Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion I must make it clear that it is wholly different to those we debated in your Lordships’ House last night. In the first place, I remind noble Lords of the very special status of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission was set up following the fifth report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in October 1998, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. It concluded that there was a need for,

“a totally independent and authoritative Election Commission with widespread executive and investigative powers”.

The commission was then established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. In the debate on that Bill, the prospect of a fiercely independent commission enjoyed substantial cross-party support. Speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, the then Sir George Young MP—I am very pleased to see him in his place here in a different capacity today—paid tribute to the Neill Committee, saying that,

“they have managed to build consensus out of the bricks of political contention. We accept the establishment of the Electoral Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/2000; col. 46.]

In Committee, the Front Bench Conservative spokesperson in the other place, Mr Robert Walter MP, went further, saying:

“We have stated our belief that there should be a powerful and independent Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/02/2000; col. 692.]

Also on the Conservative side, the then Mr John MacGregor MP—now also a very senior member of your Lordships’ House—endorsed it too, saying,

“I hope that the broad framework of the Neill report will stand the test of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/01/2000; col. 63.]

The most supportive quote of all was as follows:

“We heard protestations earlier from the Under-Secretary about the absolute need for the commission to be wholly independent. That theme has been reiterated throughout our debates, and it is regarded as of great importance by Honourable Members on both sides of the House”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/02/2000; col 655.]

That was the then Sir Patrick Cormack MP. So, with that strong support from the then Conservative Opposition, Parliament legislated to create a totally independent, non-partisan and authoritative commission with its own unique Speaker’s Committee, answerable and accountable directly to both Houses of Parliament—not to the Government.

Thus, we must listen very closely to its careful, balanced, evidence-based recommendations. In that context, I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which will strengthen my Motion. He and I both have past direct experience of working with the Electoral Commission, although of course none of us can speak on its behalf.

As Members of your Lordships’ House will have noted, the commission has now given clear advice on three occasions, most recently just yesterday. I will quote its advice briefly, but I remind your Lordships’ House just how important it is. It said back in June:

“Taking into account the data and evidence which is available to us at this point and the significant polls which are scheduled for May 2016, we recommend Ministers should not make an order to bring forward the end of the transition to IER. We recommend that the end date for the transition should remain, as currently provided for in law, December 2016”.

That was in June. It said the following when the Government issued their announcement:

“We are disappointed at the Government’s announcement and still recommend that the end of the transition should take place in December 2016 as set out in law. We therefore recommend that Parliament does not approve this order”.

I am now in the 25th year of service in Parliament, and have seldom heard the commission so crystal clear in its view. Indeed, I have not heard any statutory body expressing advice with such clarity to your Lordships’ House or the other place.

What will be the effect of the government order if it goes ahead unchallenged? The official estimate is that up to 1.9 million people who are currently on the register, and were on it at the general election in May, will be dropped off it. At a stroke, Ministers are prepared to disfranchise huge numbers of electors—for example 415,013 in London, 231,345 in Scotland and 68,042 in Wales. It is of course possible that these figures may be squeezed down as we approach the important elections in 2016, but it is still highly likely that people who think they are on the register will find themselves unable to vote when the time comes.

The Government, apparently, are prepared to risk legal challenges to the results of the London mayoral and Assembly elections as well as those for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. No doubt the Minister will be able to inform the House what answers were received from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and London Assemblies when they were consulted before this order—which is of such vital significance to those bodies—was tabled. However, I have to tell the House that so far the Parliamentary Answers on this issue to my noble friend Lord Rennard have been less than satisfactory; he will deal with that crucial issue of consultation during this debate. For an even fuller analysis of the effects in each of the nations and regions in the United Kingdom, I refer Members of your Lordships’ House to the excellent report prepared by the well-respected voluntary campaigning organisation HOPE not Hate, which we have all received.

There is yet further long-term significance to this decision. As the commission points out, the sleight of hand involved in this order impacts profoundly on the parliamentary boundary review which is due to commence next year. If this order is allowed to slip through, the register in December 2015, which will be used as the basis for the next round of constituency boundary changes, will be missing large numbers of voters. Although these people could re-register between December and April to vote in the elections next year, to which I have referred, these voters will be irrevocably wiped off the face of our democracy for the purposes of the constituency boundary review. They simply will not count when the new constituencies are drawn up. With those potential voters removed—up to one in five in some of the London boroughs—there will be a knock-on effect on the number of constituencies in each place. It is calculated that the number of constituencies in London might be reduced by up to 10.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Is the noble Lord not skating on rather thin ice, given that the boundary review and the Boundary Commission report were prevented from being implemented in the last Parliament because he and his colleagues voted, against the clerks’ advice, on an amendment which was out of order?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, if the noble Lord had actually read what the Electoral Commission has advised this House, I do not think he would be adopting that position. This means fewer seats in densely populated, highly mobile urban areas, and proportionately more seats in rural areas with more stable populations. Thus, without cross-party consultation or consent, Conservative Ministers have introduced a deliberately self-interested, partisan order in direct conflict with the recommendations of the independent commission which is appointed by Parliament to ensure fair play. No wonder they slipped this out shortly before the Summer Recess with the absolute minimum of publicity.

