the Lord Richard. With the leave of the House, I shall inquiry or inquiries best suited to get to the bottom of repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by this issue. I consulted the Cabinet Secretary and decided my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier it was right to allow Lord Justice Leveson to conduct this afternoon in response to an Urgent Question from his inquiry and not to commission a parallel process the Leader of the Opposition. The Statement is as to establish the facts. Let me repeat; what we have is a follows: judge-led inquiry, with witnesses required to give evidence “Last Wednesday I answered questions on this issue under oath, full access to papers and records, and at PMQs and the Culture Secretary made a full statement. cross-examination by barristers—all live on television. But let me set out the position again. I set up the There is nothing this tough or rigorous that the Civil Leveson inquiry last summer to investigate the culture, Service or independent adviser could provide. ethics and practices of the media and the relations Of course, it is not for Lord Justice Leveson to between the media and the police, and the media and determine whether a Minister has broken the Ministerial politicians. It is a full judge-led inquiry, with evidence Code. That is an issue for me and I will deal with it given under oath and full access to papers and records. properly. I will not wait until the end of the Leveson No Government before have ever taken such inquiry to take action if action is needed. If new comprehensive action. It is this Government who are evidence emerges from the Leveson inquiry that the putting these issues properly on the table and getting Ministerial Code has been broken, I will either seek the them dealt with. Let me deal with the three issues in advice of Sir Alex Allan or take action directly. But this question: the conduct of the Secretary of State for the key point is this: in order to do this, it is neither Culture, Media and Sport; the nature of the inquiry necessary nor right to have a parallel investigation that needed to get to the bottom of these issues; and the could duplicate, cut across or possibly pre-empt what wider issues over the relationship between politicians Lord Justice Leveson is doing. Lord Justice Leveson and the media. offered his own view on Wednesday when he said that, First, on the Culture Secretary, as was made clear ‘although I have seen requests for other inquiries and other in his Statement last Wednesday, in every respect with investigations … it seems to me that the better course is to allow regard to the News Corporation bid, the Culture this inquiry to proceed’. Secretary asked for independent advice and acted on I agree with him entirely. 2003 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[30 APRIL 2012] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2004

Let me briefly turn to the bigger picture. I am and When the allegations against the Secretary of State always will be a fierce defender of the freedom of the for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt MP,emerged press in this country; it is one of the central pillars of last week, arising from material released by the inquiry our democracy. But the relationship between politicians into relations between the press, politicians and the and the media has been too close for decades. The police, headed by Lord Justice Leveson, my party Leveson inquiry—which this Government set up—gives called for the Secretary of State to resign or be sacked. Parliament and politicians of all parties the opportunity We do not as a party make such calls lightly. We have a to get this right for the future. Already we have introduced right to do so; the Secretary of State should have transparency about the meetings we have with the resigned then. Having failed to do so, he should resign media. Everyone can see which proprietors or editors I now. meet, whether publicly or privately. The release by the Leveson inquiry of material Let me just say this: like other party leaders in our relating to the Secretary of State and to News country for decades, I have tried to convince media Corporation’s bid led directly to two events: first, the outlets to support the policies of my party and now resignation of Mr Hunt’s special adviser, Mr Adam my Government. But let me be clear: there was not Smith, over the e-mails and other communications and never has been a grand bargain between the that he had with News Corporation in connection Conservative Party and Rupert Murdoch or James with its BSkyB bid; and secondly, in the wake and as a Murdoch. Indeed, look for one moment at the number result of that resignation, calls for the Secretary of of meetings that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had State to be investigated for potential breaches of the with Rupert Murdoch when they were Prime Minister. Ministerial Code, the Cabinet Office rules that govern Blair had seven, Brown had 13 and I have had four. the conduct and behaviour of government Ministers. The idea that there was some agreement that in return for their support we would somehow allow this merger The Government, led by the Prime Minister, sought to go through is simply not true. I have to say if that to avoid such an investigation, arguing that the correct was the case, and while I respect him deeply, what on procedure for inquiring into these matters is the already earth was I doing making the right honourable Member extant inquiry led by Mr Justice Leveson, and that a for Twickenham the Business Secretary responsible second, parallel inquiry would be confusing and for this? The proprietors of News Corporation have inappropriate. The Prime Minister and the Government denied under oath at the Leveson inquiry any type of also sought to insist that in their view the Secretary of deal, and I will do the same. State had not breached the Ministerial Code. That was the burden of the Statement by the Prime Minister Let me just make this last point. Unlike the party that the Leader of the House of Lords repeated today. opposite, we were not trying to convince a centre-right proprietor of a set of newspapers with solidly centre-right This simply will not do. Judges tend not to welcome views to change the position of a lifetime. We were what they regard as interference by politicians. Judicial arguing a simple proposition: that the last Government independence is a central element in the justice system were irresponsible, exhausted and bad for our country, and the constitution of our country. Rightly, therefore, and that they ought to go. Lord Justice Leveson both rejected the misguided While I have said that the relationship between attempt by the Secretary of State to use the inquiry for politicians and the media has been too close, I note his own personal and political ends by seeking to that none of the people opposite has disclosed any of reschedule his appearance before it, and made it clear the meetings they had with News International or that the inquiry was not the correct or appropriate other newspaper executives while they were in office. mechanism to resolve matters relating to the Ministerial Instead of endlessly trying to use the Leveson inquiry Code. for party-political purposes, is it not time that they I looked again today at the terms of reference for were honest about what they did in government? While the Leveson inquiry. It is transparently clear that there the country wants to hear about jobs, investment, is nothing in the terms of reference that could possibly living standards and the great challenges we face—such give it any locus in matters relating to issues covered as debt—they just play one-sided party politics. Instead by the Ministerial Code. For the Prime Minister or of endlessly trying to use the Leveson inquiry for other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, to do party-political purposes, is it not time that they were so was wrong. The Prime Minister told the BBC honest about what they did in government—and face yesterday that he would investigate the Secretary of up to the real mess that they left this country in?”. State under the Ministerial Code if there were evidence My Lords, that concludes the Statement of the of wrongdoing, or if any material came from the Prime Minister, which we will now deal with in the Leveson inquiry that warranted such an investigation. usual way. The purpose of such an investigation under the Ministerial Code is to determine whether there has 7.15 pm been any breach of the code, not to mount an inquiry Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the after the fact of the wrongdoing has become clear. The Leader of the House for repeating as a Statement in e-mails and other matter released by the Leveson your Lordships’ House the remarks made by the Prime inquiry last week precisely constitute, under the code, Minister earlier today in the other place in relation to material that warrants further investigation. The code the position of the Secretary of State for Culture, is clear and explicit on the point. Paragraph 1.3 sets Media and Sport, and to his, his office’s and his out the matter. After stating that it is not the role of department’s connections with News Corporation over the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the its failed bid last year to take over BSkyB. code, it states: 2005 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[LORDS] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2006

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] Prime Minister and his Cabinet Secretary, who is an “If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the official of high ability, high repute and high integrity. Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary, feels that Having consulted, does the Prime Minister feel that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the the matter warrants further investigation? Clearly, from independent adviser on Ministers’ interests”. his public statements, and from the Statement repeated Let us look more closely at that paragraph. It today by the Leader of the House, he does not. We on specifies an allegation. Is there an allegation in this these Benches argue that he is wrong in that opinion. case? There is indeed: a serious allegation that the The matter clearly warrants further investigation. Secretary of State kept informed one of the parties to Support for this position has come from a number a bid that he was considering in a quasi-judicial manner of sources, but among the most notable have been of the progress of that bid in a way that was wholly three former Cabinet Secretaries, all Members of your inappropriate to that role; an allegation that the Secretary Lordships’ House: the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of State was in breach of paragraph 1 of the Ministerial of Ilminster, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Turnbull. Code, which requires Ministers to act in a way that All three noble Lords were men standing in precisely upholds the highest standards of propriety; a serious the position of the current Cabinet Secretary. With allegation that as part of the information that was slightly differing emphases, all three believe that there incorrectly and inappropriately supplied, details of has indeed been a breach of the Ministerial Code in the announcements to be made to Parliament and to this case. Accordingly, we on these Benches believe the Stock Exchange were made to the bidder in the that the Prime Minister should refer the matter to Sir case, days before such announcements were made Alex Allan, the current independent adviser. public; an allegation that the Secretary of State was in breach of paragraph 9.1 of the code, which stipulates Do the Government accept that there has been in that announcements by Ministers must be made in the this case an allegation—indeed, a number of first instance to Parliament; and an allegation that the allegations—about the conduct of the Secretary of Secretary of State is currently in breach of paragraph 3.3 State? Do the Government accept that the resignation of the code, which focuses on the activities and operations of the special adviser to the Secretary of State supports of special advisers, and the responsibilities of both irrefutably that there are such allegations? Do the special advisers and the Ministers for whom they Government accept in the light of the opinion expressed work. Again, the code is clear, stating: by MPs, Peers, academics, commentators and, indeed, three former Cabinet Secretaries, all distinguished and “The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made senior Members of your Lordships’ House, that the the appointment”. allegations warrant investigation under the terms of the Ministerial Code? Do the Government therefore In this case, that is clearly the Secretary of State for accept that the Prime Minister accordingly must refer Culture, Media and Sport. the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ “Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, interests for investigation? If the Government do not Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in accept these questions, will the Leader of the House respect of their special advisers”, set out, bearing in mind the entirely appropriate insistence says the code, and clearly, in this case, it is the Secretary by Lord Justice Leveson that his inquiry is not the of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The role of the correct method of examining these matters, on what Minister is clear. possible basis the Government do not accept them? In this case, the conduct of the special adviser, A Minister’s actions, a Minister’s integrity and a Mr Adam Smith, was such as to warrant his resignation Minister’s career are not matters to be considered from his post within government the day after the lightly, let alone dismissed lightly. We on these Benches Leveson inquiry released the material last week. Mr do not do so, but even if it is not accepted that there is Smith took responsibility for his actions, but the code wrong here—and we believe there is wrong here—it makes it quite clear that the Minister is ultimately must be accepted that there are serious matters here responsible for the actions and conduct of his special that warrant proper investigation. We believe that the adviser. If in this case Mr Smith believed that his Government should act, and act today. actions warranted his resignation and that in this case, as in all others, the Minister is responsible and accountable for the actions and conduct of his special adviser, then 7.24 pm it clearly follows that it is for the Secretary of State or, Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not say this very if he will not do so, the Prime Minister on his behalf, often, but I think there are very few times when a to act in the way that the special adviser has done. prime ministerial Statement is more suited to the That is why we call for his resignation. We believe that House of Commons than it is here, and I think this is it is transparently clear that the Secretary of State is in one of those occasions. Notwithstanding that, the breach of the Ministerial Code and that, like his noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition says that special adviser, he should go. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State There are clear, specific allegations. Paragraph 1.3 should resign at once, yet she admits that she has not of the code, on investigations under the code, stipulates heard all the facts of the case. That is what she started that the Prime Minister must consult the Cabinet off with. In fact, that repeats something that Harriet Secretary on any allegations. Has the Prime Minister Harman said. Within 23 minutes of the evidence being consulted the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood? made clear, she called for the resignation of my right We are told that he has. We do not, of course, know honourable friend. That is a ridiculous way to go the nature of any such consultations between the about business. My right honourable friend is entirely 2007 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[30 APRIL 2012] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2008 entitled to give his evidence in the same way as those media bids? Then on the “Today” programme on who have accused him of wrongdoing, and that is Tuesday morning, the leader of the Opposition specifically what he is going to do. rejected that proposal and said that he intended to There is no point praying in aid all these former continue with the discredited system. Can we urge great Cabinet Secretaries who distinguish themselves Mr Miliband to think again on this issue, for is it not in this House. The former Cabinet Secretary the noble the case that there will always be a suspicion of conflict Lord, Lord Turnbull, made it clear that following the of interest if politicians take decisions about media process that the Prime Minister has chosen: companies which they—we—have done so much to “Much more will be made public than if it is done by a woo? It is a clear conflict of interest, and it should be nominated retired civil servant”. stopped. The noble Lord is someone of tremendous eminence. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble What is going on here, and what is going on with friend for very much supporting the position of the Labour’s position? The people opposite are those who Prime Minister. Many others have taken on this question defended Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride who, of having two parallel inquiries going on at the same I gather, were special advisers in the previous Government. time. Like him, I am convinced that we have made the Did any Ministers resign as a result of their appalling right decision. wrongdoing? As for his specific question, the House will know The noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State that my noble friend Lord Fowler is pretty much should be investigated for breaking the Ministerial pre-eminent in this House and elsewhere with his Code. The Prime Minister has never said that he will expert knowledge on this subject. I cannot speak for not launch an investigation into whether the Ministerial the Leader of the Opposition, but my advice to the Code has been broken. All he has said is that there noble Baroness is that she ought to bring to his should be a proper process and that it should start attention the words of my noble friend Lord Fowler, when the Secretary of State gives his evidence to the and he might change his mind. Leveson inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson himself has accepted and agreed that there should not be a parallel Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the Leader of the process so, as far as I can see, it is all about timing. House can help me. I do not understand the Statement What about the specific allegations? Did the Culture that he has just made. He says that there is a process Secretary mislead Parliament by saying he was publishing and the process should be followed. What is the process? all the exchanges between his department and News The process is that evidence was given to Lord Justice Corporation? He certainly did not mislead Parliament. Leveson; Lord Justice Leveson has said he is not going He has laid out clearly in the House of Commons to decide the issue as far as Mr Hunt is concerned. It is what he is going to do, and he will do it. He has said astonishing for the Leader of the House to say that it that he will make available all relevant communications, should go in front of Lord Justice Leveson when Lord including texts and e-mails, to the Leveson inquiry Justice Leveson has just said that he does not want it and at that stage, he will be judged upon them. to come in front of him. Was the Ministerial Code breached when the special What is the object of the exercise? Is it that Mr Hunt adviser Adam Smith leaked the content of a Written should give his evidence to Lord Justice Leveson, and Ministerial Statement to News Corp the day before it the Prime Minister should look at it and say, “I am was given to the House? We have to turn to the words satisfied with that so we will not do anything else”, or of Adam Smith himself in his resignation letter. He alternatively say, “Something may be wrong here”, said that the extent and nature of the contact between and then perhaps he will refer it to somebody else? The himself and News Corporation was not authorised or fact of the matter is that Lord Justice Leveson cannot known about by either the Culture Secretary or the resolve the issue. For the noble Lord to come here and Permanent Secretary. I think that absolves the Secretary say, “There is a proper process and the process is of State, but I am not going to rush to judgment in the Leveson”—as indeed the Prime Minister did in the way that the noble Baroness has done, although I am House of Commons—is wrong. There is a process and sure that he behaved impeccably in everything that he the process is to use Sir Alex Allan: that is what he is did. There is a process led by Lord Justice Leveson there for; that is what he is set up to try to do. With and at that stage, I think it is up to the Prime Minister great respect to the Leader of the House, I do not to make up his mind what he wishes to do. understand what the Government are playing at.

7.28 pm Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lord Fowler: My Lords, surely it would be absurd Richard, is quite deliberately misunderstanding the to have two inquiries going on at the same time. The position and misunderstanding what the Prime Minister order that the Prime Minister has announced seems has said. An allegation was made at the Leveson entirely sensible, given that the parliamentary inquiry inquiry. It is entirely right and proper that the Secretary can then follow the evidence that is given to Leveson. of State should be able to go and give evidence on the However, is there not a wider issue here? Does the same terms and by the same method as those who Leader of the House recall that last week, when we have accused him of wrongdoing. debated this issue, the Minister who replied, who is Incidentally, the decision on whether to refer the now sitting next to him, said that there was all-party case to Sir Alex Allan is a decision for the Prime consensus on my proposal that politicians of any Minister. He can make that decision whenever he party should be taken out of the role of deciding on wants. He has suggested that he will make that 2009 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[LORDS] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2010

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] by both himself and the Secretary of State. He has decision—or take action, if he believes there was any said that he was “aware” of and “content” with the wrongdoing—following the evidence being made public arrangements that were made initially. in the Leveson inquiry. The Leveson inquiry is a proper inquiry where, as I pointed out, evidence will Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, whatever be taken under oath and there will be cross-examination the outcome of the present episode, does my noble of the witnesses by barristers; in other words, the friend the Leader agree that in future it must be evidence that has been given already will be properly absolutely clear that when a Secretary of State and his tested. That is entirely appropriate and there is no department are considering such a bid, all contact confusion at all between the two issues. between the department and an interested party must first be through permanent civil servants; secondly, it Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, the Prime Minister must be properly authorised; thirdly, it must be properly has said that he will await the evidence given by Mr recorded; and fourthly, it must be of a formal nature Secretary Hunt to the Leveson inquiry. That may or only? Does he also agree that it must be clear that may not be a rational stance to take. I take very much political advisers should not be involved in such contacts on board what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says. It in any circumstances, nor should such contacts be is outside the remit of the Leveson inquiry to adjudicate marked by the informality and appearance of partiality upon that matter. Putting that aside, perhaps I may that marked the e-mails that have recently been released, ask this pertinent question of the Leader of the House. and that guidance to that effect should be issued When the time comes for the Prime Minister to decide formally as quickly as possible? whether or not to refer this matter to Sir Alex Allan as a matter of ministerial discipline, will the Prime Minister Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes be acting in a political capacity or a quasi-judicial a very helpful intervention. Of course, we can all use capacity? If I may be allowed the luxury of a the benefit of hindsight and see that things were not supplementary question, will the Prime Minister be done in an appropriate way. That is why the Prime regarding himself as acting in a judicial or a political Minister, as early as last week, asked the Cabinet capacity? Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake, to write to all departments Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in that event, the and Ministers, Prime Minister will be acting as Prime Minister. He “clarifying the rigorous procedures that departments should have will decide whether to take action directly himself—or in place for handling cases of this nature”, not to, because he believes there is no evidence—or to so that suspicion does not fall on departments, Ministers refer the matter to Sir Alex Allan. and their special advisers.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, is it not clear from the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Prime Minister’s Statement that the Government have when the Leader of the House was replying to my now abandoned the Secretary of State’s claim that the noble friend Lady Royall, he kept asking—I have to Permanent Secretary authorised what was going on? say, in a slightly excitable way—“What is going on? The word “authorised” did not appear once in the What is going on?”. It is very simple. It is the enforcement Prime Minister’s Statement—and I was listening very of the Ministerial Code. That is what we on this side of carefully. The Leader of the House cannot hope to the House—and, I think, many Cross-Benchers—are slither away and say, “What is the difference because very concerned about. The fact is that the Prime the Permanent Secretary is supposed to have said that Minister tried to refer this to Lord Leveson. Does the he was content?”. There is a difference between authorising Leader of the House agree with Lord Leveson that it something and being content with it. Authorising has was inappropriate for the Prime Minister to try to to do with things ex ante; content has to do with refer this matter of ministerial discipline and the things ex post. When was the Permanent Secretary Ministerial Code to Lord Leveson, which is not within first made aware of these activities? his remit, as the original Statement clearly showed? My second question is about Sir Alex Allan, who That is the first point. seems to have one of the best sinecures going—in fact, The second point is that the special adviser says I might put in for it myself. Has it ever occurred to this that the Secretary of State knew nothing about his Government to ask Sir Alex Allan whether he considered contacts. That may be so and no doubt an investigation it appropriate for him to consider this matter and, if will show whether or not that is correct. Notwithstanding so, what response did they get? that, paragraph 3.3 of the Ministerial Code—which is what we are talking about—is clear. It states: Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on the latter part of “The responsibility for the management and conduct of special that question, I am not aware of any conversations advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made having taken place. Incidentally, there is no way that I the appointment”. could slither away from anything in this House, particularly Mr Hunt made the appointment. The special adviser’s when asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. The contraventions were so serious that he has had to Permanent Secretary has said that the content and resign. Should the Secretary of State not have had extent of Adam Smith’s contact with News Corp were, mechanisms in place for discharging his very specific “without authorisation, and were contrary to the clear requirements responsibility for the “management and conduct” of set out” his special adviser, and if he did, what were they? 2011 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[30 APRIL 2012] News Corporation: Culture Secretary 2012

Lord Strathclyde: I will tell the noble Baroness In this case, as I understand it, the Prime Minister exactly what is going on here. These are the cheapest takes the view that the evidence that comes before and most vulgar political attacks on my right honourable Lord Justice Leveson will be more pervasive, extensive friend the Secretary of State, whose evidence has not and comprehensive than anything that Sir Alex Allan been heard at all. The noble Baroness asked about could get. Lord Justice Leveson is not being asked to Lord Leveson’s statement. What did Lord Leveson take the decision about the Ministerial Code.AsI say? He said: understand it, it is being suggested that the evidence “I have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations given to his inquiry, elicited by questions from counsel and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to and by all the other procedures, is likely to be more me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry”— comprehensive and more reliable, since it will be evidence that is, his inquiry—“to proceed”. That was done, and taken on oath, than anything that Sir Alex could the Secretary of State will be able to give evidence to achieve. However, Lord Justice Leveson is quite right that inquiry in due course. When we have all heard the in saying that he cannot take the decision or give evidence, it may be that many noble Lords who have advice about the Ministerial Code. The only person spoken today will be eating their words. As to the who can take a decision is the Prime Minister, and if possible lack of oversight of the special adviser, the he wants advice, he will have to ask Sir Alex Allan. special adviser has resigned, having made a fulsome apology and explaining that the action that he took Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is good to hear the was way beyond the authority given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, put his Secretary of State. question, and the tone in which he did so will no doubt calm the atmosphere of the House. He described Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, the situation entirely correctly. This is a decision for the Prime Minister has used this rather particular the Prime Minister. When it comes to disciplining phrase, that there has been no “grand bargain”, twice Ministers, the Prime Minister is entitled to make that now—once at the weekend in his press comments, and decision in any way that he wants. Equally, the decision once in the Statement. Will my noble friend assure us that he has taken, as the noble Lord has laid out, is that when the Prime Minister says that there has been that the evidence laid before Leveson—in the manner no grand bargains, he includes that there have been no and way in which it will be laid—will be more authoritative small bargains either? and ultimately gain more public acceptance if it is done publicly at the Leveson inquiry rather than secretly by Sir Alex Allan, although I have no doubt that he Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. would do it extremely well. Finally, I agree that Lord Justice Leveson himself cannot make the decision Lord Wills: Can the Minister explain what he under the Ministerial Code; he has no locus to do so. understands by the extent of the responsibility of a The Prime Minister will no doubt be able to make a Minister for his special advisers? decision once the evidence has been given, and that decision is entirely up to him. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, how can I possibly answer that at this stage? I have not seen any of the Lord Borrie: My Lords, following the very helpful evidence any more than the noble Lord has. intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is it not the case that there is no way—as and when the Lord Wills: I was not asking specifically in relation Minister makes his appearance at Lord Justice Leveson’s to this case, I was asking generally. What does the inquiry—that the Prime Minister can ensure that the Minister understand by the extent of a Minister’s questioning by counsel will bring out all the vital responsibility for his special advisers? matters that relate specifically to the question of whether the Ministerial Code has been broken? The Leveson inquiry is a general inquiry into the relationship between Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is clearly set out the media, politicians, the police and so on and does in the Ministerial Code. In this instance, one would not specifically address the question of whether the expect a special adviser to stick to the agreements and Ministerial Code has been broken. Are the Government instructions they had been given by their Secretary of therefore not relying on the matter coming out incidentally State. at the inquiry? The Prime Minister is not even prepared to wait until Lord Justice Leveson gives his report. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, as the Like the rest of us, he is simply going to watch what is Leader of the Opposition has referred to what I said said on television and so on, which may or may not about this matter, I should like to clarify that if I may, reveal very much. What is really needed is a specific and ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees inquiry on whether the Ministerial Code has been with it. I have said that the Prime Minister is responsible broken. for decisions about ministerial conduct and for deciding whether a Minister has or has not breached the code. Lord Strathclyde: I reiterate that Lord Justice Leveson If he has, or thinks he has, sufficient evidence to justify is not being asked to take a view on whether the a decision not to refer the matter to Sir Alex Allan, or Ministerial Code has been broken. We started all this to confirm the Minister in his position, he is entitled to because allegations have been made in the Leveson do that. If he has doubt, he can ask Sir Alex Allan for inquiry. Surely it is only right and proper for my right advice. He is not obliged to take that advice, but honourable friend the Secretary of State to be given clearly the advice will be very important. the opportunity to deal with those allegations by 2013 News Corporation: Culture Secretary[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2014

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] that we are observing the early to middle stages of a providing whatever evidence he wants. He has laid out power struggle between the two Houses, whereas we the kind of evidence that he will provide, and I believe are actually in the closing stages of a power struggle that it will entirely restore his reputation. During the between the Crown and Parliament. course of that evidence-taking—and let us remember The Crown and Parliament are the protagonists on that this is all about the relationship between politicians whom we should keep our eye. By “the Crown”, I and the media—the Prime Minister can take a decision would have said “the Government”, but when one on whether he believes that the Ministerial Code has talks about the Government, one tends to think of been broken, and whether to instruct or invite Sir Alex what is only a thin veneer of ambitious politicians laid Allan to look into it, or whether to believe that no over a vast machine with a collective memory that further action needs to take place. I very much hope goes back for centuries and which understandably that it will be the latter. regards Parliament as something of an obstacle to its objectives. As a Minister, one can detect this in individual Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, if the leader of the civil servants, although I should say at this stage that I Opposition was playing party politics with his question, am commenting not on individuals but on human what on earth was the Prime Minister doing with his nature. However, you find that there is surprise and Statement? I have three questions for the noble Lord. resentment that some proposal that appears to be First, how does he reconcile what he said about the eminently sensible to people who are not in touch with Leveson inquiry with Lord Justice Leveson’s refusal to the mood of public, which as a Minister one has to be, get drawn into the Hunt affair? Is it not the case that can be obstructed by the parliamentary machine. The the Statement that the noble Lord has quoted came at combined apparatus of ambitious politicians and career a rather earlier stage of the proceedings? Secondly, the civil servants has a momentum of its own. The Crown noble Lord has said that the Secretary of State took as such has been trying to retrieve the power that it independent advice when he did not need to, and lost to Parliament in the 13th century, and it has acted upon it. However, is it not the case that Ofcom retrieved a great deal of it. advised him to refer the matter to the Competition Commission, which he did not do? Finally, the noble One cannot survey the history in seven minutes, but Lord has said that the Permanent Secretary approved I can give a good illustration of the state of play in the special adviser’s role as a conduit between the more or less contemporary times by asking noble Secretary of State and the Murdoch organisation. Lords to look at the year of 2005, and in particular to However, he was decidedly shifty about this when what happened between noon on Thursday 10 March questioned on it by the Public Accounts Committee. of that year and 7.31 pm on the following Friday The noble Lord said that the Permanent Secretary was evening, which if I have calculated the period correctly aware of the special adviser’s role and was content. is a total of 31 hours. Many noble Lords who took Does the noble Lord agree that that is not the same as part will remember that the then Government had giving approval? brought in a Bill with a clause that would have empowered the Home Secretary—in the legislation I think it is the Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Prime Minister “Secretary of State”—having consulted a single senior was invited to make a Statement by the leader of the police officer, to sign a bit of paper that would consign Opposition, who was clearly trying to play politics. I a British citizen to what was called “derogated detention” do not want to offend the noble Lord, who is a for up to 90 days without the intervention of any legal distinguished Cross Bencher, but those of us better force whatever. versed in the means of politics can see what is going Anything less consonant with British liberty or on utterly clearly; it is as clear as daylight. I am under standards of democracy is difficult to imagine. It was the impression that everything the Secretary of State got through the House with a government majority of was required to do during the bid process, he did. He 131 and was carried by a majority of only 14. We accepted an offer of undertakings by BSkyB, but he removed the clause and sent it back. Commons messages referred them as well; and of course when the undertakings arrived and then we started on a round of ping-pong. were themselves withdrawn, the full referral then took As a result, that draconian measure was subject to place. As for role of the Permanent Secretary, I think very thorough judicial supervision and did not resemble that I have said everything I can possibly say about what had been sent to us to start with. that. Why was the House of Commons not able to Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the time has come for control the Government? I remind noble Lords that us to move back into the other debate. Parliament was invented to control the Government. What was the difference between that House and this place? There are four differences. The first is that Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Members of the other place receive a substantial Motion to Take Note (Continued) salary and are in what we would regard as career jobs. As has been alluded to, if you lose your seat you can 7.50 pm move on to another, but if you lose your seat you lose Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships can now your job and your salary. It is certainly true that the return to an equally controversial matter, on which I Whips have the power to deselect a Member so that he think the camera has somehow got too close to the actually loses his job and perhaps cannot pay his subject. I know that there is a general impression mortgage, the school fees and so on. That is it, really. outside this House, although probably not inside it, Members of Parliament have to be re-elected to hold 2015 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2016 on to their jobs, so they have to toe the party line; and a written declaration of what the powers of this House if a Government have a substantial majority they would be in relation to the House of Commons. If the actually hold those jobs and livelihoods in their hands. primacy of the House of Commons was to be maintained, In this House, we are not elected and we do not have a there would have to be some kind of statutory document salary. Although I benefit from it, I regret the fact that or concordat setting down the nature of the respective we now have a certain incentive and an interest that we powers. ought to declare in this debate: if we claim it, we are in We also suggested that there should be a regional receipt of £300 a day for attendance. To that extent basis on which this House might be elected. Parliament our continuance in office is a matter of personal is at the heart of our democracy and it is vital that it concern, but of course we cannot be turned out, as the has the confidence of the people. When the Power others can. inquiry went around the country and asked the public The present Government proposal entails the what they felt about the House of Lords, they said introduction of a majority of elected people who that they wanted it to be elected. Interestingly, when inevitably will have to be paid large sums of money in the follow-up questions were asked as to what kind of the form of salaries, and in effect those salaries will be membership they wanted, they said that they wanted in the gift of the Whips, if they have to be elected it to be expert; they wanted Members to have a hinterland Parliament by Parliament. If we are going to move to and to have experience in many different walks of life; something along the lines of what is being suggested, and they wanted to see independence. They wanted in it is essential that the term of office, the tenure, should a strange way to square a very difficult circle, because be for at least 15 years, although I would rather see it finding an electoral system to produce that is the real set at 20 years. challenge. I am not satisfied that the recommendations Perhaps your Lordships would pause to reflect for a in the recent reports meet the requirement. moment that it was actually the undemocratically People repeatedly told us that they wanted produced House that in March 2005 defended the independence of mind and a distance from party electorate from a democratically elected Government diktat. They were very clear that they did not want any when the elected House was unable to do so. Therefore, extension of dominance and control by the main I see no need for election. Further, on appointing political parties. They did not want any reform that Members, I would remind noble Lords that more than brought an increase in the writ and power of the 50 per cent of this House was appointed during the Executive—that is, Downing Street— whichever party prime ministership of the then Prime Minister, and I was in power. This was not in relation to any specific believe I am right in saying that the Government distrust of any particular political party. They liked suffered the largest defeat of any Government since the idea that people had a lifetime’s experience in the war. So I am here merely to say: please remember different walks of life and that that would provide a that we are trying to preserve the power of Parliament different kind of Chamber from the other. It is here in the face of the Government, and to do that you that I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, need at least one House of Parliament with what the who asked what kind of person would want to be in Americans call “tenure”. As it is not available in the this new Chamber if they could not see a progression other place, we ought to have it here. in their career. What people really like about this Chamber is that it is filled with people who are not 7.57 pm professional politicians as we see in the other House. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, this What people did not want—we should concentrate issue has engaged me since the launch back in the a little on what is not liked about this House as we 1980s of Charter 88, which called for House of Lords congratulate ourselves on our successes—is for the reform as part of a serious rethink of our constitutional Lords to be used to reward party donations or as architecture. I chaired Charter 88 from 1992 to 1997 payback for services rendered to a political party or and played a role in putting constitutional reform on Prime Minister in some form or other or as a place of the Labour Party manifesto prior to the 1997 election. refuge for persons being removed from the House of More recently, I chaired with the Conservative Commons. They did not want it to be seen as a place politician, Ferdinand Mount, the Power inquiry, which to bump someone into to provide a safe seat for a also recommended the reform of this Chamber. However, party favourite. I am afraid that those suspicions are I reinforce the point that those recommendations for a regularly reiterated by critics of this House. change to this House were set against a backdrop of There is wide agreement, therefore, about the need holistic constitutional reform, a recognition that if for reform. We are too large, and it is clear that there you want to reform this House that reform will have has to be a review of our size and our purpose, but we knock-on effects and therefore should be seen in the have to reflect for a moment on how you achieve that. wider context of the checks and balances that are It really is not becoming for us to congratulate ourselves needed to make our system work well. You have to ask on how terrific we are and on the quality of our questions: what is the second Chamber for, and what debates. It is for others to say whether that is what they are its powers? think. It is not enough for us to say that we should be For that reason, Charter 88 in its manifestation allowed to stay here for ever. It is for others to decide argued for a written constitution, something that I still on that. We cannot therefore talk about reforming this believe is necessary, particularly as we become a more House without giving the public their say in how it mature and sophisticated democracy. We continued to should be done. It is for that reason that I urge that we argue in the Power inquiry report that there had to be consider taking a step similar that to that being 2017 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2018

