Last Thursday the House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill reached Committee stage in the Chamber of the House. Briefly the Bill, tabled by a LibDem peer, seeks to ensure that those peers who sit in the House must be registered to pay UK tax and therefore resisdent in the UK. It doesn’t take a genius to recognise that this is aimed at disqualifying those peers who are not currently resident in the UK (including for example foreign-based donors).
This Private Members’ Bill was destined to fall as do the majority especially since the Government had signalled its reluctance to support it. But what happened was that the Bill was talked out or filibustered during the only time allocated to it by the Government business managers. It was an amusing spectacle, although obviously not for the mover of the Bill.
Lord Selsdon a hereditary backbench peer who is fiendishly clever and likes a bit of fun tabled an extraordinary amendment at 5.15 PM that took him half an hour to argue. Given that his was the first amendment and there were some 40 others waiting their turn and given that it was a Thursday and business is meant to close at 7.30 PM at the latest, it was clear that there would be no time for the full Committee stage and thus the bill would fall.
So Lord Selsdon (and his peroration has to be read to be believed) was interrupted no less than seven times, at least twice in attempts to get him to complete his argument and sit down. However, he was having none of it and even after he sat down his noble colleagues on the Tory benches continued the arguments.
The result was that we reached 6.37 PM and Lord Selsdon then called a vote which he lost 8 to 37 but by the end of this filibustering it was too late to continue with other amendments, the House adjourned and the bill was lost.
I’ve never witnessed such a blatant ‘talking out’ before and as a way of pre-empting an unpopular piece of potential legislation it has its uses – all I can say is that it was carried out with elegance and wit but with a real gladiator spirt nonetheless.
So this is democracy in action!
I’m sure a large portion of the public would think that members of the upper House of Parliament certainly should pay tax in the UK, and any visitors to this country would find it unbelievable that it isn’t already the case. The only people who don’t want it are members of the Lords themselves. No wonder some people are clamouring for Lords reform.
Is the problem not the lack of time allocated by the government for Private Members’ Bills? Of course, there is an element of filibuster involved, but two hours is hardly sufficient for the committee stage of a bill that raises many questions.
“I’ve never witnessed such a blatant ‘talking out’ before and as a way of pre-empting an unpopular piece of potential legislation it has its uses – all I can say is that it was carried out with elegance and wit but with a real gladiator spirt [sic] nonetheless.”
First: unpopular with who? This sounds like it would be very popular with the voters! You know, those people who had no say in your becoming a member of the upper house of Parliament?
Second: so all you can come up with when you see a blatant filibustering is elegance and wit? How about the terms “undemocratic” and “unfair”? Don’t they strike you as rather more apposite on this occasion?
This post — it seems unwittingly so! — says everything about why ordinary citizens are tired of the whole Westminster game, because it has little to do with justice and much to do with “wit” and “elegance” which are nothing of the kind.
@Johnathan: Like most things it’s never quite so simple. You have the issue of peers working for the UK government abroad or in UN or other international agencies we’d want UK representatives or those with interests abroad which is why they have been offered a peerage. I notice from the debate the obvious objection by those who pay tax under dual taxation treaties where you pay part tax to two countries and receive a rebate for the part in each country. Having just read the bill – I read it as removing a peers for life if at any time after receiving a title they work and pay their tax abroad. It’s not even as though they are only removed for that period of time they work and pay tax abroad but forever.
I think Lords Selsdon must be in line for the Eric Forth award for obstructing private members bills. Some quite amusing points from all sides:
“Lord Goodhart:I was looking over my right shoulder in order to impose doom and gloom on the noble Lord.” 😀
Lord Trefgarne’s anecdote about writing a ministerial letter and having to reply disagreeing with himself!
“Lord Hunt of Kings Heath:I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I had hoped to escape the pain for just a day.” 🙂
Jonathan,
Do you have proof of your spurious claims? If you had read the noble Baroness’ entry properly, you’ll have noticed that the Bill was going through the House swimmingly until one peer wrecked it. The government was known to be cool to the Bill, while a large portion of the House was welcoming of it.
Therefore your claim that ‘the only people who don’t want it are the Lords themselves’ is false.
