Houses of Parliament: Education Centre

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Chairman of Committees]

I thank the noble Lord for his question because it enables me to underline the complete commitment of this House and the House Committee to the work of the Education Service. Many Peers take that upon themselves as active participants in the outreach programme going to schools. It is true that the original, if you like, en principe or in principle decision—there is a subtle difference between the two—was made in 2007. However, that was a different world.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees indicate to those carrying out the risk assessment that we do not want a fudge? We want a proper risk assessment which takes into account the fact that it is proposed that tens of thousands of children will be required to pass through to Black Rod’s Garden from Victoria Tower Gardens through what is effectively now a builder’s yard, and which will remain a builder’s yard throughout the restoration and renewal programme.

[The Chairman of Committees]

The noble Lord makes a very strong point of which the House Committee is well aware. That is the reason why it has asked for a risk assessment to be carried out. I have utter confidence that it will be a thorough and robust risk assessment.

House of Lords: New Peers

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Thursday 10th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am being tempted again to comment on policy issues and I am reluctant to do so. Of course, the actual size and composition of the list is a matter for the public record and people can see the party composition of the present list.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm that savings through the freeze on staff salaries that has gone on for several years, savings on the freeze on existing Members’ expenses, high catering prices, cuts in House of Lords publications and other savings that are being made are being used to fund the new membership coming into the House?

[The Chairman of Committees]

Not really. Two things have to be borne in mind; namely, the budget and what has been referred to as the savings target. In December 2010, the House adopted the policy that:

“We will aim not to increase our resource costs, in real terms”—

compared with 2010-11—

“throughout the period of the plan”,

which is to 2015,

“despite the increased size of the House”.

That decision was made in December 2010. In July this year, that policy was quite significantly modified to read:

“To make best use of … financial resources we will … Adhere to the savings target of not increasing the resource budget in real terms (compared with 2010/11)—

and here is the new bit—

“subject to the need to maintain the ability of the House and its Members to carry out their parliamentary functions in changing circumstances, including increased attendance”.

That is a clear commitment to ensure that in future when budgets are being constructed overriding concern is given to the maintenance of the House’s functions and the activities of Members.

House of Lords: Peers’ Entrance

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Thursday 18th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask the Chairman of Committees what information has been made available to members regarding the purpose of the visitor QR scanner and all associated equipment installed at Peers’ Entrance to the House of Lords.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, the new equipment at Peers’ Entrance is being trialled by the doorkeepers, who are moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one. The Administration and Works Committee has discussed the trial at two of its meetings, and members of the committee have been provided with a briefing note in order to brief other Members in their parties or groups. I also answered a Written Question on this matter on 17 June.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I hope that Black Rod will now tell us that the equipment will not require the registration of visitor names and that the use of equipment by Members at this stage is to be voluntary, which will obviously thereby render the system of little benefit in terms of security. If ever it was thought that the use of the equipment should be mandatory, can we have an assurance that the House will be fully consulted and allowed to take the final decision on the introduction of its use?

[The Chairman of Committees]

The new system is not mandatory; I can give that clarification and assurance completely. I am very conscious that Members often arrange visits at short notice, which prevents them being able to give advance notice to the doorkeepers. Therefore Members will not have to pre-book their guests, who will not be turned away if they are not on the list. If they so wish, Members will still be able to record only the number of guests without the names. Furthermore, I assure the House that the system would not be made mandatory without the House being consulted and the House deciding. However, I encourage Members to book their guests in as it makes the processing of guests coming through that very constricted area much easier; I make that request.

On the issue of security, I partly fall back on the tried and tested formula that it is established policy not to comment publicly on specific matters of security on the parliamentary estate. However, I assure the noble Lord that security was not the primary reason for the introduction of the new system. One of the main reasons was to introduce a slicker, more efficient service for Members and their guests. We are trying to modernise a little and replace the pens and papers with computers. I appreciate that this is one of the challenges that the House faces as it struggles from time to time to come to terms with the technology of the latter half of the 20th century.

Parliamentary Privilege

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees could respond to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott. If he feels that it is difficult, perhaps the Leader of the House could intervene and explain to the whole House what the position is.

[The Chairman of Committees]

I take the chance that the view of the House is that it would wish to see the composition of this committee re-examined. On that basis, therefore, I will take the nominations back. On the issue of the meetings of the two Houses, the somewhat ingenious way in which the dates of the sittings of the two Houses are arrived at is beyond my comprehension. It seems that a great deal of effort is put into ensuring that we do not sit on the same days.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in calling upon the Conservative Benches to take a view because I do not know whether they really understand the danger that would arise in the event that an AV referendum was successful. It has huge implications for the Conservative Party. They sit there and say very little, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and it leaves me quite bewildered.

