There was a vote in the House on Wednesday on an amendment to the Identity Documents Bill moved by Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who voted (178) outnumbered Labour peers (162). However, the amendment was carried by 220 votes to 188. The Government defeat was attributable to the fact that the cross-bench peers divided heavily against the Government: 51 voted for the amendment and only 8 against. One Liberal Democrat, a Bishop and five ‘others’ also voted with the Opposition.
This shows that if cross-benchers turn out in some numbers and divide heavily against the Government it can lose votes. This is not the first vote that it has lost as a result of such voting. The new peers’ list that has just been announced (27 Conservatives, 15 Liberal Democrats and 1o Labour) bolsters the coalition’s voting strength, so will make it less vulnerable to defeat. Having said that, even if all the new peers had been introduced and voted, the Government would still have lost the vote.
There is also the consideration that the Government may not always be able to rely on its own supporters in every division. It has had to concede major changes to the Public Bodies Bill in the light of criticism from all sides of the House, not least its own. It may also have problems with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, though opposition may not be concentrated on a particular provision.
The new peers will ease the Government’s position (if not the House’s accommodation problems), though the Government will still be vulnerable in situations such as those on Wednesday – and if there are divisions within its own ranks. As the debates on the Second Readings of the Public Bodies Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill demonstrate, the Government cannot necessarily take its own side for granted.
And would the 178 coalition peers be upset if halfway through this year expenses had been cancelled after they spent their money ?
The manipulation used by Government, any, in delaying tactics to strategic votes doesn`t make anything clear. Knowing Crossbenchers & others will often give up as it approaches the small hours is indefensible.
It appears on this occassion crossbenchers carried the day and if it were to carry on in this fashion, I should be pleased. If it did however there is good case to also rid ourselves of the Party element of the House, something I would also be pleased with.
To scrutinise is to judge, any form of bias, outside influence, is unwelcome in my opinion.
Carl.H: The situation, as Lord Lucas has previously indicated, places extra pressure on those of us on the Government side of the House to be extra vigilant.
My Lord, not so.
The Government wanting the bills passed will have the whips out. For the Crossbenchers this won`t be the case and with convenient late sittings…Now let me think who makes up the Usual Channels ?
My Lord you very well know the tactics of the House and the word fair doesn`t alway`s enter into it.
I feel there is great need of an independent body to control the business of the House and a schedule without the need for extremely late sittings, business will still be there the next day.
Carl.H: Having the whips out doesn’t necessarily mean that the members on their benches will necessarily support them. For the Government, it can in any event sometimes be preferable to have a vote earlier rather than late.
I found this paper very interesting:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/bp/journal/v2/n3/pdf/4200064a.pdf?q=lords
The data only covers the Labour Government years and it seem`s from that the Labour were less cohesive than the Conservatives. However the paper does go on to state that the biggest factor in wins or defeats was absenteism and surprisingly the Lib-Dem peers having more of an effect than crossbenchers who seemed absent from a vast majority of votes.
Whilst I have been a proponent of a more independent House the evidence points to the fact this would lead to a less interested Chamber. Could this be that the Crossbenchers are a one trick pony, only interested in their own field whilst Political members take interest as a whole ?
I feel this evidence makes a case for a dedicated House where it becomes a form of employment, although that alone doesn`t guarantee more voting in the House.
I await to see if the Conservatives remain as cohesive as they appeared in opposition and if the Crossbenchers or the Lib-Dems hold the power.
It is an interesting subject but statistically a nightmare to quantify as Policy changes that could be concluded as defeat for Government often occur elsewhere without a vote.
The complexity of the system we have at present means reforms in the making could have severe impact on the Constitution of Parliament.
But isn’t the entire point of a system of Checks and Balances hat the Lower House shouldn’t take things for Granted?
Zarove: Indeed. It is important that the Government, which dominates the Commons, does not take things for granted. It is important, as just indicated in response to Carl.H, that peers do not simply acquiesce in the party line but ensure that they bring their expertise and critical faculties to bear. I think that has been shown in the case of the Public Bodies Bill.
All assuming they aren’t determined to use their 42 new peers to reverse recent defeats – the closer the numbers the more likely late night ping pong will grind the Lords down.
So the government are granting 10 new Labour peers when Labour already had the most peers and the new government creations were designed to counterbalance this situation; so even more peers were then needed to counter the new labour peers. It’s quite quite mad!
Croft: Exactly so. More keep coming in as we consider recommendations how to get some out. We need to reduce the size of the House and then cap the number, with new creations then only being made when vacancies arise. Otherwise, a combination of party patronage and the practice of the Appointments Commission to be somewhat generous in the number of recommendations it makes creates a situation that is not viable.
I can see why, if the current system of an appointed house continues that numbers need to be capped.
However can I ask why the numbers need to be reduced?
