1

RT HON BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION HOUSE OF LORDS

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012

My Lords, I would like to echo the thanks of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, to my noble friend, Lord Richard for his speech opening this important debate. I would also like to thank Lord Richard, and to all who served on the Joint Committee but especially to all those from this House, from all sides of this House for the enormous amount of work and effort they have put into their task. This House has every reason to be grateful. My Lords, we are told that further reform of your Lordships House will form the centrepiece of the Governments legislative programme for the forthcoming session, to be set out in this Gracious Speech to this House next week. Even this close, my Lords, to the Queens Speech it seems incredible to these benches, and will I believe be incredible to the entire country, that given the problems facing the whole country, that the coalition government thinks the issue it needs to focus upon, above all else, is further reform of the House of Lords.

Weve had the Budget: rows over granny tax, over pasty tax, caravan tax, charities tax, conservatories tax, churches tax, virtually every kind of tax. The Government provoking panic petrol buying ahead of a tanker drivers threatened strike that is, as yet, so far yet to happen. The cash for access row - 250,000 for dinner with the Prime Minister. The embarrassing mishandling of the Abu Qatada case. Social cleansing over public housing, with already-disadvantaged people being faced with the choice of moving hundreds of miles away from their home area, or being made homeless, because of the Governments benefit changes. Attacks in the most dismissive terms from their own backbenchers personal abuse from MPs such as Nadine Dorries, or searching strategic criticism from MPs like Bernard Jenkin. The entanglement of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. And the worst of all, the Governments economic policies and especially its spending cuts, going too far, too fast tipping Britain into recession again: the first double-dip recession since the mid-1970s. All of them linked by one theme: all driven by what the Government has done, all self-generated, all self-inflicted. This is more than a run of bad luck. This is more than a bad set of events, dear boy, events, as Macmillan once warned were the real dangers for a political party in government. This is government policy coming home to roost.

People across the country are worried: worried about their jobs, worried about prices, worried about whether they can afford to put meals on the table, worried about whether theyve got enough money to fill up their cars, worried about their health service, worried about education, worried about crime. And this governments response to their concerns ? This governments answer to their worries ? House of Lords reform. No wonder the polls are, day by day, a disaster for the Government. Yesterday: the Tories ratings down below 30 per cent for the first time for eight years. The day before: 67 per cent think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are out of touch. 68 per cent think that the Budget shows that they can no longer even try to claim that we are all in this together. By 2-1, the public thinks that this coalition government is incompetent. Out of touch ? The Governments answer: Lords reform. Incompetent ? The Governments answer: Lords reform. My Lords, reform of your Lordships House is an important issue. It is an issue we need to get right. But the idea that it is the most pressing issue facing the country is, frankly, risible. We on these benches will have more to say on these matters, on the Governments priorities, when we begin to debate the Governments legislative programme next week.

What we have in front of us today is the Report from the Joint Committee on the Governments draft House of Lords Reform. Actually, what we have in front of us is two reports: the Report from the Joint Committee, and the Alternative Report from a minority group of members of the Joint Committee. Both are important contributions to the debate on the future of your Lordships House. Firstly, on the Report of the Joint Committee. There are many important points made in the Joint Committees Report. But I would particularly like to highlight just four. Firstly, its conclusion that this House should have an electoral mandate, provided it has commensurate powers. Secondly, its conclusion that Clause 2 of the Governments draft Bill, which seeks to preserve the primacy of the House of Commons simply be asserting it, is not in itself capable of preserving Commons primacy. Thirdly, that work should now begin as soon as possible on reexamining the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament, as specified in an earlier Joint Committee Report, by the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble friend, Lord Cunningham of Felling something I advocated a good while ago and in doing so, was accused by the Deputy Leader of the House of being a reform refusnik. And fourthly, the Joint Committees recommendation, and I quote, that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.