[BARONESS KENNEDY OF THE SHAWS] the new Session, it will be proposed to be put through recommended by the alternative report, which is that the House by expedited procedure so that we do not there should be some kind of constitutional convention have to go through all the stages again. When it is sent but not in the form that is being suggested, with the to the other place, it will be given a fair wind by the great and the grand and the academic researcher being Government. I am very pleased to report that. It is put on it. important to disentangle that from the wider issues The people doing that should come from among from the wider issues of reform, because it is a measure the general public. This is not something that has not that we all want now, this year, and not between 2015 been considered in other nations. Recently Canada, and 2025. I look forward to progress on that issue. which looked at whether it should renew its electoral My second point is on the Leader of the House’s system and change it from first past the post to a suggestion that the manifestos of the three parties proportional system, created a convention made up of were remarkably similar at the last election. Well, up a cross-section of its public. There is a clear methodology to a point, yes; they were also remarkably dissimilar. for doing that. It had proper and full debates, with Of the three, I have to say that I prefer the Liberal evidence gathered from a properly drawn cross-section Democrat one, because it was unambiguous in saying of the public, who in fact all decided that they preferred that we should have a fully elected Chamber. The first past the post to the proportional representation words “fully elected” are very important because I that had been proposed. It is the public who should keep pointing out, especially to my colleagues, that Mr decide on this and not parliamentarians, who may Asquith and the preamble to the 1911 Act never used have vested interests. the words “universal suffrage” or “elected”; they talked The person to whom we should turn is a very about replacing the hereditary House by one based on distinguished professor of political science at Stanford a popular mandate. I believe that that could be achieved University, James Fishkin, who with a whole team of through the alternative report’s suggestion of a people there has developed this deliberative polling constitutional convention and the fact that the committee’s system. He has done it for Canada, and he has done it report and the alternative report both gave a nod in for other parts of the world when presented with the direction of an indirectly elected Chamber merits constitutional issues of importance. I would advise further consideration. this House to embark on having his team conduct I have read with interest the pamphlet of the Society such a thing here over the next period and advise our of Conservative Lawyers, by Oliver Heald. It does not political leaders. feature among my regular reading, I must admit, but I The complementary relationship between the two thought that it was a very good report. I understand Houses should be at the forefront of our minds, but it that similar evidence was given to the committee by is not acceptable in the 21st century for this House to Mr Billy Bragg, who I think would claim to be on the be created through patronage. Power has to be given to left of the Labour Party. the people. We have been enriched, no doubt, by the many people on the Cross Benches who have come Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am interested here independently and not as part of the party system, in the noble Lord’s support for what has come to be but that could still be done under an electoral system. known as the secondary mandate. Should he not go I am happy for it to be 80:20 per cent hybrid House if back to Viscount Bryce’s conference of 1917, which that is the consensus, but it is the public who should essentially proposed that? decide and not us. Lord Steel of Aikwood: I am all for digging up older 8.06 pm conventions in order for them to be considered by the Lord Steel of Aikwood: MyLords,itisalwaysa new one. pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in debate, especially I was going on to say that I have looked further at on constitutional matters, where she has such expertise the work of the Cambridge Liberal Democrat, Dr and knowledge. I want to begin with a personal apology Alex Reid, whom the noble Lord, Lord Low, mentioned, to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Due to transport who also came to this conclusion. There is a measure problems from Scotland today, I am afraid that I of support across parties for looking again at the caught only the tail end of his speech, which I very possibility of indirect elections. Dr Meg Russell, in her much regret, because I say genuinely that the report evidence to the noble Lord’s committee, pointed out that he and his colleagues have produced is a most that 34 countries used this as their method of obtaining valuable document for the House, as indeed was the a second Chamber. What I did not know until recently alternative report. was that there is a precedent for that in the United In my seven minutes, I want to say just three things. Kingdom. Precedent is terribly important in this House, The first is about what was my own Private Member’s I know that, and the precedent existed in Stormont. In Bill. I say “was”, because once it had been passed by the old Stormont, the Senate was elected by the lower this House, I regarded it as a House of Lords measure, House, so there is a precedent for doing that here. which unfortunately lay unattended in the other place There are certain advantages of the indirect election for some seven weeks. However, having registered my system as against universal suffrage. First, there is a fury and the disappointment of the House, I am good chance that if the electorate were existing MPs, happy to report that sweetness and light have broken MEPs and Members of the devolved Parliaments—a out and that it has been agreed that if a Bill identical confined electorate—we would retain some of the to the one that left this House is reintroduced early in expertise that appointments brings which we are afraid 2019 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2020 of losing. It would prevent conflict between the two me although I would prefer this to be done in three Houses because the upper House would not be elected five-year bites, which could be manipulated to give the by universal suffrage. There would be no territorial Appointments Commission a bit more room for conflict between senators and MPs because there would manoeuvre. I share the strong feelings over Clause 2, be no territorial definitions. The costs would be much as one who welcomes and would go on supporting the less, both of the election and of running the House. primacy of the House of Commons. I note with alarm Most important of all, the fundamental difference is the words in House of Lords Reform: An Alternative that it would be possible, if such an election were held Way Forward that the draft Bill reveals an, every five years after a general election, for the House “unbridgeable gap between the election of the House of Lords to be adjusted proportionately without increasing the and the primacy of the House of Commons”. numbers, which is the way it is already constantly What I miss in the report is any convincing argument adjusted. that the proposed massive change would mean that a The last thing I want to say is that I disagree with new second Chamber would be any better than our the main report in its recommendation that there present Chamber at what the present Chamber does should be a referendum. Here I rather agree with what best, which is revising and advising. Just think of the the Leader of the House was saying. To coin a phrase legislation that has passed through this House this that has not been heard much recently, I agree with year on health, welfare and legal aid. Bills were not Nick. The question of a referendum is dangerous. We only in need of root and branch revision, but they got have to remind ourselves that the coalition came together it and, let us be fair, they got it above all through the for the specific purpose of putting right the nation’s intervention of the Cross-Benchers. finances—full stop. We have not yet succeeded in Obviously I would say that. I grant that not all the doing that. We may not have succeeded in doing that House’s expertise, for which we are famed up and by 2014-15 if the present economic situation continues. down the land, resides on these Cross Benches. But If we go to the electorate and say, “Okay we have not most of it does. I am astonished at the way in which we quite succeeded in putting the country right as we had have come to expect something like a reduction to hoped to do but would you mind voting for a more 20 per cent of a reduced total House as sufficient to expensive new upper Chamber?”, they will say to us, get the kind of expertise that we have at the moment. “But you’ve already asked us about a slightly obscure The hybrid House that we are threatened with would form of proportional representation. You’ve already be a very poor exchange for an alternatively revised messed about with constituency boundaries and tinkered House in which the independents in fact would form with the National Health Service. You’ve spent months the core, serving and served by a political architecture in both Houses reforming the House of Lords and like at present but smaller, representing the structures what we want is to get the nation’s finances back on a of government and opposition. My sense of the national proper footing”. They might say no. They are very mood is that our people would happily settle for such likely to say no. a House of Lords. I do not think that the people at I end with the recollection that I was involved in the large are so enamoured of what they currently get in referendum in 1979 in Scotland. The late John Smith the House of Commons as the result of their democratic was a very good personal friend of mine from student vote as to be anything other than perfectly happy to debating days despite, our political differences. I remember forego the privilege of something similar but of paler that the one time we fell out was during that referendum complexion in the House of Lords. because I said, “You’re daft to have pictures of Jim Callaghan, after the winter of discontent, on posters 8.20 pm with the word ‘yes’ underneath. The public are minded to say no to the Government whatever the question”. I Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, when the that fear the same will happen again and we could end House debated its proposed reform on 21 June last up with nothing at all. year, I commented on a single issue: the Parliament Acts. I will do the same today. There are now two issues. The first is whether the Parliament Acts can be 8.14 pm used to drive through a House of Lords reform Bill Lord Quirk: My Lords, I join the many, blessedly without its consent—the antithesis of a consensual without even attempting to repeat the views of the approach. Secondly, there is whether the Parliament many, who have grave misgivings about the draft Bill Acts will continue to be effective once the second and would favour only modest, provenly necessary, Chamber has an elected element in it. incremental reform of the kind that the noble Lord, I proposed to the House and later suggested to the Lord Steel, introduced in his Bill, which we are glad to committee that the Attorney-General’s advice be sought. know is back on course. The Attorney-General declined, in the main on the Of course, everyone here has benefited from reading grounds that it would not be, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I was for “appropriate for the Law Officers to advise Parliament on issues example reinforced in my support for our bicameral relating to the Government’s legislative programme”. Parliament that we have enjoyed for so long, at least The Attorney-General was not asked to advise on the until such time that the House of Commons can be programme but on a particular draft Bill. I would have trusted to scrutinise the Bills that it passes upwards. I thought it highly desirable for the law officers, who welcome the idea of reducing the size of the House of can call on the widest possible resources upon which Lords to something under 500. I welcome bringing in to formulate their views, to assist Parliament as requested. a term limit, and 15 years sounds just about right to The committee quite bluntly states that it, 2021 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2022

[LORD MORRIS OF ABERAVON] sheer incompetence. I strongly suspect that the Attorney- “regrets that the Attorney General felt unable to assist the Committee General was not consulted on this. I commend the to understand his reasoning in respect of such an important overwhelming view that the Bill should be specific and matter”. state that the Acts will continue to play their part as If I was Attorney-General, I would be very unhappy the committee maintains if the reforms proposed ever to have such a weighty Joint Committee of both come about. Houses pass such strictures. Perhaps the Attorney-General would think again if a specific Bill were brought to his 8.26 pm attention. His interpretation, in addition to the weighty legal opinions that he points out exist within Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is worth repeating that this House, would be extremely beneficial to our this Chamber is the second largest political Chamber proceedings. in the world, second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress. It is the only second Chamber in I set out in my earlier speech the caveats entered the Commonwealth that is larger than the first. It into in the opinions of Law Lords in the fox-hunter needs reform. But the commendable report from the case, Jackson v Attorney-General, on possible limitations noble Lord, Lord Richard, has shown up the problems to the use of the Parliament Acts. Despite the caveats, of the Government’s planned reform. It is not really I concluded that, the Government’s plan, of course, but a Lib Dem plan “the weight of opinion … may well lead towards recognising a as part of the coalition agreement. The Lib Dems considerable supremacy for Parliament”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; want, implemented in three stages, the House of Lords col. 1188]. to represent the popular share of the vote, and have By “Parliament”, I mean the House of Commons. never given up on AV despite losing the referendum. This preliminary view is reinforced by the more deeply But if one looks at it closely, one can see that the law researched and persuasive views of the noble Lord, of unintended consequences takes over. A Chamber Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord of 450, on the basis of some of last week’s opinion Goldsmith. polls, would have about 45 UKIP and about 10 BNP That aspect in itself was not my main concern, as I Members. In fact, UKIP could have more Peers than said in my letter to the committee. Since the issue is the Lib Dems. Of course, it depends on what system of justiciable, courts at different levels have been known STV is used, but the fact is that UKIP stands to gain to disagree with each other and, in the words of the most, and there is the rather frightening thought that noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, the BNP might for the first time be represented at Westminster. One would have thought that was the “the courts have a part to play in defining the limits of Parliament’s legislative sovereignty”, very last thing that the coalition would want, but it is difficult to argue that only the main parties should does Parliament wish to run the risk in such litigation legitimately benefit from PR. of the possibility of at least the perception of politicising Everyone agrees that this House needs reform, but the courts? I leave it at that. no one agrees how—elected, appointed, half and half The second issue, which is more germane, is whether or the many variations of all three. The last Labour there is any reason why the Parliament Acts could not Government managed stage 1 reform, getting rid of be used if we had an elected House of Lords. Both the the majority of hereditary Peers, but never managed noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the to go any further. Labour realised that the sensible noble Lord, Lord Pannick, commented on that and solution was to talk the talk of further reform, but do raised their concerns, to put it mildly. The noble Lord, nothing. As we have heard today, that is still their Lord Pannick, said in his evidence that, policy. Some in the House of Commons do not see the “the better view is that the 1911 Act would not apply in the event point of a second Chamber at all, but most agree that that the upper Chamber were wholly or mainly elected”. the power of the Executive should be controlled by As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, says, more than just the House of Commons. “the vague and general provisions of the proposed Section 2 … The key questions that have to be answered on any do not seem … adequate for that purpose”. proposal for reform of this House are on what its role is going to be and, if it is largely the same, will the new The committee, having considered the matter, Lords work better or least as well as it does now? The concludes: current membership is diverse. Some Members hardly “If the Government wish to ensure that the Parliament Acts ever speak, which is made up for by the Members who apply to a reformed House, they should make statutory provision speak all the time. But they represent a wide range of for it”. views, with expertise and ethnic, gender and social The alternative report reaches a similar conclusion, diversity, and it is difficult to see how an elected House and I agree with it. The Joint Committee reports that, would have the same diversity. The Lords cannot be an “the Government … placed great reliance on the fact that the absolute mirror of the House of Commons, as then we Acts will continue in force, and may be used with more frequency, have an elected dictatorship, with absolutely no check even after the reform is in place”. on the Executive. The likelihood is of course that a This is one of the important building bricks to underpin new elected Chamber will want to exert more power—to the thesis that, despite this House being elected, the block Bills, challenge the concept of financial privilege primacy of the Commons will prevail. If so, why on of the House of Commons, and amend secondary earth are the Acts not referred to in the draft Bill? This legislation. We would then find ourselves veering toward is a startling omission and either the Government do the American system, which is often gridlocked between not mean what they claim as regards primacy or it is the Executive, Congress and the Senate. Some may 2023 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2024 say, “No bad thing”, as there would be less legislation, wrong. We will fight to preserve what is best and what but it would be a profound change for this country. works well. When one looks at the current offer, one The break-up of the union is another complication, as has to say that an appointed House still comes out on explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. top. In the last Parliament, the majority of another The Government have argued that the people who place voted for a fully elected Chamber. Equally, a make the rules should be accountable, but this House large majority in this House voted against. We know does not make rules—we amend. You do not have to now that many in another place are having second be elected to be accountable. This reform is disliked by thoughts. Indeed, there are many new Members there. almost everybody. It offers an elected transition—a When I last spoke on House of Lords reform, I hybrid House. The only real defence I have heard in followed the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and as I this debate is that if we go on without doing anything, respectfully disagreed with almost everything that he this House will get even larger. There is a simple said I described his speech, slightly tongue in cheek, as remedy to that, as my noble friend Lord MacGregor a virtuoso performance. I certainly paid the price for pointed out: a retirement age. As for the elections for a that, as I received lots of e-mails from Lib Dems 15-year term, those who have sat in another place tell congratulating me on supporting him. Perhaps I can me that what sharpens up Members of Parliament is apologise to him for that and say that in case there is not their first election, when neither they nor the any doubt of where my sympathies lie, we should turn electorate know each other, but their second election our energies not to looking at the Bill in this House when they have to defend their record. but to persuading those in another place to throw out this Bill. Lord Cormack: And subsequently.

Viscount Astor: And, indeed, subsequently. 8.35 pm The supporters of this draft Bill cry popular democracy, Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am in favour but what we need is popular legitimacy rather than of an elected House—a position I made clear on my popular democracy. This can be by either an appointed appointment. I strongly support the thrust of the or elected House of Lords but if it were to be under excellent Richard report, which we have before us the current proposal, with 80 per cent being elected, today. I have no intention of using this occasion to the pressure would be to have 100 per cent elected. I argue the case for reform; I shall do that in Committee very much doubt that the 20 per cent appointed would when we are finally presented with a Bill. I want to last more than one Parliament. Following its endorsement concentrate today on the referendum and Clause 2. in the report, it certainly looks as if the referendum I favour a referendum due to what I believe to be a clause will be added in another place. That must be a growing resistance to a Bill in the Commons. There is good idea. a fundamental dishonesty and artificiality about the The question the Government have to answer is debate there. Conservative Members argue publicly whether Lords reform, in their current Bill, is worth for reform in tune with their manifesto, while privately taking up hours and days of sittings in the House of they are strongly hostile. Liberal Democrats are unsettled Commons and in this House, while having the by the prospect of their coalition partners reneging on Government’s other Bills blocked in the process. Of the coalition agreement in this area. My own colleagues course the problem is that if there is a deal to be done, in the Commons are increasingly uneasy over the who do they deal with? Neither side in this House emergence of a competing institution. The danger for controls their Back Benches when it comes to Lords reformers is that a coalition of the concerned will, for reform but it is clear that constitutional reform should a combination of diverse reasons, set out to block the be well thought-out, not cobbled together in some Bill in the Commons. back room—albeit, perhaps, smoke-free this time—as Some MPs who have historically supported an elected part of an agreement between two political parties. House on public platforms—in the media, during This House should—and does—bring a range of general elections and even in Parliament—will use any perspectives to bear on the development of public excuse in a desperate attempt to block the Bill. Some policy, be broadly representative of British society and will claim to be unicameralists. Some will argue that play a vital role as one of the main checks and balances they oppose an open-list STV system, which they say within our constitution. We provide a voice for the is the wrong PR system. There are those who will nations and the regions of the United Kingdom at the quibble over the 15-year term. Others will argue over centre of national politics. More by accident than the cost of the whole project. Some object to the design, we have managed to achieve that. extended transition period. Many will oppose the The proposed Lords reform is heading for an almighty hybrid House in an all-or-nothing argument. Quite a train crash. I wonder whether sensible voices will be few will argue that the Bishops should be excluded. heard down the other end, or whether the train will Some have expressed concern about overlapping have to crash before a sensible plan appears. One parliamentary mandates, and there are those whose result of the Labour reform of 1999 is that the House motives are far more cynical. They want to come here of Lords has become more authoritative and self- in due course, either because they wish to retire or are confident. We see ourselves as more legitimate than to be displaced under the Government’s ill considered prior to 1999, while maintaining that the House of proposed reduction in constituencies. That is the real Commons is the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. world in which we live. All sorts of excuses are now The result is that this House is not going to allow itself being deployed in the campaign to block an elected to be dictated to by a lower House if it thinks it is House. 2025 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2026

[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] the constitutional settlement. The process of amending That is why I want a referendum. While I recognise the settlement would be initiated only by the Commons that there are those who support a referendum because deploying its primacy. they believe that the public will kill the Bill, that is not I know that some have written off the proposal as a my view. I believe that supporters of an elected House constitutional nonsense. They argue that it could be can win and I am confident in that judgment, as I was challenged in the courts and that Parliament cannot in my belief that the AV referendum would be lost. bind its successors, which, of course, would not be the Furthermore, a yes vote would lock Parliament into a case if the Commons had the powers to amend. However, position of reform. Parliament cannot reject the judgment there is a division of opinion on these matters. I ask of the people in a referendum. The alternative report only that the idea be considered. proposes delaying a national vote, pending a report from a “long grass” constitutional convention. I reject 8.42 pm that approach. The talking must come to an end; it has gone on for too long. Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join those who have The problem is that if the referendum is in the Bill, congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his it will be impossible to secure passage of the legislation committee on all the hard work that they have done prior to the next general election. We cannot allow and, more particularly, those who have worked even provision for a referendum to be held up in the logjam harder and more extensively on the committee that is of delay over the Parliament Acts. We all know that supplementing the work of the Richard committee. the Parliament Act will inevitably be used to delay My problem is that the Richard committee was implementation. Indeed, I presume that the government asked to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill Whips have already factored calculations on extended that is fundamentally flawed. The argument is very debate in the Lords and delay under the Parliament simple and is put forward by the Liberal Democrats Act into their legislative timetable. In my view, we and others: namely, if we have an elected House, need two Bills running coterminously. I cannot conceive Britain will be more democratic. I do not believe that of circumstances in which the Lords would seek to that will be the case. We are already 100 per cent block a referendum of the people; it would be seen as democratic and that democratic legitimacy rests in the nothing short of self-serving. House of Commons. If both Chambers were elected, that legitimacy would inevitably be divided and, I Moving to Clause 2, I strongly believe that a believe, would be less effective. constitutional settlement on powers between the Houses is attainable, although I recognise that an elected Therefore, there is a very real problem here. The House will inevitably seek to increase its powers and committee faced up to it and decided as follows. The will probably, in time, succeed. We cannot be naive by report states: failing to consider the possibility of gridlock—that is, “The Committee, on a majority”— unless some constitutional lock can be deployed which I stress “on a majority”— impeded that development, allowing the Commons “agrees that the reformed second chamber of legislature should some flexibility to concede greater responsibilities to have an electoral mandate provided it has commensurate powers”. the Lords over time. It seems to me clear that “commensurate” is the wrong I propose that we turn to the oath and the signing word. If both Chambers are elected, the wording of the undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct ought to be “equal powers”. More particularly in that which we take when we enter this House. I have raised context, if the upper Chamber is elected on proportional this idea with a number of colleagues. It has found representation, which Mr Clegg tells us is more legitimate little support among colleagues in the Lords but has than first past the post, we would end up with an received a sympathetic hearing among some colleagues upper Chamber that is more legitimate, and ought to in the Commons. We enter the House only after taking have more powers, than the House of Commons. This, the oath under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. clearly, would be a pretty absurd position in which to The form of the oath is prescribed by Section 2 of the get ourselves. Promissory Oaths Act 1868 and Section 1 of the I must say that, after the events of the past 10 days, Oaths Act 1978. Alternatively, we can affirm. No oath I am more and more convinced that the priority is not means no entry. The refusal of elected Sinn Fein MPs reform of this end of the building but reform of the to take the oath meant that they could not take up other end. We have had the appalling use of programming their seats. I argue that the oath could be amended to at the other end, not only in the initial stages of a Bill, include an obligation to accept the constitutional where major issues are not debated at all, but the settlement between the two Houses as underpinned in effective guillotining—not in the old efficient way, but legislation—both an amended 1866 Act and the proposed by programming—of amendments from this House, 2014 Act—the settlement to include the limitations on whereby the time allocated for consideration of four the statutory and non-statutory powers as set out in amendments was barely as much as the time that this paragraphs 39 and 40 of the committee’s report. The House had spent voting on them. We therefore clearly oath could then provide us with a constitutional lock. need reform as far as that end of the building is I am not advocating that an elected Lords could not concerned. debate the case for increased powers. However, I am However, it is not true to say, as the noble Lord, advocating an arrangement under which the Lords Lord Ashdown said, that we are creatures of the would be unable to threaten to delay, or to delay, Executive. We have certainly not been so in recent legislation with a view to securing greater powers. Nor days, but if we were an elected Chamber we would be would the Lords be able to initiate an amendment to much more likely to be heavily whipped, to be creatures 2027 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2028 of the Executive and to lose the technical expertise The reality is that the public are unbelievably ignorant that we have at present. I hope that those who were so about this House and are not likely to understand the anxious that we should hear their views on many way in which we work or the good work that we do. subjects in the past few days will realise that electing Certainly if you had an opinion poll asking how this Chamber is not in their interests and that they will Members of the House of Lords normally dress, they campaign on it, whether or not it be done in a referendum would reply very simply by a large majority, “They all or more generally. They are the kind of interest groups look like Father Christmas”. There is a real problem that we have been defending and I hope that they will here. The press time and again publish pictures of the campaign. State Opening, which is composed not of the House of Lords but of many other people who are not in the Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: I intervene House. Therefore, if such a referendum takes place, we because the noble Lord mentioned me by name. I will have to engage very strongly, despite the splendid want to ask him a question, because the issue genuinely efforts already made by the Lord Speaker and her puzzles me. If it is the case that having an elected predecessor, to try to publicise the work that this second Chamber produces the kind of dire consequences House does. that he and everyone else in this place—or at least I am out of time. I end by saying that I congratulate most people who have spoken—predict, how come the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on what he just said, but about 60 of the other 71 bicameral Parliaments across the Bill that has gone to the Commons from this place the world do not suffer these problems when they have is much less than his original Bill. We still need to do elected second Chambers? Is he really saying that our far more and we certainly must do something greatly democracy is so weak that we cannot cope with what to reduce the size of this House. I hope that we will everyone else can cope with? manage to do that.

Lord Higgins: No, on the contrary, I recognise that 8.51 pm what is fit for other countries is fit for them, but we have here a unique institution—a highly expert and Baroness Morgan of Ely: My Lords, I start by unbelievably cost-effective second Chamber. Therefore, stating clearly that I think that this is a bizarre priority the reasons that we are putting forward in its defence at the moment, when we have an economic crisis and are the right ones. massive levels of unemployment and when people are I want to come to the crucial point raised by the suffering from poverty. However, we are where we are, committee of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, relating so I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Richard to primacy. The committee certainly rejects—not out and his team for the considerable work that they have of hand but after careful consideration—the idea that done on their report. Clause 2 will carry out the purpose of preserving the I say from the outset that I am in principle very primacy of the other place. I am glad to see the noble much in favour of a fully elected House of Lords. I Lord indicating his assent. I certainly do not believe want to stand by the manifesto commitments to reform that it would, but it would be very strange if next week put to the electorate by my party and others at the something in the Queen’s Speech said, “Measures for general election. It is right and proper that the people reforming the House of Lords will be laid before you, who are able to initiate and amend legislation should and we regret the fact that Clause 2 will not carry out be accountable to the people to whom it will apply. the intention of the Government”. We shall have to The Chamber as currently constituted, whatever its wait and see what, if anything, is proposed, but it considerable merits, is a complete anachronism. It is would seem rather odd if the Government were to undemocratic in the 21st century. It is only through include anything without having resolved this absolutely elections that we will preserve and enhance this Chamber’s crucial question. vital constitutional role. My other point relates to the issue raised by the Arguments that suggest, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix noble Lord, Lord MacGregor—the utterly absurd idea it”, simply do not wash. That is a recipe for preserving that election without accountability is democracy. The this institution in aspic. It assumes that it is not whole basis of democracy must be accountability and, broken. Even Winston Churchill suggested: if we have a system whereby a Member can remain “If we are to leave the venerable if somewhat crumbled rock here for 15 years without election, there is no accountability on which the House of Lords now stands, there is no safe whatever. That cannot increase the amount of democracy foothold until we come to an elected chamber”. in this country. Several areas of Lords reform are desperately needed. I want to spend just a moment or two on the It is broken. In no way can we argue that the current question of referendums. Throughout my 33 years in set-up reflects the country as a whole. The the House of Commons, I was strongly opposed to underrepresentation of women is not unique to this referendums. I take a strong Burkean view that Members Chamber, but it needs to be addressed. Likewise, the of the House of Commons are representatives not number of people from an ethnic minority background delegates. A referendum is the antithesis of that. However, needs to be increased. The age profile of the Chamber it is the case that on a major constitutional issue it is does not reflect society, with an average age of 69 and less appropriate for the House of Commons to act in more than 82 per cent of the membership over 60. that way, so a referendum may indeed be more appropriate. Although I accept that with that comes a whole host My problem is that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord of knowledge and expertise, it would be very difficult Lipsey, I am not optimistic that a referendum will to make the case that we here represent the disparate produce the right result. voices of the whole country. 2029 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2030

[BARONESS MORGAN OF ELY] What kind of people would be attracted to sit in the The south-east is hugely overrepresented, with 70 per second Chamber? What kind of Members do we want? cent of Members with a London base. When we have To a large extent, the make-up of the new Chamber seen a considerable shift in the constitutional arrangements will be determined by the political parties, but I have of the UK to reflect growing devolution to the nations real concerns that the pool from which parties can of the UK, it is time to revisit our arrangements to choose candidates is particularly small. It will be ensure that all areas of the country are adequately incumbent on parties to try to be more creative in the represented. The suggestion that Members should be way that they select candidates. Political parties should elected on a regional basis I would welcome be encouraged to seek out experts and attempt to wholeheartedly. place them high on their party lists, as happens in If we are serious about keeping the integrity of the continental parties. This is one reason why I would be UK as a nation, we need to be serious not just about in favour of a closed list system. The Government respecting devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern should be allowed to draft in experts as Ministers, who Ireland but about moving towards increasing should be given a temporary seat in this Chamber. regionalisation in England. Electing Members to the One question that I have been asking myself is: Lords regionally on a basis similar to the European what would it take for me to put my name forward to regional constituency boundaries would allow a more stand for this Chamber? There are, I am afraid, some balanced picture of our country to emerge in this serious shortcomings in the proposition as it stands. Chamber. My preferred option would be for the regions For me, one of the key problems is the length of the to be equally represented, as my noble friend Lord mandate. I guess that that probably sounds a bit odd, Desai suggested earlier, so that this place really would as I have accepted a life peerage, but let us be clear: an look and feel different from the other House. In that elected mandate would put Lords representatives in a way, we would be able to respect devolution but take very different position. The implication is that they into account the fact that we were seeing an asymmetric would have a full-time role and that it would be development of regionalism in the UK. possible to hold an additional job only if they were appointed Peers. I am afraid that the practicalities of The ongoing debate in Scotland on further devolution, that if you are not based in London just demonstrate and perhaps even independence, is something that we once again the London-centric approach to the reforms. should not duck. Let us not be naive in thinking that the outcome of the referendum north of the border I believe that people of my generation who are will not have a dramatic influence on the way we are talented and ambitious would be extremely reluctant governed across the whole of the UK. The West to accept a 15-year mandate. My generation has not Lothian question must also be put into the mix—a been brought up in a job-for-life culture and I believe fact that has probably not been adequately dealt with that many would feel too restricted by a 15-year tenure. in the Richard report, given the committee’s tight The longest legislative term among elected legislative remit. Chambers today is eight years. If we wanted to attract people of my generation to stand, we would need to Questions are already being raised in Wales and ensure the introduction of a closed party list system so Scotland about the need for second Chambers to that, if someone were to step down, that person would scrutinise primary legislation going through those automatically be replaced. However, that would cause parliaments. Although I would resist calls for new all kinds of problems for any independents who stood second Chambers to be established in Wales, Scotland and would send out the bizarre message, “This is a and Northern Ireland, we have to be able to say why 15-year mandate—unless you want to break it”. there is a need for a second Chamber at Westminster if there is no need for such scrutiny in those institutions, The second point is that it is very difficult to which also deal with primary legislation. Therefore, I envisage why someone would want to put their name could foresee the possibility of the elected Members of forward for a reformed Chamber that did not have the new Lords Chamber being given the broader remit decision-making powers. Surely the most talented would of being a scrutiny body for primary legislative powers be attracted to the House of Commons, so we would in devolved bodies. probably end up, once again, with an older Chamber that does not reflect society. Plenty of people will be asking for this debate to be set in the broader context of trying to establish a Clause 2 of the Bill needs to be amended. Enough grand constitutional convention. However, do we really experts have stated the position on that. I believe that, believe that this will help to move the debate on? If we at the point when we insist on Peers being elected, that cannot build a consensus on one aspect of our would represent a significant shift in our constitutional constitution, what hope is there if we broaden the arrangements and as such would require a referendum. debate? All parties recently and historically have been The public should be the arbiters of how they are to be guilty of snatching and reforming bits of our policy governed. I have confidence that the British public development and decision-making framework, watching would support such a move. how it goes and then moving on. Despite the shortcomings It is fair to say that none of us believes that any of of this approach, I have no doubt that this is how we this is going to happen quickly. Indeed, even if the will continue to work. That is why I believe that we current proposed timetable were respected and the should use this unique opportunity with all three main first new elected representatives of the second Chamber political parties making a commitment to further reform were elected in 2015, it would be 13 years before we the institutions. I would not want to see us pushing would see the 80 per cent elected Peers in place as this reform into the long grass. proposed. In the mean time, I believe that there is an 2031 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2032 urgent need to follow the advice of the Constitution House of Parliament that is not elected. This was Unit in its recommendations for immediate action: an confirmed in a number of polls, most recently a couple immediate moratorium on Lords appointments, to be of weeks ago in a BBC poll for “World at One” that lifted only when the number of Members has dropped showed that nearly seven out of 10 people wanted an below 750; allowing retirement from the Lords, as elected House of Lords and a referendum of the proposed by the House of Lords Leader’s Group people. Given that all three major parties supported chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; and any future reform of your Lordships’ House at the last general appointments to be put on a more transparent and election, the case is unassailable. As for a referendum—if sustainable basis, with the independent House of Lords it is the will of Parliament, bring it on. Appointments Commission determining how many I recognise that it will be impossible in this House vacancies exist and inviting nominations from the to reach consensus on reform. Despite my preference parties. for a 100 per cent elected Senate, I believe that the I thank the members of the Joint Committee for report of the Joint Committee presents Parliament their considerable work and I look forward to a long with the best available option to move forward. It debate on this issue. would be better to achieve significant reform now and move on to the final stages of reform in the future. 9.02 pm Now is as good a time as any—otherwise, no time, ever, will be good. Baroness Brinton: My Lords, like most of my colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party, I am a strong advocate The core issues in the report that Parliament will of a fully elected second Chamber and constitutional have to tackle concern primacy and the nature of the reform was one of the reasons I joined the Liberals in work that a reformed House would undertake. We 1974. I share the frustrations of those who have gone heard much earlier today about the need for clear before us, in the preceding 150 years, in finding it conventions to ensure clarity about primacy.The proposals almost impossible to make this Chamber directly in the report do that. The regional constituency basis accountable and transparent to the people of the of election will create a very different Member to the United Kingdom to whom it is answerable. traditional Commons MP. A regionally elected House of Lords—even without a specific embargo on individual Walter Bagehot, in 1867, in his seminal book, The casework—would be unlikely to draw casework to its English Constitution, on the nature of constitution Members; but with that rubric written in, it would be and the functioning of Parliament, reported: straightforward. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to “A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institutions said the relationship between MPs and MEPs on casework. that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look MEPs, too, are elected on the proposed regional system. at it”. There are no great fights over casework. In fact, most In those days, the Lords were noted for their opposition people automatically go to their local MP on local to any kind of reform such as the great Reform Bill issues and their MEP on wider, strategic issues. earlier that century, and 100 years ago your Lordships’ House was certainly not in favour of women’s suffrage, Secondly, the single term of office means that Members a point noted by my noble kinswoman Baroness Stocks of a reformed House will not be worried about their of Kensington and Chelsea, a suffragist who marched own re-election; and election by thirds once every five on Parliament during those turbulent years. Indeed, I years will ensure that that the Commons will always remember her description of your Lordships’ House have the most up-to-date mandate. Revisions to the in her autobiography, My Commonplace Book, when Parliament Act might be necessary, but people speak she joined it 50 years later: she called it her “eventide as if that is an impossible thing, which is not the case. home”. It has to be possible to adjust all the parts of the constitution that we need to while undertaking major The House of Lords has no age of retirement and it constitutional reform. has already been pointed out that the average age is 69, with more Members over 90 than under 40. When I YourLordships’ House is rightly regarded as having was introduced last year, my family was told that I considerable expertise in reviewing and scrutinising would be called “young Brinton”, something that my draft legislation. Indeed, if there were no second Chamber, children still find hilarious. More worryingly, Peers the Commons would need to rethink how it operates may be removed only by an Act of Parliament and because, given time constraints, it cannot provide the those convicted of serious crimes may return after level of detailed scrutiny that this House undertakes. serving their jail sentence, subject, as we know, to This must remain a key function of a reformed House, specific votes of the House, but that is only ever a and I see no reason why an elected House could not temporary measure. carry this out as effectively as the present one. That brings me back to the issue of perception. I conclude by returning to the argument for reform. Like my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, Once inside the Westminster bubble, it becomes I have faced sixth forms and public meetings with comfortable to argue for the status quo because we questions that demonstrate that many, probably the can see the benefits of the present system. However, majority, have no real idea how we arrive here, or even as a fairly recent arrival to your Lordships’ House, I what we do. Lords of the Blog, tweeting and other say that the quaintness of the traditions, no matter more modern methods of communication are beginning how well grounded they are in our history, makes us to help. However, when it is explained to them, most seem part of the problem of politicians being distant people are clear that they want reform, because they from the people. To be placed here through patronage cannot understand why, in the 21st century, we have a starts to build an invisible wall around us. Title and 2033 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2034

