House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree. It is inconsistent for someone to say they wish to abolish an institution but then prop it up by serving in it and trying to enhance its credibility. That, however, is a political contradiction that others will have to wrestle with. I am glad to say it is not one my own party faces.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and facts carefully, and he is making an extremely powerful case. I have no intention of going to the House of Lords—nor will I be invited, I guess. There is another case for not reforming the House of Lords. Some of us believe it is an affront to democracy and should be abolished. Reforming it gives it greater credibility. Does he not agree that there is a danger in reform and that abolition is the better solution?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do indeed, although the way I would put it is that I wish the reforms to be so extensive that they are tantamount to abolition. Starting with a clean sheet of paper would probably be the best way to go forward. I will come to arguments for the alternative later.

As I read the report and read between the lines, I can almost sense the authors’ exasperation at the situation they are in: their remit has been necessarily constrained to a very narrow one about the size of the House of Lords. They are not able to take into account other matters, looking at the wider context of the institution. I also sense—it is mentioned several times—their frustration at having to search for ways other than legislative and statutory reform to try to achieve some sort of change. I applaud their ingenuity in finding ways within existing statutes and by using procedures such as the code of conduct to set out how they may be able to achieve some of their suggested changes without reference to primary legislation. None of that removes the need for us as an elected Chamber to look at legislative reform. It is an abrogation of political responsibility by the Government, as well as a kick in the teeth for public opinion, that they refuse to countenance bringing forward legislative reform.

The report is necessarily limited, but I would describe it as extremely small baby steps on the road to reform. To give an idea of just how limited they are, one of the key suggestions is to bring in a fixed term of 15 years for Members to serve in the upper House. The suggestion is to phase that in, and it would not be fully implemented until 2042. That’s right—2042. I doubt whether I will be around to see what happens in 2042. To understand just how modest the suggestion is, NASA intends to put a human being on Mars by 2042. We seem to be incapable of suggesting that we can bring in fixed-term appointments for the House of Lords before, as a species, we are capable of colonising other planets. That puts it somewhat in perspective.

Given that the Committee found ways, without reference to legislation, to suggest reform, we should embrace its suggestions and perhaps be a little more ambitious about their application. In considering the report, I suggest to its authors and the upper House that, if they have found ways to bring in fixed-term appointments, why 15 years? On what possible grounds is it okay for someone first to be appointed rather than elected and secondly to serve without sanction or accountability for one and a half decades? Why not cut that in half and make it seven years? Then we could accelerate the process of moving to fixed-term appointments much more quickly.

The Committee suggested through various procedures to reduce steadily the size of the Chamber by appointing one new peer for every two who die, resign or otherwise leave the upper House. If we can have two out, one in, why not have one out, none in? Why not have a moratorium on appointments until the House begins to shrink to a more acceptable level?

We should also be concerned about the things that the report, by its own admission, does not say, and the problems that it does not address—indeed, it recognises that its limited suggestions will exacerbate some of the other problems. Consider, for example, the hereditary peers. Not only are 92 people who are appointed to make the laws of our land not elected by anybody, but the only basis for their appointment is accident of birth. They are not even the aristocracy—they are the progeny of aristocracy from centuries past. That is such an anachronism that it is an affront to every democratic ideal that we must surely espouse. A rather sordid deal was done between the Blair Government and the then Tory Leader of the House of Lords—against, by the way, the wishes of the then leader of the Conservative party—to protect the 92 hereditary peers. That was seen as an interim step, yet every attempt to follow through and complete the abolition of hereditary peers has been blocked by the institution itself and those who support it.

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

One of the important points about negotiation is that we keep our hands as free as possible. We do want to ensure that we take business with us. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which we are discussing the future arrangements with business. The implementation period is important, and I hope that we can get on to discuss that as early as possible with the European Union, but we do need to maintain a degree of flexibility in our negotiating positions.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

By having not yet sat down to talk about trade, the European Commission has shown that its priorities are the integrationist European project and punishing this country for having the temerity to choose to govern ourselves. That does not bode well for any deal. Can the Prime Minister tell us what balance of resources is going into contingencies in the event of no deal compared with the amount of resources going into the negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

We are doing the work that is necessary to ensure that we are prepared for whatever outcome emerges from the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman is right: there have been a number of speeches recently that suggest a more integrationist approach for the EU in future. I am clear that it is important that we are that self-governing nation and that we get that good deal with the European Union because it is in the economic interests of both sides.