My Lords, these are important points. I accept that they are not points with which every member of your Lordships House will be able to agree. I know, for example, that there are many members of this House, from all sides of the House, who are not in favour of this House having an electoral mandate though I am sure that the Joint Committees insertion of the important qualification that an elected House of Lords needs to have powers commensurate with that electoral mandate should be of assistance even to those members of this House who do not support an elected House of Lords. I know, too, that there will be members of your Lordships House who are not convinced of the need for a referendum. In this, my Lords, I do not mean members of the Liberal Democrat benches who are following the bizarre insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister that a referendum is not necessary. No-one, of course, would for a moment suggest that this opposition to a referendum is anything to do with the outcome of the outcome of lasts years AV referendum a referendum which the Deputy Prime Minister embraced with as much enthusiasm as he is refusing to embrace a referendum on Lords reform. As an aside, my Lords: I am not a betting woman (well, not often), but I would just put a notion to this House that if there is a bill on Lords reform in next weeks Queens Speech, then at some stage during what I suspect will be a very, very difficult Parliamentary passage, without necessarily a clear conclusion in prospect, proposals for a referendum will go into this Bill.

Far be it from me to offer advice to the Government, especially on this issue: but it would be much better for the Government, whether the Tory part of it or the LibDem part of it, to acknowledge what I believe is the inevitable, and accept that a constitutional change of this level of importance does require a referendum. The Government should stop trying to deny the British people a voice on this issue. They should stop trying to deny a referendum. They should accept a referendum. And they should accept it now. My Lords, that is the position of these benches. Labour will make clear in its response to the Queens Speech that we will take a close look at whatever proposals for further Lords reform the Government brings forward. We dont yet know what they are. We have seen the Governments draft Bill. But we dont believe that, for instance, the Government can seriously attempt to proceed with Clause 2 of the draft Bill, given that, as the Joint Committees Report makes clear, it has no support no support at all beyond the ministerial opinions of Mr Nick Clegg and Mr Mark Harper. So we dont yet know what Bill we will get. But we on these benches will test it against three criteria. A referendum. Dealing properly with the issue of powers and conventions. And our policy of a fully-elected House. Now I know, my Lords, that there are those around this House, including a number on my own benches, who would not agree with those criteria.

I acknowledge those differences. I accept those differences. I realise that those differences reflect views which are strongly held. Passionately held. And legitimately held. I know that we will hear those differences in the two days of debate in front of us. We can see such differences clearly displayed in the Report of the both the Joint Committee and in the Alternative Report of the minority group. But I would urge, my Lords, that these differences of view, whether held by members of your Lordships House, or by individuals and organisations beyond, are respected. Different views are genuinely held. And as legitimate views, genuinely held, they warrant being treated courteously, being treated considerately, and being treated respectfully. Clear argument, strong argument on this issue is right, and to be welcomed. But different views, of whatever hue, and from whatever quarter, merit being treated with consideration. And I hope that is what we will see in our debate today and tomorrow. Significantly, my Lords, that is what I believe we see in the Alternative Report from the minority group of the Joint Committee. We see clear disagreement. But I welcome the fact that the minority group has set out, with equal clarity, the areas and issues with which they agree.

Areas like the functions of this House. Like the greater assertiveness an elected House would unquestionably wield assertiveness against the House of Commons. Like the role of the Bishops in your Lordships House, and of the prospect of introducing representatives of other faith groups, and of the importance of diversity. And areas like the application of the Parliament Acts, and of the importance of a referendum. I am sure that the whole House will agree that these are vital issues. Individual members of your Lordships House will make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions on the areas where the minority group makes clear it does not agree with the Joint Committee, in most cases because it wanted to go further than the Joint Committee felt it was able to do, given its remit of scrutinising only the Governments draft Bill. Areas like the importance of the primacy of the House of Commons and I welcome particularly the emphasis given in the Alternative Report to the authoritative view of Erskine May on what the primacy of the House of Commons rests, and why. Areas like accountability. Like constituency issues in an elected House of Lords. Like transition arrangements for members of the current House. And like the cost of an elected House of Lords. We on these benches support the criticism by the minority group of the Governments refusal to provide proper costing for an elected House, and its call in the Alternative Report for such costings to be provided.

