Select Committee on Governance of the House

Debate between Oliver Heald and Lord Hain

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I support what has been said about the need for us to show support for the Chair and to be respectful of it. I must, however, pick a bone with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who said that he had had no support for his modernisation measures. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box as shadow Leader of the House and being shoulder to shoulder with him on that issue. I got a right pasting for it. So he did get my support, but it was not always easy.

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful for it.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you.

It has been mentioned that the Clerk of the House has an important role as our adviser on the constitution, procedure and business. The role is important not only to us but to those in many other countries who consult our Clerk because he or she is the leading expert on those constitutional matters. As the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, we now face big issues relating to the operation of the devolution settlement, human rights and other matters, and we need authoritative advice to be given in a definitive way by someone with the standing of the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House is paid at the rate of a Lord Justice of Appeal—not a High Court judge—because he is in a comparable position of authority, or so it has always been thought.

I want to give the House two examples of the kind of advice that I have seen our Clerk give. For my sins, I sat on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. We had experts, academics and all the top lawyers appearing before the Committee; everybody came to give evidence over a long period. When we read the report, however, we can see that the most authoritative witness was Sir Robert Rogers, the Clerk of the House. People disagreed about that issue, but no one disagreed that it was fantastic to see him giving evidence to us; he could point to the 1671 or the 1678 resolution of the House, for example, and express the matter in question in a simple, straightforward way.

Similarly, when I was serving on the Standards and Privileges Committee, we had to deal with the difficult issues arising from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report on phone hacking. We had to decide whether there had been contempt of the House, and whether issues of privilege arose from that. It was the Clerk of the House who gave the most convincing and authoritative advice. Someone needs to be able to give such advice. A position of authority is required, and I would not want to see that position diminished.

I do not disagree with the point that we also need modern, efficient business practice here in the House. Sir Kevin Tebbit looked at that matter in 2007 and decided that a chief operating officer—a deputy Clerk with commercial experience from outside this place—was the answer. We need to look at all these questions. Can we split the role? Is there a case for a deputy with commercial experience? For once, I think it should be the House itself that does this. We should not bring in outside experts. We have had the Ibbs, Braithwaite and Tebbit reports; now let us do this ourselves. I support the motion.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Oliver Heald and Lord Hain

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Despite his eloquence, I disagree with most of what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said. There are two issues that I wish to address from the outset. The first is the charge that now is not the right time. It never is the right time to introduce constitutional reform. That is the dreary, weary excuse that anti-reformers use over and over again. It was used about devolution and almost every other constitutional reform brought in by the last Labour Government whom I was proud to serve. What if great reformers over the years had decided that it was not the right time? What if Aneurin Bevan had said, “I have this really good idea for a national health service, but the country is broke and we are probably going to lose the next election, so it is not the right time”? What if the suffragettes had said, “We’d really like the right to vote, but there is so much else going on at the moment; let’s leave it to the men for a few more years”?

Secondly, if any of us had been starting from scratch and designing a second Chamber for a new, modern democracy, it is inconceivable that any of us would have come up with the House of Lords in its present incarnation. Of course we would not have done so; the very idea is risible. The truth is the House of Lords is an anachronism, and we all know it. Yes, it performs a valuable scrutinising and revising role. Yes, it demonstrates a diligence often superior to that of the Commons. When I was a Minister appearing before a Lords Parliamentary Committee, the standard of questioning was often more stringent and, I regret to say, its members often better informed than those in the Commons. There is, however, absolutely no reason why that standard of performance could not be maintained, possibly even exceeded, by a democratic second Chamber with new blood and new expertise. This is not about a personnel change; it is about accountability and democracy.

In any case, the fact that the House of Lords performs a valuable role is no reason to maintain it in its current constitutional form. It is a democratic farce, an arbitrary mixture of a majority deriving their place from patronage and a minority deriving it from titles inherited from a liaison with a royal, centuries ago. It is a hangover from pre-democracy days, a constitutional dinosaur.

Labour has a proud record, going back to our first Labour leader, Keir Hardie, of demanding a democratic second Chamber. If we do not take this opportunity now, through this Bill, to ensure that we have a democratically constituted second Chamber, we will be throwing away that opportunity—if not for ever, certainly for this generation. It is a “now or maybe never” decision.

We will try to amend the Bill. For instance, I am a supporter of the reformed democratic second Chamber having a “secondary” not a “primary” mandate. That principle, eloquently enunciated by Billy Bragg, will help to address the crucial issue of the primacy of the Commons. I am not in favour of electors having two votes—one for MPs, one for Lords—as there should be just one vote: for MPs. This House should continue to have the primary representative mandate from our constituents. Parliament should consist of MPs with legislative primacy by virtue of their primary mandate, with peers discharging their important revising, scrutinising role by virtue of their democratic but secondary mandate. That is an issue for Committee; for now, we have a duty to give the Bill a Second Reading.

[Oliver Heald]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Joint Committee, which examined at the draft Bill, suggested that the Government should have another look at forms of indirect election that preserve the supremacy of this House while still giving a democratic legitimacy to the other place? Does he agree that looking again at some of those ideas would be well worth while?

[Mr Hain]

I do if the hon. Gentleman means by that the secondary mandate.

I remind the House that the last time the Commons voted on a very similar proposition to that put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister—the one put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in March 2007—it voted decisively for an elected Chamber. A 100% elected Chamber was favoured by 337 votes to 224, and an 80% elected one by 305 votes to 267. Surely this House of Commons, with hundreds of younger MPs of a new generation, is not going to backtrack on that vote? With new MPs of a new generation, we should be increasing the majority for reform.

One of our greatest parliamentarians, Robin Cook, told the House on 4 Feb 2003 that there was a real possibility of House of Lords reform becoming a parliamentary equivalent of “Waiting for Godot”:

“it never arrives and some have become rather doubtful whether it even exists, but we sit around talking about it year after year.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 152.]

For the very first time, all three parties have a manifesto mandate for Lords reform. To betray that mandate would be to betray trust even more. This House has a once in a political lifetime opportunity to bring down the curtain on what must rank as the longest political gridlock in the history of parliamentary democracy. It is high time we resolved this once and for all, and brought our democracy fully into the 21st century by an historic decision for a democratic second Chamber.