European Council

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it does. When we change these treaties, this will be, as it were, one of the founding documents of the EU, so the international law agreement, and then in time the treaty changes, will sit alongside other treaties that have been produced in the past. Like my hon. Friend, I regret that so many treaties were made with so little democratic accountability, and I think we are putting that right in two ways: first, with things such as getting out of ever closer union—a distant dream for many of us who used to argue for that but never got it—and secondly, through the democratic accountability of holding a referendum.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has stated explicitly that people who vote to leave the European Union do not love their country. I represent many veterans of the armed services whose patriotism cannot be questioned. Will the Prime Minister apologise to those people?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely did not say that. What I said was that I loved my country, and I think that our country—an amazing country—will be greater and more powerful if we remain in organisations through which we can project our power and influence, and do great things in the world. I do not question the patriotism of anyone in our country—we are all going to have to make a choice—but I believe that Britain’s greatness is not simply the parliamentary democracy that we enjoy and the rights that we have in this country. We are an outward-looking country, and I am proud of the fact that we help, whether with Syrian refugees, chasing down pirates off the Somali coast, or trying to stabilise countries from which many problems come. We can do that, yes, because we are strong; yes, because we have great defence; but also because we are members of NATO, we have a permanent seat at the UN, and we are part of the EU. I think it is technical jargon to call it a force multiplier, but that is what it is, and we should be proud of the role we play in the world.

EU Council

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I make it a policy not to answer questions beginning with “If”, even if they are put as charmingly as they are by my hon. Friend. If we can achieve a result in February, I do not think we should delay the referendum. I think we should get on and hold the referendum. As I have said, it should not be done in any unnatural haste. It needs to have a proper number of months for people to consider all the arguments, and that is exactly what will happen.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The common agricultural policy puts up the price of food for people in this country and is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. Why did the Prime Minister not try to renegotiate the CAP?

[The Prime Minister]

If we look at the facts of the CAP, we will see that the days of the great wine lakes and butter mountains have by and large gone, and I do not think it is possible to argue in the same way as it was in the past that it adds hugely to families’ bills. That is not what is happening. There has been quite significant reform. There has also been some fairly significant reform to the common fisheries policy. Of course, our deregulation targets and subsidiarity tests apply in all those areas.

Tunisia, and European Council

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents who were caught up in this terrible attack. I am sure assistance will be made available for counselling. What happened was a deeply traumatic event that will affect people for many months and years to come.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said he wanted proper, full-on treaty change. How can we take his negotiations seriously when he has dropped this reasonable demand in the first round of negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not dropped this demand at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Indeed I will. My hon. Friend was a distinguished leader of one such county. It is clear that the success of the city deals has introduced a model that other capable authorities can take up. I encourage all our county leaders to prepare their plans to take powers from central Government and to be in charge of those budgets that were previously tied up in Whitehall.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The devolution proposals for Greater Manchester have been widely welcomed, but the proposal to appoint an interim mayor with no executive powers is less welcome. Does the Minister agree that it should be a priority to arrange for primary legislation so that Greater Manchester can have an elected mayor?

[Greg Clark]

I do think there should be an elected mayor for Manchester—that is exactly what has been agreed with every one of the Greater Manchester authorities. One of the consequences of the agreement with Greater Manchester is that it will have a directly elected mayor who will be a hugely important national and international figure, as befits that great city.

General Election Television Debates

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend raises the important point, which the noble Lord referred to in his article, about the duty of impartiality that is placed on the BBC and to which I think other broadcasters should show due high regard. It remains to be seen what happens. Significantly, in this debate about debates, people have been forthright in saying, “This will happen”, but the reality keeps turning out to be very different. In the first formulation, the broadcasters assured us that there would be three debates with invitations to four parties—the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems and UKIP—and that if anyone did not turn up, they would be “empty chaired”, but then of course they changed their minds.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but is it not paradoxical to have party political broadcasts that virtually nobody watches but not to have debates that 23 million people watched the last time they took place? Are the broadcasters not trying simply to step into the vacuum that the House has left, and should we not legislate to ensure fair debates across the UK and in the nations and regions of the UK?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to which I shall return. Indeed, our motion states that the matter has been so badly handled by the broadcasters—undoubtedly political self-interest has raised its head as well—that steps should be taken, as a result of this debacle, to ensure a fair and equitable basis on which to agree proper and fair debates. This experience makes that point very strongly—although whether it should be done through legislation is another matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

As was made plain today during Prime Minister’s Question Time, there is plenty to talk about. I think that the choices between the parties are pretty clear, and I see absolutely no reason why we should not have a debate. The Prime Minister proposed that we should have one during the week beginning 23 March, and I hope that his proposal will be taken up.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North was ingenious in drafting the motion. This is not, of course, a matter in which the Government have any direct legislative say. I think it important for the press—and broadcasters specifically, as part of the press—to be recognised as being robustly independent, and I would not want to breach that in any way

The Government have no direct role in the conduct of the leaders debates, which, in my view, is entirely proper. Government policy extends only to the framework by which broadcasters are regulated in the United Kingdom. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s independent communications regulator and competition authority, is required to set the standards for programmes on television and radio, which are embodied in the broadcasting code. The code applies to all broadcasters who are licensed by Ofcom. Crucially, it contains specific rules that apply during election periods and require licensed broadcasters to ensure that their coverage is duly impartial. That includes the requirement for due weight to be given to the parties.