I can now answer the question that I asked my noble friend about what happened in New Zealand because it is in Review of Voting Systems: the experience of new voting systems in the United Kingdom since 1997. On page 136, it sets out precisely what happened and it is very interesting, so I shall put it on the record:

“New Zealand provides a particularly interesting example because it has changed its electoral system from FPTP to the MMP”—

mixed member proportional—

“system (similar to AMS in the UK) in recent times. The first election to be held under MMP was in 1996, following referendums”—

which my noble friend referred to—

“in 1992 and 1993 which first rejected FPTP and then selected MMP from four proportional options. The 1993 referendum, which was binding, took place at the same time as the 1993 election where 84.5 per cent of voters favoured replacing FPTP and 70.3 per cent chose MMP”.

That shows that, when you ask the electorate what have been deemed in these debates to be complicated questions over the detail of various proportional systems, they actually understand what they are being asked and they are prepared to go out and vote and state a preference. The evidence is there in English-speaking New Zealand. It did it, and it shows the way forward. It is interesting to note, in the following pages in this section, that the turnout in New Zealand elections following the change in the electoral system in 1990 has consistently remained around the 80 per cent mark. That is almost as high as in my former constituency in one election, but it is vastly higher than the average within the United Kingdom. Again, we may have something to learn from New Zealand.

It is also worth noting what the review says is the impact of the system that New Zealand chose in this well-supported referendum.

“Since 1996, New Zealand has been governed by coalitions, usually with a minority of the seats in Parliament. Obviously this makes it more difficult for the leading party to achieve all of its policy aims but, arguably, policy decisions reflect the views of a wider coalition of voters. Tina Day, a Director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust interviewed 21 MPs in the 2002-05 Parliament for her research. She argues in her 2005 paper Increasing the representativeness of parliament … that there has been a shift of power from the Executive to Parliament, with select committees (whose composition reflects the multi-party Parliament) assuming a very powerful role”.

That reservation, expressed during the course of that consultation, might well be the one to which my noble friend refers.

The review continues:

“There is also a greater representation of women (around 30 per cent of members), Maori and the Asian population in Parliament. She argues that this has increased the legitimacy and standing of Parliament (notwithstanding the early unpopularity of coalition government). It also means that divisions in opinion within the country are played out in Parliament to a greater extent”.

The point I am making is that if you trust the people and give them the information in a form that they can understand, and put realistic options on the paper, they may well surprise us and actually choose a system that—

[Lord Sewel]

I am grateful to my noble friend, my near neighbour, for giving way. Could he resolve this dilemma? He mentioned that there was the early unpopularity of coalition Governments at the same time as there was popularity for a change to a more proportional system. A more proportional system will more than likely—I put it no stronger than that—lead to coalition Governments. How does he square the circle of the popularity of the voting system with the unpopularity of the product it produces?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

It is because it was only in the early days prior to coalition that public prejudice on the issue of coalitions led to this general view that coalitions cannot work; whereas following the referendum decision and the creation of the coalition, and a recognition by the public that the system did work, the coalition then gained in popularity. All I am saying to my noble friends is that I find this particular amendment very appealing because it offers the public the opportunity that many of us believe they should be given during the referendum.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Sewel

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is the noble Lord giving that the strength that was given to his people’s undertaking on tuition fees?

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, when it comes to major constitutional change, there is some benefit in looking at what has happened in the past when Parliament has confronted the best way of proceeding—a way that enables Parliament clearly to have the decisive say but nevertheless has reference to the directly expressed will of the people.

I hope that the House will forgive my making reference to Scottish devolution. There were two attempts to establish Scottish devolution. The parliamentary processes of those two attempts were markedly different. In 1979 there was a Bill that was amended by Mr George Cunningham—in the Cunningham amendment. This is where we pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. Because it was effectively a referendum to implement the Bill, the Cunningham amendment was a threshold amendment. The Secretary of State was required to move an order abandoning the whole project because the threshold was not met.

In 1997 the process was different and, I think, sounder. Then the party went to the electorate with a manifesto commitment. It then produced a White Paper and held an indicative referendum on the White Paper. Parliament then considered the Bill in the light of the referendum. That seemed to be the better way of doing things. It enabled a fully informed debate to take place on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper. There was a national debate on devolution in Scotland and Wales, which people could understand much more clearly and meaningfully from a White Paper than through the technicalities of a Bill. There was the clear expression of the people’s choice through a referendum. Parliament then proceeded in light of that to produce a Bill that satisfied both the manifesto commitment and the referendum outcome.

That is the best way forward. If the Government do not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, they will face the problem of thresholds. Thresholds are difficult; they have an element of subjectivity and politics-playing comes into them. It would be much better, clearly, for this referendum to be indicative, with Parliament then making the final judgment on the basis of its outcome and the degree and strength of the views expressed by the people through it.