What reasons have they given for this demonstrably improper and unprecedented action? Two excuses have been given to me and others, and will presumably feature again today. First, it is said that the Association of Electoral Administrators is happy that the period of transition could be foreshortened by 12 months. Frankly, that is not persuasive. The association does good work but it is the shop steward of electoral registration officers. Crossing all these voters off the register at the stroke of a pen will reduce its workload. By contrast, the Electoral Commission is the shop steward, answerable to Parliament, for the voter—for the integrity of our democracy. It is abundantly clear that we have a duty to listen to it. Since when did Ministers think that they should attach more importance to the self-interested views of a trade union than to the careful assessment of the statutory body tasked by Parliament to provide independent advice?

Government Digital Service

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I may have been in this House a very short time but I think your Lordships would agree that it is probably more than my life is worth to start predicting the outcome of the spending review. However, I am delighted to use this opportunity, given that the noble Baroness has asked me this question, to remind the House and indeed the Treasury, should it be listening, that during the last Parliament £1.7 billion was saved thanks to digital transformation and the Government Digital Service cost £58 million. This is therefore a very good return on investment. Obviously, discussions continue, but I entirely share the noble Baroness’s view that we need to do more to support businesses.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Maude, as he now is, did a brilliant job in transferring services that would otherwise be extremely expensive so that they are online? That has saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money. Is not the quid quo pro for that that people, particularly those in rural areas, have access to broadband? It is no good if you have to fill in your tax return or your claim for agricultural subsidies, or whatever it is, if you do not have a proper online service, and BT is not providing that service. It is not good enough to say that it should be available to 95% of the country—100% of the country should be able to access government services online.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I entirely sympathise and share this point of view, Headley being a place—at least in my mother’s house—that does not enjoy the full benefits of superfast broadband. However, I remind the House that the Government are investing over £780 million to bring superfast broadband to areas of the UK, total public investment is nearly £1.7 billion, and 3 million additional homes and businesses have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s investment. However, I entirely concede that more needs to be done.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

The Minister has totally misunderstood the purport of my question, which I will repeat. It is clear that the dividing line about what is political has nothing to do with support for a political party. What the Minister just said is a red herring. Of course, things can be ruled out for direct or indirect support for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. My point was this. That is not in practice the dividing line drawn by the commission, where party political support is ruled out and other matters are ruled in.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Oh!

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I would like, on the second time of asking, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—from a sedentary position if you please—to have an answer to the question that I posed in Committee that was not answered and I now repeat.

Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Friday 17th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I have been on record on a number of occasions as trying to persuade the Government to set up some kind of constitutional convention or body to look at the issues that are threatening our United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness said. However, she will forgive me for pointing out that it was a constitutional convention and the creation of the Scottish Parliament on an asymmetric basis that got us into this mess in the first place. The failure to address both the funding of that Parliament and the West Lothian question is what we are wrestling with now. She will also forgive me for pointing out that in the last Parliament it was the Deputy Prime Minister who was responsible for these piecemeal reforms. We did indeed have a proper referendum on the alternative vote and the British people gave a very clear answer, showing what they thought about electoral reform and retaining our present system.

I am somewhat embarrassed because my heart is with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in trying to find some way of bringing the parties together to look at these issues as a whole, but I cannot support the Bill. The terms of reference for the convention set out in the Bill are to cover,

“the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to … Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland … the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom … the reform of the electoral system … the reform of the House of Lords”—

which we have been discussing for 100 years—

“constitutional matters to be considered in further conventions, and … procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms”.

On top of all that, Clause 3(1) says:

“The convention must publish recommendations within the period of one year”.

It is an impossible task to do all that within one year. It is far too big a menu or agenda and it is not what needs to be focused on now. The current threat is to the United Kingdom and we should limit our considerations to issues concerned with that.

I am also concerned about the composition of this constitutional convention. Clause 4 says:

“The convention must be composed of representatives of the following … registered political parties within the United Kingdom”.

I do not know how many registered political parties there are in the United Kingdom. The clause goes on to include representatives from,

“local authorities ... the nations and regions of the United Kingdom”.

Then it says:

“At least 50% of the members of the convention must not be employed in a role which can reasonably be considered to be political”.

What does that mean? There is no mention of Parliament. These are matters which ultimately must be decided by Parliament, not by anyone else. Of course it is important to have views from outside, but the Bill is going down a wrong track and I do not think that the Government will agree to it.

Yesterday in this House, we had a short debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who, when I was in government, we regarded as second only to God in his authority. He suggested that we ought to have some kind of Joint Committee of both Houses. I believe that there is a Motion on the Order Paper to be debated on Tuesday to that effect. I very much hope that the Government will take on board that idea. I support what noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is trying to achieve, which is some kind of coherence rather than the mess that we are getting into on English votes for English laws, further powers to the Scottish Parliament and the issue of funding. It seems to me that that could be dealt with by a Joint Committee.

