Improving legislation

December 12, 2009 – 12:32 am

At Wednesday’s meeting of the Constitution Committee, we devoted most of our time to discussing a draft of our report on the Cabinet Office.  However, we also approved a short report on the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill.  This is a Private Member’s Bill which has Government support.  The subject matter is uncontentious, but we raised with Government a number of concerns about the drafting, not least the breadth of the ‘Henry VIII’ clauses.  As a result, the Government has accepted our concerns and brought forward amendments to meet them. 

I mention this simply as an indication of the type of constructive dialogue that takes place between committees and ministers.  Some concerns are raised in reports; some points are raised in correspondence.  When I chaired the Constitution Committee, I was in correspondence with ministers on a number of Bills, with various amendments being made by Government as a consequence.  Many recommendations are not on fundamental issues, though some are on crucial aspects of a Bill.   Taken in combination, the  changes made are substantial.  Committee reports on Bills may receive little attention – the report I have drawn to your attention may gets it highest readership through this post – but they make an important contribution to improving what reaches the statute book.

By lordnorton | Posted in Lord Norton | Tagged | Comments (6)

Debating climate change

December 10, 2009 – 10:17 pm

It has been a rather hectic week.  I may join other bloggers in commenting on the issue of expenses, but it has not been at the forefront of my mind.  This week, I have been dashing from meeting to meeting.  I will be doing one or two posts about some of the meetings, not least the one I hosted this evening for Debatewise and the International Debate Education Association (IDEA), drawing students from about twenty countries, primarily new democracies and some non-democratic countries, to encourage debate and dialogue.  Some of the students are bloggers, including in countries where free exchange is not encouraged.

However, the purpose of this post is to draw attention to a debate in the House earlier this week.  On Tuesday, the House debated the Committee on Climate Change’s progress report: Meeting Carbon Budgets-The Need for a Step Change.   It was notable for the quality of the contributors, who included Lord May of Oxford (as readers of last week’s quiz will know, a former President of the Royal Society), Lord Stern of Brentwood (author of the Stern review), Lord Hunt of Chesterton (a professor of climate modelling) and Lord Krebs (Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and former Royal Society Research Professor).

In the debate, Lord Stern made a fascinating contribution, not least in explaining the high stakes involved in the Copenhagen summit.   In advocating low-carbon growth, he said:

“What does low-carbon growth look like? It is more energy-secure and is cleaner, quieter, safer and more biodiverse. Surely the choice is crystal clear. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made very clear the appropriate risk analysis in this area. If we go ahead and ignore the warnings of the science, it will be very difficult to back out of the position that we find ourselves in because of the longevity of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. If the risks turn out to be lower than we currently think them to be and we go down the more sensible route, we will have a more energy-efficient society, we will have an economy and new technologies, and we will be more biodiverse. On any commonsensical analysis of risk, surely the path to follow is clear.”

 Lord Clark of Windermere, chairman of the Forestry Commission, also developed a point about the need to make greater use of timber.  Wood helps sequester carbon.  He went on:

“On top of that we can store even more carbon in the timber itself. It is therefore important that we use more wood in our construction industry because it would tie up carbon for many years, decades and occasionally centuries. We ought to do that. It is possible. Between 80 and 90 per cent of new houses in Scotland are built using the timber-framed method; in England, the figure is less than 20 per cent. The challenge for the Government is to give a lead to architects, developers and builders. It is not only a sensible way to store carbon but, given our climate, it is a cheaper way to build houses.”

These are merely snippets from a short but highly informative debate.

By lordnorton | Posted in Lord Norton | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (4)

Putting Our Own House in Order (Part 2)

December 10, 2009 – 12:16 pm

Don’t take my word for it, read what the Lord Speaker had to say last night: “Ermine, Ethics and Engagement – Evolution in the House of Lords“ is a must for everyone who wants Parliament to do a better job of keeping the Government up to the mark. And in the process, we may be able to restore a bit of trust in our representative democracy.

