I had some success in Committee on the Political Parties and Elections Bill yesterday in moving an amendment to stipulate that the Secretary of State must reply within six months to a report from the Electoral Commission. Under the Political Parties. Elections amd Referendums Act 2000, the Commission may make reports to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State may require a report from the Commission, on matters relating to its particular functions, but the Secretary of State is under no obligation to respond to a report.
My amendment attracted support from Lord Tyler on the Liberal Democrat benches and from Baroness Gould and Lord Campbell-Savours on the Labour benches. The only person to resist it was the minister, Lord Bach, who did so on the grounds that it would impose a burden on government. Sometimes, he said, a considered response would take more than six months. When Lord Campbell-Savours pointed out, that under my amendment, the minister would be able to write to the Commission explaining that, the minister’s response was: ‘But what an added piece of bureaucracy to have to respond within six months. It is small but significant, I would suggest.’
At this point, Hansard records:
‘Noble Lords: Oh!’
This is how Hansard in the Lords records when members start laughing. It was increasingly difficult to take the minister’s response seriously.
I began my response by saying ‘I am tempted to ask the minister whether he recognises that he is speaking out loud’. Before I had got much further, Lord Bach – who had turned round to talk to his officials – got to his feet to declare that, having heard the strong arguments in committee, he felt it was incumbent on the Government to think again about the amendment.
It was an example of the Government listening to what is said and a minister recognising that what he was reading out really did not hold water.
Certainly they seemed to listen, as you say, but isn’t it setting a very low expectations bar for ministers to leap if they gain ‘credit’ for ceasing to defend the indefensible. I can’t decide if the minister in managing to deliver the administrative burden argument with a straight face is depressing or an heroic act of self control and professionalism!
Why is the Grand Committee not picked up by the website software: cost?
I was thinking over my toast: that the government can’t ask for, get a report and fully expect part of its duty to be to reply to the same without it being compelled by an act is part of the reason bills keep getting longer and longer.
As to ‘Noble Lords: Oh!’ I’d always assumed it was surprise, perhaps incredulity but not specifically laughter. Other than shouts of ‘no‘ or peers names/party are there any other collective phrases Hansard uses that that mean something other than might be obvious?
Croft: On the point about gaining credit, being depressing and a heroic act of self-control on the part of the minister are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I think the minister was caught between his official brief and his genuine desire to be helpful.
On your reflections over the toast, I think the minister may have benefited from having you sat behind him. I thought he may deploy the argument that the amendment would set a precedent by being embodied in statute. (Admittedly, my response to that would have been ‘Good’.) On ‘Oh!’ that is used to encompass expressions of surprise and laughter. One needs to be in the chamber (or watching the proceedings) to know which it is. I cannot think of other collective phrases. Such uses tend to be kept to a minimum.
There is perhaps an argument that could be developed in Lord Tyler’s bill that MPs, Peers and supervising bodies should be have legally and criminally enforcible entitlement to a certain minimum level of response from national/local government quangos and so on. Obviously you could build upon that or add exceptions but it would seem logically more effective than adding piecemeal into individual bills.
Lord Norton
Thank you for moving this ammendment – I owe you a cup of tea.
I loved the bit where it was pointed out that all the amendment stituplated was that they had to respond, not how they responded. eg they could say no comment if they really wanted to.
Lets hope they get back to you within 6 months…
Kind regards as always
Croft: An interesting proposal, though one that would need, I suspect, to be carried against the wishes of the Government!
Matthew Oliver: Thanks for the comments (and the prospective cup of tea). I shall be interested to see what the Government come up with on Report. In any event, I shall be pursuing it.