You will have heard on the BBC that peers have reached a deal to end the filibuster relating to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. You may not have realised that the deal was brokered by the crossbenchers, led by our Convenor, Baroness d’Souza. After taking the sense from all sides of what would move the issue forward, she put forward an amendment to allow the Boundary Commission to hold public inquiries into boundary changes in some cases. The amendment was also in the names of crossbenchers Lord Woolf (former Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice), Lord Pannick (leading QC in the human rights and public law fields – I am proud to say I taught him some law when he was a student!) and Lord Williamson, former Convenor of the crossbenchers. The government agreed to this proposal and there was also agreement on completing this committee stage of the bill by Wednesday evening.
This shows that the crossbenchers can play a valuable role in bridging disagreement between the government and the opposition. Baroness d’Souza said that, having performed that role, we crossbenchers would again retire from the political fray. What we wanted to avoid was the closure motion, or guillotine, to cut short the traditional role of the Lords in scrutinising legislation for as long as it takes. If a guillotine had been imposed, it might also have signalled the end of the House’s self governance. Nevertheless the constitutional tectonic plates have shifted.
A reminder of the value of having a guaranteed place for law lords in the chamber? (Albeit reired from the supreme court).
I am confused by this notion of ‘the end of the House’s self governance and ‘guillotines being imposed’. Does this mean that the Government could guillotine the debate without a vote and the majority being in favour? If this is the case then there is a need to urgently revise the Standing Orders of the House.
If there is a vote then Peers can vote for or against such a motion and therefore are still regulating their own business. If there had been a guillotine vote then surely this would have failed as so many Tory, Liberal Democrat and Crossbench Peers would have voted against in order to ensure that the Lords could continue to scrutinise legislation for as long as they like?
The very thought of a guillotine motion and the aristocracy brings visions of Robespierre who of course eventually suffered the same fate.
The complete episode to my mind has only strengthened the opinion that the House would be far better as a non-partisan entity.
“Crossbenchers would again retire from the political fray”.
Is that possible given the dignity? I won’t mention that the olive crop may benefit now-Oops already did-sorry BM. It was good to know that even those crossbenchers whose expertise lay elsewhere played a great part and spent an awful lot of time on this bill.
Slightly off-topic now.
I know the noble Baroness is a pedant when it comes to grammar and I note she spells d’Souza with a lower case “d” as opposed to everywhere else I seem to look. I shall accept this as the correct form as it’s unlikely the Lady is wrong.
You may well be right about the upper case! I shall have to ask her.
I checked with her and you are right, Carl.H. BigDBigS. Won’t make that mistake again.
Thank you for clearing that up Baroness Deech.I was confused because I know you are very strict on grammar.
Thanks for the update, and good to see this has been resolved amicably.
I am a big fan of the role of the Lords in scrutinising legislation – generally more effective than the Commons. However, having read a fair amount of the debate on this bill it is clear the debate went well beyond expert scrutiny and blatantly into filibustering. The Lords should self-regulate and self-govern but they should not allow a relatively short bill like this to take up such a disproportionate amount of the House’s time. Ultimately if delaying tactics so blatant are taking place that is an abuse of the House and the Lords (by majority vote) surely have to have the right to cut debate short and move to a vote.
Another great article by Paul Waugh..
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/21697/lords_rebellion_it_aint_over_yet.html
He is less optimistic than Benny ‘On the ball’ Brogan of the Telegraph about this getting through on time..
Time for a little side bet ? Fiver says that the referendum is a dead-duck…
On a lighter note, might another noble Lord have time to join Lords of the Blog to give a few words of wisdom on the Big Society ?
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2011/02/03/too-busy-big-society-boss-responds/
no wei jose…
amendment to allow the Boundary Commission to hold public inquiries into boundary changes in some cases
Which is what they do, in any event, but no harm in putting an amendment to a new act as well.