[BARONESS BRINTON] My message to this unelected Government comes deference quietly reinforce the construction, and a from the Bible: lack of accountability bangs the door shut. “How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that we must the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the break down those walls. No matter how excellent is beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull your Lordships’ House, I am with Henry Campbell- out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye”. Bannerman, who in 1905 said: “Good government could never be a substitute for government by the people themselves”. 9.13 pm Let this report and the draft Bill move forward so that Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have not come with a text we can, 107 years after that statement, take the firm this evening. I think we owe the noble Lord, Lord steps towards accountability and transparency that Richard, and his crew—if I can put it that way—a are the bywords of any good, modern democracy. great debt of gratitude for clarifying the issues. However, I am rather afraid that the debate tonight has shown that, as a whole, this House is no further forward. 9.09 pm Veterans of this debate will know that I am a pretty Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, like many of unreconstructed supporter of the democratisation of your Lordships, I find it amazing that the other place this House and of the process of election to it, and I could even consider making this House an elected or am so for the reasons expounded by my noble friend indeed partially elected Chamber. This would only Lady Morgan just now, although she alarmed me increase this House’s legitimacy to the point where it somewhat by reminding me that I am nearly the would have the right to challenge the power of the average age of the House now; earlier by the noble other place. I do not know whether reform of this Lord, Lord Ashdown, and the noble Baroness, Lady House is, yet again, a piece of red meat thrown to the Scott; and by colleagues on these Benches. wolves to distract them or whether this urge by the At the beginning of this debate, the noble Lord, House of Commons to pursue a course of action Lord Hennessy, who is still in his place, said that not which will do it so much harm is the same urge for a flicker of consensus was revealed by the Joint self-destruction which has led it to surrender so much Committee report and the alternative report. The of its authority to the European Union or is a wish to debate tonight shows that there is not even an empty introduce more democracy into the government of matchbox of consensus here. We are where we have this country. been for many years: gridlocked on the options. The majority opinion in this House is obviously against If it is a wish to improve democracy, then I suggest democratisation. Some of it is now being justified on the other place starts by taking a good look at itself. I the grounds that we should legislate for function before shall quote from a distinguished Member of the other form, and to some extent I agree. Perhaps slightly place. strangely, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, “Every bill now has a ‘programme motion’ setting out how Lord Norton of Louth, to some extent, although he much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. These are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for starts from a different position and comes to a different scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not conclusion. a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister Almost all the arguments seem to be about the in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the relationship between this House and another place, time, to an audience of dozing backbenchers—this is not and the composition of this place, when the real accountability. How has the mother of all Parliaments turned itself into such a pliant child? If we’re serious about redistributing constitutional issue ought to be about the relations power from the powerful to the powerless, it’s time to strengthen between the legislature and the Executive. This gets Parliament so it can properly hold the government to account on confused partly because in the media people often talk behalf of voter. The House of Commons should have more about the House of Commons when they actually control over its own timetable, so there is time for proper scrutiny mean the Government. Within the clear roles of legislature and debate”. and Executive, there needs to be some differentiation Those words were written by my right honourable between the roles of these two Chambers. friend the Prime Minister. May I respectfully suggest As far as the relationship with the Executive is that parliamentary time would be better spent restoring concerned, I am a strong believer in a strong state—unlike the ability of the House of Commons to hold the some members of the coalition—but a strong state Executive to account than in messing about with this requires an ability to deliver effective, high-quality House, a matter for which there is no public desire or legislation, good administration and general good interest? governance. To do that, I am afraid that it needs a Time is the chief weapon of opposition. For an stronger legislature to challenge it than we have had in example of how effectively this weapon can be used, recent years. I have been here under four Prime Ministers we need only look back to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill and the same applies in all cases. in 1969, an occasion when a proposed reform of this If we are moving to election for this House, there is House was seen off by talking the Bill out. a very clear and differentiated role for this House As my noble friend Lord Higgins commented earlier, compared with the House of Commons. An elected constantly programming Motions and imposing timetables House of Lords that is engaged in heavy scrutiny and increases the power of the Executive to the point that has a revising role and the general ability to hold where, in practical terms, the role of the other place is the Government to account—through, I hope, more reduced to that of a cipher. powerful Select Committees—performs a different role 2035 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2036 from the House of Commons, which provides the House of Lords. We would also need to set out a Government and decides on the broad structure of clearer pattern of dispute resolution. Again, policy. Of course, an elected House of Lords would institutionalising ping-pong is not impossible. not have power over financial matters. Here I disagree I have other concerns about what is in the Bill and with the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown; I do not think it the report. I have concerns about the electoral system would have a veto over a declaration of war, for and the length and non-renewable nature of the proposed example. However, it is possible to define what powers term, as well as concerns about the means of culling—I this elected House would have, and its role and function, apologise, I mean the running down of—the current and to differentiate those from the role of the House membership of this House. I have opinions about the of Commons. survival of the Lords spiritual, which I will not go into I think we all agree that, frankly, the Government because they have all disappeared tonight. have their head in the sand if they deny that election of My central point, and the central point about how this House will not change the nature of the relationship we proceed from here, must be that, as far as the public between this House and another place. It is also a are concerned, a lot of these esoteric arguments about gross exaggeration to say that the primacy of the the role of the House of Lords and the House of House of Commons is not compatible with an elected Commons are not relevant. From change, the public House of Lords. This is not an unbridgeable conflict. want to see improvement in government. If they do A clear and new definition of relations between the not, or they are not convinced that the change that we Houses, once both are elected, is vital. I accept that it have proposed will bring about improvement in is difficult, but it is hardly impossible. After all, over government, we will not get a vote for it in a referendum. two-thirds of all other bicameral jurisdictions find a Inevitably, whether we want it or not, we will go for a way of doing it, although not all in the same way and referendum. Whatever we do with this Bill when it not without periodic difficulties, and have done so for emerges after the Queen’s Speech, we must ensure that many decades and, in some cases, centuries. the final outcome is better governance and that we are I think we are also all agreed that the attempt in not quite so esoteric and inward-looking within this Clause 2 to redefine this relationship is completely Palace of Westminster. insufficient and rather pathetic. Relations at present are defined in statute—to a limited extent, in relation 9.21 pm to the Parliament Act—in conventions, in understandings, Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord in procedural mysteries via the usual channels, and in Whitty has just spoken about what the public expect. various other ways that are pretty much unknown to The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke about the the general public. Codifying the Cunningham importance of telling the public what we do. They are conventions and cross-referring to them in statute is both right. Outreach is one way in which your Lordships’ not a solution; nor is a concordat, which is itself only a House communicates with the public. I have participated codified convention. in the outreach schemes since they started several We have to define the different roles and functions years ago. I have spoken about this House, and taken here in primary legislation. At present the Parliament questions, not only at many schools but also at regional Acts statutorily define and limit the Lords’ powers, WI conferences, Rotary meetings, business conferences and they need to be explicitly reiterated in this Act or and political meetings. Rarely am I asked about legitimacy modified to meet the new situation—I agree with my and reform, although I am asked about diversity and noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon on experience. that. Even the financial privilege is not reflected in However, if there is one threat running through all those Acts and by statute. In view of recent events, these meetings, it is that people have high expectations that would require further definition as well. Removing of us. They have such expectations because we are the inhibition of the House of Lords because of its appointed. It is to satisfy those expectations that we non-elected status would indeed make us a more assertive need to be very careful about the reform of your Chamber, but only in the areas that the statute would Lordships’ House. I am in favour of reform and, then define as us being responsible for. eventually, an elected House, if that is what our powers, The argument against putting all that in the statute duties and functions, as my noble friend Lord Whitty book is limited. It seems that if you did so it would be spoke about, require. But I also agree with my noble justiciable—in other words, judges could challenge the friend Lady Royall. I am in favour of taking the steps operation under that part—but that is also true if you when they have been properly thought through. It is cross-refer to conventions and concordats in primary then that we will satisfy the high expectations that the legislation. In any case, we are not in the United public have of us. States. We would not have a Supreme Court that Sadly, the draft Bill presented to your Lordships struck out actions by the Government or that struck and considered by the Richard committee does not out legislation on the grounds that they are unjustifiable. satisfy these expectations. It speaks of objectives but I know that even the present statutory base is challengeable rarely speaks on how to achieve them. The call for in court; I, after all, had a major role in the Hunting evidence listed in appendix 2 of the Richard report is, Act, and the use of the Parliament Act in that respect in effect, a list of these shortcomings and, quite rightly, was challenged by several people. Luckily, the judges the committee is asking people to help them to do the saw sense in that respect, although others may disagree. Government’s thinking for them. Both reports point Nevertheless, in general the judges would not override to many inadequacies, about which noble Lords have the clear will of the House of Commons and the spoken. In particular, they have spoken about the 2037 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2038

[LORD HASKEL] 9.28 pm primacy of the House of Commons in Clause 2. As regards appendix 7, in the supplementary written evidence The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is an honour to on Clause 2 from Mr Mark Harper, he agrees that the follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and his considered Government have not thought matters through and words. I am very much of his view that we should seek asks the committee to do it for them. more incremental change. He reminds me of an occasion when I sat next to a colleague of his over tea one The Richard report and the alternative report point afternoon. She told me that my father had visited her to many other areas where the objectives have not primary school many years ago, and how important been properly thought through: the relationship with an experience it was to have a Member of the House the other United Kingdom assemblies; necessary changes of Lords come to her school, take an interest in what in the House of Commons; the honours system, separate the children were doing, and talk about the Lords. from membership of the House; differences over numbers; One of my concerns is that with the publication of a conflicts in the constituencies; and the accountability Bill of this kind, we may be forced to look inwards and of elected Members. Many noble Lords have added to so do less of that kind of outreach work. Indeed, I this list and, as a result, the suspicion must be that it is have the honour to be a co-chair of an inquiry into the political expediency which is driving this reform, not issue of children who run away from local authority wisdom—a suspicion that both reports attempt to care. We have heard from some good witnesses. However, rectify, but something which the public do not expect unfortunately I was not able to attend a meeting today from this House. because I felt that I had to take part in the debate I am in favour of reform but, because of the difficulties today. Noble Lords have only so much time. I share we are debating, I am in favour of dealing with it the concern expressed by others about the current incrementally through a series of small steps. They austerity. should be steps which have been properly thought I thank, as many others have done, the members of through, such as the proposals from the noble Baroness, the Joint Committee and its chair, and particularly my Lady Hayman, about reducing numbers, and from the noble friends Lord Hennessy and the noble Baroness, noble Lord, Lord Steel, on discipline and reforms to Lady Young, for their work on the report. I am our procedures. When these small steps have been grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and taken satisfactorily and the other matters properly her colleagues for their alternative report. thought through, that is the time for a referendum. Of As many Peers have said, we are in a time of course there should be a referendum on such a major extreme austerity. We are hearing of ever more of our constitutional change, but only when the smaller steps citizens having to depend on food packages. We hear have been taken and shown to work, and when the that further significant cuts in welfare payments are other more major changes have been properly considered possible. It is a difficult time. We know that we need and decided. Otherwise, a referendum will be a fiasco more growth in the economy if people are going to because it would be seen as a way of covering up for find employment, yet we also need to secure the confidence inadequate thought and preparation. of the investment markets to avoid having to pay I join my noble friend Lord Lipsey and other noble higher interest rates. Those are huge challenges for us. Lords in their concern about costs. We all know that Is this the right time to take on this huge challenge in making changes without a budget ensures not only this House and to devote so much of our time and that costs will rocket, but that the intended changes energy to this area? will suffer. Yet the costs are not spelt out—and this I shall concentrate on the powers of your Lordships from an austerity Government. The alternative and the primacy of the other place. Two things in report tries to deal with it. An analysis on the particular come to my mind. The first is the example fullfact.org website raises a number of serious of bickering parents—parents who are so busy getting queries, and using the Freedom of Information Act it at each other, trying to assert their own will against is trying to get the Government’s costings. I look another person, that they neglect their children or forward to the Government providing the House with allow the strongest child to bully the other ones. I am a proper budget by which we can hold them to account also reminded of an old story about an old king who so that we can judge the value and appropriateness of decides to divide his power among his three daughters, the expenditure. which seems to him a very good idea at the time. I add my thanks to those given to my noble friend However, he comes to realise that he has given up Lord Richard and his committee for the report, and to something which leads to great pain for him and his those who have written the alternative report. Both are family and great conflict within the nation that he valuable contributions. However, neither really settles runs. A comment is made upon him: he only ever the old arguments about our duties and whether election slenderly knew himself. The suggestion of the noble equals the legitimacy to carry them out. A recent Baroness, Lady Symons, and others of a conventional Hansard Society report tells us that the public have assembly to dig down further into these issues is become less engaged in politics and more suspicious of important, because I would hate us to enter into politicians, which is hardly the right climate in which something which might undermine our ability to make to devote our attention to an elected House. So let us the changes that we are in a good position to make to take the small steps, think through the big steps and the benefit of our nation. explore whether there is a consensus. We will then My father took his seat in this House back in the carry the public with us because, after all, we are here 1930s, during the time of the depression. He was to serve them. immensely privileged, being an Etonian and Cambridge 2039 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2040 and Oxford-educated. He wanted to use those privileges However, I have one secret wish: I hope that perhaps to help people without those sorts of leads, much in they will be the last reports on this subject for a decade defiance of his family. I share with him the thought or two. that we are extremely privileged, particularly in this The more closely one looks at these coalition proposals place, and we can make a huge difference to the most for House of Lords reform, the more they seem to vulnerable in society. However, if we lock ourselves resemble the eurozone. First, the design of both contains into constant conflict with the other place, we are in the seeds of their own destruction. Secondly, they danger of losing that capacity. Let us think about both look as if they may result in the humiliation, or children’s homes. In the evidence to the inquiry in worse, of their architects. Thirdly, the most enthusiastic which I am involved on children who run away from supporters of both have been among the Liberal care, we hear from the police a familiar story: that Democrats. there are a few poorly run children’s homes from which children run away again and again. I am afraid I focus on only two of those seeds of destruction. that there are possibly gangs of men who are looking The first is the use of the guillotine as a parliamentary at those homes and thinking about what they can do instrument, which has already been referred to by with some of those children. This is such an old story; others. In my years as a Parliamentary Lobby it needs to be sorted out. I know that the Government correspondent, the use of the guillotine was a media are thinking about instituting an inquiry into such story. It was usually a story of political conflict and children’s homes and trying to do some good work in the inability of the Government of the day to resolve that area, but if we become so engrossed in this important legislation and disputes by debate. The discussion about what we do and who we are, we are guillotine was an instrument of last resort. It was not less likely to be able to give time to such work. This there to prevent or inhibit parliamentary debate but to Government and the previous Government have done limit and contain the use of parliamentary obstruction. a huge amount of good work in improving the status I am afraid that it was Mr Blair, for whom I have of social work, which has involved many different much respect, who introduced the guillotine as routine measures. To pursue programmes of that kind is for virtually all legislation. It was not long before the challenging when we may be involved in such self-obsessed effects on this House became obvious. An avalanche expenditure of energy. of ill-digested legislation, much of which had been Let us think of the benefit to lobbyists of seeing subjected to little or no scrutiny, descended upon us. two Houses that are about equally strong. I have in Of course, the production rate of the House of Commons mind tobacco lobbyists, who have been so effective was hugely increased, but the quality of the output when they have wished to oppose tobacco legislation fell. going through this House on a number of occasions. I had assumed that the lesson had been learnt and They had deep pockets. A former Secretary of State that a new Government would scrap the routine had been on the board of directors of British American timetabling of Bills. To my disappointment, and not to Tobacco, for instance. They used all sorts of means to his credit, Mr Cameron has perpetuated this bad lobby very effectively. If the upper House is as strong practice. Far from improving the presentation and as the lower House, we give them a second bite at the quality of the legislation, it has got even worse. Our cherry in which they can frustrate such legislation as efforts have been even more needed to knock it into putting plain packaging on cigarettes or preventing shape. How long would it be before an elected senate children from seeing cigarettes in newsagents. was subjected to a guillotine? It would then be another I think also of examples in the United States. stepping stone towards the elective dictatorship that President Carter won a mandate from the public to the great Lord Hailsham warned us against. We will pass laws to restrict energy consumption at the time of watch with fascination to see whether the House of the oil crisis, but that was frustrated. There were so Commons allows the Government to timetable this many checks and balances to which that legislation Bill if it is introduced. was subjected that he could not make it work and he The second seed of self-destruction is the anti-elitist could not win his way. Again, President Clinton’s argument so widely used by advocates of the replacement health reforms were frustrated even though he had a of the House with an elected senate. Provided that mandate from the public. elites derive from open opportunity, ability, achievement I encourage noble Lords to look at the oral evidence and merit, they are an essential ingredient for all from Dr Meg Russell to which the noble Lord, Lord organisations, including Parliament. If there were a Steel, referred. There are some important points there. criticism, it is perhaps that we are not sufficiently elite. In particular, she notes that nobody expected the authority In my view, the anti-elitist culture of recent decades of this House to be as strong as it is now, following the has done much to erode the quality of our Civil removal of the hereditary Peers. We are a far more Service. To insist that it is more important for Civil assertive House than anyone expected, according to Service recruitment to reflect the diversity of Britain her. We need to think very carefully how much more rather than be drawn from the ablest of Britain is assertive we might be if we were an elected House and counter-productive to what it is there for. The superb not simply an appointed House as we are today. quality of the 20th century British Civil Service stemmed from the 1855 Northcote-Trevelyan reforms which 9.36 pm substituted competitive examination for patronage. Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we have in front of us I doubt whether France, with its politicians, would today two very fine reports. They are both very well have survived as well had it not been for the unashamed written, which makes them easy to read and understand. elitism introduced by de Gaulle through ÉNA. I remember 2041 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2042

[LORD MARLESFORD] of even part of one Chamber of a modern democratic that years ago, in order to write about ÉNA, I went to state legislature might become one. I think that future interview its director, Monsieur Pierre Racine. He was centuries will look back at proposals to cling to an remarkable man. I said finally to him, “How is it that entirely appointed Chamber as an extraordinary you get such marvellous people all wanting to come to aberration. Opinion polls confirm this. Some may ÉNA?”. His answer was, “Well, because they end up even find it a betrayal of all those who fought in the running France et ca c’est amusant”. struggles for emancipation over our history. One problem is that MPs are so inadequately It is also the case that I quite often do not agree remunerated. In my view, they should get a salary of with the Government, so I am also surprised to find about £100,000—about what a GP gets. They should that to a degree I may, with reservations, somewhat be freed from the arrogant and insulting invigilation of agree with them over the Bill. But then, I am not sure IPSA. IPSA behaves incredibly badly and will quite that the Government agree with the Government, so I soon have a serious effect on people wanting to be await with interest the Minister’s reply. Of course, subjected to that sort of treatment. To invite people to constitutional change needs fundamental thought; the give up 15 years of their lives for £50,000 a year, and preservation of the primacy of the House of Commons subject to IPSA, is hardly going to entice the ablest needs to be worked out with great care. But evidence young people to divert from other careers or enterprises to the Joint Committee has laid out sensible and to service in the new second Chamber. Nor are many authoritative ways to do that. There is also the idea of of those approaching, or who have reached, the pinnacle a binding oath suggested by my noble friend Lord of their careers likely to be tempted to stand for most Campbell-Savours. The nature of the mandate also of the remainder of their lives as virtually full-time needs thought, but the report provides a good starting Members of an elected House. I say “virtually full-time” point, and I do not doubt that our native capacity for because, even with 450 members, 90 appointed places innovative and practical constitutional thinking will would not provide anything like the depth or width of be equal to this task. But the timidity evinced by some expertise and experience which the present House at the prospect of reform will need reassurance at provides. various levels. This really is a potential disaster. In the history of I would like to say a word about the alternative doomed enterprises, it brings to mind the advances of report. I find it slightly misleading. On primacy, for Napoleon and Hitler on Moscow, and the recent repeated example, the alternative report says that it cannot be attempts to subdue Afghanistan. Fortunately, even if maintained with an elected Chamber. A majority of there is reference to the Government’s draft Bill in the the committee felt that the remaining pillars on which Queen’s speech, it will not be too late to pull the plug Commons primacy rested would be sufficient to ensure on this ill-conceived and rather sordid coalition deal, its continuation. None the less, it is agreed that a and perhaps revert to the sort of package of reform means should be established to define and agree the referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Of conventions governing the relationship between the course the House of Lords is anachronistic, as is much two Houses by means of the adoption of a of our constitution, but it is none the worse for that. I concordat. The alternative report calls for the same was very surprised when my noble friend Lord Ashdown outcome in the light of the Cunningham committee as kept telling us about the strange collection of countries— the Joint Committee proposes, but it simply ignores Belarus and other places like that—that we should the principal mechanism recommended for securing emulate. I would suggest that they have not quite got agreement. It therefore adds nothing to the committee’s to where we have. Our constitution has evolved over at recommendations while ignoring the solution that it least 1,000 years since the days of the Witan—that proposes. body of notables which advised the Anglo-Saxon kings. What an honour it is to be a Member of a descendant On costs, the Joint Committee rejected salaries for of such a body.I believe that, far from being undemocratic, transitional Peers and for office and staffing costs for the present House of Lord underpins our democracy, personal case work. The effect of that is to remove which is and I hope always will be in the House of £264 million from salaries for the transitional Peers Commons. and considerably cut down the £186 million estimate for office costs. So it is not quite as it seems in the 9.44 pm alternative report. Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it is always a pleasure Finally, the alternative report claims that the to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, Joint Committee gave no material consideration to but I shall take a different line. Like my noble friend alternative means of dispute resolution—clearly, a Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, I am a member of the very important point. The Bill does not give any Campaign for a Democratic Upper House, and I very material consideration to that but the report does, in much follow his analysis. paragraphs 369 and 370. I mainly want to record my support for the Joint There is just one other aspect which the Joint Committee’s endorsement of a democratic second Committee might have looked at. It is a second-order Chamber, with an electoral mandate and commensurate question, but I am concerned that the term Senate will powers, so ably navigated by my noble friend Lord have different associations from what the committee Richard, and a lingering degree of surprise that the recommends. Could we not have a term of our own, principle should still be so contentious. I have found such as a state council? I thank the Joint Committee quite often myself advocating causes not shared by and I hope that, when we come to the Bill, we can others, but I would never have dreamed that the election move forward on its conclusions. 2043 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2044

9.50 pm content to have 400, 450 or 500 parliamentary Peers. They could serve for 15 or 20 years and retire at 75 or Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I, too, 80. As for the Lords spiritual, having read 24 paragraphs congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on his and seven recommendations in the report, I could labour of love in chairing this demanding committee. I support 12 Bishops, only two—such as the two we also thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Scott have seen here today—or none at all. I would not be of Needham Market and Lord Tyler, who were members upset if those who remained in the second House of the committee and worked long and hard. It is a became Senators. For me, these are all tolerable options. very useful report as far as it goes, but that is not very far. We might have anticipated this, given the purpose What should happen as 22 or more men and women and terms of reference of the committee, and its sit around the Cabinet table and try to agree the final membership. In the introduction to the report, we are draft of the Bill to reform the Lords? Perhaps they reminded of the principal milestones in the long march should push the Bill through both Houses, through since the 1998 White Paper and my noble friend Lord thick and thin, in a clean sweep. Perhaps they will be Wakeham’s royal commission. The 15 divisions tell the attracted by the alternative way forward, which was story of substantial failure. Instead of a consensus on drafted as a minority report, of setting up another a matter of the highest constitutional significance, the committee to examine the conventions between the committee was often seriously divided. two Houses. Perhaps they should split the Bill, proposing important changes but stopping short of an elected Since the royal commission, opinion has, however, House, with a further legislative stage some time ahead moved on the primacy of the House of Commons. At in the next Parliament or beyond, as I would prefer. least, my own perception of it has. What is much Above all, as Cabinet Ministers sit there, they should clearer now, given the report and today’s debate, is the have at their elbow that enjoyable autobiography of inescapable challenge of an elected or partially elected Rab Butler, The Art of the Possible. The coalition, House of Lords to the Commons. I share what other which I strongly support, is passing through hard speakers have said on the importance of paragraph 34 times, as are my Liberal Democrat friends. It should of the report, which states: remember that politics is the art of the possible and “The Committee is firmly of the opinion that a wholly or think of priorities for the nation and the voters in largely elected reformed House will seek to use its powers more assertively”. these difficult economic and social years. It adds, in paragraph 35, that: “The Committee considers that a more assertive House would 9.57 pm not enhance Parliament’s overall role in relation to the activities Lord Naseby: My Lords, we are told that all three of the executive”, manifestos claimed that the reform of the Lords was a and, in paragraph 55, that: priority. However, no one voted for the coalition. Were “We concur with the overwhelming view expressed … in oral you a voter, which none of us is, you could not have and written evidence that Clause 2”— found a party that thought differently. Then I ask the crucial clause— myself, “What did we in the Conservative Party say in “of the draft Bill is not capable in itself of preserving the primacy our manifesto?”. I had a quick look at it and I see that of the House of Commons”. we committed ourselves to, I also note that David Howarth, my Liberal Democrat “work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber”. former colleague in the Commons and now a reader of I congratulate my noble friend the Leader on the law in Cambridge, said in evidence on Clause 2 that it Front Bench. He has worked tirelessly to find such a “is just silly”. consensus. When challenged this afternoon, he tried In a previous debate on 22 June, I said that the to define a consensus—not very convincingly, I have House of Lords and the House of Commons were, to say. The fact is that there is no consensus, but we can give him 10 out of 10 for hard work, and he has “joined together in a single Parliament. The balance of powers … works very well despite some rough edges. After scrutiny, debate met the manifesto commitment. and negotiation in Committee, including … ping-pong, the elected When I look at the team promoting the Bill, I note House of Commons … wins, and so it should be”.—[Official the depth of experience of the leading voice and the Report, 22/6/11; col. 1267.] Minister of State. Both have served for seven years in Despite the report and the valuable evidence, and the House of Commons. One of them has never done what we have heard in today’s debate, I remain firmly anything outside other than politics; the other had a opposed to a wholly or partially elected House. That career in the world of finance. However, I do not think was my view when I joined this House 20 years ago, that the commitment of two colleagues from the other and since then it has been broadly the same. Perhaps I place with 14 years’ experience—experience that is may say again, especially to my colleagues on these never without guillotines, incidentally—is something Benches, that 13 years ago I wanted to end then the in which to have much faith in terms of leadership. hereditary principle in the House—quite a different Perhaps I am being too party political, but it seems matter from election, but a major reform. Alas, my that the hidden agenda behind part of the drive, then leader in the Commons, my noble friend Lord particularly, dare I say it, from our Liberal Democrat Ashdown, did not see it that way. colleagues in the coalition, is to have proportional At no time have I justified the status quo. Given a representation to ensure that there is a lock on what non-elected House, I could be happily persuaded by a this House does from the Liberal Benches. Frankly, I number of important further changes, given a relaxed do not want that to happen. The country voiced its open choice in details across the parties. I would be view in the referendum on the alternative vote. It was 2045 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2046