I say to my noble friend Lord Bridges that it is perfectly obvious what is going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said it yesterday in his speech. I take the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, at his word in speaking from the Front Bench in answer to a question which I raised: if the Government are not prepared to set up a constitutional convention, he said that the Government did not mind if others did so. Others will do so. The Government and Parliament should continue to hold control of the agenda here, and I believe that a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords could achieve that—not just in the context of EVEL, which I regard as being spelt with an “i” rather than an “e”, because it will do untold damage to both Houses of Parliament and to the United Kingdom itself.

In the debate yesterday, we did not get very far, but I pointed out that at the last minute, the Standing Orders had been amended to include Finance Bills. That is a huge step. That means that a Government would be able to get a large source of their revenue only if they commanded a majority in those parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland. That is a major constitutional change and not something that can be done by Standing Orders or dismissed by the Front Bench as mere administrative housekeeping in the other place. If we reach a position where both Houses of Parliament can pass legislation but the legislation will fall because one section has not voted for it, we are in real trouble.

I do not for the life of me understand that, when the Government wish to reduce the size of the House of Commons. In the previous House of Commons, the then First Minister in Scotland, now a Member of the other place, Alex Salmond, said that he would accept a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs in return for extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. That has been the form which we have accepted for Northern Ireland for years: when we have had direct rule, they have had more Members of Parliament; when they have had more devolution, they have had fewer Members of Parliament. That is what Gladstone struggled with for 20 years. It was the final conclusion of the Irish home rule deliberations. That seems to me to be a much more sensible approach, which would meet the need to address the concern behind English votes for English laws, the concern about the asymmetry which arises from devolution—but I do not want to pre-empt any Joint Committee. I think that we should have a Joint Committee; it should take evidence; it should be given enough time to consider these matters; and its terms of reference should be narrowly focused on the issues which threaten the United Kingdom at present.

I very much regret that I cannot support the Bill as constituted. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that at the end of all this the constitutional convention would have a plebiscite. A plebiscite is a referendum. The very last thing we need in these uncertain times is another referendum in Scotland on the issue of the United Kingdom. If this continues for much longer—if we continue to allow the nationalists to create dissidence and disillusion on both sides of the border—I fear that we will be unable to win in a referendum in England on the issue of the United Kingdom.

I hope that my noble friend will respond to the Bill, which is clearly not going to reach the statute book, by acknowledging that the Government need to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for an important Bill which, if the Government had any sense, they would fast-track and perhaps even trumpet as their own. Noble Lords have succinctly demonstrated the need for a convention of this sort, as well as the risks of not taking such a way forward. What has happened in Scotland increases the urgency of a cross-party, cross-interest review of constitutional changes. As a European Londoner from Wales, I find that there are similar reasons for proceeding in this way, in addition to the rubbishing of the English votes for English laws proposals that we witnessed in this House yesterday.

In the past, of course, the Conservatives were more than happy for decisions affecting one part of the country to be taken by MPs with no interest whatever in that area. I think that some of the guilty men may even be here. In 1985, they used English votes to abolish the Greater London Council without any safeguarding of the votes of Londoners’ representatives or giving them a double majority. I assume that the Minister would now chide that Government for that oversight. Indeed, with the last Government’s boundary changes, reducing the number of Welsh seats by 10, there was no suggestion of any veto for Welsh MPs. Perhaps the Minister would also chide his predecessors for that oversight. Furthermore, when the statutory instruments implementing those boundary changes go to the Commons, will Welsh MPs be given a double lock over them?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I take the chiding, but does the noble Baroness not recognise that one reason why the Labour Party has been destroyed in Scotland was because it adopted the language of nationalism for years and argued that Conservative Governments did not have a mandate to govern in Scotland because they did not have a majority in Scotland? Should not we learn from that experience that we need to approach these matters on a United Kingdom basis?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I certainly agree with that statement at the end—these are United Kingdom issues. What happens in one place, whether it is with met councils and how they run their transport, affects all of us. Whether we are planning our business or our lives, you cannot take out geographical areas and think that there is no whole UK effect.

It is the same with the Church of England. We were delighted when the Church of England accepted women bishops and delighted when this House changed the order in which they will appear in this House, but surely there is no idea that only English MPs should debate and take an issue on that, because the bishops of Wales and Scotland are not involved. All these things have cross-UK implications.

On the future, there was a helpful publication, as has been mentioned, by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place, called The UK Constitution, which had options for reform. It set out a checklist by which we could judge the desirability of any constitutional change, such as whether it recognised every citizen as a partner in government at local, regional and national level; whether it affirmed that each citizen was entitled to fair and equitable treatment under law; whether it protected and cultivated community identities within the four countries of the union; and whether it protected freedoms of thought, conscience and assembly and peaceful dissent against the encroachment of tyranny. That is different from the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but it is a similar approach. There are some basics against which we should measure any constitutional change.

The report also suggested that one way of cherishing but adapting our constitution could be via a standing commission for democracy that would propose constitutional amendments that could be approved by two-thirds of the Members of both Houses. There is little doubt that the UK needs the flexibility for constitutional change to adapt to changed behaviours, assumptions and expectations and, indeed, to changes in technology, as well as to different functions. The last thing we want is the problem the US faces in making changes to its constitution. I am reminded of a wonderful cartoon in the New Yorker last year, which showed bearded 18th-century gentlemen sitting around a table finalising the seven articles of the emerging US constitution, with one of them saying something like, “Now let’s add a final paragraph that no one’s ever allowed to change any of the above”. That is not the way we want to go. We need something different, but we need a process which does not spring just from one governing party at one point in time, nor one that is indifferent to the wishes of the wider body politic, the other parts of our democracy, be they the churches, the judiciary, the political parties or, most of all, the electorate—the citizens whom we all serve.