Why are we waiting ? It would be so very damaging if the Government and Opposition front benches in the Lords drag their feet, hoping to play party games with these reform issues in the run-up to the 2010 General Election.

We elected the independent Lord Speaker to stand above all this nonsense: let her lead the way now to drag the Lords into the 21st century.

By lordtyler | Posted in Lord Tyler | Comments (14)

All in a Day’s Work – 8th December 2009

December 10, 2009 – 12:15 pm

12.30 pm:  In the bleak Committee Room W3, adjoining the late medieval splendour of Westminster Hall.  Listened to the British Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova at an All Party Group.  Asked him about the million or so Moldovans who are obliged to seek work outside their country.

1.00 pm:  At a larger public meeting in Parliament.  Listened to a Palestinian journalist who is also an Israeli citizen.  He thought that conflict-management is about the only possible thing, in the present stalemate between Israel and Palestine.  I concluded that Western policy towards this conflict has been a terrible failure ever since the Oslo Agreement of 1993. 

3.30:  Listened with others interested in Northern Ireland to Paul  Goggins MP, the NIO Minister.  He explained the current situation and I asked about prisoners in Northern Ireland and the large numbers of fine defaulters who spend just a few days in prison.  Also about their management  problems.  Got quite positive answers.

4.30 pm:  Small tea party in the Lords Dining Room for members and their friends of the Democratic Society Party of Turkey.  This has 21 members in the Parliament, speaking for the large Kurdish national minority.  Although they work in a fully constitutional way they are accused of links to a terrorist group and threatened with closure and exclusion from public life.  If the constitutional Court rules to disband the party I believe that political violence may increase and there will be delays to urgent reforms and  harm to Turkey’s application for EU membership.

By Lord Hylton | Posted in Lord Hylton | Tagged | Comments (4)

Twelve Suggestion for Reforms to improve democracy, and efficiency of Government

December 9, 2009 – 2:21 pm

These are my twelve suggestions for reforms to improve our democracy, and to increase the efficiency of government:

The House of Commons should elect the Prime Minister for the duration of the coming Parliament.  This should be fixed at either four or five years.

The Prime Minister should choose his cabinet, drawing Ministers from both Houses of Parliament, or from outside.  Ministers should not be allowed to vote in Parliament.  If they come from outside, they would have to answer questions and debates and to pilot new legislation through Parliament.

The House of Commons should elect the Chairman and members of its select and standing committees.  Parliamentary Private Secretaries should be abolished, since their votes are traditionally tied to the government of the day.

At Parliamentary elections, candidates gaining 51% or more of the votes should be elected.  Where this does not happen, the two top candidates in terms of votes, should take part in a run-off election.  All elected MPs would thus be assured of majority support.

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should not be allowed to vote on purely English issues.  Some reciprocal limitations may be necessary, but the principle of devolution must be upheld.

There should be a joint committee of both Houses to resolve issues, where the House of Commons has twice rejected House of Lords amendments in the same Parliament.

Whipping of votes on party lines should only be allowed on “confidence” issues, when the Government stake their continuance on the result of the vote.

Political parties should have strict limits on the amount of money they may spend (a) on general elections, and (b) between elections.

Candidates for the House of Commons should be selected by primary elections.  Each constituency should decide whether its primary elections should be open to all voters, or else restricted to registered party members.

The new Parliament might decide whether there should be a moratorium on all, except absolutely urgent, legislation.  This could enable existing laws to be consolidated and better enforced.

Parliament should decide to what extent lobbying and expenditure on gaining influence in Parliament for special interests is permissable. 

Government departments, with large administrative functions, should have departmental boards, eg for foreign affairs, security and policing, immigration, health, prisons etc.  Ministers would normally chair these boards, whose members should ensure maximum continuity, administrative competence and interdepartmental cooperation.  Boards would relate to Parliamentary scrutiny committees and to Inspectors of Services.

By Lord Hylton | Posted in Lord Hylton | Tagged | Comments (32)