[LORD NASEBY] The “Letters to the Editor” section of the Telegraph not at all in favour of it, by a majority of more than bears the headline: two to one, so we already broadly know what the “A reformed House of Lords would gobble up power and pick public’s view of the electoral system that is being a fight with constituency MPs”. considered for the Bill is. We do not want that, do we? At least, I certainly do I looked at the report in some depth. I will not not want it. Frankly, this Bill is a real test of the repeat the passages from which my noble friend Lord leadership of the Commons and, by definition, of the Rodgers quoted, but I will pick on just two paragraphs. Prime Minister. He and his colleagues must decide Paragraph 40 is the original statement of the primacy where their priorities lie. of the Commons. As it states, that goes back to the Furthermore, the Bill must not be guillotined or resolutions of 1671 and 1678 that: subjected to any timetable Motion. I hope that the “all aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are Commons will ensure that we go back to the old the sole gift of the Commons; and … ought not to be changed or system that a constitutional Bill is held on the Floor of altered by the House of Lords”. the House and that every single Member of Parliament After all, in case we forget, that was what the civil war who wishes to do so can take part. I say to my former was about. That was the whole purpose of Parliament’s colleagues in the other place that they need to think rebellion against the king. Dare I mention that Parliament long and hard about safeguarding the primacy of the reigned supreme at the battle of Naseby? That was the Commons against the very real threat that would catalyst for democracy. That is the fundamental reason come from elected Peers. I am afraid that it will also be why the Commons has supremacy.Why did the Commons a test of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Miliband. decide to have a Chairman of Ways and Means? It did If he is a leader, he will act in the national interest and so simply because it did not trust the Speaker to deal vote down the Second Reading and get on with rebuilding with financial matters. That role has continued—I had his party and providing good alternative government the privilege of being the 58th holder of that office—and leadership. However, if the Bill should get a Second should and must continue. A Member of the Commons Reading in the other place, I would see it as my duty to should continue to exercise that control over money try to defeat it. If necessary, I will support a referendum. matters. The Leader asked this afternoon: what on earth The other paragraph that I think is of great importance could the referendum question be? Just as a suggestion, is paragraph 45, which concerns Clause 2. The noble it might be: “Is it a priority for you”—by implication Lord, Lord Richard, referred to that this afternoon. It the elector—“that the House of Lords becomes mainly is pretty damning that the Government wanted this elected at a cost of at least £200 million a year?”. Joint Committee and set it up, but the committee records that: 10.05 pm “The Minister declined to share the Government’s Drafting Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, that seems Instructions for Clause 2 with the Joint Committee, on the grounds that such Instructions were subject to legal professional to be an excellent question. I open by thanking the privilege”. noble Lord, Lord Richard, and everyone on his committee Frankly, that is amazing. I had the privilege of chairing for a thorough report. It was narrow in its remit, but it the body that took the Maastricht treaty through the therefore focused on the issue. The committee did as other place. The process took 25 days and there was good a job as anyone could in such a short space of no guillotine on that Bill. It became law in the end, time. although it was duly amended. I have searched through It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the my notes on that procedure and there was no problem part played by the Government in this. I genuinely then with the so-called legal professional privilege. congratulate the coalition Government on bringing a Therefore, I wonder why legal professional privilege draft Bill before the House. I recall an exchange between has suddenly appeared as an excuse for not providing the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and, I think, my noble data to the important Joint Committee. friend Lord Grocott, on this side. The noble Lord As several Members have said, we are in the depths taunted my noble friend with the fact that Labour had of probably the worst recession that we have ever failed to bring forward a Bill, and that the coalition experienced. There is turmoil in the Middle East, Government were going to do so. He was as good as threats from Iran, North Korea, Argentina and al-Qaeda his word. They have done that, and it was a courageous and the very real danger of the euro collapsing. Frankly, decision to do so. I mean that sincerely, but also in the the coalition lacks confidence at the moment and sense in which Sir Humphrey means “courageous” certainly the public have no confidence in our when addressing Ministers in “Yes Minister”, because Government. Yet the priority, apparently, has to be the fact is, when you look at the Bill, you can understand the reform of your Lordships’ House. You only have Jack Straw’s reluctance to bring one forward. It is a to open any paper of any sort to pick up the public’s shambles of a Bill. One cannot think that the Government feeling on this issue. A headline in the Times states: will proceed with it. After all, they set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the Bill, and it “Kick this shambolic reform into the jungle”. has shot it to pieces—at least on its principal conclusions. Another headline in the Sunday Telegraph states: It would therefore be wholly inappropriate simply to “The House of Lords is working fine—don’t fix it”. ignore the findings of the Joint Committee and proceed A letter to the Evening Standard has the headline, with the Bill. “Keep Lords unelected”. Another letter to the Evening The problem is that it is very easy to have one White Standard has the headline: Paper after another, one consultation after another, “Should we have to elect Lords?”. cabals of Front Benchers, and everyone thinks elections 2047 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2048 are a great idea. “Elections” is a banner that is easy to Somebody mentioned costs. I do not want to go march behind, but when you get to the destination and into great detail on costs but just to add a few points. someone delivers a speech on the draft Bill, you find Whatever the figures are, they will be 50 per cent more that that support disaggregates at an alarming rate. if the recommendation of the Joint Committee is Take the first decision: in an effort to try and avoid accepted by the Government, as I think it should be. competition with MPs if people were to be elected to One presumes that the Government have done some this place for five years, the proposal is, “Right; make costings—if they have not, they are guilty, because it one term only for 15 years”. You immediately destroy they should have done—so they are not telling us, any accountability whatever. One of the points that possibly because they are scared. In my view, the costs the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was crying for was have just gone up by 50 per cent. that this place must be made accountable. A term of There is the inequity point, which my noble friend 15 years would not make us one whit more accountable Lord Lipsey mentioned. Transitional Peers will still than we were previously. get an allowance while the newly elected Peers will The great problem is that that will not achieve even receive a salary. The comparison is worse than the one the purpose of preserving the primacy of MPs, simply he suggested. Apart from the fact that the transitional because of the democratic dynamic. If I were to stand Peer will get an allowance only on the days on which for this new House, how would I differentiate myself he attends, the elected Peer will receive a salary for from the other candidates to secure election. What will 15 years whether or not he turns up. If somebody says my manifesto contain? What am I going to promise to to me, “Ah, but if he doesn’t turn up, we will recall do? If I promised to do anything, then forget seeking him”, that is fine, but please put that in the Bill. Watch re-election, I would want—even to preserve my how many MPs love the idea of being recalled by reputation—to achieve what I had promised to do. If I constituencies every now and again. needed powers to do so, I would horse-trade my way There is a further point which your Lordships will to get them. You cannot have an election without forgive me if I make as a Scot. Will an elected Peer people demanding more powers to fulfil the promises receive an allowance to cover the cost of living in they make to the electorate. You cannot square the London, as I understand that the Joint Committee circle, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, put it recommends? That is a novel idea that would certainly earlier. appeal to those of us who come from Scotland and who bear the cost from our own pocket at the moment. I think that one of the reasons why the noble Lord, Will that disparity remain? Lord Campbell-Savours, found his colleagues in the There are two more important points about cost. House of Commons getting rather alarmed about this First, the electorate will think, “Hold on. This House Bill was precisely the finding of the Joint Committee of Lords used to get an allowance. Now we are making that Clause 2 was wholly inadequate in protecting the them salaried they must be more important than they primacy of the House of Commons. That is not going were or doing different things”. The House of Lords to do much for MPs in the House who, in the case of will appear to the electorate to be more important Scottish MPs, already feel threatened by the devolved than it was. That might be a welcome thing, but I powers that MSPs have, and possibly the total loss of am not sure that the House of Commons would their raison d’être if Scotland goes fully independent. welcome it. It will not allay the fears of MPs who, facing perhaps prominent elected mayors, can see their own importance I invite my noble friend Lord Richard to reflect on as city MPs dwindling slightly. No wonder that there a further point—this apparently clever idea that we are alarm bells in the House of Commons. will not give allowances for doing constituency work. You cannot stop an elected Peer doing constituency Do not mistake me; there is a good case for an work. All it means is that the rich Senator will be able elected House of Lords. It is just that it will not be an to do it and the poor Senator will not—hardly a great elected House that is anything like the present one in democratic option. its relationship with the House of Commons. There is Generally, I think that this is close to a Eureka nothing that would stop it being at least equal—if it is moment. We cannot square the circle of election and elected by a different system, possibly superior—to subservience to the House of Commons. I do not the House of Commons think that we will see a Bill in anything like its current As somebody who is against election, I fear the form before us. That is because I hope that the results of a referendum. I think that a lot of the Government, who presumably set up the Joint Committee public, for an entirely wrong reason, will say, “We to listen to its findings, will genuinely take account of want a House of Lords that is more powerful than the what they hear and realise that they should ditch the House of Commons. We will vote for an elected fundamental points of the Bill and instead proceed House of Lords”. That is very unfair to MPs, because with some meaningful reforms which are in it and are what is wrong with House of Commons is not the adumbrated in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, individual MPs but the system. It starts with their and the evidence submitted by the noble Baroness, election. Are people elected to control the Executive Lady Hayman. or to become part of them? With a payroll vote of That is what I hope will happen. If it does not, I do more than 100, no wonder there is no scrutiny of not think that the Bill will get through the House of legislation. At least another 100 want to be part of the Commons. People do not remember that a majority of payroll vote, so they are bought off as well. Nothing is Labour MPs, even in 2007, at the height of the “cash properly scrutinised in the Commons. for peerages” scandal, voted against 80 per cent election. 2049 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2050

[LORD GORDON OF STRATHBLANE] genuinely designed to continue and to carry these A bigger majority of Conservative MPs voted against, tasks. However, the draft Bill concentrates on the despite the fact that it was in the Conservative manifesto. process by which people arrive as Members of your Since then, what have they seen? They have seen the Lordships’ House but not on the powers and functions growth of power elsewhere. One can only presume for which they are responsible when they get here. It that the Government gave Clause 2 their best shot but deals with the abstract question of the process of they have also seen a Joint Committee of both Houses arrival but says little about how changing that process say that the protection is meaningless, despite any is likely to alter the membership. assurances that may be given, and I am sure that the It is less than clear that there would be as wide a Whips will say, “Oh, we’ll fix it; don’t worry”. Incidentally, range of experience and expertise on the party-political I really did not like the idea put forward by my noble Benches of an elected House. Campaigning for election friend Lord Campbell-Savours of dealing with the places great strains on any career, and I expect that a issue of primacy in the oath. Why not put a provision number of distinguished noble Lords on the political to support the Government in the oath and then we Benches might not have taken the electoral route to could really get to a police state rather more quickly? your Lordships’ House if it had been available. At this Anyway, I do not see Peers going for it. The position moment, I catch the eye of the noble Lord, Lord has become slightly rockier since 2007 for various Winston. I think that he might be one of them, together reasons, and I think that the House of Commons will with many other distinguished medical colleagues. If defeat the Bill. we come to debate the Bill, we must therefore try to I do not want this matter kicked into the long grass. gauge whether future elected Members will in fact still I want somebody to get out a lawnmower, clear a plot be eager to engage in scrutiny in the way that the of ground and give the idea of an elected second process of this House demands, assuming that its role Chamber a decent burial. is unchanged. It may be said that the draft Bill takes account of 10.16 pm these demands in considering the retention of a proportion Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I do not of appointed but non-party-political Peers, selected, it think that I can add much to that, so I shall go off in a is often said, for their expertise—in effect, supposedly different direction. I think that we are now galloping successors to the independent Cross-Bench Peers. No towards the Becher’s Brook of constitutional reform, doubt like other noble Lords, current Cross-Benchers and matters are, unsurprisingly, pretty confused. Perhaps bring such experience and expertise as we can muster this is inevitable. The confusion and discomfort arise to the task. However, our role depends fundamentally because many noble Lords and many others want an on something different—not on experience and expertise elected House of Lords because it will have greater but on the fact that we are unwhipped. There is plenty legitimacy. However, they do not want it to have too of experience and expertise on the party-political Benches much legitimacy because that might challenge the but they are in a different position because they are primacy of the Commons. This ambivalence, to which whipped, and although they do not always vote the there is no very easy solution—perhaps no solution—has party line, that is nevertheless the default position. been with us for a century, and it is manifest in the fact While there are sufficient numbers of unwhipped Members that we have not one but two illuminating reports on Governments obviously have to attend to the reality the draft Bill, with a near even split of members of the that they might lose an amendment. They have genuinely scrutiny committee supporting each. to engage and to think, and scrutiny then is possible. Of course, we are not alone in this confusion; I fear So I think that the unwhipped Members will remain that the public are with us. I have often asked members important, if there are any. However, it will be said, of the public whether they would prefer an elected “The problem is that they will not be elected”. Again, House of Lords. Typically—although a good deal less that is not obvious to me. It is not obvious to me that it often recently—the answer has been, “Yes, it would be is impossible to have independents who are elected. more democratic”. I then ask, “So more like the Would it not be possible—it is not considered by House of Commons?”, to which I get the answer, “Oh, either report from the scrutiny committee, but I think no. Not like that!”. that it has some parallels perhaps with suggestions A point that I do not think has received sufficient made earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Low of attention in the discussion of reform of your Lordships’ Dalston—for a statutory independent commission, House is that, as party-political loyalties and affiliations and I do not say Appointments Commission for a have waned in the country, people have increasing reason, to nominate a list of potential independent ambivalence about the parliamentary results of democracy. Peers which was then presented to the electorate? Of I think we need to pay much more attention to the course such Peers would not be elected for constituencies; reality that the public may want more democracy in and their election would be on a closed list basis, the abstract but they do not want more party politics— which the scrutiny committee—rightly, I think—rejected certainly not as they see it on television. as a basis for constituency elections. From that perspective, the fact that this House Election of independents would, however, have to actually discusses legislation, with some courtesy and meet two conditions. Those nominated would—this is some care for the most part, is pretty important. the easy condition—have to be demonstrably free of Scrutiny is, after all, about reasoning, challenging, party-political connections, and have been free for a listening and keeping an open mind, and, whatever considerable period, using the criteria currently used else we do, we need to make sure that a future House is to distinguish independent Cross-Bench Peers—as noble 2051 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2052

Lords know, not all who sit on the Cross Benches are Bill alone was not capable of preserving the primacy independent Cross-Bench Peers—or perhaps stronger of the House of Commons. I agree with the committee’s versions of those criteria. Secondly, it would have to view. be open to the public to cast a vote for any political The size of the House was the next topic brought candidates who were candidates in their constituencies up by the committee. Its proposal of 450 Members or for the independent list. The electorate would have was more sensible than the draft Bill’s number of 300, to have a choice. This would have the effect that the but I would rather see it achieved by the elapsing of proportion of independents elected could vary, and it time than by this radical reform. The idea that appointed would have the effect that the House could be wholly Members should not have to attend as often as elected elected. Members seems wrong. I hope that those noble Lords who are keen on an The electoral system recommended is a form of all-elected House might take up this thought, and that proportional representation. It allows voters to cast a they will not let themselves be deterred by fears that simple party vote or express preferences among individual the party-political proportion of the membership of candidates across parties as well as within them. The the House might fall below 80 per cent if the electorate report prefers the version of STV used in New South were so minded. That would surely be the proper test Wales to the one in the Bill. As I understand it, that of commitment to democracy, rather than to party means compulsory voting. STV is also complicated. In politicisation. A test of this proposition: would those addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, explained noble Lords who are campaigning for a wholly elected so well, the 500,000 size per constituency is ridiculous. second Chamber balk if it does not guarantee a party- Non-renewable terms of 15 years are proposed by the politicised Chamber? report, but how will MPs feel when they face an elected parliamentarian with a 15-year term rather Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I thank the than their own five-year one? Not very happy, I imagine. noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for allowing me to I move on to the paragraphs on the Appointments intervene before he starts his speech. Noble Lords may Commission. I cannot understand why the commission find it helpful if I remind the House of the guidance has been so long in coming, given that we first encountered time of seven minutes. If all noble Lords were able to it in the House of Lords Bill 1999. However, I have stick to that time, we should be able to conclude the two criticisms of the report. First, in paragraph 248 speakers list well before 1 o’clock this morning. there is not enough detail of the areas of expertise needed: in particular, of areas such as manufacturing, 10.24 pm finance and other professions. Secondly, it appears Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I welcome the bizarre that paragraph 257 of the report states that opportunity to discuss the report of the Joint Committee appointed Peers should serve for an initial period of chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the draft only five years, although with the ability to be reappointed House of Lords Reform Bill. I will also examine the up to the maximum limit of the elected term. Why alternative report, produced by 12 out of the 26 members should we not have the confidence to give them a full of the committee, which I particularly welcome. I 15 years? noted the very important comment from the noble On the role of the bishops, I agree with paragraph Lord, Lord Richard, earlier, that he and his committee 62 of the conclusion to the report that there should be were not starting with a clean sheet of paper. The no reserved places for bishops in an elected House. I draft Bill had to be the starting point. He also carefully also agree that their numbers should be cut to 12. I emphasised that certain paragraphs were only passed concur with paragraph 65, which states that the by a majority, which in some cases was very small. Appointments Commission should consider faith as Even the proposal for an elected House was passed by part of the diversity criteria that it has recommended. only 13 votes to nine. The disqualification criteria in the report give different I am not in favour of an elected House, unlike the rules for appointed and elected Peers. It seems strange majority on the committee. An elected House would to treat Members of the same House in different ways. undoubtedly want more powers than the current House. I move on to the Parliament Act section in paragraphs I agree with paragraph 4 of the report’s conclusion 83 and 84 of the conclusion. It is very interesting that that this would not benefit Parliament’s overall role. the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and There would be more scope for gridlock in legislation. learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, believe that a court An elected House would want more powers, for instance might rule that the Parliament Acts did not apply once with regard to financial matters, and this should be the House of Lords was reformed. This would be a borne in mind by the other place. Financial privilege, serious change to the balance of power between the too, would be a much more contentious matter. I two Houses. I agree with paragraph 368 of the main support the alternative report’s very sensible conclusion report, which states: that if there is an elected House, as per the Cunningham “In spite of the Government’s confidence, distinguished lawyers report, the conventions between the two Houses would have some doubts as to whether the Parliament Acts would have to be examined again. continue to be effective once the second chamber was elected or I move on to the subject of the primacy of the largely elected”. House of Commons. The inclusion of conventions in The last main issue of the report that I will cover is Clause 2 of the draft Bill could mean the courts paragraph 385, in which the majority of the committee deciding what these were. The committee, as many agreed that the Government should submit the decision noble Lords said, also stated that Clause 2 of the draft to a referendum. I was very supportive of this happening 2053 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2054

[LORD NORTHBROOK] of the Lords. On composition, we are not the only in the case of the House of Lords Act 1999—although country to be having problems about how to organise the amendment did not succeed—and I support it our second Chamber. A recent report has suggested now. that, The alternative report has an extremely sensible “few democracies were content with their second Chambers, and conclusion not covered in the main report. It is that that many were engaged ‘in an apparently incessant dialogue the Government should establish a new constitutional about how they should be reformed’”. convention to consider the next steps on further reform That sounds familiar. It continued: of the House of Lords and any consequential impact “The reason why so many countries are unhappy with their on the House of Commons and on Parliament as a second chambers is that there is a problem of a very fundamental whole. While the draft Bill is faulty, the Steel Bill, as kind in creating a second chamber in a modern democracy, amended, could be brought to the statute book. especially in a non-federal state. A second chamber needs to be Overall, I am not in favour of an elected House of based upon an alternative principle of representation to that embodied in the first chamber. But what is that principle to be? Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has produced How can the same electorate be represented in two different ways some very interesting figures on the extra costs of a in two different chambers?”. reformed House, and we have to rely on them because the coalition has refused to produce its own figures, Our House of Commons, which is a disgrace. On page 61 of the alternative “represents the principle of individual representation. What alternative report we can see an estimate of the total extra cost in principle should the second Chamber represent?”. year 1 of £177 million, and from 2015-2020 of no less As Lord Bingham was quick to point out, the irony than £433 million. Can the Minister break new ground is that the current composition of your Lordships’ and give the coalition’s estimate? Is this a wise use of House enables it to evade the conundrum of finding taxpayer’s money at this very difficult time? Indeed, is an alternative principle of representation to that used this a wise piece of legislation when there are so many for electing the House of Commons. This is a point I more important issues affecting people’s lives in these want to return to. difficult economic times? On powers, it is arguable that, for most practical purposes, one of the main consequences of the Parliament 10.31 pm Acts has been to produce unicameral government in Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, the late Britain. I say that because it is patently clear that the noble and learned Lord Bingham said in his 2009 Jan Lords cannot effectively resist the legislation of a Grodecki lecture, determined Government. This effect is magnified by the coalition, and we have seen this Session that the “for over a century the future of the House of Lords has been regarded as a problem. Our belief in the power of reason generally Government can whip their legislation through both leads us to believe that all problems are amenable to a rational Houses without much difficulty. The truth, as Professor solution if sufficient thought is devoted to them. But there is in Vernon Bogdanor has said, is that the Parliament Acts truth a small category of problems which are not amenable to a have, in effect, ensured that Britain has not developed rational solution, and the problem of reforming the House of a strong bicameral legislature. What we have is a Lords while preserving its present form is one of them. That is unicameral system with two Chambers. The consequence why, despite an immense outpouring of time and talent, no solution has been found”. is that this unelected, and hence undemocratic, House spends a great deal of time doing what the House of A few years ago, I had some responsibility for this Commons does not do well enough: ensuring that the policy area. When I met Lord Bingham after his Government’s legislation is fit for purpose, making lecture, we had a lively discussion that left a very deep government more efficient, but, in essence, within a impression on me. Although I will be supporting my unicameral system, albeit across two Houses. Surely party on this issue, I am very pessimistic that it will we should try to sort that out first. ever happen, as there is clearly no consensus, so I want to make sure that although, tragically, the noble and In 1975, a former Conservative Leader of this learned Lord is no longer with us, his thoughts are House, Lord Windlesham, wrote that, represented in the record of our debate today in case “the House of Lords should not attempt to rival the Commons. we have to return to this issue, as I fear we will, in Whenever it has done so in the past it has failed, and usually future years. made itself look ridiculous in the process”. In my contribution tonight, I will follow Lord He goes on to argue: Bingham and his lateral thinking about this issue. I am “In any well-tuned parliamentary system there is a need and a going to suggest two things: we should use this opportunity place for a third element besides efficient government and the for a constitutional moment of reform to make the operation of representative democracy. This third element is the House of Commons more effective as a legislating bringing to bear of informed or expert public opinion”. Chamber and, since the Lords does invaluable work as In other words, was Lord Bingham right to suggest a revising Chamber and in the work of its specialist that if one could make the House of Commons do its committees, seek to enhance that contribution by creating job more effectively, one possible future role for your what Lord Bingham called the “Council of the Realm”. Lordships’ House would be to provide a forum in It is clear from the huge number of discussions and which “informed public opinion” can take shape, and debates we have had on this topic that the main issues that we should do more of what we are already good which bedevil any discussion of how to reform your at: providing a space for the deployment of special Lordships’ House are the reform of its composition knowledge and the representation of interests not and the interrelated but different reform of the powers otherwise present in the House of Commons? 2055 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2056

In his lecture, Lord Bingham suggested that since it for there not to be a second Chamber in which such was not possible to come up with a rational reform of revisions can be made. The role of this Chamber must the House of Lords, what should happen is that the remain to revise legislation for consideration and House of Commons should do what it is elected to do confirmation by the elected Chamber, but it does not and the House of Lords should become what he called follow that a wholly or partly elected second Chamber the “Council of the Realm”. I would prefer pinching would inevitably end up competing for primacy with the ancient title of the Privy Council, but whatever it the House of Commons, as has been claimed. was called, the council, I was impressed by the submission of the Hansard “would differ from the House of Lords superficially in that Society on this matter. It argued: membership would involve no outdated pretence of nobility, and it would differ fundamentally in having no legislative power. It “The different electoral system, term lengths and limits proposed could not make law. It could not … obstruct the will of the for the reformed Lords, coupled with the constitutional reality Commons”. that it is the Commons from which the government is formed and Its power would be to recommend amendments, which where it must sustain confidence, should underpin the primacy of the Commons would have a statutory responsibility to the Commons”. consider. I concur with its thinking and, with an agreed concordat According to Lord Bingham: and the codifying of Lords powers and conventions as “The Council would, however, resemble the House of Lords in proposed by the Electoral Reform Society, it is entirely crucial respects. Its members, appointed not elected, would be possible to prevent the potential for conflict. very much the same people, and the same sorts of people, as now make up the house. It would perform, but in an advisory and not I believe instinctively in a 100 per cent elected a lawmaking way, the revising function it now performs. Its expert second Chamber. It is hard to see on what basis it can committees could function much as they do now. It could debate be democratic for this Chamber to be unelected. When issues of public moment”. we revise Bills we are inevitably legislating and, in so Future recruitment would be by appointment, by a doing, we should have a clear democratic mandate for statutory appointments commission, with a remit to what we do. I do not accept the argument that House ensure wide experience, broad representation of interests, of Commons primacy takes care of democracy, because and gender and diversity balance. Lord Bingham suggested the House of Commons cannot do everything. The that, House of Lords influences and amends Bills significantly. “the number of members would be governed by the need of the In so doing, it should derive its power from its own Council to be able to call on members with knowledge and democratic mandate. experience in politics but also, and particularly, in the multifarious fields which fall to be considered in a complex modern state … In However, I am very conscious of the independence this way, the most valuable functions of the existing house could of thought and the expertise that comes from the be preserved, system of nomination to this House. In particular, the but the clever point is that what was referred to as, Cross Benches provide an essential antidote to domination “the features of the house which fuel calls for reform could be by party politics. For that reason, I would be very eliminated”. content with a House in which 80 per cent of its Of course, more detail is required to flesh out this Members are elected and 20 per cent are nominated by proposal, but as it neatly sidesteps many of the difficulties an independent appointments commission. With likely to be faced by the Government’s draft Bill, I 450 Members altogether, the present culture of this hope that Lord Bingham’s thoughts may at some House could continue with no party in majority control. future point be considered worthy of consideration by To prevent domination by one political party requires your Lordships’ House. At the very least, we should a system of proportional representation, as recommended keep in mind his view that there is, rightly by the Joint Committee. But the use of proportional “a small category of problems which are not amenable to a representation is vital for another reason. In 2000, the rational solution”, royal commission concluded that there was a need to and recognise that neither of the two excellent reports, ensure greater representation from some of the nor the Bill likely to be before us shortly, provide that constituent parts of the United Kingdom. In the elusive solution. 12 years since then, little seems to have changed. Of the 614 Members of this House who have registered 10.38 pm an address as their main residence, only 74 are in the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east. The north-east Lord Shipley: My Lords, I am privileged to have has 16 Members, Yorkshire has 27 and the north-west been a Member of your Lordships’ House for almost has 31. If we add the 15 Members from the East two years now. In that time, I have lost count of the Midlands and the 23 from the West Midlands to the number of times people have urged that the House of 74 from the north of England, just 112 Members of Lords should prevent Bills passing and that, despite this House are from those five English regions. That being an unelected Chamber, we should prevent the amounts to just 18 per cent of the total when they elected Chamber from delivering its programme. As have a population of 24 million, which is almost we know, this reflects in part a lack of understanding 40 per cent of the UK. These figures compare with of the role of this Chamber. We exist, and must 273 Members from London and the south-east—some continue to exist, to revise and to scrutinise legislation, 44 per cent of the total membership, but with a not to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. population that is seven million fewer. An electoral Too much legislation reaches us without proper system for 80 per cent of the membership of this scrutiny having been undertaken. It would be unthinkable House based on proportional representation would go 2057 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2058

[LORD SHIPLEY] As so many noble Lords have pointed out, we are in a long way to putting right this serious anomaly and the midst of a double-dip recession, yet here we are would ensure that this Chamber reflects the nations with a Bill that proposes to shove still more taxpayers’ and regions of the UK. money down the throats of politicians. Is that really Finally, public opinion is strongly behind reform. A what democracy is about? Ask the Government how recent YouGov poll showed 69 per cent in favour of much more money and they come over all coy and reform of the House, with 33 per cent wanting a fully refuse to answer. They have not worked out the sums, elected second Chamber and only 5 per cent wanting so they say, perhaps because the noble Lord, Lord the status quo. The British Social Attitudes Survey has Lipsey, has got there first and exposed just how costly found that one-fifth of people would prefer to close this Bill would be. But let us not argue too much right this House down altogether. Therefore, we need to now about the odd few hundred million; I am sure the think very carefully about what the public feel because people will understand what good value an elected I do not think that trying to maintain the status quo, second Chamber would be. However, my suspicion is as some would like to do, will work. Parliament needs that high up the list of democracy’s demands is for a to listen to the general public on this issue and to act Parliament that is above board and honest, or at least accordingly, which is why any proposed constitutional reasonably so. I am long enough in the tooth to know change simply must be backed by a positive vote in a that no Parliament is ever painted pure white, but if referendum. It will not be enough to rely solely on you were to ask the people which of this country’s three party manifestos. Houses of Parliament has a reputation for scandal and sleaze and self-interest, they would not be pointing the finger at this end of the building. 10.43 pm There is another awkward little thing. Democracy Lord Dobbs: My Lords, one can wait for years for demands a Parliament that makes sound laws: government a report to come along, then two arrive at the for the people. But what the people seem to get as a same time. I should like to add my thanks to the noble matter of course nowadays is something totally different. Lord, Lord Richard, and all those concerned with the Legislation that starts off being ill-conceived then Joint Committee report and the alternative report. goes on to be ill-considered as guillotines chop their The default position for supporters of the draft Bill is way through debate and sensible discussion—at least that it is needed because of our democratic deficit. I until it gets to this, unelected, Chamber of Parliament. think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who If there is a democratic deficit in our system, it is not compared us earlier today to Belarus—or was it at this end of the building. Yet the cry goes up: let us Baluchistan or Bahrainistan? Anyway, he was very have elections, more elections. Where will it stop? angry about it and proclaimed that our country’s Should we elect our judges too? There is just as much democracy is in terrible danger, so why not let us give logic in that. Or should we even elect our monarch? this democracy thing a go and wander down the path Suddenly, voting does not seem as much fun or so to see where it leads? necessary. The first thing to be said about democracy is that it There is one final argument that gets used to establish is not simply about voting. Lots of countries have this Bill’s democratic credentials, which is that it was voting, but that does not make them democracies, and in all three party manifestoes. I have an admission to if voting were the answer we would already be in make: I am a Conservative. In the 18 or so words with Camelot. Over the past 20 years we have elected more which this matter was set out in my party’s manifesto— politicians than at any time in our history, yet the widely read from end to end of this country, I am other day Hansard Society reported that political sure—it called for consensus. That is what I feel bound disengagement and disillusion in Britain has reached to and that is what, over the coming months, I will do record levels. But, we are told, we have got to have my best to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, more of the miracle cure—more elected politicians and his committee have spelt out just how difficult because the people want them, including an elected that will be, but we must live in hope. And while we are Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has just told us struggling to achieve consensus, we can leave the that opinion polls prove the point. But that leaves me Government to concentrate on their own noble struggle wondering, if opinion polls are so meaningful, why, to dig us out of our economic mess. for instance, do we not bring back hanging or get out The hour is late, so let me conclude. I am very keen of the European Union? Democracy can be a funny on the reform of this House, but this misbegotten old game and we should kick it around with care. draft Bill is not it. The Bill will not do, and it is so Rather like the committee, I wonder why those who demonstrably flawed that it will not go through. The speak loudly about the merits of democracy are so people will not understand, nor will they forgive, if the often the same voices raised to deny the people their Government waste months of parliamentary time on say in a referendum. I seem to recall spending much of this self-indulgence when they should be putting their last year being whipped through the Lobbies to vote interests and future first. for dozens of different referenda for every new EU post from dog catcher to crèche convener. We have the 10.50 pm money to spend on all that, but we have neither the time nor, it seems, the will to ask the people about one Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, to be listed of the most significant constitutional changes in a at 53 in the batting order is not just a new experience century. The committee saw this as being profoundly but a promotion for me. However, if the exercise was a inconsistent, and it was right. cricket match, I would by now appeal against the light. 2059 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2060