Happily, we have to hand at least one thought-through proposal for a constitutional convention, which was set out by Vernon Bogdanor in his pamphlet The Crisis of the Constitution. I may not agree that we need a written constitution and, along with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I certainly do not agree that we want more proportional representation, which has been so damaging to elections to the European Parliament, but his case for channelling the democratic spirit and the desire for change into constructive channels based on reason and trumping some single-party brainwave is surely unanswerable. Constitutional change without cross-party agreement is a mischief which brings no credit to the Conservative Party.

There are many issues beyond this Bill. There is the EU referendum and what would happen if the four nations voted in different ways. There is the change in the balance of Executive to MPs with the reduction of seats to 600. There is the Government’s extraordinary proposal to have 50 fewer elected politicians and 100 more unelected politicians. There are coalition or minority Governments, Civil Service reform, elected mayors, how we work in Europe and our relationship with the Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. There is party fragmentation and all it means. There are the proposals for the recall of MPs. These are complicated challenges that face all of us. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, we have to see how they hang together and are part of a whole.

It is not simply the English issue, important as it may be. In his pamphlet, Vernon Bogdanor says that as 533 of the 650 MPs represent England, it is slightly hard to conclude that they are not getting a fair say in the laws which govern their territory with its 85% of the UK’s population. Indeed, he quotes the case against an English Parliament from the 1973 Kilbrandon royal commission and describes EVEL as “incoherent” and “separatist” leading to two systems of government. It also fails to address the question of why English Ministers should not be treated the same way as the proposals for laws, so that certain Ministers would be excluded from certain discussions, given that most Ministers do not make laws but take decisions day by day. The nonsense of that shows the nonsense of what is in front of Parliament at the moment. It is self-evident nonsense, especially from a Conservative Party that, sadly, seems to have lost the word “unionist” from its title.

Very few pieces of legislation divide neatly into geographical areas. For that reason, the Government are talking more about individual clauses than about individual Bills, with added complexity for your Lordships’ House. The proposal will also increase the power of the Executive at the expense of Parliament, since it is the Government who draft Bills and therefore can manipulate whether certain bits might apply to just one part of the union.

Bogdanor’s call for a convention—or convocation, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—argues that constitutional reform is a process, not an event, with the issues needing to be seen as interconnected rather than separate and discrete. That is why he calls for a UK-wide convention, with popular participation, to consider the constitution as a whole.

Issues of constitutional importance, whether EVEL or Scottish tax-raising powers, have profound implications for our wider democracy and how Parliament operates. There should therefore be time, space and broad participation to consider any proposed legislation, including its effects on other aspects of how we are governed. I think it is clear from what I have said, and from Ed Miliband calling for such a convention in September last year, that we support the Bill. With reference to some of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Kerr, we would want to finesse this in Committee, but a broad-based and, in particular, a cross-party approach is surely what this country needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I entirely agree that there is a need for a union narrative. I believe that this House has heard that many times—perhaps not many times but a number of times—from my noble friend Lord Dunlop and from me. As I said, it should be based on the principles of fairness, balance, proportionality and respect for different parts of the union, and I believe that, as we continue to debate these issues in, for example, the Scottish Bill and other pieces of legislation coming to this House, we will continue to flesh that out.

As I was saying, Alan Trench, a fellow at the Constitution Unit, commented:

“What is vital for Wales is of much less importance in eastern England. To the extent there is a ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘north-east English’ interest in the Union, each of these is different. Trying to set up a convention to resolve these issues without being clear about what the interests of the various groups are, and how they relate to each other, will be impossible”.

Finally, there is an interesting reference to the fact that:

“At least 50% of the members of the convention must not be employed in a role which can reasonably be considered to be political”.

I understand the gist of the clause, but I think that a lawyer would be able to rack up quite large bills contesting its implementation. Those considered political might include trade union workers, pollsters and even journalists, while a seasoned activist with very clear political convictions could be considered an ordinary member of the public just by nature of his or her employment. Who these people are and how they are to be chosen is another potentially contentious issue on which the Bill gives little indication. As the outcome of a convention depends on its members, does it not worry noble Lords that there appears to be significant confusion and inconsistency as to who should participate in this one?

Those points may sound frivolous, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, may say that I am nitpicking, but they reflect a serious flaw, because the debate over who gets to debate these matters would be acrimonious, generating heat not light. As I said, we would need a convention before the convention has begun just to deliberate on all that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend has done the easy bit, which is taking apart the Bill. Will he address the point made by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth? What about looking at the way that all these piecemeal reforms hang together and where we are now? What are the Government going to do to provide a lead?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sorry to beg to differ with my noble friend, but I believe that we are providing a lead by setting set out our plan in our manifesto and now delivering on that plan. That is the lead for which we got the mandate. I am sorry that we disagree on this point, but we clearly do.