In parallel the BBC, whose output is overseen by the BBC Trust, has editorial guidelines and election guidelines that set out the requirements for impartiality and accuracy generally, and specifically within an election period. The role of the press has been debated extensively during this Parliament and I know that all Members will support me in recognising the principle that independence and the requirements for accuracy and impartiality should be at the heart of broadcasting in this country.

Let me say a little about the particular contention in this debate. The aspect that the right hon. Member for Belfast North raised is who gets the power, in effect, to decide who gets a platform and who does not, and the way in which that has been conducted. He made a powerful case on behalf of his party and all parties in Northern Ireland. He expressed forcefully their concern about their exclusion from the arrangements proposed by the broadcasters. He referred to the fact that at the last election the Democratic Unionist party won more votes than one of the parties that is included in the seven-way debate, and more seats than four of them.

To try to cut through the logjam, the Prime Minister made an offer to participate in a seven-way debate before the start of the campaign. The leader of the Labour party said that he would debate the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, as I understand it. The Prime Minister has proposed a time: he proposed that there should be a debate the week after next. The offer has been made; it is now up to the Leader of the Opposition to accept it.

As for the specific line-up of the parties, the Prime Minister has said, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North will be aware, that the leader of the DUP should be permitted to make his case for why he should be included, but that case should be made to the broadcasters rather than to the Government.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to the point about the timing of these debates? Of course the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can find plenty to talk about. No doubt they could fill an hour arguing every day of the week, but the point is that in elections the electorate has the opportunity to vote for a manifesto. Is it not absurd for the Prime Minister to propose a debate before the manifesto is published? That is a con on the electorate.

[Greg Clark]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is plenty to debate, as he is kind enough to acknowledge, week after week. There will be no shortage of points that can be made in the debate and it would be a good thing to get on with it. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will change his mind and agree to participate in the debate.

In every part of the United Kingdom, we are living through a time of rapid political change. Between one election and the next, we have seen major shifts in voter support, so it is vital that we do not see the result of previous elections fossilised in the format of the TV debates. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister objected to the exclusion of the Green party from the broadcasters’ original proposal. To people who ask, “Why should he care?”, let me give an answer that should appeal to all of us in the House. The more we are seen as turning our back on the legitimate expectation that people whose parties enjoy some support in the country should be able to make their case, the more we risk increasing the sense of alienation between this place and the country we represent. I also think it is a good thing to put the smaller parties on the spot. We know they can protest, and they often do so vociferously, but the question is whether they can propose workable solutions to the problems that they draw attention to. That is a different matter.

Speaking of workable solutions, it is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman affirmed in his remarks, that the broadcasters have failed to produce one in regard to the debates. Today’s debate demonstrates that the proposals made thus far have not achieved the breakthrough or the consensus that three years ago the Prime Minister said should have been engaged in ahead of the general election. Lord Grade’s letter, which many hon. Members have spoken about today, comes from a very distinguished and experienced broadcaster and regulator, who should obviously be listened to with respect. My party entered into negotiations with the broadcasters in good faith and repeatedly made the case for a more representative debate structure. Initially this was unilaterally disregarded, as the exclusion of the Green party made clear. The follow-up proposal was made without any consultation.

The motion before the House today proposes a new way forward—the creation of an independent body with responsibility for arranging the debates. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that it is rather late in the Parliament to debate the proposal, but he proposes it to reflect his dismay at the arrangements that have been suggested. It gives us the opportunity to raise the key questions—most fundamentally, who would the independent body be independent of? How would it be established and how would it be funded? Which debates would it produce? Who would it invite and how would this stand up to challenge? How would it succeed in convening the parties at all? Would they be compelled to participate? How would it secure the distribution of the debates by the broadcasters?

European Council

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his very hard work in Wellingborough and next door in Corby. People can see that under this Government and my prime ministership—when it comes to the European treaty, when it comes to the bail-out fund and when it comes to the budget—we have got a good deal for Britain.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

