The vote on Monday on the amendment moved by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds (to exclude those in recepit of child benefit from the cap) was:

For the amendment:  Bishops 5, Crossbench 37, Labour 175, Liberal Democrat 26, Other 9  [Total: 252]

Against the amendment:  Conservative 152, Crossbench 41, Liberal Democrat 39, Other 5 [Total: 237]

In yesterday’s vote on the amendment moved by Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to remove parents from being subject to fees by the Child Support Agency if they have taken reasonable steps to establish if it is possible to make a maintenance agreement, the voting figures were:

For the amendment: Bishops 1, Conservative 34, Crossbench 57, Labour 155, Liberal Democrats 16, Other 7 [Total: 270]

Against the amendment: Conservative 97, Crossbench 1, Liberal Democrats 30 [Total: 128]

Lady Meacher

Lord Patel

Lord Norton has referred to the Welfare Reform Bill defeats in the Lords, which I’ve been giving some considerable thought to. I voted with the Government against the amendment by Baroness Meacher to continue ESA for young disabled people who have resources of their own to support them and have not contributed to what is essentially a contributory benefit. The House voted to continue giving benefits to young people even if they inherited a large capital sums or lived in wealthy households. Then I decided not to vote on the other amendments by Lord Patel. I dislike the singly out of cancer as if it is a special case; there are many physically and mentally ill people with chronic distressing conditions requiring long term treatment but that don’t have the shroud-waving potential of cancer. The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits; older people have to make do as best they can. These small amendments will benefit very few indeed but those few rather unfairly.

So one has to ask the question, “ Of all the major changes being introduced and the opposition to them expressed by the disability lobby and other groups representing those in receipt of benefits, why did the House choose these minor issues to revolt on?”  The answer is all to do with mood and general disquiet. The majority of peers agrees with the fundamental changes being introduced in this Bill, they want to see a more rigorous effective system introduced which incentivises work and acts as a deterrent to people remaining on a lifetime of benefits, including those who have had episodes of mental health problems who make up the majority of the huge increase in those on ‘sickness and disability benefits’ over this past decade. As a psychiatrist I have seen the catastrophic effect of the current regime on the lives of patients.

But peers also knows that the implementation of the changes, at a time of rising unemployment, where the system is imperfect and there is as yet insufficient assistance to individual and their families, is going to be difficult and will feel unfair to those who are culturally still stuck in the ‘I’m entitled’ box. It will take a decade at least, a generation probably, for the cultural changes to kick in. And the changes may not work as the Government intended. So with these anxieties about the outcome, the House wants to show its disquiet. That’s what it did….but when ping-pong arrives the House will accept a Commons reversal of these modest changes; they’ve made their protest and that’s enough. So I sat on my hands for two of these three votes, that was my personal small protest.

In the first and third defeats, the cross-benchers divided approximately two-to-one against the Government, but what ensured that the Government lost was that in each case a number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers voted for the amendment (3 Conservatives and 7 Liberal Democrats in the first, 4 Conservatives and 19 Liberal Democrats in the third).  On the second defeat, the cross-benchers divided 52 to 11 against the Government, so ensuring the Government lost, though 5 Conservatives and 10 Liberal Democrats also voted for the amendment. 

This brings the total of Government defeats this session to 19.  That is 19 more than in the Commons, where the Government majority is clearly that.

These bring to 16 the number of Government defeats so far this session.  These last two defeats are notable, though, for the fact that they are not the consequence of cross-benchers voting in some numbers and disproportionately against the Government, as has been the case with almost all of the preceding defeats.  The votes of cross-benchers were necessary in both cases but they were not sufficient. (They divided 45 to 2 against the Government in the first division and 37 to 11 against in the second.)  On the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, the Government lost by 6 votes, with 6 Conservative peers going into the lobby against the Government.  On the Police and Social Responsibility Bill, they lost by 188 votes to 176, with 13 Liberal Democrats (and 4 Bishops) voting for the amendment.  Indeed, as Lord Knight reports, the amendment was moved by a Liberal Democrat.

The presumed ‘in-built’ Government majority is not exactly providing a reliable protection.  The 16 defeats constitute 16 more than the number so far suffered in the Commons.

 What has happened is that there has been a change in terms of the grouping that holds the balance of power.  In the preceding Parliaments, on paper it was the cross-benchers but in practice was the Liberal Democrats – though fewer in number than the cross-benchers they were more disciplined and turned out in some force for divisions.  Now, both on paper and in practice, it is the cross-benchers.  They appear to be taking their role seriously and turning out in some numbers.  If they divide disproportionately against the Government, the Government is in trouble.

The other claim is that advanced in an earlier post by Lord Soley, namely that constitutional measures should only proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement.  I don’t disagree with this as a desirable goal but it is not a statement of the reality of constitutional change.   Over the past century, since and including the Parliament Act 1911, very few measures of major constitutional change have been enacted on the basis of cross-party agreement.  The Representation of the People Act 1918 is an exception.  Otherwise, the measures have usually been the product of partisan conflict, the Government achieving their enactment in the face of stiff resistance from the Opposition.  On occasion, they have been achieved in the face of attacks from the Opposition and some Government backbenchers.  Edward Heath, for example, had to resort to a vote of confidence to get the European Communities Act 1972 through.  

Our constitution has been subject to significant change on the basis of what the Government of the day proposes.  It has not been on the basis of a parliamentary consensus.  As I say, I am not justifying this.  I am just pointing out the historical reality.

For the amendment: Labour 149, Crossbench 42, Other 5, Conservative 3.

Against: Conservative 117, Liberal Democrat 62, Crossbench 13, Other 3.

As can be seen, the Government lost because of (a) the cross-benchers dividing disproportionately against the Government and (b) three Conservatives voting for the amendment.  Had the three voted with the Government, the amendment would have been defeated.    Unlike the other two most recent defeats, had all the new peers recently announced been introduced in time for the vote (and voted) the Government would have won the vote.

The voting was similar to last week’s on an amendment to the ID Cards Bill.  The cross-bench peers divided disproportionately in favour of the amendment, by 59 votes to 8.   The turnout on the Conservative side was also notably below strength.   Given that the Government lost a vote in which it was supported by Conservative peers, it may be in particular difficulty on some later amendments when it will not be able to carry all its supporters with it.

The House thus makes a difference and it does so on limited resources.   The demand is greatest on opposition front benchers.   Many are basically full time but have no salary and extremely limited research support.   The demands are also great on those with expertise in a particular area who are willing to devote long hours in Grand Committee and on Report to pursuing amendments.  Some Bills are in Committee for several days.   We may sit late to get through all the amendments.   The important aspect of such sittings is quality rather than quantity in terms of who is present.  It is very rare to force divisions during committee stage.  It is the discourse between ministers and peers who know what they are talking about that is important.  I have achieved some modest changes, but none has involved forcing or threatening a vote.  They entailed moving amendments in committee, letting ministers (who initially resisted them) reflect on them, and then having meetings with the ministers to discuss what they may accept or assurances they are prepared to put on record.  It is not earth-shattering stuff, but it all adds up to an improvement in legislation.  

The most important work of the Lords, certainly in overall terms in affecting legislation, is that which you do not hear about.  The major defeat, or the failure to defeat the Government on a contentious issue, attracts the headlines, but what is newsworthy is what is exceptional, or – as with Prime Minister’s Question Time – what is televisual.   Detailed scrutiny in an essentially non-adversarial environment does not qualify.