Taxation: Capital Gains Tax

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord is saying and I tread with some trepidation here as we are on the eve of the Budget. However, what I will say is that while previous CGT has had a taper or been indexed to favour long-term holdings, such an approach would lead to the reintroduction of significant administrative burdens for many CGT payers. It would bring significant complexity into the tax system and the wider economic impacts would have to be assessed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, given that when the coalition Government increased the rate of capital gains tax by 10%, the revenues went down, and when they cut the top rate of income tax by 5%, the revenues went up, what conclusions does my noble friend draw about opposition tax policy?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I draw a number of conclusions, my Lords. Overall, the Government believe that the current top rate of CGT at 28% is a good balance between raising revenue, reducing the incentives to substitute income for capital gains and retaining incentives to save and invest.

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will check on that and write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong, but certainly my appointments are published within a matter of months after they take place.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend think that the register should include instances where Ministers lobby businessmen to obtain funds for political parties?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the question I was considering was whether or not certain newspapers whose reporters spend a great deal of their time impersonating lobbyists should also be required to register.

Soft Power and the UK’s Influence (Select Committee Report)

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the committee that produced this report was an absolute nightmare to sit on at the beginning. The first thing that we had to decide on was what we meant by “soft power”. The volume of evidence that we received was incredible. It is down to the extraordinary leadership—to which other members of the committee have paid tribute—of my noble friend Lord Howell that we have produced an absolutely first-class document. While we were wading around in a sea of representations, he led us, as the material was parted, to a coherent set of conclusions which any Government would do well to take very seriously indeed. It is a great tribute to his leadership, and we were very much encouraged. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that in the end it became quite an enjoyable experience.

The report stands as a standing testimony and reminder to this House of what could be achieved if we had a proper foreign affairs committee which was able to look beyond Europe. I am really disappointed because I thought that after the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I would be able to stand up and say that I agreed with everything he said, except he spoiled it at the end by going on about Europe, where we are normally in a degree of conflict. The great thing about this report is its optimism about Britain and how we can be a power in the world based on the talents, expertise and relationships of our people.

I was really disappointed by Gordon Brown’s article in the Guardian—in fact, I have sent him a copy of the report this afternoon. I am not a regular reader of the Guardian, noble Lords may be surprised to learn. However, he said that,

“‘leaving Europe to join the world’—is really the North Korea option, out in the cold with few friends, no influence, little new trade and even less new investment”.

This report says that that kind of gloomy view of Britain is wholly out of date and wholly stupid. I really regret that the divisions in our country about whether we wish to be a member of the European Union should—to pick up the chalice analogy which the noble Lord just used—be poisoning the debate. They are not either/ors.

We have great opportunities particularly in exploiting our relationships with the Commonwealth. My noble friend Lady Nicholson referred to the speech that Her Majesty the Queen made to mark Commonwealth Day yesterday. I am not sure whether Her Majesty had been reading the committee’s report, but she talked of,

“the huge advantages of mutual co-operation and understanding”,

that lay there for members of the Commonwealth to benefit their citizens. She said that the Commonwealth is more important now than at any other point in its history. That is one of the key messages to have come out of the report. I again pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell for the indefatigable way in which he has tried to get across the message about the importance of the Commonwealth and how it could be a pipeline for jobs and employment not just in Britain but around the Commonwealth countries themselves.

Listening to the evidence and looking at the material, I was also surprised to become a complete convert to the work of the BBC World Service. I do not often praise the BBC, but the evidence is overwhelming. With very limited resources and faced with the might of CNN, Al-Jazeera and all kinds of other organisations, we have in the BBC World Service a service which is trusted and is an ambassador and a broadcaster for British values at a time when all of us are horrified by some of the things we see happening in the world. The transfer from the Foreign Office to the licence fee is not such a disaster for it should result in more resources going to the World Service. In the current situation of competition in broadcasting, and in the digital age, if I wanted to make the case for having the licence fee, and having a continuing licence fee, I would argue very strongly for the work that the BBC World Service does.

The same is true of the evidence that we had on the work of the British Council in encouraging the use of the English language. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the importance of having other languages, particularly in the Foreign Office. My honourable friend Rory Stewart, in the other place, has spoken passionately about the need for languages among our diplomats in the Foreign Office.

The other day I was looking at the website of the National Portrait Gallery—an organisation for which I have considerable affection, and which I have helped in the past—and I was struck by what I found there. There is a map of the world, people can click on any country in the world, including the UK, and it will show the towns and cities in that country, which they can then click on to be told the names of those whose portraits are in the gallery and the history of their relationship with our country. That is soft power. That is our asset.

When I was working in the City, I worked for an American bank and a British bank. I was struck by the fact that the Americans were always able to promise slightly more than we could deliver, whereas the British invariably underplayed what we could do, and delivered more. As a nation, that is one of our failings.

Similarly, in business, building networks and relationships is everything. Why should that not be the case for Governments? Businesses spend vast amounts on creating relationships with a view to achieving a long-term business reward. So what on earth are we doing making it more difficult for the future leaders of other countries to come here, study in our institutions and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, take back with them an affection and a regard for our country? I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the recommendations on visas and the role of overseas students.