Anglo irishman: That’s an excellent question. There are two reasons as far as I can see, one administrative and one political. The former is simply a matter of space. There isn’t the room for the members we now have, never mind the new batch, either in the chamber or in terms of office accommodation. The latter is because of how the House is perceived outside in relation to total size (we will soon be over 800) and in terms of the proportion of the active membership relative to the total size of the House. I favour removing those members who never attend: this obviously will have no impact on the problem of accommodation but it will ensure that we only have members who do at least get engaged with the work of the House.
Many peers are especially exercised about the need to reduce the number of members because of how a large membership will be seen by the public. In my experience – not least talking to schools as part of the Peers in Schools programme – people outside the House don’t have any idea as to the size of the House. I am therefore not as exercised about it as some other members. I think the most important group presently at work is not that looking at the size of the House but that looking at the working practices of the House. If it looks at how we can strengthen our role in terms of legislative scrutiny, among other things, it will be doing a good job.
More keep coming in as we consider recommendations how to get some out.
============
Why don’t you start with yourself instead of winging?
Lord Blagger: Because I modestly believe I make a contribution to the work of the House.
I am not in the habit of winging anything, let alone whingeing about it.
LN: I watched the debate on Legal Aid in the Commons this week and the opposition Justice Minister in starting his piece addressed the Justice Minister as Lord Chancellor.
What surprised me was that this was clearly a trap and it went entirely over the head of both Mr Clarke and the Speaker who by the way was in headmaster mode. What I feel should have happened is that Mr Clarke should have made it clear in what capacity he was going to reply: Justice Minister or Lord Chancellor.
As it turned out he did neither so Hansard records the view of the Lord Chancellor. So is their any difference between the Lord Chancellor ‘Keeper of the Kings Conscience’ or a minister of the executive?
The headmaster ticked off Mr Clarke for speaking overly long and denying back benchers enough time for questions.
What can be done in the house to prevent a repetition of what has just happened in the Commons?
For cost reasons and efficiency.
To run one lord for one day costs the taxpayer over 2,000 pounds.
They actually make very few amendments. Most come from the government using the Lords as the mechanism to change errors in their legistlation instead of the commons.
Plus the general level of corruption. For example, giving out tens of millions without any checks. ie. You can have money for second homes. What’s a second home? We haven’t a clue.
Lord Blagger: Your calculations appear on a par with your spelling and indeed your capacity to absorb what has been written by others. You keep asserting the same point about amendments in the Lords without having any knowledge of their origins: as previously explained – and I assume understood by other readers (since none has challenged it) – the fact that a minister moves an amendment does not demonstrate that it originates in Government. I have achieved changes to legislation through persuading ministers to move particular amendments. The Government today is moving many amendments to the Public Bodies Bill, virtually all of them in response to the criticism of the Bill on Second Reading.
No money is now given out for second homes.
Well my solution remains the same. Its simple really.
Simply Roll back the unnecessary and damaging “Reforms” of 1999 ( And perhaps earlier reforms) and let the Hereditary Peers back in.
Then, after everyone is satisfied that the House is Balanced with the Life Peers and no one thinks they are being treated badly by being outnumbered, but a Moratorium on Life Peerages.
I know that won’t happen but, I’d like to see it anyway.
And perhaps Cap the number of Sitting Lords at 369. Those who hold Peerages can still use the various title’s, but won’t sit in the House. Reserve at least 1/3rd for Hereditaians who can vote their own ranks in (Including sons of former members, rather than just those serving in 1999, forget about Phasing them out) and the 26 Bishops, combined with a few key areas who will be given Automatic Entry, such as the Head of the Royal Science Academy.
Afterward, Cap it at 360.
Of course you may ask how then we get rid of those sitting now? I have an easy, but long coming solution for that one. Once upon a time we thought long term, but todays world wants instant Solutions. Perhaps there is an easier but longer one. We install the Cap of 369 and then put in a disclaimer that says no new Lords will be Created till the number of sitting Lords drops below 369.
So if we have, say, 800 Lords, they can all continue to sit. None will be forced to leave. However, none would be added either. This would remain the same till the Numbers drop to below 369. Once it hits 368, then there will be one Vacancy.
It would also ensure no new Lords are added for a while, I grant you, but…
“In my experience – not least talking to schools as part of the Peers in Schools programme – people outside the House don’t have any idea as to the size of the House.”
To misquote Clausewitz “Westminster politics is the continuation of Islington (now Notting Hill) dinner party conversation by another means”
It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which the issues that exercise the chattering/political classes most are often inversely proportional to those of the public.
Croft: Quite so. That’s why I find it so useful to spend time talking, and listening, to people outside the House. What exercises us is often very different to what interests them – which is usually the substance of particular issues.
There was money given out for second homes.
However, the mechanism where the 11 were protected from prosecution from the police was that there was no checking of what was a second home.
You know, the behaviour that was deemed sufficient that it would bring the lords into disrepute so Michael Pownall made it a state secret.
Still no release of that little report.
For those that don’t know, Michael Pownall is the Clerk of parliament. He is responsible for handing out the expenses money. He also investigated the expenses of the Lords. He also made the report a state secret.
Purely factual so the censors don’t get upset.