Finally, the bill is to disqualify those Lords who evade tax by claiming foreign residency, *not* because Lords are somehow tax-exempt. The vast majority of Lords are UK resident and therefore subject to tax like everybody else.
Adrian Kidney: I think you are mistaken in thinking it was going ‘swimmingly’; the bill had very tight time parameters and lacked support from either front bench. It was never going to become law – the question was only at what point would it fail.
I suspect that most lords do want reform in this area but that’s not to say they want(ed) this bill.
Just to mix it up a bit, as ever, why should the tax-deferring plebs who live abroad be able to vote for 15 years in UK & Euro parliamentary elections?
I didn’t necessarily mean all peers wanted the Bill to fail. Indeed, if only a small minority of Lords can cause a Bill to fall, that makes matters even worse.
First post here so hello everybody!
If the government had signalled its reluctance to support this Bill, what was the point of any debate? If you know that you’re not going to be able to get the numbers, why not move on to something else where there is a chance of success? It’s not as though there is a shortage of work to do.
This sort of thing really puzzles me. Is this really the most efficient way to operate? Can’t someone come up with something better? – e.g. all the debating and amending is done by a committee attended by those with an interest, a report presented to all Lords (representatives of those for and against could present their case) and then the vote. I can’t see what is lost compared to the current process and it’s hopefully more efficient.
First of all, sorry about the spelling mistake.
Second, as I think I have said before, Private Members’ Bills very, very rarely go forward to become law for a number of reasons. The Bill was therefore going to fall at some point and many would argue that the sooner the better in terms of saving time.In this sense ‘talking out’ acted as a kind of guillotine.
Third, undoubtedly there are spats between political groups but there is also a great deal of co-operation and had this been a bill destined to go through all its stages, ‘talking out’ would not have been tolerated.
Fourth, OF COURSE the Lords themselves want reform INCLUDING on tax status of members but the bill was not going to achieve this goal. I have not met anyone in this House who doesn’t want reform – it is a question of what kind of reform and when. For example, as again I have written about before, the Government is opposed to ‘piecemeal reform’ thinking that it would pre-empt the major reform (a fully elected House etc) they want to achieve.
I believe that incremental reform would be preferable and indeed have recently spoken in the House to try and promote retirement of those members who don’t attend for whatever reasons, and/or those who wish to take an honourable retirement.
Finally I wonder if Guy really thinks that an elected House would prevent filibustering? There is a great deal more of it in the other place than in the Lords!
Is this Commons interaction related?
T5. [263776] Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Tomorrow, the Political Parties and Elections Bill goes into the House of Lords, where Lord Campbell-Savours will table my amendments, which were backed in this house by 216 MPs but were not reached for procedural reasons. May I ask my friend the Minister why the Government will not table their own amendments to make it unlawful for tax exiles to bankroll UK political parties?
17 Mar 2009 : Column 773
Mr. Straw: I have had some private discussions with my hon. Friend, to which he has given a wider audience. As I have explained to him, I think that his intention is shared across the House. However, his proposals would not have the consequences that he seeks. Moreover, there is quite an issue of principle here: it would be eccentric, to say the least, if the eligibility rules governing voting and receiving money from permissible donors, as well as standing for and taking up a seat in a Parliament, were less stringent than those governing giving money to a political party. I think that there needs to be consistency on this, and that is why we need a thorough examination of all these issues of residence and citizenship as qualifications for taking part in our democratic process.
Ref: Hansard: T5. [263776], 17 Mar 2009 : Column 773
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090317/debtext/90317-0003.htm
I’ve just heard Lord Selsdon do the same thing to the House of Lords Bill today. Elegant and witty it was not, arrogant and selfish more like. He sounded like the sort of Union hack who treat politics as their own personal plaything for light amusement. I have done a fair bit of research work in the Lords and have a great deal of respect for many peers who manage a much higher standard of argument than their fellow legislators in the other place. Lord Selsdon is clearly not one of them!
Not a good week for Lord Selsdon then! He is a hereditary peer and never fails to contribute to a wide range of debates and ALWAYS without a note in his hand.
Incidentally, he admitted not so long ago that he had never been a member of a political party even though he sits on the Tory backbenches and is assumed by almost everyone else to be a Tory.
I often fail to understand precisely what the Justice Minister, Jack Straw, means.