We are among the most creative innovative nations in the globe. We are therefore blessed by having the internet and the new technology that enables us to communicate throughout the world and at all levels. For the Foreign Office this must mean change: the internet is as big a change as the introduction of aeroplanes or telegrams. It changes everything—the nature of the business and the nature of the people, the skills and the resources that they need, which are more, not less.

I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when he said, “Of course, soft power is all very well”. In terms of the famous old cliché about speaking softly and carrying a big stick, we need that big stick more than ever. I very much hope that the Government will find it within their power to commit us not just to spending the money required to meet the NATO defence target, but to providing the resources for our armed services, which are important to defend our country not just against physical force but against cyberattack and other threats.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said that there was no real distinction between hard and soft power, and referred us to ancient Athens. I have to tell him that in the run-up to the 1997 election, when it looked as if things would be bad for the Conservatives in Scotland, I made a speech at a conference and reminded people of the brave 300 who stood at Thermopylae. I told them how Xerxes, the Persian King, was so impressed by their bravery that he said to them, “If you surrender I will let you go free”. Leonidas, the King of the Spartans, said, “No, we’re not going to do that. We’re going to stay and fight for the values we believe in”. Xerxes said, “But our arrows will blot out the sun”. Leonidas replied, “Then we shall fight in the shade”. At the end of the meeting an elderly lady came up to me and said, “I was so moved by your speech. What happened in the end?”. I said, “They were all killed”. And so we were. But let us not fight in the shade. By using soft power we can see the sunshine of our culture and our values blaze around the world.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord in his amendment, although I am not sure that I entirely support him in his argument. He suggests that the very unfortunate circumstances of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw have weakened his argument but, on the contrary, they have strengthened it, at least in so far as my own opposition to the Bill is concerned. We have argued throughout these proceedings against the basis on which the Government have introduced the Bill. Where people have done something wrong—or, in the case of these two Members, appear to have done something wrong; we have not yet heard the facts or the circumstances of each case—the immediate reaction of the parties will be to withdraw the Whip, which is what happened to both Mr Straw and Mr Rifkind, making it impossible for them to face their electors as Conservative or Labour candidates. I do not for the life of me see how this Bill will operate in circumstances where the leaderships of political parties rush to judgment before they have the facts and remove the Whip.

The noble Lord’s amendment is sensible in that it extends the range of penalties so that the penalty can fit the misdemeanour. By making the range of penalties so slight, it puts the committee in a difficult political position, which it most certainly should not be in. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord’s amendment, although I do not share his views on the wisdom of recall. Members of Parliament should be able to face their electors. However, in the case of Malcolm Rifkind, we are on the eve of a general election, and if the Government really believed that it was up to the voters of Kensington to decide, he would have been able to go forward as a candidate and put his case to the voters. In practical terms, that is not what has happened, and I believe that that would be the case in every circumstance where this legislation may be required, which is why I do not support the legislation but do support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we are all agreed that this is not the time to discuss recent matters in the press. It is certainly not the time for your Lordships’ House to be apparently trying to make things easier for recalcitrant or erring MPs. I stress, as we all have, that none of us has any time for MPs who transgress the rules or MPs’ discipline in any form.

When we were arguing the case for 15 days rather than 10, it was not a matter of protecting MPs; it was a matter of justice. Things have to be done properly, which is what this House is about. In passing, I will say that I welcome the amendments that we will be discussing later when they are moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, if only because they destroy the defence he offered that we cannot change what has been done in the House of Commons. The refrain we have heard throughout the amendments is that, whatever the case, the other place has decided and we must not seek to overturn it.

I know a lost cause when I see one and I appreciate that the chances are that the Minister will not accept this amendment. However, may I suggest to him a novel procedure? Would he perhaps accept the amendment on the understanding that the reason for doing so would simply be to allow the other place to look at the matter again? This is the last opportunity for that to be done; there is no other way for this to be discussed further unless the Minister accepts this amendment. If he accepts my suggestion of accepting the amendment on the understanding that it is purely and simply to allow further discussion in the other place, I give him my personal guarantee—and, I believe, the guarantee of everyone on this side of the House—that when it comes back there will be no opposition whatever if the Government decide to press on with 10 days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My point is that it was debated there and the case was made for why it should change. The point I am trying to make is that the proposal for 20 days, 10 days, 15 days, five days or 30 days is a matter of judgment. There is no right or wrong answer. It is a judgment on what is the appropriate connection between a decision in the other place and its Standards Committee and the point at which that should trigger a recall petition. That is a difficult judgment and one that I say needs to be made by the House of Commons, which is where this decision was taken.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is that not the whole point—that the House of Commons needs to be able to take a decision? A story in the press over the weekend suggested that people should be expelled from the House of Commons for three days for boorish behaviour. Is it three days or 10 days? What about not declaring an interest? Should that be 10 days or should it be between three and 10 days? By having a broader spectrum, it is possible to provide a sanction that will be seen to be appropriate for the offence. Does she see that it is not about whether it is 10 days or 15 days but the spectrum that is open to the House to show its displeasure when Members behave badly?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I do not disagree that it is for the House of Commons to do that, but it has have taken a decision. My noble friends say that the Members did not know what they were doing—I would not make that comment—but they took a decision by 203 votes to 124 that this was the figure that it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the commitment and care with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has pursued this issue. The Government have of course therefore actively considered it over some period of time.