I am sure that the House is grateful to the Joint However, my key reason for supporting the alternative Committee and its contributors, particularly the noble report is the proposal for a constitutional convention. Lord, Lord Richard, who led their work. Unlike other As we know, constitutional conventions are a political attempts at Lords reform, this debate is informed also tool used here at home and abroad. At home they are by what is described as the alternative report. I have to used to pursue and co-ordinate opinion, as we have disclose that, on balance, my preference goes to the seen in respect of the Scottish Parliament and devolution latter for reasons that I shall explain later. in 1999. Therefore, I stand four-square behind the The authors of both reports will have recognised proposals in the alternative report for a Westminster-led that some of these issues were last explored by the constitutional convention with broad representation Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of and a wide agenda that will include a root and branch Lords led by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—here I review of the conventions that underpin the relationship declare an interest as a member of that commission. of our two Houses of Parliament. The issues were as clear then as they are now: the need While I welcome the recognition for pluralism in for a democratic revising Chamber which holds the the alternative report, I see no specific commitment to Government to account without challenging the diversity, which I believe to be an important component supremacy of the elected Parliament and the existing in a plural democracy. On that point, I conclude with conventions. some words and actions by President Clinton. In his The question posed by the draft Bill is how we get first term of office, he rejected a number of nominees to that dual destination. There only three routes: for office in his Administration. When challenged to direct election, appointment or a combination of both— explain his reasons for rejection, he said simply that he the 20:80 formula. Common sense tells us that a wanted his Government to look like America. I want direct-elections system does not necessarily deliver the the House of Lords and our public institutions to look required expertise for the task of scrutiny and like the United Kingdom. accountability. 10.57 pm Before I joined the royal commission, I was quite Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, I remember that soon clear about the need for a fully elected second Chamber. after David Cameron took over as leader of the Official At face value, that need seems very clear: those who Opposition, he came to meet the Cross-Bench Peers make the laws that govern the people should enjoy the and was asked what he thought of House of Lords mandate of the people. But how would we guarantee reform. He said, “Of course we believe in a mainly the broad range of experience that I see before me elected House of Lords, don’t we, Tom?”, referring to when I come into your Lordships’ Chamber, and the the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is not in his expert opinions which inform our debates and bring place. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looked up at experience to our scrutiny in our committees and in the ceiling and rolled his eyes. David Cameron continued, our Chamber? “But of course, Tom, that is something I will deal with I have yet to hear a debate in this Chamber during in my third term”. Mind you, Mr Cameron said that which there has not been at least one Member, and back in 2006 when Britain’s economy was booming, as often many more, able to offer real-life experience of was the rest of the world’s. As the Nobel laureate, Paul the subject under discussion. We hear from those who Krugman, pointed out last week: have spent years working and building expertise in “Britain is officially in double-dip recession, and has achieved many professions—in the sciences, medicine, commerce, the remarkable feat of doing worse this time around than it did in the private and public sectors and, yes, trade unions. the 1930s”. In many instances, it is not a question of getting On top of that, we have a Government in crisis in so elected. I doubt whether many here would even stand many areas with many issues that have upset many as candidates. That is why I see the report of the Joint people, such as the recent Budget. So many of the Committee as work in progress and why, as I have Government’s austerity measures have been rushed already declared, my preference goes to the alternative through and not thought through—the strategic defence report as the guiding rails for future travel. and security review in 2010, for example. On top of all that, we have the eurozone crisis, which in all probability I have come to this conclusion because it is clear is about to blow up, and as the noble Baroness, Lady that, save for the Joint Committee on Conventions led Royall, said, what are we debating today, tomorrow by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, which reported and for days on end following the gracious Speech—not in 2006, no serious effort on Lords reform has been a plan for growth and recovery in the economy but a made since the Wakeham commission reported in plan for House of Lords reform. Yes, it has been 2000. It is therefore an opportunity missed, as it pointed out that this was in the manifestos of all three appears that the Joint Committee restricted its parties and that evolutionary reform was called for in consideration to matters exclusive to the draft Bill and the shape of the reforms originally outlined by the the White Paper. noble Lord, Lord Steel, in his Bill. But this is not the We pride ourselves on being an open democracy time to force on us revolutionary reform of the House with public interest in our work, but our working of Lords, which will turn our constitution upside down. hours and working practices are not exactly public-friendly. The Prime Minister who most radically reformed We end up debating to an empty Public Gallery because the House of Lords in the previous century was Tony of the way that business in our House is organised. It Blair and even he said that, is little wonder that the alternative report declared the “the key question … is whether we want a revising Chamber or a Bill and the White Paper to be a flawed example of rival Chamber. My view is that we want a revising Chamber”.— delivering a stated objective. [Official Report, Commons, 29/1/03; col. 877.] 2061 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2062

[LORD BILIMORIA] They cannot name one. I am proud that in the House One of the main reasons that we are going through of Lords we have a sense of independence and objectivity this unfortunate distraction is because of the will of that the other place simply could not match. This one my Cambridge contemporaries, the Deputy Prime credible and incredible wisdom is unique in the world. Minister. He holds a utopian, ideological view that Our method of debating through the self-regulating elected equals democratic equals legitimate. Mr Clegg system is also unique. We do not need to be like or and his allies have also tried to use the argument that copy anyone else. After all, Westminster is the mother other bicameral Parliaments have democratically elected of all Parliaments. We do all this for a fraction of the upper Houses so why should we not? There are other cost of the House of Commons. What the Government Parliaments that do not even have upper Houses and propose will cost us at least half a billion pounds more countries whose upper Houses do not work properly, per Parliament, if not much more. Unsurprisingly, the do not have the talent that we do or are in constant Joint Committee report does not even attempt a costing. gridlock with their lower Houses. The ultimate, It says that that is because the Government refuse to democratically elected upper House with real power give a costing. Would you start a new business without and the resources to use that power is the United doing a proper business plan? This is pathetic. States Senate. The drawback, of course, is that the Whatever the Government say about the current Senate does not have the depth or diversity of expertise conventions remaining in place, they are living in a that we have. Some 54 per cent of Senators in the dreamland. There is no way that an elected or partially United States are lawyers and powers are divided elected House of Lords would for long accept subservience between the two Houses. In many cases, the Senate has to the House of Commons. What is more, I cannot see more power than the lower House. That is not on the how, by making people stand for elections, we could table in this country. Why do the Government not possibly maintain the amazing depth and breadth of have the guts to go all the way, the whole hog, and knowledge we currently have in this House. We would propose a US-style Senate for Britain? end up with a House full of second-raters compared No, like the other hasty proposals that this Government to the one we have today. Even today, the public holds have put forward affecting our economy, education, very little respect for politicians. How will they feel if healthcare and defence, this draft Bill has not been the House of Lords was filled with career politicians thought through. A hastily put together Joint Committee rather than the experts with real-world knowledge that has come up with a report that half its members do it has today? Is this the way we increase the legitimacy not agree with, to the extent that, for the first time that of the House of Lords? It would have exactly the I can recall, half of its members have broken away and opposite effect. published their own alternative report. The noble Lord, Mark my words: if we go down the route of an Lord Richard, is not in his place, yet this was not a elected House of Lords, we are moving to a written Joint Committee but a disjointed committee. Instead constitution. If we are moving one step closer to a of reforming our House, we are making laughing written constitution, we are moving one step closer to stocks of ourselves. a republic. Not only are we wasting precious time here, As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said on the argument we are playing with fire. By pushing through this that polls show that people want an elected House of reform, the Government will throw the baby out with Lords, that is only because, as other polls show, there the bath-water. We have a delicate yet robust, a very is a huge lack of understanding of the working of the ancient but tried and tested, a very complex but yet House of Lords by the public. I have seen this time crystal clear unwritten constitution, one that has stood and again in speeches that I have given around the the test of time. By putting means before ends this country. When I ask the public if the House of Lords Government are endangering, destabilising and wrecking should be elected, they initially all say yes, but when I all this by wrecking this precious House. As I have said explain to them the function and working of the before, the fundamental lesson in home improvement House of Lords, they change their minds and say it is that you can move the walls and raise the levels, but should stay appointed. when you play around with the foundations you risk There are two key issues here. First, what is the role bringing the whole House down. of the House of Lords, does it have the right people in its make-up to carry out that role, are they effective in 11.05 pm that job, and, as a result, is the House of Lords effective? The second issue is constitutional. We decided Lord Framlingham: My Lords, our country is facing in 1911 that the House of Commons should have a perilous economic situation, which is likely to last supremacy as a democratically elected Chamber, so for some time to come. For any Government, coalition there could never be a prolonged deadlock between or otherwise, to attempt to drive through major disruptive the two Houses. On both these issues, the House of and potentially disastrous changes to our long-established Lords as it stands today fulfils its role as the guardian and proven parliamentary structure in this situation of this nation, as a check and balance, scrutinising, strikes me as utter folly. questioning and challenging the Government and the The structure of our two Houses that make up Commons each and every day through its legislation, Parliament is not responsible for any shortcomings in debates and questions, and through its Select Committees. government that there may be. It is how we, the It does this in a way the House of Commons could not Members of both Houses, use the structures that even dream of imagining. really matters. Some people seek to change things in I challenge people regularly to name me a renowned the name of democracy, and we have heard much world expert in any field in the House of Commons. about that in today’s debate, in the mistaken belief 2063 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2064 that the changes will improve government. The truth War, when a leading admiral in the United States is that the way in which we behave is often more Navy went to see President Roosevelt and said, important than the structures themselves. Certainly, “Mr President, Sir, I’ve got the solution to the U-boat change for change’s sake solves nothing; it can do problem”. “Well”, asked the President, “what’s that”? more harm than good and, as in this case, could “Drain the north Atlantic”, said the admiral. That did damage beyond repair a unique institution that, although not go down all that well, but there are a few jokes in far from perfect, by and large does the task asked of it this. Anyway, there you go: you win some and you lose very well indeed. some. The only justifiable reason for change is to produce However, there are many practical things that many better government, but that can be achieved without of us have advocated for many years. Indeed, the destroying existing structures. I suggest that the Labour group wrote unanimously to Tony Blair five Government and its Ministers should concentrate not years ago in answer to his request, “Have you got any on legislation but on sound administration. I was for ideas?”. I had a hand in writing the letter, as a matter 27 years a Member in the other place, from 1983 to of fact, along with Robin Corbett. We had a whole 2010. I ask your Lordships how many education Acts string of things, including a statutory appointments were passed in those years. The answer is 33. Most commission which would entail the Labour Party, as grammar schools were abolished and the whole well as the other parties, looking seriously at reducing educational system deteriorated. How many health prime ministerial patronage and finding out about the Acts were passed in that time? The answer is 35. We different constituent parts. This is in the same spirit in got rid of matrons from our hospitals and everybody which my noble friend Lord Morris of Handsworth knows what a mess the NHS was reduced to. How was speaking: to find some new formula—whether many Acts in that period were on criminal justice? regionally, industrially or in any other way—to give There were 100—a veritable torrent of legislation that more confidence within the constituency parties that produced little or no benefit to anyone. The answer this was a House of Lords of which they had some must surely be better administration and less legislation. ownership. The Labour Party constitution could certainly I would like to add to less legislation two things— be easily adjusted to provide it. That is a practical pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills and the abolition of answer to a practical problem, without overreacting in the guillotine, or programming as it is currently called. this totally dramatic way. If we could stem the torrent of legislation and persuade We have some very sober committee reports on the Ministers and their departments to concentrate their record. I, too, recall what I think was the unanimous energies on sound administration, if we could subject report of the Cunningham committee, that one could every Bill to detailed all-party scrutiny before it was not simply state that the conventions would remain. even published and if we could abolish the guillotine Yet here we are, and as far as I can see the Richard to prevent this House from having to deal with wagon- report has more or less said, “Yes you can”, when loads of undigested legislation that comes down the clearly the answer is, “No you can’t”. We cannot just Corridor, perhaps your Lordships’ House, with its look at the next Session and expect to get the noble wealth of experience and wisdom, could be allowed to Lord, Lord Kerr, or some equally brilliant draftsman, carry out its traditional role of revising, fine-tuning to rewrite Clause 2 to remove the problem. This is not and, yes, occasionally rejecting legislation brought that sort of problem. Perhaps noble Lords will correct before it, which it is uniquely qualified to do. These me in a few minutes. measures, coupled with the modest reforms that the The report sees there being no change in the powers House is already prepared to accept, would deliver and functions of the two Houses. How? This leads to better government without the need for the drastic the committee struggling with the corset that it wants and dangerous experiment that is this draft Bill. to put around the new Senate to make sure that these conflicts with the House of Commons do not arise. I 11.10 pm think I am right in saying that there is some reference Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, to say that this to the fact that IPSA should make no provision for Bill is half-baked is to put it politely, and the idea of casework by the Senate. Surely, that is struggling a pushing it forward in the next Session, even with the long way to make sure that the corset still holds the guillotine, is offensive. That would be a procedure Senate in check. which would be admired in a banana republic. Indeed, This relates to a point made in a most interesting it is perhaps not untimely to go right back to the way in one of the most interesting contributions, by fundamental question: what is the problem? I must my noble friend Lord Whitty. He said, “After all, we conclude that the only instrument that the Government are not America. We don’t have a Supreme Court that had to hand was a sledgehammer. One would not arbitrates between the House of Representatives and otherwise use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The the Senate”. I have been thinking about that in the whole point about that metaphor, which we use every past half-hour. One could put up a plausible—if not day of the week without perhaps stopping to think even more convincing—case to say the opposite. Are about it, is that you do not use a sledgehammer to there not members of the Supreme Court right now, crack a nut. on the other side of Parliament Square, licking their The sledgehammer in this case is, to use the demotic, lips because that is exactly the function that they will to deal with some deficiencies in the procedures and have? They are servants of the people; they work 24/7. method of appointment to this Chamber. Indeed, I If there is a historian of the American Senate and am reminded a bit of that other great example of House of Representatives here, I am sure I will be overreaction which took place during the Second World corrected but I do not think I have got this wrong. We 2065 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2066

[LORD LEA OF CRONDALL] only have to look at the quantity of legislation that is are celebrating the centenary of the 17th amendment enabled by this production line, to which the noble of the American constitution, which was made in Lord, Lord Framlingham, referred. We are now 1912. It effectively meant that, instead of the states legislating between 12,000 and 15,000 pages of new doing their own thing through their own indirect statute law a year and we repeal only about 2,000, methods to appoint the Senate, they moved to direct 3,000 or 4,000 pages. We are legislating more than any elections. Many historians would say that this was respectable democracy in the western world by far. when the Senate started to become the more important Dire consequences arise from having this excessive of the two Houses. I think it would happen here for all quantity of legislation, much of which is half baked the reasons that made it happen in the United States. and not implemented, or implemented unevenly; and There is every reason to say that we are not like we know it. I believe that the election of this House America, from the monarchy downwards. However, in would worsen that state of affairs. The notion that this this respect there would be that opening, which we place, when elected, will somehow be a better check on might regret, for a role for the Supreme Court. the Executive is laughable. I will say a word or two On the role of MPs, when somebody says that we more about that in a second. do not hear MPs say openly that they are worried We spend more time dealing with the legislation about their relationship, that is true, but the reason is here and we deal with it in a more open-minded the one that would have been given by Mandy Rice-Davies: fashion. Above all, we do not take the Government’s they wouldn’t say that, would they? word for it, as they constantly do in the other place. I I conclude from the same position as my noble repeat the statistic that I put to my noble friend Lord friend Lord Morris of Handsworth. I vote for the Ashdown: in the 13 years in which the previous Labour alternative report and, from doing my sums this evening, Government were in power, they suffered less than one I think that I am alongside at least three-quarters of defeat in the House of Commons every two years. this House. That made a total of six over 13 years. What sort of control on the Executive does that represent? By contrast, in this House—it is hard to believe it—the Labour 11.19 pm Government were defeated not six times but 528 times. Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank those In the nearly two years of the coalition’s term in office, who compiled this report and those who compiled the there have been no defeats in the other place but 48 in alternative report. I find myself much more in sympathy this House. Noble Lords may say that those defeats do with the alternative report. Tonight I speak against my not stick and are overturned in the other place. However, instincts. My instincts are for democratic elections to that is not the case. A great deal of hard work has been be held wherever they are practical and worth while. I done on this by the Constitution Unit at UCL. It is know that some of my noble friends, if not all of not an easy calculation to make, but Meg Russell and them, agree with that. However, I am not at all persuaded her colleague, Maria Sciara, reckon that 40 per cent of that the proposed reforms of this House will achieve the amendments that we win through the Lobbies in their aims, irrespective of whether it is wholly or partly the Lords stick in whole or in part, although there are elected. Indeed, I think that a partly elected House compromises, of course, and that we make a major would be more of a dog’s dinner than a wholly elected impact on legislation. We are doing the job that the one. I am much more committed to the reforms proposed primary, the only democratic, Chamber does not do. in the original Steel Bill, with others besides—in particular What does that tell us about our state of affairs and the reform of the appointments system, which is lacking. the health of our democracy? Not much, I suggest. I believe that criteria for appointments should be Public disenchantment with politics has been referred agreed between both Houses of Parliament. to by one or two noble Peers. We have to be very Having said that, I am very concerned that we are careful indeed about giving way to reforms that could, throwing the baby out with the bath water and not I believe, worsen that state of affairs. I refer to one recognising sufficiently the very considerable benefits particular poll that noble Lords may have seen referred that accrue from the status quo: namely, that this to in the useful Library Note on public attitudes House adds value to the other place in two ways that I towards the reform of this place, published in March am convinced will not survive election. Everyone has this year. The final poll in the report deals with general referred to those two principal virtues: namely, that we attitudes and was conducted by Ipsos MORI in 2009. in this place are experience-rich and relatively independent. It found that whereas in 2001 the proportion of the Those virtues stand in increasingly strong contrast public satisfied with the work of Parliament as whole with what happens in the other place, which I have no was 45 per cent. By 2009 it had dropped to 20 per cent. wish to disparage. It is made up of good, true and well The dissatisfaction level had risen from 30 per cent in intentioned young men and women. However, they are 2001 to 63 per cent in 2009. More tellingly, when the young and inexperienced, as others have said. They figures between the Commons and Lords were broken come mainly from a professional flight path and are down, the poll found that in 2009 15 per cent were ever more susceptible to the regimentation and satisfied with the performance of the House of Commons, partisanship that have made the other place into a while 71 per cent were dissatisfied. We did not do too wholly ineffective control on the Government of the well, but we did a heck of a lot better—23 per cent day. were satisfied and 50 per cent were dissatisfied. That is You only have to look at the number of guillotines scarcely a case for the major reform of this place, and that are applied and the number of Bills that arrive in is more likely to be a case for reform of the other this House having been only partially considered. You place. 2067 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2068

The level of disenchantment is important, and the Committee recommends, but the Deputy Prime Minister noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the Power would deny us that. His response to the idea of a vote inquiry. The public want less party control, more was to ask: independence, more life experience and less legislation. “Why is it that we should spend a great deal of money asking Moreover, there is no public agitation for election to the British people a question that frankly most people don’t this House. If there were people on the streets with worry about very much”?— petitions and rest of it, I would take a different view, a good question. Most people have other things to but there is no sign of them. Anecdotally, I find very worry about at the moment. As the country faces a few people who do other than come up to me and say, double-dip recession, the essential hunt for economic “Thank God for the House of Lords”. When I held a growth is not being obstructed by the House of Lords. public meeting in Sudbury to consider the matter of On the contrary, this Chamber is working hard to electing this House or not, a poll at the beginning of come up with ideas that might help. However, extended the meeting found quite a number in favour, but at the parliamentary debate on the future of this House may end of the meeting—and all points of view were fairly well be a dangerous distraction from the most important represented—there was a complete switch. Again and issue: “It’s the economy, stupid”. again, this is the experience. That is not to say that there is no need for reform. I am sorry; I should sit down and shut up. However, As a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House, I there is a paradox at the heart of all this. I am content have been hugely impressed by the extent of the work for the Commons to be the democratic Chamber and that goes on here, both in the Chamber and in committees, for us, as the inferior House, to retain the virtues of but we could and should be more streamlined and complementariness. efficient. The Steel Bill is an obvious starting point. It could be quickly activated. I was also interested in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. 11.28 pm The House of Lords Appointments Commission might Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, the duck-billed be receptive to nominations from colleges of experts. platypus is a remarkable creature but is evidence that It might even hold a certain number of seats for them. evolution does not always go as planned, so when I However, there are other ways to make us look read in the committee’s report that, relevant and counter criticisms that we are a talking “We agree with the weight of the evidence we have received shop. Too often, maximum speaking times are interpreted which suggests that the conventions governing the relationship as minimum speaking times. We could speed up our between the two Houses will evolve further once the House of proceedings by embracing the view that less is sometimes Lords is reformed and would need to be re-defined”, more, so I will sit down. I am fearful. An elected second Chamber, whether 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected, would very quickly evolve into a 11.32 pm challenger to the House of Commons’ primacy. I Lord Winston: My Lords, looking around the Chamber, cannot claim to have been the first to have made that I see a great deal of shellshocked people, so I will try observation today, but when you come on at number not to detain your Lordships for long. I was rather 58, it is very difficult. However, it is for that reason surprised at the cricket analogy, given that your Lordships that I cannot support the idea of the drastic constitutional have been good enough to miss the Manchester derby, change that is now being proposed. Clause 2 of the which is a far more important occasion. I hope that draft Bill would not guarantee primacy to the Commons. you all realise that Manchester City is now heading Under the previous Government, we saw the table. unprecedented constitutional change: a Supreme Court, When I came into your Lordships’ House 17 years devolved Assemblies with new electoral systems, and ago, there was a notice in the Prince’s Chamber which statutory human rights. The changes came fast, and said that your Lordships should not indulge in vexatious problems such as the unsolved West Lothian question argument, which was from an Act of Parliament of followed closely behind. If the implications appeared 1623. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, to be unconsidered, it is perhaps because they were. A remembers the notice; it has now gone. That is important senior Cabinet Minister of that period has since said: to me because, when you turn on the television and “Although I don’t think we necessarily meant to do this, we watch Prime Minister’s Question’s on Wednesday, you did effect a very fundamental change in the way government is think how appalling Parliament is in its complete lack run. We deprived the Executive of a lot more power than we ever of rational argument, with people simply slavishly intended”. following a stupid political line. There is a serious risk If we are to effect fundamental change in the relationship that that brings our politics into disrepute. When you between the two Houses of Parliament, we should at add the guillotine and people walking through the least mean to do it. It would be unforgivable to have Lobby without having listened to the arguments, there what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernon are serious questions which also affect your Lordships’ Dean, criticised as a “give it a try and see what House. I have found it very dispiriting in recent weeks happens” approach. when we have felt that we have to do that out of The Government seem determined to alter our loyalty to our side. I feel that this House works best constitution drastically, with little idea of where it will when it is not too political—although it has to be end. The PR involved here is not proportional political to some extent. representation but public relations with the Liberal I remember sitting at the top of the table when I Democrats. At the very least, such a far-reaching chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee change should be put to a referendum, as the Joint 10 years ago and I could not say who was Labour, who 2069 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2070

[LORD WINSTON] I also think it is a pity that the potential future role was Conservative, who was independent and who was of the Lords as the cement of the United Kingdom is a hereditary Peer, because everybody there had an not discussed. My noble friend Lord Hennessy spoke important point to make which was worth looking at. of this as the grade one issue. The noble Lord, Lord At my first meeting of that committee, nuclear waste Steel, also spoke of it, and I agree with both of them. I was the issue and there was a risk of our decision think that there is a very important role for the Lords. being split. I was told by my clerk, “Whatever you do, I suspect that we will have further devolution that will please try to avoid a vote”. Looking at the report of make the West Lothian question still more significant, my noble friend Lord Richard, one has to say that it is and part of the answer may be found in this House. constantly split with votes. Is this democracy at work? I have been very polite about the report, but there is I am not sure that it is. one point which is touched on only obliquely and At this late hour, I shall not go into great detail. I briefly in one paragraph—paragraph 104. The noble noticed a frown on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Lords, Lord Cunningham of Felling and Lord Cormack, Tyler, and I saw his wise comment in the Times last are quoted as talking about the difficulties that could week about my being here by patronage. Perhaps he arise if the non-elected Members were decisive in a knew more than I did. When I came into this House vote on a constitutional issue. The noble Lord, Lord and met my noble friend Lord Richard, he asked Cormack, referred to it today as a point that I have whether I might consider taking the Labour Whip. I made. I have made the point and it is very nice of him said, “Actually, I’m a member of the Labour Party”, to attribute it to me but in the report it is attributed to to which he replied, “Are you sure?”. It is a pity that he him. is not in his place to confirm that this evening. I am I am very concerned about hybridity, which it seems not sure what “by patronage” means but a large number to me to mean instability—hybridity without a rationale. of us on both sides of the House will try whenever we There is no rationale in the Government’s White Paper can to vote according to our beliefs. With the health or in the Government’s Bill or in the Richard report. If Bill, for example, there were at least two amendments democratic legitimacy is to be the determinant or the on which I was seriously at odds with my own side. It touchstone—I see the argument for that—then by was one of the most horrible Bills that I have dealt definition the non-elected, the non-democratically with and I felt very strongly about it, but I could not legitimate are illegitimate. vote with my own side on two occasions because I The House was good enough to vote for a couple of thought that occasionally we, too, are wrong. amendments that I tabled on the EU Bill, but I found Finally—I shall reserve most of my comments for it very difficult to vote for them when they came back later, because this issue is going to come back again after they were rejected by the House of Commons. and again—there are no easy solutions to what is My difficulty would be greatly enhanced if I were in proposed. The idea of an electoral college sounds the small, unelected minority in an 80 per cent elected good but there are so many problems associated with House of Lords. That would be a two-tier House. The sorting out an electoral college that I am not sure it Richard report talks about differential arrangements would work. I think that a referendum ought to be for remuneration and differential arrangements for seriously on the cards but your Lordships should disqualification procedures for the elected and non-elected remember that they may not get what they anticipate Members. I think it is probably right but I am not when it happens. talking about that; I am talking about something much more fundamental. If you think the Cross Benches 11.37 pm are worth preserving, I do not think that you can Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: It is a pleasure to follow preserve them in that way. It would be very difficult or the noble Lord, Lord Winston. When I was his chairman disastrous to be a Cross-Bencher if your vote were at Imperial, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was decisive in an important question on which the two also on the college council, and I do not think that she Houses came into conflict. or I managed to catch up with him, so following him is I also think that it is very odd to produce numbers quite easy—I am used to it. with no rationale. Why is it 80:20? Why is it not 75:25? I do not agree at all with the noble Lord’s strictures There has to be a basis for the figures. If you are on the report; nor do I agree with the stronger strictures writing a constitutional settlement, it has to be capable from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. As I understand of being taught in schools; you have to know why the it, it is an agreed report with a supplementary alternative. figures are 80:20. It is not enough to say, To call the report disjointed is unfair but I think it is “it delivers a little democracy—but not too much”, more unfair to criticise it for the defects of the Bill. in the words of the alternative report. You have to The terms of reference to which the noble Lord, Lord know why those are the right numbers. The noble Richard, worked—and we owe him and his committee Lord, Lord Winston, is a scientist and there must be a great deal of thanks—were to report on the Bill, not some scientific rule that explains why the figures are on Lords reform. Therefore, there are a number of 80:20. I think this is a fudge and I think that fudges matters that the committee has not touched on in come unstuck. Hybridity means instability.Constitutional detail because the Bill does not do so. In particular, it settlements should be premised on stability. is a pity that indirect elections have not been more explored. Both the report and the alternative report Lord Tyler: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord with make it clear that their authors believe that the issue a little bit of information. The two options of 80:20 or should be explored further but it just does not happen 100 per cent have been placed before Parliament because to be in the Bill. that is what the House of Commons voted for. I pay 2071 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2072 tribute to the noble Lord for introducing such an Most noble Lords and Members in the other place will interesting contribution at a quarter to midnight. The recognise the realities of how we have got to where we reason why it is a fudge is because the House of are. However, we are where we are and we have to deal Commons voted for a fudge. with it. The architecture of the building in which we are debating these matters is incredibly grand, astonishing Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: That is fine, but in 15 years’ and humbling to walk into each day. However, time how will you explain that in schools? You cannot nobody suggests that if it were knocked down we have a fudge; you have to have a rule, a principle, a would rebuild it with the Pugin and Barry designs for rationale, otherwise it will be unstable. When it starts this great building being replicated by the noble to go wrong, when there is a showdown between the Lords, Lord Rogers or Lord Foster, should they be two Houses and the independents, and the unelected commissioned with the task. The building would be have played some role in that, the numbers will get different; it would reflect the culture, ideals and drives changed. People will decide on a different number. of the time in which we live. Therefore, even if this When we voted on possible compositions, I voted question is not a priority, if it is put the only credible for an all-elected Chamber or an all-nominated Chamber. answer in present times is to have a wholly elected I could not vote for any of the numerical compromises. House. If we go for a compromise, we ought to look either in the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, We extend our work around the world through was pointing us or in the area to which the noble Lord, organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Lord Steel of Aikwood, was pointing us: the area of Democracy. I cannot believe for one minute that we indirect election. There are good arguments for indirect would dispatch people around the world, to the Arab election and by choosing indirect election constituencies world or anywhere else, to argue that they ought to or interest groups, you could achieve possibly the have an entirely appointed House with our present degree of expertise that you are looking for, which you composition, or indeed one with an 80:20 ratio; they were kind enough to say that you get at present at least would argue in favour of a fully elected House. partly from the Cross Benches. In many ways, the position that we find ourselves in is made more difficult by the piecemeal reforms that were embarked on by the Blair Government. They 11.45 pm embarked on the great task of rebuilding and reshaping Lord Bates: My Lords, probably one of the most this constitutional building and then, half way through, frequently used phrases in the speeches that I have lost interest and walked off the job. It is in that sense heard in the debate has been that this issue is “not a that I worry about the sustainability of an 80:20 priority”; it was repeated time and again. We also solution, because that would be to ensure that in five, heard of opinion poll evidence that seems to back that 10 or 15 years’ time—or perhaps even in one year’s up. Nadhim Zahawi, the Member in the other place time—people would be coming back to have further who was formerly the chief executive of YouGov, cited reports about how we tackle this issue. It has been his opinion poll that showed that Lords reform was going on long enough. The view is there, and we need proposed as an important issue for the Government to to settle this once and for all. tackle by exactly 0 per cent of the population. I shall make two very brief points that perhaps have That is very interesting, but the reality is that we are not been touched on as much before. The first is to where we are and in all likelihood a Bill will come stress the importance of the House being representative. before us next week. It may not be the greatest priority. One of the great strengths of the House of Commons I suspect—although I have no knowledge of this—that system and the fact that our Executive are drawn it is not the greatest priority of the Prime Minister or from the legislature is the linkage that even the Prime the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. I Minister has. In the midst of all that he is dealing am sure that they would subscribe very much to those with, at some stage he has to answer questions arguments. However, it is in the nature of their and letters from his constituents. He has to go back to commitment to the coalition, and of their honouring his constituents and listen to their concerns in a of agreements, that even while they do not agree that constituency surgery. That grounding of the debate is this is necessarily the best way for both Houses to very important in the grounding of politics and a spend their time over the next year, none the less they sense of accountability. signed up to a deal in 2010 and therefore will see it I was quite persuaded in the debate. The noble through and honour it. That is to their credit. Viscount, Lord Astor, said—I am paraphrasing him—that Some noble Lords in the debate talked about references it is not the first election that instils accountability but to reform being in all three manifestos. I dusted down the second. Therefore, rather than thinking of single my copy of the manifesto—of course I should say that 15-year terms, we ought to be thinking of some it has no dust on it, because it is so frequently reread—and mechanism to introduce re-election to the system. eventually found the reference, in paragraph 6 on page 67 out of 85. It was not exactly a rampant I am aware that my time is going, but my final point endorsement, but merely stated: is that I think that a change of this magnitude requires us to have a referendum. If we are going to have “We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords, recognising referendums for local mayors, which we are campaigning that an efficient and effective second chamber should play an for at present, something as major as this needs to be important role in our democracy and requires both legitimacy put to the people for them to express an opinion. That and public confidence”. is very much in keeping with the founding fathers of 2073 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2074

