There is a big difference between the way the business is planned in the Commons and in the Lords. I used to be a minor channel (a drain rather than a canal, perhaps) when I was Chief Whip and then Shadow Leader of the Commons for the Liberal Democrats. There, so long as the Government of the day had a majority, it could always dictate how and when the business was taken. We hardly every met as a group, and the Government Chief Whip simply adopted to old tactic of “divide and rule”. Under administrations of both colours this often meant that MPs had very limited opportunities to debate, or even vote on, controversial issues.
The much-lamented Robin Cook, when he was Leader of the House, convened one cross-party meeting to seek consensus on that year’s legislative programme. His Cabinet colleagues hated the idea. When he resigned (over the Iraq invasion) it was never repeated.
Because in the Lords no one party has a majority – and should never again do so, if and when reform goes through – the Government “business managers” can never behave like this. If the two opposition parties demand more time to scrutinise a Bill in Committee, for example, the “Usual Channels” have to work out, together, how to make this happen. A much healthier system I hope you will agree.
But I don’t envy those who have to undertake these complex negotiations in the Lords. On Tuesday, for example, we were originally down to have the 7th Committee Day on the Marine & Coastal Access Bill. We would normally start immediately after Questions (just after 3pm) and continue until about 7.30pm, break for other business during the “Dinner Hour”, resume at about 8.30pm and finish at about 10pm. However, the day before some Northern Ireland legislation was slotted in beforehand, followed by two urgent statements on the murders there and the latest twist to the bank bail-out. Result ? – we didn’t start marinating until just on 7pm, no dinner break and finish past 10 o’clock. Having hung about ready for action from 6pm, after a cup of tea, by the time I got back to my daughter’s flat at 10.45 I was ravenous, and had to raid her fridge for cheese and a banana.
Meanwhile, the “Usual Channels” have got to find several more Committee Days in the Chamber for the Marine Bill. We do a much better job than the Commons examining Bills line by line, and a chaotic diary is the price. I think it’s worth it, though, to ensure legislation gets the scrutiny it deserves.
I have been watching the Marine and Costal Access Bill and it is going slowly. If the Lords is elected, you will loose the consensus method of operating as at present. As a government with a big majority in both houses can rule as it does in the Commons. Or simply a big party majority in either house will ignore all opposition. Lords Reform should be left well alone, the house at the moment works a lot better than if it were to be elected.
I should say I’ve had a damned awful day, fed up with lame response from Clive Soley, and am putting off dinner to post this.
I’m in full rant mode now and you have fallen foul of the unfortunate timing to post about “…to ensure legislation gets the scrutiny it deserves and then bang on about not being fed.
Remember you are supposed to be scrutinising, not making laws. What’s the problem?
Are you talking of Marine & Coastal Access Bill? Isn’t he the captain of HMS Scrutineer? Known for its grogginess and the ability to knock seven bells out of anybody called William. It steers it way forward using mind maps?
Suffering the ravages of Lent are you?
I suppose HSE won’t allow anybody to take a packed lunch and flask into chamber because of its association with mice and men? There was a time when a Commons whip could be heard sucking on an orange or cracking a nut between his knees. The record is somewhat obscure as to what went on in the House of Lords.
Ref: Activities, which are out of order during debate
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G07.pdf
I think it’s worth it, though, to ensure legislation gets the scrutiny it deserves.
I know that it is worth it. We have a government that thinks that the answer to everything is to rush through a piece of ill thought out legislation. Thank God that the HOL does full scrutiny otherwise we would have had the dreadful Religious Hatred Bill on the books, with all its abuses of personal freedom to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
I look forward to your rejection of the “Information Sharing Orders” Part 8 (clauses 151 – 154) in the The Coroners & Justice Bill. These represent an amazing step towards a police state with the ability to share our personal data with a large number of people, possibly 390,000 as one Minister said.
Lord Tyler, how would you propose for an elected House not to have a majority (or near-majority) for one party?
I am very disappointed that Tory Boy has not yet read the White Paper on Lords Reform, prepared by representatives of all three parties.
If he had he would realise that there is not the remotest possibility of ANY party gaining an overall majority in the reformed House under the electoral system suggested. Even if all 100% were elected, replicating precisely the system for MPs – as the Conservatives have suggested – the fact that only one third would be elected at any one time would prevent that happening.
As it is much more likely that 80% would be elected, in three tranches and with a fixed term, by a system which gives fairer representation to the voter, the reformed House would clearly remain free of Government domination.
I hope that will reassure Adrian Kidney, but he too should read the White Paper “An Elected Second Chamber: Further reform of the House of Lords” Cm 7438 for the full and agreed cross-party analysis.
Adrian Kidney: Well it certainly isn’t via election, even PR. The Cross benchers who’d never survive in an elected house serve as a useful buffer against what would otherwise become commonplace, though thankfully seems at least under control, namely the two major parties simply sitting down and stitching up a deal between themselves without regard for other members.
How do the usual channels deal with membership of cttees in the Lords? The commons with big party majorities can be a complete farce. You only have to look at the Kafkaesque Regional Select Committees where government has imposed apportioned members not relative to the region the committee represents but the house as a whole ie 5/3/1 (Labour/C/LibD). So for instance the South West which has 13 Labour MPs, 22 Conservatives & 16 LDs still has a Labour majority. Even more absurdly due to lack of numbers some MPs are could be ‘shipped in’ from other regions to ‘represent’ a region their party lacks MPs. You couldn’t make it up!