I have to say that I do not recognise what the noble Lord described as the widespread anger in the Commons over all this. I have just been checking with my noble friend Lord Gardiner and thinking that through. During the period when the Bill has been going through its Lords stages, I have met members of my own party in the Commons and my noble friend Lord Gardiner has met members of his own party there. We have met people from the Labour Party, our opposite numbers and the Bill managers within the Commons on a number of occasions. It is remarkable to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has heard has not managed to reach our ears. It has been relatively public knowledge that we were indeed managing the Bill through this House.

The suggestion that the House of Commons voted on a substantial change to the Bill without understanding what it was doing seems to be stretching matters a little. It may be that this was a catastrophic mistake of the Labour Party in the Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said. I recognise the strength of feeling among a number of Labour Peers within this House that it was a catastrophic mistake by their own party. All I can say is that this has not reached the Government’s ears. We have not had protests, or suggestions that we need to save the Commons from itself in the way proposed.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about eroding the sovereignty of Parliament and how we have again to protect that dimension. However, all those of us who have been out campaigning in recent weeks know that what those of us who are attached to the traditions of the British constitution think of as the sovereignty of Parliament is thought by too many of those on whose doors we knock as the Westminster bubble. We have great difficulty in persuading them that it is worth voting at all. They think that all politicians are in here for themselves. This is part of why the recall Bill has gone through a series of consultations over the last three years and is now going, not hastily, through both Houses.

We have considered at length this question of the proper period of suspension which should trigger recall in this House and in other discussions outside the House. We do not see a strong case for reversing the decision which the House of Commons took on an amendment from the Labour Opposition and, having considered it, we are therefore not willing to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

The decision of the other place was clearly based on the precedent of past suspensions for misconduct recommended by the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee has in the past recommended 10-day suspensions for receiving payment to ask questions in the House, misuse of access to the House and breaching the Code of Conduct—cases which should undoubtedly be considered as serious wrongdoing. We are not considering cases of innocence or unproven allegation.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am listening carefully to my noble friend’s argument, but surely the Government considered these matters very carefully when they came forward in the first place with their proposal for 20 days. Can he explain to the House why the Government thought that 20 days was appropriate, with all the knowledge about previous penalties imposed by the Standards Committee?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The noble Lord knows very well that the choice of the exact number of days is a matter for judgment. We recognise that the House of Commons took a judgment on that and we are accepting that judgment.

The question of the role and composition of the Standards Committee is also tied up in this. Looking at the next group of amendments, we will continue discussing the important question of the Standards Committee, on which I recognise that a number of members of this House have served. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his considerable efforts, which I respect, but I nevertheless ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke compellingly on this issue at Second Reading and he has done so again today. He is right that the House of Commons made a mistake in reducing the minimum requirement for a trigger for the recall process from 20 to 10 days’ suspension from the service of the House. He has explained very powerfully why that was a mistake and suggested convincingly that the House of Commons inflicted this error on itself without having adequately considered what it was doing. It is surely essential that the Standards Committee is enabled to retain a sufficient scope and flexibility and a sufficient range of penalties and sanctions to be able to temper its judgments to the particularities of the individual case before it. If a 10-day suspension automatically triggers the recall process then the Standards Committee has become excessively constrained. As my noble friend has just described, the political consequences are very major indeed. The committee should not be boxed into a position where it very often has little alternative but to precipitate a by-election, with all the political and personal implications that follow from that.

Nor should this legislation diminish the standing of the Standards Committee. Part of the motive of those who voted in favour of the reduction from 20 days to 10 was that they had given up on the Standards Committee. They actually believe that it has ceased to be a useful instrument of parliamentary self-government. As I said in the previous debate, I, by contrast, believe profoundly that one of the ways in which the House of Commons can help to restore its reputation and public credibility is to be seen to strengthen its capacity for self-regulation and self-discipline, not the reverse.

To go back to a 20-day minimum suspension period triggering the recall process is not to eliminate the political difficulty that the existence of recall will introduce into the proceedings of the Standards Committee. It may be said that there is, in principle, no particular difference between nine days not precipitating recall and 10 days doing so and between 19 days not precipitating recall and 20 days doing so. However, it does diminish the difficulty because it will reduce the frequency of the occasions when the committee feels under inexorable pressure to pronounce or make a recommendation to the whole House that the suspension period should be 10 days or more. It therefore diminishes the force of that politicising pressure on the committee and that is very important. I am grateful to my noble friend for his exhaustive and courageous examination of these issues. He has given wise advice and this House should, in turn, give wise advice to the other place.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene. It seems extraordinary that in rising to support the Government in their original position, I am rising to support an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. They had got it right when they originally specified 20 days. In the 18th century, one was hung for stealing a cabbage, or for murdering your wife. If you committed any offence, you might as well get rid of any witnesses in order to avoid being hung for stealing the cabbage. We are rather in that position here.