I pay tribute to my noble friend, Lord Lipsey, for the work he has done from these benches on what the large increase in costs might be, and we on these benches give notice that we will press to hold the Government to its commitment, given last week, that in the wake of the publication of these reports, they will now provide accurate figures of what an elected House of Lords will cost, so at a time of national austerity, the public can take those important facts into account. And a final note on the Alternative Report. The minority group make a case, a strong case, for all these issues to be considered, and considered properly and fully, by a Constitutional Convention. My Lords, the case is persuasive. Not just to consider proposals for further reform of your Lordships House, but to consider what would happen not just to the House of Lords, but to the House of Commons too, and indeed both Parliament as a whole, and the Union itself, if the people of Scotland were to vote in a referendum on independence. The vexed issue of the West Lothian question, too, remains on the table, and should not be considered in isolation. A Constitutional Convention would be suitable too, for considering the impact of such issues on the other devolved areas and assemblies of Wales, and Northern Ireland. My Lords, we have seen since 1997 a significant programme of constitutional reform. Reform which we on this side of the House believe was well considered, well thought through, and well grounded. Reform like devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Reform which was necessary, and which has the support of the people.

10

We have seen since 2010 proposed constitutional reform which has been none of these things. The political gerrymandering of what is now the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act. The political partiality of what is now the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The decisive outcome of the AV referendum. And finally, the bad Bill which is the Governments draft legislative proposals on further House of Lords reform. These issues should have been thought through. They were not. These issues need to be thought through. They have not been. I understand the argument made that a Constitutional Convention has merit in being a vehicle which could take on these, and allied, issues, and consider them properly. I believe that both government and Parliament, both the executive and the legislature, should give proper consideration to this proposal. We also believe on these benches, my Lords, that there is merit real merit in other proposals. For example, there will be great interest in the recommendation of the Joint Committee that proper consideration is given to indirect elections for the House of Lords, including the idea of the secondary mandate. I welcome the proposals put forward in evidence to the Joint Committee by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman, formerly of these benches, for what she described as ground-clearing reforms. I welcome too the advance that the legislation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has made, and I hope that it can be expedited in the forthcoming session.

11

My Lords, these are all constructive proposals. Ideas which have real merit, and would aid the reform of this House which I believe many on all sides of this House consider to be necessary. My Lords, the Joint Committee and the Alternative Report have raised a plethora of critical issues which have not been properly thought through in the Governments draft Bill, including the application or otherwise of the Parliament Acts to a reformed House. We shall see what comes before us when the Government sets out is legislative programme in the Gracious Speech next week. The Bill on further reform of this House may be a better Bill than the draft Bill which the Joint Committee has considered. As both the Report of the Joint Committee and the Alternative Report by the minority group of the Joint Committee have so clearly shown, it certainly needs to be. My Lords, reform of this House has a long history. In its most recent incarnation, it has been going on for the last 100 years. For some, like the Deputy Prime Minister, that is long enough. He is impatient for reform. In ways more reminiscent of street demonstrations, his attitude seems to be: what does he want - reform ! When does he want it - now ! My Lords, I am doubtful that the public, facing the problems it is facing, would agree with those priorities. And in any case, my Lords, reform, real reform, of your Lordships House, is not a matter for easy slogans, and noisy and juvenile protestations.

12

Constitutional reform is a deeply serious matter, the purpose of which cannot be to try to glue the coalition together, albeit at the top. As my Rt Hon Friend, Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, has forcefully said: Avoiding the promotion of political and constitutional reform on the basis of short-term expediency is imperative. Reform, real reform, is a matter of careful consideration f thinking through the issues involved, not coming up with glib and unworkable proposals. My Lords, I am confident that over the next two days the members of your Lordships House will bring precisely that approach of careful consideration to the issues before us. I believe both of these Reports are an important contribution to that. And I look forward to the debate ahead.

ENDS