§ 2.53 p.m.
§ The Earl of Onslow asked the Leader of the House:
§ Whether the House of Lords has broken any conventions between the two Houses of Parliament on the consideration of legislation over the past two Sessions; if so, on what occasions; and what were the conventions.
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, I shall focus on the most recent of many examples—the extended ping-pong on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. This House has refused to accept Commons amendments four times, despite the strong convention that the elected House gets its way in the end. That convention was recognised by the Opposition last Session, during ping-pong on foundation hospitals, and was indeed recognised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he said:
On something like this, eventually the Lords will give way. They must do".
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, normally one thanks the Minister for her reply.
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, not always. On this occasion the Minister has not said what the convention is. She has invented it. She quite accurately quotes what I said on television, which I stand by, but the conventions as I understand them are this: the Salisbury convention, done in different circumstances. Are the Government now saying that when circumstances are different, they can continue to break the word of honour given by a Lord Chancellor on the grounds that there was a change of circumstances? Is that still a convention?
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, the noble Earl has been in this House much longer than I have, and he will recognise—as, indeed, I did when I came into this House—that there are a number of conventions that are not written down anywhere. They are conventions that are understood, accepted and worked through between the two Houses; and, indeed, within this House. The first attempt to codify those conventions came in the Wakeham Commission report, which set out absolutely clearly the primacy of the House of Commons and the fact that the House of Commons should have its way.
§ Baroness Williams of CrosbyMy Lords—
§ Lord Craig of RadleyMy Lords—
§ Baroness Williams of CrosbyMy Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the prime role of this House is not only to scrutinise legislation from another place but also to protect the fundamental 1318 liberties and rights of citizens in our constitution? Does she further agree that, while we all recognise that at the end of the day the Parliament Act can be used to stress the basic superiority in terms of power of the Commons over the Lords, a very special responsibility rests on this House with regard to electoral matters, given that the majority in the House of Commons under almost all governments does not reflect a majority of the views of electors who elect that government?
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, I have to say that I would be more ready to accept that if it were something that had come down historically over many years. There was no consensus when the party opposite was in government and abolished a whole tier of local government. On the basis set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we certainly would not have had the Parliament Act; we certainly would not have had an extension of the franchise; and we certainly would not have had votes for women. The protection of fundamental liberties of the people of the United Kingdom, to which the noble Baroness has referred, is something that has gone against the grain in this House rather than with it with respect to some electoral matters.
§ Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can explain how she understands how the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, a Liberal life Peer, can argue that 10 Earls, seven Viscounts, one Duke, a Countess and 24 hereditary Barons can overturn the decision of 357 elected Members of the Commons? That decision was to give the people of the north-west of England and, in particular, the people of Cumbria, where I live, the right to an all-postal ballot. If that is within the convention. I think that it is about time we changed it.
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, my noble friend is well aware that our party and the Government feel very strongly that the hereditary principle has no place in Parliament. We made that absolutely clear in our 1997 manifesto. On the specific point with regard to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill. I share my noble friend's concern. The proposals that have been put before this House will increase the turnout; local pilots have demonstrated that there is around a 15 per cent increase in the turnout. All parties have an interest in ensuring that the electorate can vote and can do so in a variety of ways.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, this Government have torn up more constitutional conventions than any government in the preceding century. Is it not a little rich to lecture Parliament that it must keep those conventions that suit the Government but must tear up those that do not? Speaking of conventions, should 1319 there not be a new convention that changes to electoral law should, at worst, be introduced only after wide public debate, should be supported by the Electoral Commission and, at best, should require cross-party support? All of these are sadly lacking in the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill.
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, I would take more notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said if I had not already made the point in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. These are conventions that the noble Lord's party took no notice of when it was in power. Indeed, I repeat the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to the House of Lords Bill on reform, which will not now come before this House:
If the Bill is ever presented to this House, the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues can be assured that he can expect a major fight on his hands, and it will not be confined to this Bill".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1062.]If that is not breaking a convention, I do not know what is.
§ Lord Craig of RadleyMy Lords, can the Minister inform the House what percentage of votes were cast from those on the Benches behind her for the last series of ping-pong? Is she not aware that in no case did the Government achieve more than a 60 per cent turnout of their vote on the many amendments that they lost in the last Session?
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is aware of the figures. This party carries some 28 per cent of the vote, as do the Cross-Benchers. The Conservative Party has some 31 per cent of the vote. Averaged over last Session, Labour got out 51 per cent of its vote, with the Liberal-Democrats achieving 45 per cent and the Conservatives 31 per cent.
§ Earl RussellMy Lords, does the noble Baroness remember the case of Scottish tuition fees where ping-pong extended through five rounds? While this House may usually give way. does she understand that the moment that the Government are able to translate "usually" as "always", this House might as well pack up and go home?
§ Baroness AmosMy Lords, if that were the case under every government of whatever complexion the noble Earl would have a point. I draw his attention to the following quote:
When the Conservative Party is in power, there is practically no House of Lords: it takes whatever the Conservative Government brings it from the House of Commons without question or dispute; but the moment a Liberal Government is formed, this harmless body assumes an active life, and its activity is entirely exercised in opposition to the Government … It is in fact a permanent barrier raised against the Liberal Party".That was Lord Rosebery in 1894. What has changed?