If after the due diligence the eventual payment that this country is asked to make is outside the norms, will the Prime Minister give this House a vote?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not accepting that we should pay anything like what has been asked. I think it is very important that we make that clear. I am always happy to have votes in this House. They can happen through Opposition days, Back-Bench days or, indeed, Government days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My view is that as a matter of course any publication of technical details that are, frankly, not of a great deal of interest to the non-technical reader of our newspapers but might be of huge interest to people who want to do this country harm are not a good thing. Having said that, however, I think that there is an entirely legitimate debate about whether the laws we have in place were properly framed for the power of the technologies available to our agencies and to those who wish to harm us and about whether our oversight arrangements for the work of the agencies are as strong, transparent and credible as they need to be.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Every right hon. and hon. Member has been elected on a constituency basis; nobody has been elected on a national basis. Would it not revitalise democracy if we changed the balance of allowed funding in general elections from a national level to a constituency level and got away from these pseudo-presidential elections?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly’s committee on party funding reform, particularly with their strict limits on donation caps, would have an analogous effect as they would significantly decrease the ability of large individual donations to be siphoned directly to national parties. As I said before, however, the cross-party consensus necessary to underpin any party funding reform has eluded us once again.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd). I shall be in the Lobby with him to vote against the programme motion and against the Bill, as it is a bad Bill.

I am not one of those people who has great admiration for the House of Lords. I agree with Bagehot, who was quoted earlier, that one need only go along the corridor and look at it more often. It is not such a wonderful place, even though there are some excellent and extraordinarily capable people there.

I believe in democracy and in improving our constitution, but the proposals do not do that at all. They diminish democracy in this country by setting up a counter-Chamber at the other end of the corridor. The problem, which has been mentioned in many excellent speeches, is that we have an over-mighty Executive and that this House has not kept as many powers as it should have done to itself over the years. I have not heard one speech from the people in favour of the proposal that told us how they would prevent power from being taken away from this Chamber if the Bill were passed.

The Bill will not improve the accountability of the Executive but will set them free to do more of what they want to do while being less accountable. So, the first argument in favour of it, which is that it improves democracy, falls. The second supportive reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister was that all the other countries he could think of had an elected second Chamber, which, as right hon. and hon. Members have corrected him, turns out not to be 100% true. Even if it were true, virtually all the countries that have such a second Chamber have a written constitution to deal with precisely the matter covered by clause 2, which is primacy. With no written constitution and elections to the second House, we will lose the primacy of this House.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not also accept that right now one could argue that areas of this country, particularly Scotland, are over-governed as regards democracy?

[Graham Stringer]

I want to increase democracy where it is effective so that people feel that they are changing things, not being left behind and lost by politicians. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, the idea behind the genesis of the Bill is not the improvement of democracy but the improvement of the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, who are frightened of the prospect of democracy and the electorate at the next general election. What they are trying to secure in the Bill is proportional representation in the other place so that they can be in government for ever, but I do not see my job as coming to this House to put the Lib Dems in government for ever. To achieve that, they obviously have to introduce a system of PR, but just over 12 months ago the electorate said quite clearly that they did not want to move from first past the post, even though it was not PR that was put to them.

I must ask those who say that clause 2 will protect and provide security for the primacy of this House: how? There is only one legal basis for that primacy, and that is the Parliament Act, but we are not going to Parliament Act every Bill that comes through. All the other details such as the Salisbury convention and the convention on statutory instruments are just that—conventions. If I were elected to the other place, I would say, “The Salisbury convention no longer exists, because the basis of it was the fact that some people were elected and some were not.” If people in the other place are elected, they will have the right to say, “My electorate are as important as your electorate, and a great deal bigger, and I have been elected by millions of votes, so I will vote against what you in the House of Commons believe.”

It will be impossible to prevent freely elected people from doing that, particularly when they will never be accountable for anything because they will never go back to the electorate, and I see nothing apart from the Parliament Acts to prevent the other House from challenging the primacy of this House. That takes us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that the proposals will not affect the Government. Ministers may be appointed, but by blocking legislation they could do exactly what the Lib Dems are doing in this debate: blackmail whatever Government are in office so as to get their own way and get posts in the Government.

[Simon Hughes]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) accepts that, at the moment, at the other end of the building there is clearly no party with an overall majority. Indeed, everybody is in a minority. He is worried about having one period only for election and no need for re-election, but what would his alternative be that would end patronage and heredity in the second Chamber, if it is not something like this Bill?

[Graham Stringer]

That is the easiest question I have ever been asked in this Chamber: I would abolish the other House, for the simple reason that, in the constitutional position that we are in, it is difficult to improve and democratise it without diminishing ourselves or having a written constitution.

Policies and manifestos have been mentioned a number of times. On the day after the general election, it was my view that all the parties had lost. The advantage of our system is that the core parts of manifestos are voted for. If a party becomes the Government, it gets the rest of its manifesto because it put that manifesto before people, but when none of the parties has won and there are three differing commitments on House of Lords reform—incidentally, none of those commitments is embodied in the Bill before us—it is difficult to understand how my Front Benchers or Front Benchers from other parties could say, “This Bill is legitimate to put before people and we have the will of the people behind us.” We simply do not have the will of the people behind us on those manifestos and the only answer—again, the Lib Dems are particularly frightened of the electorate—is to put the proposal to a referendum.