If the provision is about persuading the outside world that the House of Commons takes bad behaviour seriously, I point out that most people would think that losing your pay for 10 days was not a particularly serious sanction. I therefore think that the nought to 10-day spectrum is far too narrow, and that nought to 20 days would be considerably more just and avoid the problem of the kind of political pressure that the noble Lord referred to.

The more that I, as a former Member, read and listen to the debates on the Bill, the more I believe that the House of Commons has lost confidence in itself. It is a bit like the situation at the moment: whenever there is a difficult problem there is a tendency to set up a public inquiry rather than actually address the issue. The public inquiry then goes on for ever, costs a lot of money and people feel, in the case of some inquiries, that no one has been held to account and it has all taken so long that the situation has moved on. That all adds to the sense of irritation on the part of the public.

What the noble Lord is proposing is eminently sensible and I am really looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response as to how he is going to explain how what I assume was a carefully considered Bill was presented to Parliament and amended in this way. We have almost gone into a competition to, sort of, wear the hair shirt—against the interests of Parliament. I am not being critical of the Opposition and I understand why they have done that, but it is a route that will lead to the destruction of the House of Commons in people’s eyes. If the House of Commons does not believe in itself and if it does not trust itself, how on earth can one expect the outside world to trust it if it demonstrates that it does not have the confidence to carry out its own sanctions?

It is a long time since I left it in 1997 but in the House of Commons that I remember, there is political partisanship—of course there is, which is why the point about the 10 days is important—but, on the whole, the House has a sense of its own worth and of its relationship with the public. It can be trusted to take the decisions that we are talking about and the amendment is immensely sensible. I hope that my noble friend will revert to the Government’s previous position and accept it.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

It is entirely right that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has drawn attention to the real problem underlying all this—the lack of self-confidence within the House of Commons. It is rather tragic that we have the Bill before us. I am slightly worried at his reminding people that one could be hung for various things. A number of people would like to hang MPs, and I remind him that when I was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and it was heard that I might come to this place, one member of the PLP said that they had the ideal reform for the House of Lords, with one Peer for every lamp-post. I do not use that example too often.

However, I intervene briefly and seriously. My noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Howarth both made a strong case on this issue. My view is, and remains, that the Bill is a mess and should not have been brought forward but, precisely because of the nature of the mess here and the report to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours referred, the Government ought to say that they will take this issue away, look at it in some detail and come back with a proposal involving a return to the 20-day period. I would sign up to that. The Bill is not in a coherent state. It would be bad news for the House of Commons, and I suspect that it is unlikely to be used or be used very much. It is undesirable to have legislation in a mess such as this, especially when there is a report of the type that has been referred to that indicates why we ought to have the 20-day solution. The Government have a duty to this House and the other place to say that they will go back, consult and come back with a proposal that is more likely to work in a coherent way.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that we do not support these amendments for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—well, no, actually, not for the reasons given by him. The amendments would reverse the very changes that Labour won with wholehearted—or should I say widespread?—support in the Commons.

The coalition Government had proposed what my noble friend now wants, which is that MPs would need to be suspended for more than four sitting weeks for the threshold to trigger a recall petition. However, no matter how much we cut that period, only rarely would that trigger be reached. Importantly, it would mean that some serious offences in the House would virtually never trigger a recall petition, which may be the intention of the amendment—or not; but that would be its effect. It would emasculate the role of the Commons in regulating its Members.

We believe that the House of Commons decision to suspend a Member should be able to act as a trigger and that four weeks’ suspension is simply too long. It makes the trigger too high for what constituents would expect. When all this was happening, I was not in Parliament; I was outside. If one asked now how serious an offence should be before someone should face a recall, I should say that being suspended for two weeks is about the right amount. We would not want the threshold to be so lowered that it would allow mischievous claims to be made in the other place. We also recognise that parliamentary dissent is part of our democratic heritage, and that an MP standing up for their beliefs in the other place should not find their right peacefully to protest compromised by unnecessary recall petitions. There is a balance to be struck. However, none of those suspended for protesting would be caught by the new threshold, which was agreed overwhelmingly in the Commons by 210 to 124 votes. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, if we are to trust the House of Commons, that vote is one that we should hear.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Can the noble Baroness explain where the other half of MPs were?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not appreciate that on a one-line Whip an awful lot of them disappear, as he has never been in the House of Commons.

Electoral Registration

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My understanding is that the adjustment between 6 million and 7.5 million from 2010 to 2012 was in line with the census. I am told by the statisticians that it represents an actual stabilisation. As I have said at this Dispatch Box many times before, the major reason why people who are not registered say that they have not registered is because they are not interested in politics and not interested in voting. I repeat that it is up to all of us to do our utmost in the next 90 days to enthuse particularly young people and those most disengaged from politics to re-engage, to register and then to vote.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the Government are creating a very dangerous precedent by insisting, in the new powers for the Scottish Parliament, that changes in the franchise—or indeed boundaries—require a two-thirds majority?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the Government are creating a dangerous precedent. I suspect that the noble Lord and I may disagree on the age at which people might start to vote.