[LORD BATES] of the elected House of Commons. We would lose the Parliament. On 13 November 1295, Edward I summoned eminent professional ability that this House contains. Parliament and said in his Writ of Summons: Above all, we would lose the experience of Members “What touches all should be approved of all”. of this House. I prefer not to make the case for an That is the case for the referendum. appointed House in terms of expertise, because expertise falls away but experience grows. Whether or not your 11.52 pm Lordships are posh, you are not boys. You have seen a good deal of life and a very great deal of government, Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, what are the and it is for those reasons that you are qualified to failures and problems in our political system that most advise Ministers and the other place. need attention? Are they in the House of Lords? Many of us might agree that relations between the media I believe that the quality of our debates would be and politics, the financing of our politics, the debilitated poorer, that there would be less shrewdness and persistence condition of local government and the relation between in scrutiny, and less candour in the advice offered by a Scotland and the United Kingdom and its implications House that was more tightly controlled politically. for Parliament are major and urgent issues to which Whatever the quality proved to be of an elected second reformers should soon apply themselves. There are Chamber, the Joint Committee and the alternative problems about the lack of public trust in Parliament report are as one in agreeing that it would challenge and the domination of the House of Commons by the the House of Commons in new ways, and that Clause 2 Executive, but would an elected second Chamber make of the draft Bill is wishful thinking. The Joint Committee a useful contribution to the solution of either of those anticipates that a new assertiveness would lead to problems? What is the problem that the proponents of clashes between the two Houses becoming routine, the draft Bill purport to solve? The Government tell us and I fear that the public would find that frustrating that it is a flaw in our democracy. In their foreword to and distasteful and that their disaffection from politics the White Paper, the Prime Minister and the Deputy at Westminster would be compounded. Prime Minister said: As Professor Bogdanor put it in his evidence, the “In a modern democracy it is important that those who make revising Chamber would become “an opposing Chamber”. the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those If we have impasse and an inability to legislate, it laws apply”. would be a disaster. The courts would have to intervene The Prime Minister has added that the Bill would to resolve the conflicts between the two Houses, as we strengthen Parliament. The first of these propositions see at the moment with the Supreme Court in the is based on a misrepresentation of fact, and the second United States of America determining the legitimacy is a rhetorical and unsubstantiated assertion to which of legislation produced by the two elected Houses of the Joint Committee gave short shrift. As a matter of the American Congress. Replicating such a situation fact, the House of Lords does not make the laws of in this country would be a constitutional disaster. the land. The House of Commons decides what is to be the law. The House of Lords advises and influences, I fear that we would see a deterioration of our but in the event of disagreement between the two democracy, and the erroneous propositions of the Houses, ultimately the appointed House defers to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister should elected House. Our parliamentary system is, after all, not be the foundation for massive constitutional change. democratic. Instead, we should address the modest reforms that are really needed and which have been put off for so What if the second Chamber were to be elected? long. We should improve the functioning of the existing The Government say that we should not worry because Chambers. The House of Commons should remember the Parliament Acts, perhaps revised in consequence itself and resume the practice of thorough scrutiny of of the advice on this matter received by the Joint legislation. The House of Lords should be allowed to Committee, and financial privilege guarantee the primacy pursue the agenda of reforms set out by the noble of the House of Commons. If so, what gain would Lord, Lord Steel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: there be in an elected second Chamber expressly designed the establishment of a statutory appointments commission to be powerless? What candidates of quality would tasked by Parliament, and provisions for disqualification, stand for election to it? Why would voters bother to limitation of tenure and the end of the hereditary vote in elections to it? I anticipate that there would be by-elections. low turnout and that rather a lot of voters would cast their votes frivolously and in protest. I fear that we Constitutional change and reform in our country would see BNP and Respect senators elected, who have been continuous, but the British tradition has would then be in the reformed second Chamber for been to be cautious, pragmatic, respectful of the inherited 15 years. I do not know whether noble Lords on the constitution and conscious of the distinctive history other side of the House would contemplate with of United Kingdom; to address significant problems equanimity a state of affairs in which a UKIP block in due time to build the maximum consensus; to pause vote were to determine the outcome of votes in the at each stage to see what the effects of reform prove to second Chamber for 15 years to come. be; and to proceed incrementally. What would be lost in such a change? As the The authors of the alternative report propose a alternative report grasped clearly, we would lose constitutional convention on the future of the House the representativeness that the present House has of of Lords. I rather think that this is a sensible proposal the diversity of the professional, cultural and ethnic in all the circumstances. Certainly, if the membership make-up of our country, and we would lose the gender as they recommend is broadly drawn, their terms of balance that we have, which is at least better than that reference enable them to consider all the relevant 2075 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2076 issues because so many constitutional issues are inter- morning of debate on this subject, one week before related and the work is not rushed. Most valuably, as another two days of debate on constitutional reform the alternative report recommends, the convention and 101 years after the passage of the Parliament could consider the implications for the Parliament at Act 1911 that promised to replace the hereditary basis Westminster of the Scottish referendum on independence. on which men came to this House with a popular There is no sense in undertaking radical reform of principle in its place, I shall be brief. But I want to the House of Lords at a time when the Scots are address the issue that has again been contested today about to force huge constitutional issues affecting as to whether these proposals are best described as the role and the structure of Parliament upon us. The evolutionary or revolutionary. political developments that have occurred in First, I want to respond to the alternative report Scotland are a complete game changer and they have and to those noble Lords who have so far argued that happened while the enthusiasts for an elected second there has been insufficient debate about proposals for Chamber were not looking. It would be particularly reform of your Lordships’ House in order to proceed valuable if a convention was therefore able to head the with a Bill along the lines proposed by the Joint parties off from leaping into the dark with ill-considered Committee, which was so well chaired by the noble manifesto commitments for devo-max with incalculable Lord, Lord Richard. consequences. It seems to me that it is only in the House of Lords Finally, the proposal from the alternative report is that the argument could be advanced that 101 years is that the recommendations that emerge from the insufficient time properly to consider the merits of a constitutional convention should be put to the people proposal, especially when the proposal is as basic as in a referendum. Reluctantly, I accept the principle the principle of democracy, which many of us so easily that major constitutional change should be subject to advocate for other countries. I would also like to a referendum. But let us be careful: let the debate run; correct a mistake I made in a recent article I wrote for let the issues clarify; and let understanding mature a public sector magazine about Lords reform. I said first. that our country was in a league of two with Lesotho in maintaining the hereditary principle in the legislature. Midnight I now understand that I was wrong. I am told that Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am in favour of an elected Belgium preserves the right for the children of the House, so I hope that the Government will have the king to be members of its upper House, but by convention courage to come forward with a Bill. However, I do they do not vote. So in fact we are, in this country, not envy their prospects. On the one hand, if they go alone with Lesotho in maintaining voting rights in down the route proposed by my right honourable Parliament that are inherited. I believe that the changes friend Nick Clegg, they will be faced with a rebellion now proposed by the Joint Committee are logical and in the other House and in this House. On the other evolutionary because they build on previous legislation hand, if they pull up short of that, they look like such as the Life Peerages Act 1959, which enabled men causing some severe fractures internally in the and, for the first time, women to come here without Government. It will be a hard choice and I do not committing their descendants, and the House of Lords suppose that they will have gained anything from the Act 1999, which ended the hereditary principle save debate today, which has to my mind been pretty polarised. for 92 seats, and known then as stage 1 reform. I will concentrate on a bit of ground between the The proposals now follow more than a decade of opposing parties, which no one else likes but for which cross-party work which has seen proposals similar to I happen to have an affection; namely, the list system. these from a royal commission, a Joint Committee of Those who favour an elected House say, “It’s appointment both Houses, the Public Administration Select Committee, by another name”, and so it is. We could preserve all a cross-party group of MPs convened by my noble the virtues of the current House under a list system. friend Lord Tyler, and two Labour government White Those who have argued that we must preserve the Papers. After another decade of discussion, it must be House as it is say that the list system would be an time for stage 2 reform. The Joint Committee’s report election. But it is not an election to fear. At the states that: moment, the Government create the list of Peers they want in the dark after the election and all sorts of odds “It is readily apparent that many of the principal elements of and sods come through. My peerage comes from the current draft Bill have been proposed before”. buggery and bribery, although things are better these It is time to decide and not just to debate. days. None the less, to expose the people proposed for I also agree with the committee proposal that the peerages to an election would be a positive step forward. appropriate size for the House in the future, especially It would not interfere with the process and would tend in the absence of serious devolution within England, is to result in a better selection of Peers in this place. 450. That is a number big enough for the House to do There is a lot to be said for my right honourable its work, and big enough for elections under a proportional friends bringing forward a Bill based on a list system. system to be proportional within large constituencies To our surprise, I think that we would find that we or regions. It would improve diversity, but not include could agree on it. extremes. Of course, and despite the references made by many noble Lords earlier in the debate, a proportional 12.03 am system is very different from the alternative vote system Lord Rennard: My Lords, at the end of a long which was rejected by voters last year and which is in day—indeed, it is a different day from the day on fact only a small modification to first past the post. In which we began this debate—which is before another practice, we should be electing 120 Members of this 2077 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[LORDS] Draft House of Lords Reform Bill 2078

[LORD RENNARD] The arguments against election have strength and House in three years’ time. That would be an appropriate some clarity: the challenge to the primacy of the time, in my view, to complete the promise of the 1999 Commons; the quality of Senators in an elected House legislation and that of 1911, and bring an end to the would be restricted and reduced only to those who principle of inheriting a right to vote in the legislature. wished to fight an election campaign to gain their seat; elected Senators will be costly to the taxpayer; and elected Senators, with larger constituencies than MPs, 12.08 am will be much diverted from their primary function of Lord Cobbold: My Lords, given the late hour, I shall scrutiny to manage their mailbags and hold surgeries. be brief. I am one of those who feel strongly that the proposal to turn the present House of Lords into a However, I am convinced that some reform is required. wholly or partly elected Senate is not reform but To that end, I welcome the proposals to reduce the abolition, the abolition of an institution that has a number of Members in the House. In my submission unique history and which performs a valuable function to the Joint Committee I recommended an upper in the scrutiny of new legislation. It does not create House of around 400 Peers, and the Joint Committee legislation, and where there is disagreement, it always recommends 450. I commend the idea of a sensible recognises the supremacy of the House of Commons. retirement policy for Peers as well as a provision for the exclusion of Peers with serious criminal convictions. The strength of the House of Lords is the experience Both of these are contained in the Steel Bill. This Bill and expertise of its Members in most walks of life. Its has been like a rugby ball, available in a ruck of Members have made a mark in life and will be reluctant unresolved conflicting views, and I am pleased to hear to stand for election. The new Senate would be more this evening from my noble friend Lord Steel that the party political and considerably more expensive. Most coalition is now scooping up the Bill and heading for important, there can be little doubt that the newly the baseline, hopefully to make it law. elected Senate would sooner or later challenge the primacy of the House of Commons, and for this In my submission to the Joint Committee, I also reason alone I am surprised that any Member of the made some suggestions to improve the system of House of Commons supports the idea of an elected appointments to the House, a process on which I Senate. would like to focus my remarks today. The alternative To argue that the proposed Bill should be rejected is report states that the starting point for reform should not to say that this House is not in need of some be to determine how Parliament best serves the needs reform. I join others in this debate who have recommended of the British people—I think that we would all agree that the Bill before us today should be rejected and with that. However, the reason that we are all debating that, in its place, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, this issue is that the British people need to trust that preferably in its original form, should become the the Lords fulfils its role in this country as effectively as basis of further debate on Lords reform. possible and that there is transparency and accountability around the process of appointing Members to it, a point made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. 12.10 am To achieve this, there must be some basic premises: Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I have the system must be meritocratic and not be perceived clearly drawn the short straw for the last of the graveyard as elitist; Members should be highly regarded in their slots today. At this late hour, I hope that my remarks field of work, across a broad range of sectors, taking will not hasten your Lordships into repose, because I account of their background, skills and reputation; will focus on a proposal that so far today has not been their knowledge and skills should be current and aired. It bears a passing resemblance in substance to relevant and remain so; and Members should be the constructive speeches of the noble Lords, Lord committed and active in this House. Low of Dalston and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It is of great concern to me, and to so many A proactive, transparent and open appointments Members of this House and the other place, that there system is the only way to secure the optimum quality is no compelling argument in the Joint Committee of Members in this House. So I suggest a 100 per cent report behind the main tenet for reform, which is appointed House and not a 20 per cent appointed one. election over appointment. It is no more than an easy and populist mantra for the Deputy Prime Minister to I welcome the recommendation in the Joint Committee say that a largely elected House will bring “a smidgeon report to have a statutory Appointments Commission. of democracy” to the House of Lords. In my view, the From this base, I suggest a more rigorous appointments idea has arisen simply because it sounds good. I process to mirror that practised by leading executive believe that it is baseless, wholly wrong and dangerous. search consultancies, a sector in which Britain excels. It will lead to the undoing of the successful and Your Lordships’ appointments panel is currently enduring balance of power that forms the bedrock of somewhat opaque and shrouded in mystery.The executive our much-admired constitution. search process should be adopted to extend the scope I welcome the alternative report which 50 per cent for more applications from society. It would work in of members of the Joint Committee felt compelled to the following way. A small number of sector panels write. The report highlights the abject failure of Clause 2 would be set up, headed by appointed luminaries in in arguing a case for preserving the primacy of the each sector. Its sole purpose would be to find suitable Commons by abolishing the Lords and introducing candidates to represent sectors such as agriculture, 80 per cent elected Senators. tourism and the Armed Forces, for example, to sit in 2079 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill[30 APRIL 2012] Scotland Bill 2080 the Lords. Positions in the Lords would be open to all After all, the executive search professionals already eligible British citizens. The process would include the research, approach and appoint our most senior leaders review of all CVs received. in this country across the public and private sectors. Additionally, a proactive headhunt would ensure The appointments process should be regularly reviewed that suitable and recommended individuals were by an independent body to ensure transparency and approached, thereby finding people who otherwise rigor for selection. It should provide regular feedback, might not have considered entering the Lords. Each published for public scrutiny. sector panel would draw up the candidate list to It may be wishful thinking, but I suggest that this present to the statutory Appointments Commission provides a basis for consensus. The proposed constitutional which would finally appoint, with successful candidates convention should give serious consideration to these filling vacancies in those sectors under-represented in proposals. They are proposals that would provide for the Lords. Consideration would be given to party or the necessary continuation of the breadth and depth no party affiliation. of experience in our House. It would also add some As an example, if an exceptional head teacher credibility to a “smidgen of democracy”. based anywhere in the country wished to apply for a position in the Lords, he or she could send an application Debate adjourned until tomorrow. to the education sector panel, or he or she could be approached so to do. With luck, the application would be submitted up to the statutory Appointments Scotland Bill Commission. Following assessment and interview, he Returned from the Commons or she could be appointed. The sector panels and Appointments Commission The Bill was returned from the Commons with the Lords would be wise to utilise the services of the executive amendments agreed to. search sector to expedite the process and to take advantage of its sophisticated IT systems and databases. House adjourned at 12.18 am.

WS 181 Written Statements[30 APRIL 2012] Written Statements WS 182

The review should draw on, but not necessarily be Written Statements guided by, the work already undertaken as a part of the initial Ministry of Defence medal review. This Monday 30 April 2012 should include consideration of the responses to that review by the veterans’ groups consulted. Any changes recommended should consider the Armed Forces: Medals cost to the taxpayer of any such changes. Statement ECOFIN Statement The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): My right honourable friend the Prime The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Minister has made the following Statement. Sassoon): My honourable friend the Financial Secretary This Government are fully committed to recognising to the Treasury (Mark Hoban) has today issued the all that our Armed Forces do to keep us safe. That is following Written Ministerial Statement. why this Government have enshrined the military covenant An extraordinary meeting of the Economic and in law. Today, I am pleased to update the House on the Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in fresh review of the rules and principles governing the Brussels on 2 May 2012. The following items are on award of military campaign medals that Lord Astor the agenda to be discussed: of Hever announced in the House last October, on Revised Capital Requirement Rules (CRD IV) 26 October 2011 (Official Report, col. 856). The council will discuss the presidency’s compromise The review will make recommendations where on the Commission’s proposal to replace the capital appropriate for any change. requirements directive (directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/ I have appointed Sir John Holmes to carry out this 49/EC, as amended by directives 2009/111/EC and review to ensure that it is fully independent. Sir John 2010/76/EU), with a regulation on prudential requirements is currently director at the Ditchley Foundation, and and a directive on the access to the activity of credit formerly served as the UN’s Under-Secretary-General institutions and the prudential supervision of credit for Humanitarian Affairs and emergency relief institutions and investment firms, together known as co-ordinator, and as Her Majesty’s ambassador in CRD IV. Paris and Lisbon. The UK will push for the full implementation of I have asked Sir John Holmes to report on his Basel 3 and for member states to have sufficient flexibility review by the summer. to protect financial stability in their jurisdiction. A copy of the terms of reference has been placed in Follow-up to the G20 Meeting of Finance Ministers the Libraries of the House. and Governors and IMF spring meetings (Washington 20 to 22 April 2012) Military Medals Review—Terms of Reference The Commission will update member states on the The review will: IMF spring meetings, which took place in Washington consider the current medallic situation and examine on 19 to 22 April, including a meeting of G20 Finance the rationale for existing guiding principles, including Ministers and Central Bank Governors. The Chancellor the five-year rule; double medalling; risk and rigour updated the House on the outcome of the discussions and the HD Committee process. The review will at the spring meetings, including on IMF resources, in examine the background to the current arrangements, a statement on 23 April. the pros and cons of them and make recommendations where appropriate for any changes, and; EU: Environment Council and make recommendations on how retrospective claims for medals for earlier campaign service Energy Council should be assessed in light of the guiding principles Statement recommended by the review. Consultation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): I represented The review should consult widely and those consulted the United Kingdom at the climate change aspects of should include: CDS and the chiefs of staff; Buckingham the EU informal Environment Council and at the Palace; personnel from all three services (from a range informal Energy Council in Denmark on 19 April 2012. of ranks); representatives from veterans’ groups who I attended the lunchtime discussion at the informal have campaigned for further recognition; representatives Environment Council on the future of the EU ETS. from veterans’ organisations such as the Royal British There was broad agreement that while the ETS is Legion; and officials involved in medal policy matters delivering the required level of carbon emissions to in the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence and the meet the EU’s 2020 target, it is failing to deliver the Foreign Office. necessary investment signals in low carbon. The low Assumptions ETS price means that there is now a much reduced The review will consider the arrangements relating incentive to invest in low-carbon technology and to military medals only and is not to review state infrastructure, meaning a risk of future lock-in to high honours and awards (including national gallantry awards) carbon. There was almost universal support for or long service and good conduct medals. Commission action to resolve these issues. WS 183 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 184

At the informal Energy Council, discussion on the and Commonwealth Office we monitor and respond first day focused on the energy efficiency directive. The to change as it happens and our reporting needs to presidency outlined the state of play of negotiations. reflect this. It is sometimes the case that a country not Most Ministers expressed support for the latest presidency regarded as a country of concern at the beginning of text and for the presidency in their efforts to secure the reporting period may experience important human agreement by the end of June. I and a number of other rights developments. member states argued that the directive must be ambitious Over the current reporting period, and for the first to ensure that it delivers real and additional energy time, we will make quarterly decisions on whether savings. systematic reporting on developments in other countries, The second day of the council (when the UK was not listed in the 2011 report as countries of concern, is represented by a DECC official) focused on the 2050 required. energy road map. The presidency outlined the “no This more flexible quarterly reporting will strengthen regrets”option of greater energy efficiency, more renewable the assessments we make about which countries should energy and new flexible infrastructure. Commissioner be added to or removed from the list of countries of Oettinger outlined the main features of the EU’s transition concern in the 2012 Annual report. to a low-carbon economy: the need for regulatory On the basis of the first of these assessments, I have predictability to encourage investment; a decarbonised decided that we should report quarterly on the situation energy sector; and flexibility for member states within in Bahrain and Ethiopia, and that we should review a wider framework. He outlined his plan for a 12 to the situation in Rwanda and Egypt in depth at the 18-month debate on the post-2020 regulatory structure mid-year point. These four countries are covered as for energy. In a wide-ranging discussion, most member case studies in the 2011 report. states supported the “no regrets”option. The presidency plans to ask for agreement on conclusions on the Taken together, the report, the additional funding energy road map at the June Energy Council. and these changes to our reporting system underline the Government’s determination to continue to place the effective promotion of human rights at the heart Human Rights of our foreign policy. Statement

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Pensions Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My right honourable Statement friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (William Hague) has made The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the following Written Ministerial Statement. Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My I have today laid before the House a copy of the honourable friend the Minister for Pensions (Steve 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on Webb) has made the following Written Ministerial human rights and democracy. Statement. The report comprehensively assesses developments Later today the Government will publish the in human rights in 2011 and provides information consultation document Automatic Enrolment: Career about some important developments in early 2012. It Average Schemes as Qualifying Schemes. This addresses sets out what the Government are doing through the an issue which could prevent some good-quality pension Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promote human schemes from being used as qualifying schemes under rights and democratic values around the world, in the reforms. three principal areas: it documents the serious concerns The Government’s policy on career average pension we have about a range of countries where we are schemes is to allow them to be used as qualifying seeking to influence the human rights situation; it schemes and for the purposes of automatic enrolment assesses progress on thematic issues that cut across so long as they provide for the benefits to be revalued geographic boundaries; and it reports on areas where at, or above, a prescribed minimum rate. we believe we have seen positive developments over the last year. We have made some significant changes The consultation proposes amendments to those to the format of the report itself this year, including regulations to give more flexibility for schemes over the introduction of case studies. how they provide for revaluation while still ensuring that members’ interests are fully protected. The period I am determined that we will continue to strengthen of formal consultation will begin today and last for six and develop the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s weeks, ending on 11 June. work on human rights. With this in mind, I have decided to allocate an additional £1.5 million in 2012 I hope that those people and organisations with an to our human rights programme work, which will be interest in this subject will take the time to offer their focused in particular on projects to promote freedom views and advice. of expression online and the implementation of the Draft regulations will be published alongside the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. consultation document. I have also decided to introduce changes to make A copy of the consultation document and draft the Foreign Office’s human rights reporting even more regulations will be placed in the House Library and responsive to rapidly changing situations. An annual will be available later today on the department’s website: report can only look backwards, yet in the Foreign http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2012/. WS 185 Written Statements[30 APRIL 2012] Written Statements WS 186

Prison Service Pay Review Body to Parliament on its operation of the UK’s asset- Statement freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373. This is the fifth report under the Act and it covers The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2012. McNally): My honourable friend the Parliamentary This report also covers the UK implementation of the Under-Secretary of State, Crispin Blunt, has made the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation following Written Ministerial Statement. of the European Union (EU) asset-freezing regime in I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001, which has appointed Ann Jarvis as a member of the Prison implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist Service Pay Review Body for three years commencing threats to the EU. Under the latter regime, the EU has April 2012. The appointment has been conducted in responsibility for designations and the Treasury has accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for responsibility for licensing and compliance with the Public Appointments code of practice on appointments regime in the UK under Part 1 of TAFA 2010. to public bodies. Annexes 1 and 2 to this Statement provide a breakdown by name of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Terrorism: Finance Resolution 1373. Statement Following the publication in February 2012 of the Treasury’s response to the independent reviewer’s first report on the operation of TAFA 2010, the Treasury is The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord continuing work to implement the independent reviewer’s Sassoon): My honourable friend the Financial Secretary recommendations. Progress on these will be reported to the Treasury (Mark Hoban) has today issued the in future reports to Parliament. following Written Ministerial Statement. The following table sets out the key asset-freezing Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 activity in the UK during the quarter ending 31 March (TAFA 2010), the Treasury is required to report quarterly 2012:

Activities TAFA 2010 EU Reg(EC) 2580/2001 al-Qaeda regime UNSCR 1989

Assets frozen (as at £33,000 £11,000 £71,0001 31.03.2012) Number of accounts frozen in 68 10 38 UK (at 31.03.12) New accounts frozen 0 0 0 Accounts unfrozen 1 0 1 Number of designations (at 40 37 329 31/03/12) (i) new designations (during Q1 0011 2012) (ii) Delistings 2 14 25 (iii) individuals in custody in UK 14 0 2 (iv) individuals in UK, not in 507 detention (v) individuals overseas 13 12 260 (vi) groups 8 (0 in UK) 25 69 (2 in UK) Renewal of designation 34 n/a n/a General Licences (i) Issued in Q1 (i) 0 (ii) Amended (ii) 0 (iii) Revoked (iii) 0 0 Specific Licences: (i) Issued (i) 6 (i) 0 (i) 0 (ii) Revoked (ii) 1 (ii) 0 (ii) 0

1 This figure reflects the most up-to-date account balances available renewal of 34 designations and the delisting of Habib and includes approximately $64,000 of suspected terrorist funds Ahmed and Selman Bozkur. The renewals and delistings frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as were all publicised on the Treasury website. All current of 02.04.12. designations under TAFA 2010 are listed at annexe 1.

The key area of activity during the quarter was: Legal Challenges Reviews of the remaining 36 existing designations, Three legal challenges against designations made not reported on in the previous quarterly report, were under both the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) conducted during the quarter, which resulted in the Order 2009 and TAFA 2010 were ongoing in the WS 187 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 188

quarter covered by this report. The challenges brought Annexe II by Ismail Bhuta and Habib Ahmed were withdrawn Persons designated by the EU under Council regulation (EC)2580/20013 during the quarter, in accordance with agreed terms of 4. Manssor Arbabsiar* settlement. There were no specific developments during 5. Mohammed Bouyeri the quarter in the case brought by Zana Rahim. 6. Sofiane Yacine Fahas Proceedings 7. Hasan Izz-al-Din* 8. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed* In the quarter to 31 March 2012, no proceedings 9. Abdul Reza Shahlai* were initiated in respect of breaches of the prohibitions 10. Ali Gholam Shakuri* of the Act or the al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 11. Qasem Soleimani* 2011. 12. Jason Theodore Walters Groups and Annexe 1 Entities 2 Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name 1. Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO) Individuals 2. Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade 1. Hamed Abdollahi 3. Al-Aqsa e.V. 2. Bilal Talal Abdullah 4. Al-Takfir and Al-Hijra 3. Imad Khalil al-Alami 5. Babbar Khalsa 4. Abdula Ahmed Ali 6. Communist Party of the Philippines, including New 5. Abdelkarim Hussein al-Nasser People’s Army (NPA), Philippines 6. Ibrahim Salih al-Yacoub 7. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Group—IG) 7. Manssor Arbabsiar 8. Islami Büyük Dogu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great 8. Usama Hamdan Islamic Eastern Warriors Front) 9. Nabeel Hussain 9. Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem 10. Tanvir Hussain 10. Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) 11. Zahoor Iqbal 11. Hofstadgroep 12. Umar Islam 12. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development* 13. Hasan Izz-al-Din 13. International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) 14. Parviz Khan 14. Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF) 15. Waheed Arafat Khan 15. Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL) 16. Osman Adam Khatib 16. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) 17. Musa Abu Marzouk 17. Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation 18. Gulam Mastafa Army)* 19. Khalid Mishaal 18. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) 20. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 19. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)* 21. Ramzi Mohammed 20. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General * 22. Sultan Muhammad Command (PFLP-GC) * 23. Yassin Omar 21. Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) 24. Hussein Osman 22. Devrimci Halk Kurtulu Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party) 25. Zana Abdul Rahim 23. Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)* 26. Muktar Mohammed Said 24. Stichting Al Aqsa 27. Assad Sarwar 25. Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan (TAK) 28. Ibrahim Savant 3 29. Abdul Reza Shahlai For full listing details please refer to http://www.hm-treasury.gov 30. Ali Gholam Shakuri .uk/d/terrorism.htm. * 31. Qasem Soleimani EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010 32. Waheed Zaman Entities 1. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (Eta) 2. Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN). UK National Reform Programme 3. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) Statement 4. Hizballah Military Wing, Including External Security Organisation 5. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development 6. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Command (PFLP-GC) Sassoon): My honourable friend the Financial Secretary 7. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to the Treasury (Mark Hoban) has today made the 8. Sendero Luminoso (SL) following Written Ministerial Statement. 2 For full listing details please refer to http://www.hm-treasury.gov The Government have today published the UK .uk/d/terrorism.htm. 2012 National Reform Programme. The document has been submitted to the European Commission, as part Annexe II of the European semester. Persons designated by the EU under Council regulation (EC)2580/20013 National Reform Programme Persons Under council recommendation 2010/410 of 13 July * 1. Hamed Abdollahi 2010, member states submit national reform programmes 2. Abdelkarim Hussein al-Nasser* * each year, which report to the Commission on their 3. Ibrahim Salih al Yacoub structural reforms and plans. WS 189 Written Statements[30 APRIL 2012] Written Statements WS 190

The UK 2012 National Reform Programme reports consolidation; reforms to the housing market; on actions taken by the UK as a whole, including by improving the employability of young people; reducing the Government and by the devolved Administrations worklessness; and increasing access to finance; and where policy responses are of a devolved competence. sets out the UK’s approach to national monitoring, The 2012 National Reform Programme: in line with the five headline Europe 2020 targets agreed by the European Council in June 2010. puts the UK’s structural reforms in the context of deficit reduction and the 2011 autumn Statement The National Reform Programme only draws on and plan for growth; public information and is based on the announcements and forecasts of Budget 2012, the plan for growth and reports on the broad macroeconomic context, which the autumn Statement 2011. It is, therefore, entirely uses the same text as the UK’s convergence programme; based on information already presented to Parliament. reports on policies to tackle the five country-specific Copies of the document will be deposited in the recommendations addressed to the UK by the June Libraries of both Houses and will be available on the 2011 European Council: continuing with fiscal Treasury website at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

WA 395 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 396

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department Written Answers for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): Defra provides information to the public Monday 30 April 2012 on current and forecast air quality on the internet at uk-air.defra.gov.uk at all times. This service provides advice on levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, Afghanistan particulate matter and ozone. In addition, a freephone service is available. The high levels of pollution in Question March 2012 reflected levels of particulates, whereas Asked by Lord Moonie the episode in April 2011 reflected high ozone levels. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Asked by Lord Berkeley contribution they have made to efforts to restore To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to electricity generation at the Kajaki dam in Helmand the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on province, Afghanistan, and when they expect that 23 April (WA 290), whether the Commission has all turbines will be operational. [HL16857] confirmed that the Government have complied with the exemption; and, in particular, whether the necessary Baroness Northover: The Kandahar-Helmand power consultation was completed before the Commission’s project to enhance the electrical power output of the deadline of 30 November 2011. [HL16919] Kajaki dam is funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Army Corps of Lord Taylor of Holbeach: As set out in my response Engineers (USACE), one of our partners in the UK-led of 23 April (WA 290) to the noble Lord, in July 2011 Helmand Provincial Reconstruction Team. By the end the Commission confirmed that the UK Government of 2014, the project aims to deliver reliable and sustainable had provided all the necessary information on actions electricity to around 2 million people in Kandahar being taken to reduce the risk of exceedances of the and Helmand, and to support the continued development daily limit value for particulate matter (PM10) as set of the regional South-East Power System (SEPS) power out in the Commission decision of 11 March 2011. grid. It is anticipated that the refurbishment will increase Defra consulted on its air quality plan for PM10 in power production in the region by around 18 megawatts. Greater London in 2009 and again in October 2011 on an update to this. Air Ambulance Service Airports: Heathrow Question Question Asked by Baroness Scott of Needham Market Asked by Lord Birt To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 26 March To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they (WA 202), whether they will communicate their expect waiting times at UK Border Agency checkpoints position to the organisers of the e-petition calling at London Heathrow airport to reduce; and if so, for the abolition of fuel duty paid by air ambulance when. [HL16847] services. [HL16835] The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): The border force will not compromise border security The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord but always aim to keep disruption to a minimum by Sassoon): The ongoing e-petition in respect of air using our staff flexibly to meet demand. Carrying out ambulance services is calling for the abolition of VAT full checks can mean occasional queues while we on fuel rather than duty. ensure that only people entitled to enter the UK can I also refer the noble Baroness to the Written Answer do so. given on 15 March 2012 by my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Official Report, col. 359) and to my Answer given on 16 June 2011 Aviation: Passenger Duty (Official Report, col. WA 202). Question Asked by Baroness Valentine Air Quality To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Questions are considering introducing differentiation of air passenger duty rates between the major airports in Asked by Lord Berkeley London and the south-east and regional airports To ask Her Majesty’s Government why no smog across the United Kingdom. [HL16825] alerts have been issued in 2012, in the light of levels of air pollution in the United Kingdom having The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord reached very high 10/10 on the Daily Air Quality Sassoon): The Government published their response Index. [HL16811] to the air passenger duty (APD) consultation on WA 397 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 398

6 December 2011. This is available at: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/condoc_responses_ Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK will continue air_passenger_duty.pdf. to argue for further targeted European Union (EU) Budget 2012 set out APD rates for 2012-13 and sanctions if the Belarusian Government do not release 2013-14. and rehabilitate all political prisoners. Two further political prisoners, including Andrei Sannikov, were The Government are committed to rebalancing the released in April but not rehabilitated. We are keeping UK economy across the regions and will continue to the situation under regular review to determine when work with stakeholders to examine the role of the tax further action might be required. system in support of these objectives. The Department for Transport is due to consult on its aviation strategy EU sanctions include an asset freeze and travel ban later this summer and this will include consideration on entities and persons who are responsible for serious of regional connectivity and regional airports policy. violations of human rights or the repression of civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus. They also target persons and entities benefiting from or Bank of England supporting the regime. These measures have been applied Questions to several members of the government, as well as the president of Belarus. Asked by Lord Myners To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Communities: Integration powers and responsibility of the Bank of England Questions and its Governor would increase as a result of the Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill provisions contained in the Financial Services Bill, if enacted. [HL16823] To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on 22 March The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord (WA 185–86), whether, in drawing up their strategy Sassoon): The Financial Services Bill, if enacted, will on integration, Creating the Conditions for Integration, provide the Bank of England with new responsibilities they consulted Runnymede, Voice4Change England, and powers in a number of areas. Show Racism the Red Card, Equanomics and Race on the Agenda. [HL16968] A Financial Policy Committee will be created within the Bank as a new macroprudential authority, with To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to powers to address systemic risks in the financial system. the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on 22 March The Bank of England will also take responsibility (WA 185–86), whether they intend to make public for regulating recognised clearing houses and approved the responses, submissions and comments of those operators of settlement systems. The Prudential with whom they discussed their policy approach to Regulation Authority will be established as a wholly-owned integration over the year prior to the publication of subsidiary of the Bank of England, responsible for Creating the Conditions for Integration. [HL16969] prudential regulation of deposit-takers, insurers and certain investment firms. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): Asked by Lord Myners Ministers and officials held informal discussions with a very wide range of partners over the year leading up Toask Her Majesty’s Government whether members to the publication of our policy approach, Creating the of the Court of the Bank of England will sit on the Conditions for Integration, including with all the organisations interview panel for the appointment of the next mentioned. Governor. [HL16824] This document sets out our views on what is important to promote integrated communities but does not represent Lord Sassoon: The current Governor’s term expires the end of the process. We will continue to discuss our on 30 June 2013. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has approach with partners and challenge them to take been clear that there will be a proper process for action in response to the issues raised in the document. appointing his successor but that this will not commence For this reason we have no plans to publish summaries until the autumn. of discussions to date. Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Belarus To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Question the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on 22 March (WA 185–86), whether they intend to consult on Asked by Lord Patten and publish a specific strategy to tackle racial injustice To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to and inequality. [HL16970] the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to on 23 April (WA 301), whether they intend to press the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on 22 March for further targeted measures against the Government (WA 185–86), what mechanisms and methodologies of Belarus; and what assessment they have made of they intend to use to evaluate the success of their the possibility of restricting the travel of members strategies on equalities, social mobility and integration, of the Government of Belarus. [HL16930] both individually and cumulatively. [HL16971] WA 399 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 400

