We had a five-hour debate yesterday on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. It rather resembled the Second Reading debate in the Commons in that the Bill was friendless on the back-benches. Indeed, only the minister spoke in support.
I made the case for insisting on the normal intervals between the stages of the Bill. The Bill is not going to address public anger over MPs expenses. An MP saying ‘My allowances were cleared by the IPSA’ rather than ‘My allowances were cleared by the Fees Office’ is not really going to assuage public anger or avoid media interest. The Bill has constitutional implications that have not been thought through. The fact that the Govermment keep making concessions and accepting amendments as they go along demonstrates the extent to which this constitutes legislating on the hoof. By rushing the Bill through in an attempt to assuage public anger, we deny ourselves the opportunity to consult one particular body – the public. We also set up a scheme that may then need changing, possibly fudamentally, in the autumn when the Committee on Standards in Public Life reports. The irony is that a great deal can be done to address the problems of pay and allowances without the need for legislating. The Bill is a rushed response to the ‘something must be done’ syndrome.
After the Bill had been given a Second Reading, the Leader of the House moved the motion to commit the Bill to a committee of the whole House. I then moved my amendment insisting that we maintain the normal interval between Second Reading and committee. The Government benches were whipped. The Liberal Democrats conceded that the Bill was flawed and rushed, but then said almost in the same breath that they planned to vote with Government. The Opposition front bench was committed to abstaining. Given all that, I did not expect to win but, given that an important principle was at stake, I put the amendment to the vote.
I lost by 88 votes to 110. However, what was interesting was the breakdown of the vote:
Content
Conservative 44 Crossbench 23 Labour 12 Lib Dem 6 Other 2 Bishops 1
Not content
Labour 84 Lib Dem 18 Crossbench 7 Other 1
Not only did the cross-benchers support the amendment by a margin of 3 to 1, I got some very senior members in the lobby, including legal figures such as Lord Woolf (former lord chief justice), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (former law lord), Lord Neil of Bladon (former chairman of the Committee of Standards in Public Life) , Baroness Butler-Sloss, and Lord Pannick. The 12 Labour peers included former ministers Lords Barnett, Clark of Windermere, Clinton-Davis, Gilbert, Morris of Aberavon, and Rooker. I was also very pleased that six Liberal Democrats ignored their party line. I got the support of the sole Bishop, the Bishop of Exeter.
I recorded an interview earlier this morning for The Week in Westminster with Peter Riddell. He said that if the amendment had been carried, the Lords would have been criticised for delaying a Bill to clean up Parliament. (Some are already reporting it as an attempt to delay such a Bill.) I pointed out that I would rather have bad publicity and good legislation than have good publicity and bad legislation.
Rushed legislation is rarely good legislation.
Close indeed. The Labour whips were cutting things rather fine for a margin of error. A few interesting names on both sides of the vote. Indeed some of those voting against your amendment have been very vocal about rushed legislation, some remarkably recently without seemingly following their own words!
Onwards into the Valley of Death rode the 88! Bishops to the left of them etc etc…
Considering the odds you were up against, I think you did very well. I wonder whether Parliametary coverage of the Lords might be enhanced with Tony Robinson in the background: “…and we’ve got just THREE DAYS to get it right. See you after the vote!”
I’m not sure I want to know exactly who voted for what. When voting for things that are good for the country but hugely unpopular (e.g. Europe, taxation) I wouldn’t like what common sense our representative’s have to be swayed from the national interest by the fear of losing one’s seat (e.g. marginal constituency).
Yes I do realise that my argument is more valid in the other place and am presuming you had permission from the named lords to cite them.
j
Croft: I think the Labour whips may not have had much option. I had Labour peers telling me they planned to abstain. Even some who voted with the Government saw me to express less than supportive views of the Bill!
stephenpaterson: Many thanks. Given the problems of contacting peers and encouraging them to come in at relatively short notice, I was very gratified by the turnout.
j: Voting is matter of public record. If you click on the link, you will see the division list and who voted in each lobby. I was impresed with the quality as well as the quantity – but especially the former – of peers in the Content lobby.
There is something a touch illogical if you have reservations about a bill, are presented an opportunity to slightly slow its passage and give time for solutions to be attempted, to nevertheless still vote it through. Your amendment was neither wrecking nor a substantial brake – are peers so frightened to be seen to block ‘reform’?
The results point to a problem of an elected and whipped second chamber. Again.
Interestingly we’ve just had a small victory for members conscience over the removal of the free speech protection in the Coroners and Justice Bill. Both the Tories and the LDs were given a free vote only Labour was whipped. Government defeat by 186-133. The question now is how hard do the government want to fight and how determined our the peers. I can’t see the breakdown of the vote as yet…
Dear Lord Norton,
Well done on carrying the House in the way you did.
I listened to most of the debate and have to say that the contribution of one of your fellow bloggers was the most hilarious and illogical speech I have heard for a very long time. Nevertheless, I commend the straight face with which it was delivered.
Howridiculous.
Croft: I think it was a combination of accepting the ‘something must be done’ argument – which seems to be an acceptance of the ‘something, anything, must be done, regardless of what it is’ approach – and Labour peers not wishing to go against the Government. Even in resisting my amendment, the Leader of the House relied on the ‘something must be done’ argument – ‘the public expect action’. My amendment was designed to ensure that we made sure it was the most appropriate action.
Howridiculous: I think many members found it difficult to follow the logic of an argument that went along the lines of saying ‘the Bill is flawed, time is needed to get it right, but we don’t support giving more time to get it right.’