Baroness Hanham: The Government are tackling We are currently reviewing our guidance on setting the specific issues associated with racial discrimination local speed limits and are liaising with the police and through their single equality strategy, social mobility local authorities as part of this review. strategy and integration policies. It is not our current intention to have a separate strategy for race equality. An Inter-Ministerial Group on Equalities was set Elections up to drive work across Government to support the Question Equality Strategy. The Government will report progress Asked by Lord Greaves on the Equality Strategy shortly. The Government have two key mechanisms to measure To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the the success of the social mobility strategy.The independent documents that accompany nomination papers in Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission will elections may be submitted by fax or by the emailing report annually to Parliament on progress on both of scanned documents. [HL16904] social mobility and child poverty. We have also placed leading indicators of success in improving social mobility Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The returning officer for for each life stage in departmental Business Plans. the election is responsible for administering the nomination These ensure the public have the information necessary process for candidates, and guidance issued by the to hold the Government and other institutions to Electoral Commission for the elections scheduled for account. May 2012 states that a candidate’s nomination papers Specific projects in our policy approach to integration, should not be submitted by fax or other electronic Creating the Conditions for Integration, will be monitored means. and evaluated against their objectives. Integration is predominately a local issue which requires a local response, and therefore further evaluation is a matter Employment: Sickness Absence for local areas. Question Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Asked by Lord Harrison To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hanham on the Written Answer by Lord Freud on 17 January 22 March (WA 185–86), whether they intend to (WA 119), when they expect to respond to Health issue guidance to local authorities on how to facilitate at Work—An Independent Review of Sickness integration. [HL16972] Absence. [HL16831]

Baroness Hanham: Integration is a local issue, and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department local communities and public and private services are for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): The honourable usually best placed to take action. We are committed Member is aware that we are working to develop the to rebalancing activity from centrally led to locally led government response, with input from a number of action. government departments and the devolved Administrations. Action is most effective when it is led locally, but These are complex issues and we need to take time to where there is a clear case for the Government to act consider the recommendations fully; the response will we will do so. For example, through our work to be published later this year. review barriers to black and minority ethnic access to finance; through the DCLG-led Ministerial Working Group on Gypsies and Travellers, which published a Energy: Tariffs progress report on 4 April 2012; and through projects Question such as our work with Youth United to encourage volunteer-led youth groups for young people. Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action Cyclists: Safety they are taking to tackle unfair energy tariffs. [HL16902] Question Asked by Lord Bradshaw The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): Following To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the recent announcement by my right honourable friend the Written Answer by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on the Deputy Prime Minister, all the major energy suppliers 23 April (WA 314), what guidance they have given have committed to help energy consumers get the best to local authorities about possible methods of deal, including the provision of information for those enforcement of 20mph zones. [HL16952] nearing the end of fixed-term deals and annual communications to all customers telling them what the Earl Attlee: Enforcement of speed limits relates to best tariff is for them and how to get it. the criminal law and is primarily a matter for the In addition, in 2009 Ofgem introduced new rules to police. The Department for Transport has not issued prevent unfair price differentials, such as those between guidance on enforcement to local authorities. different payment methods or groups of customers. WA 401 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 402

Ofgem has reported on the effectiveness of these Extradition changes and also proposed further protections for consumers as part of their retail market review. We Question support Ofgem’s actions in tackling unjustified tariff To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many premiums to ensure consumers do not lose out. A people were extradited from the United Kingdom copy of the full Ofgem Retail Market Review—Findings in each year between 2004 and 2011, and to date in and Proposals is available online at: 2012, listed by requesting country. [HL16957] http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/rmr/ Documents1/RMR_FINAL.pdf. The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): Not all extradition requests lead to the arrest of the Equality and Human Rights Commission subject. As a matter of long-standing policy and practice, Question we will neither confirm nor deny whether an extradition request has been made or received until such time as a Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon person is arrested in relation to the request, so that people do not have the opportunity to escape justice To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the by leaving the country before they are arrested. remuneration of the chairman, deputy chairman and other members of the Equality and Human For that reason, a breakdown of the number of Rights Commission. [HL16891] arrests as well as surrenders by country is provided in the tables below.

Baroness Verma: All figures are for the period 1 April 2011 2011 to 31 March 2012 inclusive: Country Arrests Surrenders

Remuneration Albania 5 4 Member £ (rounded) Argentina 2 Employer’s Australia 2 2 National Insurance Azerbaijan 1 Salary/Fees contributions Expenses Canada 2 Chair 112,000 13,000 1,000 Moldova 1 Deputy Chair 66,000 8,000 1,000 Montenegro 1 Other 188,000 15,000 4,000 Norway 1 2 Commissioners Russian Federation 3 (12 individuals) Switzerland 1 2 Turkey 6 4 Remuneration details of each Commissioner will be shown in the EHRC’s annual report and accounts Ukraine 5 for 2011-12, which will be published in due course. United Arab 7 Emirates USA 12 8 EU: Financial Assistance Total 47 24 Question 2012 (up to 24 April) Asked by Lord Warner Country Arrests Surrenders

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any Albania 2 3 financial assistance provided by the European Union Ghana 1 to Israel is used to cover the costs of holding in Russian Federation 2 custody Palestinians charged or accused of terrorism. Switzerland 1 [HL16661] Turkey 1 1 United Arab 11 Baroness Northover: The European Union does not Emirates provide financial assistance to Israel to cover the costs USA 3 8 of holding in custody Palestinians charged or accused TOTAL 11 13 of terrorism. In July 2008, the EU and Israel signed a financing agreement to allow support for Israel under the European The tables provide non-EU extradition figures for Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan. Most of this funding 2011 and for 2012 up until 24 April. Figures from 2004 covers the costs of the twinning and technical assistance to July 2011 were published in A Review of the United and information exchange instruments and has been Kingdom’s Extradition Arrangements on 18 October used to support technical work on equal employment 2011 and can be found on pages 464-67. opportunities and veterinary services legislation, as The figures relate to requests dealt with under the well as a series of expert seminars and workshops. The 2003 Extradition Act. These do not include figures for remainder of the funding has been used to support the Scotland. It should also be emphasised that an arrest Euro-Med Youthprogramme and the Tempus programme and/or surrender made in a particular year may relate to modernise higher education. to a request made in a previous year. WA 403 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 404

Government: Special Advisers The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): I refer the noble and Questions gallant Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister today. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the restrictions and safeguards, under the Ministerial Code or otherwise, to prevent special advisers from infringing the impartiality or appearance of impartiality Immigration: Deportation of Ministers acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Question [HL16967] Asked by Lord Beecham To ask Her Majesty’s Government who had responsibility for ensuring that Mr Adam Smith To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the acted in accordance with his duties as special adviser contract between the Home Office and Reliance for in relation to News Corporation’s bid to take over the deportation of foreign nationals differs from its BSkyB; and to whom he was accountable.[HL16977] previous contract with G4S “in its requirement to balance the welfare of detainees with a more stringent approach to costings and creating more value for Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Special advisers are required money for the taxpayer” as described by Reliance in to conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions a statement in April 2012; and, if so, what assessment of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, copies of they have made of the implications of such an which are available in the Libraries of the House. approach for the welfare of detainees. [HL16834]

Guantanamo Bay The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): Question The UK Border Agency’s contract with Reliance Secure Task Management (Reliance) for the provision of escorting Asked by Lord Hylton services commenced on 1 May 2011, replacing the To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they previous service provider G4S. expect Mr Shaker Aamer, currently held in The new contract with Reliance has detailed Guantanamo Bay, to return to the United Kingdom. requirements upon the management of detainee welfare, [HL16829] and welfare requirements are more exactingly defined in the current contract when compared to the previous G4S contract. Throughout the time that a detainee is The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth in the custody of the escort service provider they are Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): I refer the noble required to monitor and record all events in respect of Lord to the Answer given by the Secretary of State for a detainee’s welfare. Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable Additionally in comparison with the G4S contract, friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), the new contract focuses on continuous improvement on 15 Mar 2012 (House of Commons Official Report, of detainee welfare provision during the life of the col. 408W). contract, including obtaining detainee’s views on The ultimate decision in Mr Aamer’s case is one for their conditions, welfare and services, and reporting the United States (US). We continue to engage with all improvements made and proposals for future the US Administration at senior and ministerial level improvements on a yearly basis. but we are unable to say at this stage when this case Whilst the cost of the current contract with Reliance will be resolved. However, we remain committed to offers better value for money than the previous G4S securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK contract, this has been achieved through innovation and will continue to engage with the US until a rather than any reduction in the quality of service. The solution is reached. contract with Reliance is robustly contract managed to ensure that service standards are maintained. Honours and Decorations Committee Question Immigration: Detention Centres Asked by Lord Craig of Radley Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Asked by Baroness Stern the Written Answers by Lord Astor of Hever on 9 December 2011 (WA 202), 24 January 2012 To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans (WA 215) and 7 March 2012 (WA 424), when the they have to improve the healthcare provided at undertaking the Minister gave on 26 October (Official Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, Report, col. 856) to carry out an independent review following the report of HM Chief Inspector of of the Honours and Decorations Committee will Prisons published on 11 April that “the approach be fulfilled; who will chair the review; and what the and attitude of some staff and the overall standard terms of reference will be. [HL16722] of care were unacceptable”. [HL16880] WA 405 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 406

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): Budget 2012 confirmed that Newcastle had been We are considering the recommendations made in the selected to become a ‘super-connected city’ and will inspection report and will respond within two months receive funding of up to £6 million to deliver ultra-fast in line with the protocol agreed with Her Majesty’s broadband. Inspectorate of Prisons. Overall, the report acknowledges (2) North-west England that Harmondsworth is a reasonably safe institution with reasonable staff engagement between staff and Autumn Statement 2011 announced the following detainees. infrastructure investments: The UK Border Agency takes its responsibilities M56 at Manchester Airport link road to A6 south towards detainees’ health and welfare seriously. of Stockport; Harmondsworth, like all immigration removal centres, Crewe Green Link Southern Section—New link provides primary healthcare services broadly equivalent road to the east of Crewe opening up a key to those available in the community and arranges development area and acting as a bypass; access to secondary healthcare services as needed. All detainees are seen by a nurse within two hours of Manchester Cross City Bus—Highway changes arrival for a health screening and a GP within 24 hours. and bus enhancements to facilitate new cross Detainees can then access healthcare services on demand, Manchester city centre bus services; and subject to a triage system similar to those found in GP Rochdale Interchange—Replacement bus station surgeries in the community. for Rochdale adjacent to the existing, allowing for As part of our commitment to continuous the redevelopment of the town centre and improvement, responsibility for healthcare commissioning complementing the arrival of Metrolink in 2014. in the UK Border Agency detention estate is in the Priority projects in the north-west set out in the process of transferring from the Agency to the Department National Infrastructure Plan 2011 include: of Health. A556 Knutsford; Manchester Metro Link Phase 3A Extensions; Infrastructure Investment Heysham to M6 Link Road; Question Mersey Gateway Bridge; Asked by Lord Bates Expansion of Mersey Multimodal Gateway (as part of Regional Growth Fund); To ask Her Majesty’s Government what major Completion of Western Gateway Enabling Scheme infrastructure investments have been announced at Port Salford (through the Regional Growth since May 2010 in (1) north-east England, (2) north- Fund); west England, and (3) Yorkshire and Humberside. [HL16922] Reinstating Todmorden Curve (through the Regional Growth Fund); and The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Northern rail connectivity (Liverpool-Newcastle Sassoon): The Government published the National electrification and the Ordsall Chord). Infrastructure Plan in October 2010, outlining our Budget 2012 announced that: vision for the future of UK economic infrastructure. The Government will support Network Rail to This identified eleven regional examples of capital invest £130 million to improve the connectivity projects in the three regions of northern England. An between Manchester and Sheffield, Rochdale, updated National Infrastructure Plan was subsequently Halifax, Bradford, Bolton, Preston and Blackpool. published alongside the Autumn Statement in November 2011. This set out a pipeline of over 500 infrastructure The Government will use their £150 million Mobile projects across the UK, identifying the 40 projects Infrastructure Project to deliver improved mobile most critical to economic growth. The Chief Secretary phone coverage. In the north-west, this includes the to the Treasury chairs a Cabinet committee on A57 between Liverpool and Manchester and the infrastructure, to ensure their delivery. A591 between Keswick and Sizergh. The list of investments below is not exhaustive, The Government have agreed to provide funding of given that between 60% and 70% of infrastructure is up to £30 million, starting in 2015-16, to unlock privately owned and operated. £1.2 billion of infrastructure investment in Greater (1) North-east England Manchester through a new investment model called the Earn Back Model. Autumn Statement 2011 announced the following infrastructure investments: Manchester has been selected to become a “super-connected city” and will receive £12 million Tyne and Wear metro upgrade in the north-east. to deliver ultra-fast broadband. Further projects in that region, announced in the National Infrastructure Plan 2011, include: (3)Yorkshire and Humberside East Coast Main Line improvements programme; Autumn Statement 2011 announced the following and infrastructure investments: Tees Multimodal Bio-Freight Terminal (as part of Writing down debt on the Humber Bridge to halve Regional Growth Fund). the tolls for cars; WA 407 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 408

Access York Park & Ride—Two new park and ride The Growing Places Fund (GPF) provides additional sites; funding for the infrastructure needed to unlock Al8-Al80 Link (NE Lincolnshire)—Link road developments that will lead to jobs and growth. Funding acting as a bypass for Immingham; has been allocated to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in north-east England, north-west England A6182 White Rose Way Improvement Scheme and Yorkshire and Humberside. (Doncaster)—Dualling of 1.9km of carriageway and replacement of 2 existing roundabouts with The Government have also introduced twenty-four high-capacity signalised junctions; new Enterprise Zones, to be established across our LEPs. Two Enterprise Zones have been established in Al64 Humber Bridge to Beverley—Capacity and the north-east, four in the north-west, and four in safety improvements at 4 roundabouts and Yorkshire and Humberside. dualling of 1.4 kilometre section of Al64; Furthermore, at Autumn Statement 2011, the Leeds Rail Growth—Two new railway stations: Government announced that they would establish pilot Kirkstall Forge and Appley Bridge; Rural Growth Networks (RGN) to test and demonstrate Supertram additional vehicles (Sheffield)—Four the potential to use the planning regime and targeted additional tram vehicles for the Supertram infrastructure improvement to support sustainable network; and economic growth. RGNs have been announced in the Accelerating M1 junction 39 to 42 scheme. north-east LEP and the Cumbria LEP. Autumn Statement 2011 also announced £1.4 billion of investment in the railways and commuter links across the UK, including electrification of the transpennine railway route from Manchester to Leeds (£290 million), International Development which cuts across the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire Question and Humberside regions. Priority projects in the Yorkshire and Humberside Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne set out in the National Infrastructure Plan 2011 include: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Leeds Station enlargement; and the Written Answer by Baroness Northover on 12 March (WA 14), in line with their goal of engaging Improved access to the Sheffield Gateway (as part broadly with all parties on the next round of of Regional Growth Fund). international development goals following the expiry Budget 2012 announced that: of the millennium development goals in 2015, whether The Government will support Network Rail to they have any plans for consultation with the public invest £130 million to improve the connectivity and the private sector, and whether they will provide between Manchester and Sheffield, Rochdale, parliamentary time to debate the issue. [HL16885] Halifax, Bradford, Bolton, Preston and Blackpool; Government will use its £150 million Mobile Infrastructure Project to deliver improved mobile Baroness Northover: The Government welcome phone coverage. In Yorkshire & Humber, this engagement with all parties, including citizens, private includes the A169 between Whitby and Norton; sector and civil society, as part of the international and process to agree a successor framework to the millennium development goals (MDGs) in 2015. The Budget confirms that Leeds and Bradford have been selected to become “super-connected A number of processes are already under way. cities” and will receive funding of up to First, I encourage interested civil society organisations £14.6 million to deliver ultra-fast broadband. to engage as part of the global Civil Society Organisation network “Beyond 2015”. Secondly, the United Nations A full list of major infrastructure projects is detailed is also working to engage civil society and the private in the National Infrastructure Plan, available on the sector through its Post-2015 Task Team consultation: Treasury’s website. the United Nations Development Programme plan to In addition to announcing these infrastructure projects, hold national level consultations in 50 countries to the Government established the Regional Growth Fund inform the formation of a post-2015 development (RGF) and Growing Places Fund (GPF). framework starting in May. Thirdly, the European Commission will organise a public consultation on The RGF, launched at June 2010 Budget, provides “Towards a post-2015 development framework”, which support for projects that offer significant potential for is expected to be launched on the website for the long-term economic growth and the creation of additional Directorate General for Development Co-operation sustainable private sector jobs. In round 1, winners in (DG DEVCO) in late May or early June. the north-east of England, north-west of England and Yorkshire and Humberside are expected to create over The Government are developing further plans on 18,300 direct jobs and 13,200 indirect jobs in total. In how to engage citizens, the private sector and civil round 2, winners across these regions are expected to society in the process to 2015. Providing parliamentary create over 19,600 direct jobs, and 72,000 indirect jobs. time to debate this issue is of course a matter for the Round 3 of the RGF (to allocate a further f1billion) is business managers in both Houses, depending on the still open. demands and progress of other business. WA 409 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 410

Iran The UK is a strong supporter of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which helps Question to promote transparency and accountability around Asked by Lord Avebury the use of natural resource wealth in developing countries, including from diamonds. This can help minimise the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps risk of illegal diversion of public revenue to private they will take, with the European Union and with individuals. Our support for EITI has contributed to other states, to promote the implementation of the the reporting of over 500 billion United States dollars recommendations in the Report of the United Nations (USD) in government revenues in 29 countries around Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights the world and the reporting by over 150 companies of in Iran. [HL16853] 130 billion USD in revenues in Africa between 2003 and 2008. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The UK fully supports and Department for International Development also the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur for provide advice and support to governments around Iran, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, in his recent report to the the world on governance of the extractive sector with United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. My the aim of increasing transparency and good governance. right honourable friend, Parliamentary Under-Secretary This includes supporting work in the mining sector by of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my the World Bank focusing on revenue transparency and honourable friend the Member for North East International Monetary Fund work on anti-money Bedfordshire (Mr Burt), discussed the content of laundering measures. Dr Shaheed’s report during a meeting with him on 16 April, highlighting our continuing support for his Malaysia work. We shall continue to work closely with our European partners and other members of the UN Question Human Rights Council to promote awareness of the Asked by Lord Avebury human rights situation in Iran and encourage wider To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support for the work of Dr Shaheed. It is vital that the will place in the Library of the House a list of the Iranian Government seize the opportunity to engage files referring to Sarawak released by the Foreign with him. In particular, the Iranian Government should and Commonwealth Office during the Easter Recess; grant him access to sites and individuals in Iran so and whether there are any documents mentioning that he can fulfil the mandate the international community Sarawak that are still classified. [HL16854] have given him to assess the human rights situation there. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Files from the colonial administration of Sarawak were released at The National Kimberley Process Archives (TNA) on 18 April 2012 as part of the first Question batch of colonial administration files. The list of files Asked by Lord Avebury from Sarawak is now publicly available on The National Archive (TNA) website (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they about/colonial-administration-records.htm). The range will make proposals for amending the rules of the of TNA reference numbers for these files is from Kimberley Process so as to protect taxpayers in FCO 141/12277 to FCO 141/13099. The TNA has diamond-producing states from the illegal diversion also published on its website a guide to the first batch of public revenue to private individuals, and to of files (including Sarawak) as well as a file list for ensure transparency of ownership of mining Sarawak, which can be downloaded. companies. [HL16855] There are known to be documents covering Sarawak affairs that did not originate from the Sarawak colonial The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth administration itself. For instance, there are a number Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Kimberley of such documents in the North Borneo file series, Process (KP) is an international trade regulation scheme which has already transferred to TNA. It would be a that was set up to tackle the problem of rebel groups considerable undertaking to inspect all the colonial trading in rough diamonds to fund armed conflicts, administration files for any mention of Sarawak, since and to prevent the violence associated with such conflicts. this could be carried out only through a detailed Whilst we are working to strengthen the KP’s role inspection of the files themselves—thus incurring in preventing conflict, including by arguing that it disproportionate cost. should take human rights abuses more explicitly into account, we do not propose to expand the KP’s mandate Mayors to cover revenue transparency and governance, because Questions other mechanisms exist to address these issues. However, although it is not formally part of the Asked by Lord Storey KP’s mandate, the KP does play a helpful role in To ask Her Majesty’s Government what shining a light on revenue flows by providing information responsibilities and powers directly elected city mayors on diamond sales and exports. This can help Governments will have; and what checks will be placed on those collect the taxes and royalties owed to them. powers. [HL16617] WA 411 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 412

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what extra Table 6—Alterations To Listed Buildings finance will be made available for directly elected Summary of impacts city mayors. [HL16618] Exchequer impact To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent (£m) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 directly elected city mayors will have powers over +35 +85 +95 +110 +125 policing and transport matters within their cities. [HL16619] Impact The measure potentially affects any individual and household on owners of protected buildings who will now have to bear VAT individuals on any alteration work to their property. and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department households for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): There are an estimated 350,000 listed dwellings in the UK. It is Directly elected mayors will assume the powers vested estimated that around 10,000 individuals and households may be in the Leader and Cabinet of current city councils. The affected each year by the measure, with the additional costs from the VAT change varying according to the extent of work Government have said that they want to transfer additional undertaken. powers to cities with directly elected mayors, at their There are no identified compliance costs for individuals or request. These include new powers and funding over households. transport, skills, housing, economic development and Equalities Potentially any owner of a protected building will be affected by other areas which the elected mayor considers important impacts this change. for the future prosperity of their city. Mayors will be Places of Worship—Listed places of worship will also be affected by the change, although our evidence suggests that scrutinised by elected councillors, and will be subject places of worship form only a small minority of the total to the code of conduct of the council, as well as to number of listed properties in the UK. These will be predominantly used by Christian denominations. In order to other statutory requirements such as the Local Government mitigate the impacts on these groups the DCMS is expanding Transparency Code. the existing Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which refunds the VAT on repairs and maintenance work, so that this Elected mayors will have an important role to play includes approved alterations to listed buildings. through the police and crime panel for the area, providing There is no specific impact identified for any other equalities support and challenge to the police and crime group. commissioner on such matters as the police and crime Impact Businesses and charities that own protected buildings will be on affected by this measure if they cannot reclaim the additional plan and the police precept. business VAT incurred. There are an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 listed including buildings owned by businesses or charities used for a residential civil or charitable purpose. It is estimated that around 1,000 society businesses and charities may be affected each year. National Heritage: Listed Buildings organisations All businesses that supply work in the course of approved Question alterations to protected buildings will be affected. This will include tradesmen specialising in listed building work. Asked by Lord Birt One-off compliance costs have been considered and are expected to be negligible in total. Around 5,000 to 6,000 businesses To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment estimated to routinely work on listed buildings are expected to incur small costs from familiarisation with the new guidance and they have made of the likely impact on the national additional bookkeeping. A further 100,000 businesses who heritage of applying VAT to alterations to listed provide construction services may incur very minimal buildings. [HL16848] familiarisation costs. There are no expected ongoing costs as businesses are familiar with making standard-rated supplies of repair and maintenance. Simplifying the VAT rules is expected to reduce the ongoing The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord compliance costs for business. Sassoon): Table 6, pages 43-44 of Annex B—Tables of Operational HM Revenue and Customs is likely to benefit from lower impact administrative costs as a result of a reduction in levels of Impact for Individual Measures in HM Revenue and (£m) taxpayer query, non-compliance and litigation. Customs consultation document “VAT: Addressing (HMRC Borderline Anomalies”, published at Budget 2012, sets or other) out impacts of the VAT change to approved alterations Other Small firms impact test—This change may impact affected impacts businesses of all sizes that perform work on listed buildings. to listed buildings, upon which comments are welcomed. There will be an impact on small firms including tradesmen The document is available online at: http://www.hmrc. specialising in protected buildings. There is no scope for different gov.uk/budget20l2/vat-con-4801.pdf. VAT treatment for supplies of construction work by small firms.

Table 6—Alterations To Listed Buildings Summary of impacts Exchequer Northern Ireland Office: Estate impact Questions (£m) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 +35 +85 +95 +110 +125 Asked by Lord Empey

These figures are part of the VAT package on Closing Loopholes and Correcting Anomalies set out in Table 2.1 of To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Budget 2012 and have been certified by the Office for Budget properties are owned by the Northern Ireland Office, Responsibility. More details can be found in the policy costings and which they are. [HL16893] document published alongside Budget 2012. This element of the VAT package is shown above. Economic This measure might lead to a small increase in the price of impact alterations to listed buildings which would lead to a fall in Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland demand. The overall macroeconomic impacts are expected to be Office owns one property on behalf of the Government, negligible namely Hillsborough Castle. WA 413 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 414

Asked by Lord Empey Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland Office is committed to rationalising the use of To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many accommodation to ensure efficient use of space and to properties are leased or controlled by the Northern secure savings for the taxpayer wherever possible. This Ireland Office, and which they are. [HL16894] process may result in the termination of leases. There are no current plans to dispose of any properties. Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland Office leases and controls one building, Stormont Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 House. The department leases space at Windsor House Question in Belfast and Millbank in London. Asked by Lord Berkeley Asked by Lord Empey To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the 2012 Olympic Route Network will be open for use Northern Ireland Office has an estates strategy. by (1) Olympic athletes, (2) their trainers, (3) major [HL16895] sponsors’ representatives, (4) members of the International Olympic Committee, (5) national Olympic authorities, and (6) government Ministers from the Lord Shutt of Greetland: The devolution of policing United Kingdom and other countries; how many and justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly people from each category it is expected will be resulted in significant changes to the Northern Ireland authorised to use the network; and what other Office in terms of its role, size and structure. The categories will be authorised. [HL16915] pre-devolution estates strategy needs to be reviewed and updated to reflect these. This work has been Earl Attlee: The vast majority of the Olympic Route scheduled for the current financial year. Network (ORN) and Paralympic Route Network (PRN) Asked by Lord Empey is the designated network of roads that will be the principal routes used by vehicles transporting the Games To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Family between venues and accommodation. It will Northern Ireland Office has had discussions about ensure that the athletes, officials and the media get to possible collaboration on the use of premises for the venues on time and have consistent journey times. government purposes; and, if so, with whom. It has been a key part of Games since Sydney in 2000. [HL16896] For London 2012, the ORN is comprised of 109 miles of road in London (around 1% of the London network) and 175 miles outside London. In London, it is expected Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland to come into operation just a couple of days before the Office is committed to rationalising the use of premises start of the Olympic Games and to end as soon as for government purposes to ensure efficient use of possible after the Games. space and to secure savings for the taxpayer wherever possible. To this end, discussions have taken place The vast majority of the ORN and PRN roads will within the Northern Ireland Office, with relevant arm’s- be open for use by general traffic at all times alongside length bodies and with HM Treasury. the Games Family, although people may find that some of the traffic measures are different from those Asked by Lord Empey normally applied. These changes could include an embargo on non-emergency road works, traffic light To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the re-phasing, turn bans and parking suspensions. Northern Ireland Office has had a valuation of its The only parts of the road network which will not property portfolio undertaken within the last two be open to general traffic are the temporary Games years; and, if so, what valuations were advised. lanes (although some on-road events will require road [HL16897] closures). Games Lanes will only be on the busiest parts of the ORN—less than a third (30 miles) of the Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland ORN in London, and outside London on just one Office owns one property, Hillsborough Castle. A short stretch on the A30 Egham Bypass near the valuation on Hillsborough Castle was carried out in Royal Holloway accommodation for athletes competing December 2011 by Land and Property Services, at the Eton Dorney venue. Department of Finance and Personnel. The following Where there are Games lanes these will generally be valuations were advised: in the outside lane and will not take up the whole road width in any one direction, so that other traffic can Buildings: £55,283,000 continue to use the remaining lanes. They will be Land: £5,800,000 operated flexibly during the Games, and will be opened Total: £61,083,000 to all traffic through use of variable message signs when not required for Games Family use. Asked by Lord Empey The Games Family members who can use the Games To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the lanes and the estimated total number of people in each Northern Ireland Office is planning the disposal of category are as follows: any of its properties or to vacate any of its leaseholdings athletes and team officials—18,000 for Olympics, in (1) 2012, (2) 2013, or (3) 2014. [HL16898] 6,000 for Paralympics; WA 415 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 416

technical officials—5,000; Overseas Aid Olympic and Paralympic family (including members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Questions and national Olympic authorities)—6,000; Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne media (press and broadcast)—28,000; and marketing partners (including major sponsors)— To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much 25,000. they have spent on security sector reform and The only other people apart from the Games Family disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration in who can use Games lanes when they are in operation each of the past 10 years. [HL16924] are blue light responders. Government Ministers from the United Kingdom and other countries will not be allowed to use the Games lanes unless, exceptionally, they were travelling under blue lights on the advice of Baroness Northover: Over the past 10 years, DfID’s the security services. total bilateral expenditure on security sector reform The marketing partners contribute £1 billion towards (SSR) and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration the cost of the Games, directly or through the IOC. (DDR) has been £253,920,000 and £28,016,000 They will use the ORN as and when necessary. Because respectively. A breakdown of expenditure by year and of the way they operate, only about 4,000 people will sub-sector is available in the table below. The data be around at any one time. They travel by coach and have been compiled using expenditure reported against several elements of their programme will not require agreed definitions of SSR and DDR by the Organisation the ORN. They will also pay separately for their for Economic Co-operation and Development’s coaches. Development Assistance Committee.

Total 2000-01 to 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11

Security Sector Reform (expenditure in £ thousands) Legal and 8387 10194 6284 7314 8569 9721 11670 18025 19147 18469 17351 135131 judicial empowerment Security 1369 2328 5583 8985 17173 15676 7572 14430 13050 13338 19285 118789 system management and reform Total 9756 12522 11867 16299 25742 25397 19242 32455 32197 31807 36636 253920 expenditure SSR Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (expenditure in £thousands) Post-conflict - 2627 5689 6520 14836 peace-building (UN) Reintegration 1343 6377 4683 12403 and Small Arms and Light Weapon control Child soldiers 375 261 141 777 (prevention and demobilisation) Total 4345 12327 11344 28016 expenditure DDR Source: DfID Statistics for International Development 2011 (www.dfid gov.uk)

Her Majesty’s Government also allocate joint Security Sector Reform (expenditure in £thousands) resources in support of conflict prevention through Legal and judicial - the tri-departmental (Foreign and Commonwealth empowerment Office, DfID, and Ministry of Defence) Conflict Pool. Security system management 6,062 The Conflict Pool has supported SSR and DDR and reform activities since its establishment. Official development Total expenditure SSR 6,062 assistance from the Conflict Pool has been reported Post-conflict peacebuilding 281 by sector since 2010. Data for calendar year 2010 are (UN) provided in the following table (2011 data are under Reintegration and Small Arms - preparation): and Light Weapon control WA 417 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 418

Child soldiers (prevention and 250 Country Total demobilisation Total expenditure DDR 531 Liberia 1 Libya 3 Asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Pakistan 4 Palestine 4 To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light Sierra Leone 4 of the statement in the Coalition agreement that Somalia 10 “we will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of South Sudan 11 gross national income on overseas aid from 2013, 189 and to enshrine this commitment in law”, when they intend to introduce such legislation; and why they did not do so in the 2010-12 parliamentary session. [HL16948] The Stabilisation Unit currently has experts deployed in a variety of roles, including general managers/ administrators, stabilisation advisers, transition advisers, Baroness Northover: The coalition Government are strategic communications, rule of law, justice, security, the first government to set out clear plans to invest conflict and anti-corruption, legal specialists, police 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) as official trainers, witness support officers and monitors. development assistance (ODA). I am pleased to say that a Bill has been drafted to give effect to the Typically, deployment durations range from several commitment included in the coalition Government’s days to periods of over one year. programme for government. The Bill is with business managers and, as the Prime Minister has made clear, It is not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown the coalition Government will legislate when parliamentary of the type and duration of deployments as we do not time allows. The legislative programme for the 2010-12 hold this information in a readily accessible format. parliamentary Session focused its attention on reforms that would tackle the fiscal deficit inherited by the Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne coalition and start to put the economy back on a sustainable footing. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of quick impact projects and provincial reconstruction teams in Overseas Stability conflict-affected countries; and whether they have contributed to the long-term goal of state- Questions building. [HL16923] Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne To ask Her Majesty’s Government from which countries Stabilisation Unit staff are currently operating Baroness Northover: Iraq and Afghanistan are the other than the United Kingdom; how many, and only instances where the UK has been involved in what type of, staff have been deployed; and how provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs). The UK-led long staff deployments to each of the countries Helmand PRT has been identified as a model of how concerned have been. [HL16886] PRTs can work effectively and its joint civilian/military working was commended by the House of Commons Defence Committee in 2011. The PRT prioritises state- Baroness Northover: Although the Stabilisation Unit building, sub-national governance and social-economic itself does not lead on operations outside the UK, the development and has seen much success in these areas. unit currently has 189 people deployed to 19 countries. For example, there are now 12 district governors in The breakdown is as follows: Helmand’s 14 districts, up from just 5 in 2008 and the number of line ministries present in Helmand has Country Total increased significantly.PRT-supported governance projects Afghanistan (Helmand) 42 have also seen the rejuvenation of local economic Afghanistan (Kabul) 29 activity across Helmand. Afghanistan (Kandahar) 1 Azerbaijan 1 The UK takes an integrated approach to stabilisation Bahrain 1 and socio-economic development in Helmand, ensuring Belgium 2 that short term stabilisation activities contribute to Bosnia 3 longer term development. DfID and the tri-departmental DRC, Goma 3 Stabilisation Unit have published key lessons on working Ethiopia 2 in conflict-affected environments, including quick impact projects: Georgia 18 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/ Iraq 6 governance/building-peaceful-states-B.pdf and Kenya 5 http://www.stabilisationunit.gov.uk/stabilisation-and- Kosovo 38 contlict-resources/stabilisation-unit- Kyrgyzstan 1 publications.html. WA 419 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 420

Pensions regarding the number of police officers who have been given permission to have business interests or Questions to hold employment in addition to their police Asked by Lord Laird role. [HL16818] To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will adjust the block grant for Scotland and Northern The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): Ireland if public sector pension schemes in those The requested information is not held centrally by the countries are not adjusted to introduce heightened Home Office. employee contribution rates. [HL16936] Ports The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): In line with normal government funding Questions rules, had the Scottish Government or Northern Ireland Asked by Lord Berkeley Executive chosen not to implement the increase in employee contributions, the Treasury would have made To ask Her Majesty’s Government what state an adjustment to that administration’s block grant. aids have been awarded to United Kingdom ports Asked by Lord Laird in the past five years; from what budgets; and for what purposes. [HL16916] To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 27 March Earl Attlee: The following European Regional (WA241–42), how the revaluation of the Fire Pension Development Fund (ERDF) awards have been made: Scheme using average weekly earnings differs from revaluation using the Consumer Prices Index (CPI); Liverpool Cruise Terminal received £8.6 million and why the NHS Pension Scheme and Teachers ERDF support (originally awarded before 2007) Pension Scheme are being revalued at a rate of CPI plus comparable support from the North-West plus 1.5% and CPI plus 1.6% respectively. [HL16937] Development Agency and other sources; the Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour (East Port) To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to project received £4.57 million ERDF plus support the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 27 March from the East of England Development Agency; (WA 241–42), what revaluation rate will be used for revaluation of the NHS Pension Scheme and Teachers the Pier Head Gateway local public transport Pension Scheme when using the consumer prices project at Liverpool (Merseyside PTA) was index (CPI) plus 1.5% and CPI plus 1.6% respectively awarded £3.72 million in ERDF support plus if the difference between the CPI and the retail domestic funding; prices index is less than 1.5% and 1.6% respectively; Torridge District Council was awarded £0.54 million and what figure will be used if there is no inflationary ERDF plus domestic funding to improve visitor rise in the CPI. [HL16938] attractions and provide workspace at Appledore Fish Dock; and Lord Sassoon: The differences between the public Scrabster Harbour Development has been awarded service pension scheme designs set out in the Command £2.2 million ERDF plus domestic funding in Paper Public Service Pensions: Good Pensions That support of the marine renewables industry. Last (Cm 8214) and those more recently set out in Under the Trans-European Network—Transport heads of agreement with trades unions reflect individual (TEN-T) programme, the following awards have been negotiations with the relevant trades unions. However, made: those differences have been constrained to keep within London Gateway ¤11.67 million (2009); the overall cost limits set out in Cm 8214. For example, compared with the Government’s preferred design, a Port Salford (studies) ¤1 million (2010); and different revaluation rate has been offset by a different Port of Felixstowe (rail terminal and mobile accrual rate so there should be no overall increase in cranes) ¤5 million (2010). cost to the taxpayer. Funding was also provided to the Portsmouth ferry Full details of the how the revaluation rates based and cruise terminal under the European Interreg IVa on the consumer prices index or average weekly earnings scheme. index will apply in practice will be set out in due The items listed above may not be exhaustive, as it course in detailed proposals for the operation of the has not been possible to undertake a fully comprehensive individual schemes and will be reflected in legislation. search within the time available and at proportionate cost. Police: Business Interests Asked by Lord Berkeley Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their Asked by Lord Condon policy in respect of state aids for ports to fund (1) dredging, (2) cruise terminal construction, (3) cranes To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the and other mobile equipment, and (4) port infrastructure statistical information collected by Her Majesty’s including road and rail access; and from what sources Inspectorate of Constabulary, for the past five years, of funds any such aids are obtainable. [HL16917] WA 421 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 422

Earl Attlee: The Government’s policy is that ports Only 1% or less of the content of the colonial operate in a market-led sector in which investment in administration files is expected to be redacted using any of these types of asset (including ports’ dedicated legal exemptions because of continuing sensitivity. road and rail connections) should normally be funded The principal legal exemptions that will be used to on a commercial basis. However, ports can sometimes withhold material under the Freedom of Information be eligible to apply for grants available to businesses in Act (FOIA) are expected to be Section 27 (covering order to secure achievement of identified benefits. material which would damage the UK’s external relations Such grants may be available from UK or EU sources. and interests) and Section 40 (personal data). Any UK grant schemes will normally require European redactions under FOIA must be authorised by the State Aids clearance and grants should be compatible Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Council on National Records with the terms of any such applicable clearance or and Archives. Intelligence material may be retained by exemption. the FCO under Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act. The period for which material is withheld varies Ports: Liverpool Cruise Terminal according to the relevant legal exemption. When this Question period expires the FCO is legally obliged to re-review the material to determine whether it remains sensitive. Asked by Lord Storey The re-review process often results in the release of To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to previously withheld material. Anything that remains the Written Answer by Earl Attlee on 13 March sensitive may continue to be withheld using the process, (WA 49), whether the final decision on the removal which I have outlined above although it will continue of the grant condition precluding turnaround to be subject to further re-review. operations at the City of Liverpool cruise terminal has been reached; and, if it has not, when it will be announced; and what measures are being taken Railways: Class 92 Locomotives with respect to the determination of state aids Question clearance by the European Commission. [HL16950] Asked by Lord Bradshaw

Earl Attlee: The Minister for Shipping expects to To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they make a further announcement on this matter in the are seeking a refund of a proportion of the state aid near future. The Government are currently in granted to DB Schenker for the purchase and operation correspondence with the Commission in relation to of class 92 locomotives, in the light of a proportion state aids clearance, following an earlier complaint. of those locomotives being sent to Bulgaria for operation, rather than being used in the United Kingdom. [HL16852] Public Records: Colonial Documents Question Earl Attlee: We do not consider that the temporary transfer of one class 92 locomotive to Romania or Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Bulgaria for testing purposes, as proposed by DB To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Schenker, would trigger any type of state aid refund or will publish in full and unredacted form the files constitute a disposal of a core Channel Tunnel asset found at Hanslope Park relating to the administration under the terms of the Channel Tunnel asset agreements. of former United Kingdom colonies. [HL16844] DB Schenker became party to these following its acquisition of English Welsh and Scottish Railways. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Secretary of Railways: Cycles State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Question right honourable friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) informed the other place in his Asked by Lord Berkeley Written Ministerial Statement of 5 May 2011 that every part of every paper of interest from the colonial To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether cycles administration files collection would be transferred to are permitted on escalators in national rail stations; The National Archives (TNA), subject to any legal and how many recorded accidents have occurred in exemptions. The process of transferring all of these connection with cycles being carried up or down files is already under way and will be completed by the escalators in national rail stations in the past five end of 2013. Nothing will be destroyed. years. [HL16914] The timetable for the transfer of colonial administration files is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Earl Attlee: Any decisions on such permissions, or Office’s (FCO) Website (www.fco.gov. uk/en/publications- restrictions, are an operational matter for the relevant and-documents/colonial-administration/). The files are station operator and safety duty holder. being released in eight batches, and the first batch of Railway Group Standard GE/RT8047 requires files representing around 16 percent of the total collection mandatory reporting of certain accidents and that became publicly available at the TNA on 18 April data are captured in the Safety Management Information 2012. The next batch of files will be available in July. System (SMIS) database, which is managed by RSSB. WA 423 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 424

The reporting of personal accidents occurring at in the course of her review were reimbursed by the stations is required, but data specific to cycle related Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, consistent incidents are not. The RSSB should be contacted for with departmental guidelines. further information on the type of data available. The costs associated with the production of the final report were £11,359.62, including the design, illustration and printing of copies for Parliament, Railways: European Train Management press launch and key stakeholders. System Mary Portas was not paid for her work on the Question review and neither were any individuals or firms associated with her. Asked by Lord Berkeley To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to comply with the draft memorandum of understanding between the European Commission, Roads: Charging the European Railway Agency and the European Question rail sector associations on the strengthening of Asked by Lord Berkeley co-operation for the management of European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS); and, in To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they particular, clause 43 specifying that “a vehicle equipped have checked with the European Commission whether with ERTMS and authorised in one country must their proposal for lorry road-user charging complies be able to run on all other ERTMS-equipped with Article 7.4 of European Directive 1999/62 lines in Europe without the need for further checks”, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of the and Clause 58 specifying that “the design of all new nationality of the haulier or the registration of models of freight and passenger rolling stock the vehicle; and, if so, what was the conclusion of must include ERTMS as standard equipment under the Commission. [HL16816] the conditions foreseen in the TSI CCS” (control- command and signalling technical specification for interoperability) and that such new models include Earl Attlee: Officials have met the European the Intercity Express Project trains. [HL16918] Commission to explain our proposals, and the Commission said it would raise no objection. The Earl Attlee: The memorandum of understanding Government have carefully designed the lorry-charging (signed on 16 April 2012) between the European proposals to comply with the law. Article 7.4 of Directive Commission, the European Railway Agency and the 1999/62 says that charges may not discriminate on the European rail sector associations is intended to facilitate grounds of nationality. The proposed charges are the supplier development of the next generation of ERTMS. same for foreign and UK registered vehicles. Article This will be reflected in the TSI CCS supporting 7b of the directive also explicitly permits compensation specifications when available. for domestic hauliers. Under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 a vehicle that is authorised to be placed into service in another member state need not seek an additional authorisation for use in the UK. A new Roads: Distance Marker Posts vehicle that requires authorisation is expected to comply Question with the legal specifications in force. The new Intercity Express Programme’s trains will be fitted with ERTMS. Asked by Lord True To ask Her Majesty’s Government why kilometre- calibrated distance posts have been placed along Retail: Mary Portas Review United Kingdom motorways; under what authority Question or regulation these markers have been erected; how Asked by Lord Myners many markers have been placed in all; and at what total cost to date. [HL16909] To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Portas review into the future of Britain’s high streets and whether monies were paid Earl Attlee: Marker posts are provided on UK to Ms Portas (and individuals or firms associated motorways and indicate the direction of the nearest with her) as part of that review; and if so, how emergency roadside telephone as prescribed by the much. [HL16821] Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. They include a unique locational reference, which The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, enables road workers to identify sections of carriageway Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness to assist with the management of the motorway network. Wilcox): The staffing resource required to support the Records detailing the specific quantities and cost of review into the future of Britain’s high streets was all distance marker posts are not readily available, as managed within existing departmental budgets. Any they are provided and maintained as part of ongoing travel costs that were necessarily incurred by Mary Portas road maintenance and improvement schemes. WA 425 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 426

Roads: Kilometre Measurements Schools: Building Schools for the Future Question Question Asked by Lord True Asked by Lord Storey To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to have any plans to adopt the kilometre in place of the Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on the mile as the prime measure of distances by road 23 April (WA 370), what is (1) the anticipated total in the United Kingdom. [HL16910] cost, and (2) the actual cost to date, of out-of-court settlements paid to local authorities bringing judicial Earl Attlee: This Government have no plans whatsoever review proceedings as a result of the termination of to adopt the kilometre as the unit of distance on roads the Building Schools for the Future programme. in the United Kingdom. To do so would require the [HL16949] metrication of all traffic signs indicating speed as well The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for as distance, for which diverting funding from high Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Department priority areas is not considered justifiable, or indeed offered the six local authorities whose claims were desirable. decided in February 2011 a sum in recognition of their contractual liabilities, and is still in discussion with Schools: Academies two local authorities about payment. It would be premature to provide information about the anticipated Questions total or current actual costs of payments related to the Asked by Lord Greaves Building Schools for the Future judicial reviews until this process has been completed. To ask Her Majesty’s Government with which schools in (1) Lancashire and (2) Blackburn with Schools: Free Schools Darwen they are in discussions about conversion to academy status. [HL16905] Question Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): There are 18 academies the Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on already open in Lancashire and a further six under 23 April (WA 220), what monitoring is undertaken development. There are two academies open in Blackburn of the extent of compliance by free schools with the with Darwen. Departmental officials are in discussions statutory requirement to ensure that any building with each of these local authorities about schools work they undertake includes reasonable steps to converting to academy status. make the school accessible to disabled children and Information about schools that have applied to young people. [HL16832] convert or are becoming sponsored academies is available on the Department for Education website at http:// The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/ Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Education Funding typesofschools/academies/b0069811/open-academies. Agency (EFA) supports free-school trusts with the procurement and delivery of free school building works, Asked by Lord Greaves including ensuring compliance with all relevant building regulations. Monitoring of compliance with building To ask Her Majesty’s Government which schools regulations is also a general duty that the relevant in Lancashire have been approved in principle for local authority would enforce. conversion to academies; and in each case which All free schools are bound by both the statutory body, if any, is the preferred sponsor. [HL16906] Independent School Standards and the Equality Act 2010. Before a free school can open, it is required to Lord Hill of Oareford: In addition to the 18 academies have an Ofsted pre-registration inspection; this looks already open in Lancashire, three schools have been at whether or not the free school is likely to meet the approved to convert to academies. These schools are: independent school standards once open. In looking Albany Science College; Parklands High School; and at how the needs of pupils are going to be met, Ofsted Priory Sports and Technology College, Penwortham. may also ask to see the accessibility plan which all A further two schools have received ministerial schools are required to produce under the Equality approval in principle to become sponsored academies. Act. These schools are: Burnley Springfield Community Primary School, under the sponsorship of Burnley Schools: Grammar Schools College; and Colne Primet High School, under the sponsorship of Nelson and Colne College. Question Information about schools that have applied to Asked by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch convert or are under development as sponsored academies To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the is available on the Department for Education website Department for Education will be required to approve at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/types each new satellite grammar school application. ofschools/academies/b006981/open-academies. [HL16870] WA 427 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 428

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Earl Attlee: The Shipping Minister announced his Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): Current legislation decision to freeze light dues in 2012-13 in a Written prohibits the introduction of a new wholly selective Ministerial Statement on 12 March 2012 (Official maintained school or academy and we have no plans Report, col. 8WS). Light dues levels are now 10% to change this. To date, there are no specific proposals lower in real terms than they were two years ago. to expand any existing designated grammar schools Her Majesty’s Government will consider the level onto another site. In the case of a maintained grammar, of light dues for 2013-14 early next year. the decision would be made by the relevant local authority. In the case of an academy, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker. South Sudan Questions Schools: Split Sites Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool Question To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information Asked by Lord Ashcroft they have received about an attack on and burning of a Catholic church frequented by South Sudanese To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to people in Khartoum on 21 April. [HL16862] the Written Answer by Lord Hill of Oareford on 7 February (WA 57), whether it is possible to have a split site of a single school in an adjacent town, The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth bordering county or different area of the country, Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We are aware of the so long as the original name and single admissions incident on 21 April whereby a church in al-Jiraif in criteria are retained. [HL15625] Khartoum was besieged, entered by force, had its contents looted, and the building set on fire. These actions have been condemned officially by The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Government of Sudan as well as Muslim religious Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): A single school can leaders. The Sudanese Government have promised an operate from more than one site, but to do so any open investigation into the incident by the Ministry of other site must be a continuance of the original school. Religious Guidance. Our embassy in Khartoum will continue to raise our concerns with the Government of Sudan and urge Shipping: General Lighthouse Authorities them to ensure security for all minority groups resident Question in Sudan. Asked by Lord Berkeley Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made an assessment of the appropriate level have taken action at the United Nations Security for the General Lighthouse Fund (GLF) and for Council (1) to raise the bombing of and attacks on the operational reserve of the GLF; and if so, what South Sudanese territory by the Sudanese military, and (2) to assess claims of genocide in South are the values of those levels. [HL16813] Kordofan. [HL16863]

Earl Attlee: Her Majesty’s Government have not made such an assessment. The requirements for the Lord Howell of Guildford: Under the UK’s presidency General Lighthouse Fund are reviewed annually, based of the United Nations Security Council in March this on an overall assessment of likely income from light year we led regular discussions of the situation in dues and planned expenditure including contingency Sudan and South Sudan. These discussions were reflected for operations and emergencies. in a presidential statement on 6 March and a press statement on 27 March. Both statements raised grave concerns about incidents of cross-border violence between Sudan and South Sudan, including troop movements, Shipping: Light Dues support to proxy forces, and aerial bombardments. Questions The cross-border violence was also discussed at the Security Council on 24 April. Asked by Lord Berkeley The 6 March statement also outlined the Council’s concerns regarding the worsening situation in Blue To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in Nile and Southern Kordofan, calling for humanitarian the light of the Growth Agenda, they have considered access to the states and an immediate cessation of a reduction in the rate of light dues as a measure to hostilities. We are deeply concerned by reports of encourage more port calls in the United Kingdom. indiscriminate bombings and other military tactics [HL16812] that target civilians. We have consistently said that all To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they such allegations that may amount to war crimes or will consider reducing the level of light dues. crimes against humanity should be fully and independently [HL16815] investigated. WA 429 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 430

Syria Taxation: Inheritance Tax Questions Question Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon Asked by The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they To ask Her Majesty’s Government which intend to raise the inheritance tax threshold to organisations they are currently supporting with £1 million during the lifetime of this Parliament. official development assistance to deliver humanitarian [HL16889] assistance in Syria. [HL16819]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): Any changes to the inheritance tax regime Baroness Northover: The UK is providing funding will have to be considered with due regard to the to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to Government’s priorities of reducing the fiscal deficit meet the needs of refugees in the region, as well as and ensuring economic recovery. In this context, the to the UN Emergency Response Fund for Syria to Government have decided that making changes to allow the UN to address humanitarian priorities in personal allowances should take priority over changes Syria. The UK is also supporting the operations of the to the inheritance tax regime. UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ operations in the region. In addition, the UK is providing funding to other Tobacco humanitarian agencies operating in Syria and the region Question to deliver assistance including food rations, medical assistance, water and sanitation and other essential Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon items. The funding is supporting humanitarian agencies To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to with an ability to operate in Syria. Agencies have the statement by the Secretary of State for Health asked us not to disclose their names in order to protect in the Times on 13 April that the Government wish the safety of their staff and their ability to operate in a the tobacco industry to have “no business” in the difficult environment. United Kingdom, what is their estimate of (1) the Asked by The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells value of corporation and other taxes paid by tobacco companies, and (2) the number of jobs provided by To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial such companies in the United Kingdom. [HL16892] support they are providing to opposition groups in Syria. [HL16820] The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): In answer to the first part of his question, I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 26 March The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth 2012 (Official Report, col. WA 220). Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Secretary of Figures for the whole of the UK are not published. State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Based on the Business Register and Employment Survey, right honourable friend the Member for Richmond the Office for National Statistics estimates that, in (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has taken the decision to provide 2010, 1,700 people were employed in the production an additional half a million pounds to support the of tobacco products in Great Britain. Syrian opposition and civil society, as part of the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development Conflict Transport: GLA Transport Grant Pool. This brings the total committed by the Government Question to supporting the Syrian opposition to £950,000. Asked by Lord Bradshaw We provide a wide range of support, including political support, and training and capacity building To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to in a number of key areas, including strategic the Written Statement by Earl Attlee on 20 March, communications, strategy development and human what powers they have to review the Greater London rights. The Foreign Secretary also agreed in principle Authority transport grant should Transport for to provide a range of non-lethal, practical support to London use the grant to reduce fares rather than the Syrian opposition. invest in upgrades and the other investment projects referred to in the statement. [HL16587] The government support to Syrian opposition and civil society is part of our wider strategy to secure an end to violence and political transition to a new Earl Attlee: Transport for London’s (TfL’s) Spending accountable, open and inclusive Syria, founded on Review settlement, agreed between the Secretary of respect for human rights and the rule of law. A coherent State and the Mayor in 2010, is based on a shared and co-ordinated opposition which offers a genuine commitment to the tube upgrades. It includes a alternative to Assad rule and a dynamic, independent £3.57 billion investment grant, over four years, to civil society which holds state actors to account are support delivery of tube upgrade projects to milestones vital to achieving this transition. specified in Annex B of the funding agreement letter. WA 431 Written Answers[30 APRIL 2012] Written Answers WA 432

These upgrades are essential for the growth of and we work closely with other EU member states in London’s economy, and for the millions of people addressing human rights issues in Turkey. We will who travel on the tube every day. continue to monitor these very high profile cases closely. The Secretary of State for Transport can review the Mayor of London’s SR10 settlement at any time in response to relevant considerations, including significant Uganda deviations from the Annex B milestones. Paragraph 8 Question of the funding agreement letter confirms that, in any future review, the Secretary of State will take all Asked by Lord Smith of Finsbury relevant circumstances into account, including delivery To ask Her Majesty’s Government what of the essential upgrading listed at Annex B. representations they have made to the Government of Uganda about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill Turkey currently being promoted in the Ugandan parliament. [HL16973] Questions Asked by Lord Patten The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Ugandan anti- To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to homosexuality Bill is a private member’s Bill which the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford has not been adopted by the Ugandan Government. on 23 April (WA 379), what are the recent steps We are raising our concerns about the Bill at the most taken by the Turkish Ministry of Justice that they senior levels. For example, the Parliamentary Under- welcome. [HL16841] Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my honourable friend the Member for North The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), raised this issue when Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): On 16 March, the he met President Museveni in March. The Parliamentary Turkish Ministry of Justice announced a judicial reform Under-Secretary at the Home Department, my honourable package designed to improve freedom of expression friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and to resolve outstanding European Court of Human (Ms Featherstone) visited Uganda in April and also Rights cases in a shorter time period. addressed our concerns with a number of senior The Government welcome the announcement of government figures, including the Vice-President. We the reform package. This is an opportunity to address will also continue to support Ugandan civil society excessive pre-trial detention of journalists, political groups campaigning for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and activists and others. Transgender rights. Along with our European Union, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and Council of UK Financial Investments Ltd Europe partners, we will continue to press for further Question progress on this urgent issue. The Minister for Europe, my right honourable friend the Member for Aylesbury Asked by Lord Bradshaw (Mr Lidington) and the Secretary of State for Foreign To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 23 April the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) recently (WA 298), whether UK Financial Investments Ltd raised human rights concerns with European Affairs has used its shareholder vote at any annual general Minister, Egemen Bagis in a meeting in March. We meeting of a company of which it is a shareholder. hope to see real and lasting improvements made. [HL16980] Asked by Lord Patten The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Sassoon): UK Financial Investments (UKFI) votes the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford the Government’s shares on all resolutions put to on 23 April (WA 379-80), why they do not intend to shareholders at annual general meetings, doing so make specific representations to the Government of under a power of attorney from the Solicitor for the Turkey about the arrests of Mr Ahmet Sik and Affairs of Her Majesty’s Treasury. Mr Nedim Sener. [HL16842] UKFI discloses on its website how it has voted on such resolutions. Lord Howell of Guildford: We work with our European Union (EU), Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and Council of Europe partners to improve Vehicles: Automatic Number Plate human rights in Turkey. We will continue to raise our Recognition concerns, seeking to manage our input in the most Question effective way. We welcome the release of Ahmet Sik and Nedim Asked by Lord Bradshaw Sener following 375 days on remand. To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Our embassy in Ankara regularly raises issues relating the Written Answer by Earl Attlee on 8 March to excessive pre-trial detention, in the context of wider (WA447), whether automatic number plate recognition discussions on human rights with its Turkish counterparts cameras can be used by local authorities, police and WA 433 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 434

local communities to enforce 20 mph speed limits, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department and if so, what they are doing to encourage for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor enforcement. [HL16951] of Holbeach): The percentage of rainfall used by water companies is not readily available. However, data on the extent of rainfall used for total abstraction are Earl Attlee: Some average speed cameras are type- available and can provide a good indicator of the approved by the Home Secretary so that evidence extent to which rainfall is used. The amount of abstraction from them can be used in court proceedings, including as a proportion of effective rainfall is generally below for the enforcement of 20 mph speed limits. It is a 5% in Wales, between 5% and 10% in the north, central local decision whether or not to use them. We are and south west of England, and between 20% and 45% currently reviewing our guidance on speed limits and in the east and south of England. The proportion of are liaising with the police and local authorities as water abstracted by water companies also varies, but is part of this review. generally between 50% and 66% of total abstraction. The Government recognise the need to play their role in taking a national strategic overview for water Water Management and sewerage infrastructure. Water companies in England and Wales already plan through their water resource Question management plans how they intend to balance demand Asked by Lord Birt and supply over the longer term. Their drought plans set out the response they will make to ensure they can To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage maintain essential supplies of water. of rain falling on England, Scotland and Wales is The water White Paper sets out our approach to presently captured by the water companies; and building a sustainable and resilient water sector so that what steps the Government will take to ensure that water remains available to support growth, supply water companies’ supplies meet demand. [HL16849] households, and protect the environment. Monday 30 April 2012

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Armed Forces: Medals ...... 181 Pensions...... 184

ECOFIN...... 182 Prison Service Pay Review Body ...... 185

EU: Environment Council and Energy Council ...... 182 Terrorism: Finance...... 185

Human Rights ...... 183 UK National Reform Programme...... 188

Monday 30 April 2012

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Afghanistan...... 395 Malaysia ...... 410

Air Ambulance Service ...... 395 Mayors...... 410

Air Quality...... 395 National Heritage: Listed Buildings...... 411

Airports: Heathrow...... 396 Northern Ireland Office: Estate ...... 412

Aviation: Passenger Duty...... 396 Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012...... 414

Bank of England ...... 397 Overseas Aid...... 416

Belarus...... 397 Overseas Stability...... 417

Communities: Integration...... 398 Pensions...... 419

Cyclists: Safety...... 399 Police: Business Interests...... 419

Elections ...... 400 Ports ...... 420

Employment: Sickness Absence ...... 400 Ports: Liverpool Cruise Terminal...... 421

Energy: Tariffs ...... 400 Public Records: Colonial Documents ...... 421

Equality and Human Rights Commission ...... 401 Railways: Class 92 Locomotives ...... 422

EU: Financial Assistance...... 401 Railways: Cycles ...... 422

Extradition ...... 402 Railways: European Train Management System ...... 423

Government: Special Advisers ...... 403 Retail: Mary Portas Review ...... 423

Guantanamo Bay...... 403 Roads: Charging ...... 424

Honours and Decorations Committee ...... 403 Roads: Distance Marker Posts ...... 424

Immigration: Deportation ...... 404 Roads: Kilometre Measurements...... 425

Immigration: Detention Centres ...... 404 Schools: Academies ...... 425

Infrastructure Investment ...... 405 Schools: Building Schools for the Future...... 426

International Development...... 408 Schools: Free Schools ...... 426

Iran...... 409 Schools: Grammar Schools...... 426

Kimberley Process ...... 409 Schools: Split Sites...... 427 Col. No. Col. No. Shipping: General Lighthouse Authorities...... 427 Transport: GLA Transport Grant...... 430

Shipping: Light Dues...... 427 Turkey...... 431

South Sudan ...... 428 Uganda...... 432

Syria ...... 429 UK Financial Investments Ltd ...... 432

Taxation: Inheritance Tax...... 430 Vehicles: Automatic Number Plate Recognition...... 432

Tobacco ...... 430 Water Management...... 433 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL15625]...... 427 [HL16849]...... 433

[HL16587]...... 430 [HL16852]...... 422

[HL16617]...... 410 [HL16853]...... 409

[HL16618]...... 411 [HL16854]...... 410

[HL16619]...... 411 [HL16855]...... 409

[HL16661]...... 401 [HL16857]...... 395

[HL16722]...... 403 [HL16862]...... 428

[HL16811]...... 395 [HL16863]...... 428

[HL16812]...... 427 [HL16870]...... 426

[HL16813]...... 427 [HL16880]...... 404

[HL16815]...... 427 [HL16885]...... 408

[HL16816]...... 424 [HL16886]...... 417

[HL16818]...... 420 [HL16889]...... 430

[HL16819]...... 429 [HL16891]...... 401

[HL16820]...... 429 [HL16892]...... 430

[HL16821]...... 423 [HL16893]...... 412

[HL16823]...... 397 [HL16894]...... 413

[HL16824]...... 397 [HL16895]...... 413

[HL16825]...... 396 [HL16896]...... 413

[HL16829]...... 403 [HL16897]...... 413

[HL16831]...... 400 [HL16898]...... 413

[HL16832]...... 426 [HL16902]...... 400

[HL16834]...... 404 [HL16904]...... 400

[HL16835]...... 395 [HL16905]...... 425

[HL16841]...... 431 [HL16906]...... 425

[HL16842]...... 431 [HL16909]...... 424

[HL16844]...... 421 [HL16910]...... 425

[HL16847]...... 396 [HL16914]...... 422

[HL16848]...... 411 [HL16915]...... 414 Col. No. Col. No. [HL16916]...... 420 [HL16950]...... 421

[HL16917]...... 420 [HL16951]...... 433

[HL16918]...... 423 [HL16952]...... 399

[HL16919]...... 396 [HL16957]...... 402

[HL16922]...... 405 [HL16967]...... 403

[HL16923]...... 418 [HL16968]...... 398

[HL16924]...... 416 [HL16969]...... 398

[HL16930]...... 397 [HL16970]...... 398

[HL16936]...... 419 [HL16971]...... 398

[HL16937]...... 419 [HL16972]...... 399

[HL16938]...... 419 [HL16973]...... 432

[HL16948]...... 417 [HL16977]...... 403

[HL16949]...... 426 [HL16980]...... 432 Volume 736 Monday No. 295 30 April 2012

CONTENTS

Monday 30 April 2012 Questions House of Lords: Stonework...... 1927 Abu Qatada ...... 1928 Police: Race Relations Policies ...... 1932 Migration: University-sponsored Students...... 1934 Business of the House Motion to Agree ...... 1937 Public Bodies (Abolition of Courts Boards) Order 2012 Motion to Approve ...... 1937 Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL] Second Reading ...... 1937 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Motion to Take Note ...... 1937 News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Statement ...... 2001 Draft House of Lords Reform Bill Motion to Take Note (Continued)...... 2013 Written Statements...... WS 181 Written Answers...... WA 395