| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
13 Mar 2007 : Column 608
I worked for many years in universities. In university settings, people are fond of saying, “This must change in the outside world”, “That must change in the outside world”, “This institution must change”, “That organisation must change”. But if you ask people in universities to change themselves, they come over all conservative. In the light of Mr Cameron’s leadership, that is conservative with a small “c”. In other words, they are very reluctant to change. I know, because I tried to change a university. Then people say, “Leave us alone. We are doing a good job; we are all right as we are”. That is the same argument that is used in schools by teachers who do not want to change, as well as in hospitals by doctors and nurses who do not want to change. I detect a very strong residue of that feeling in the speeches that I have heard yesterday and today in your Lordships' House.
I have been in your Lordships' House for only a meagre amount of time, during which I have come very much to appreciate its qualities. But it seems patent and obvious that this is the time to reform and that your Lordships' House must embrace reform. Only a very small proportion of the population in surveys supports a fully appointed House, and there was a clear mandate for change from the Commons.
It has been amusing listening to the different formulations of proportions that people want. I can only state my case: I am clear in my own mind that as a matter of principle, not tactics, an 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed House would be the best option for reform. There are three reasons for that. First, it would preserve the independent measure of expertise of which so many noble Lords have spoken. I am not persuaded by the argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine that everybody in the House of Lords needs to be an expert. Twenty per cent of experts is surely enough—you need a lot of generalists in a House to discuss the range of issues that we face. Secondly, a 20 per cent appointed House would help to protect against dominance of both Houses by a single party, an obvious risk with a 100 per cent elected House. Thirdly, it would at least mute the possibility of this House increasingly questioning the primacy of the Commons, which would be inevitable if the House was 100 per cent elected. For me, 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed is the best option.
It is also obvious, however, that mode of election is only one aspect of the changes that the House of Lords must embrace. Many noble Lords have spoken about these other issues. I shall briefly mention three. First, the most important thing to avoid is replacing one set of appointees with another. I am not convinced by the method of a partially open list that is suggested in the White Paper. If there is to be a list system at all, there should be a completely open list of the sort that is used in, for example, some Scandinavian regional elections. Secondly, there must be a strong regional component. I am not convinced that the White Paper’s proposal of using the European Parliament constituencies is good enough. Thirdly—
13 Mar 2007 : Column 609
Lord Giddens: My Lords, I am shaping up to finish, so I should do so by half-past two. I asked my noble friend whether I had to finish at half-past two and I know that I do not really have to, but I am going to do so as a matter of self-discipline.
Lord Giddens: Well, my Lords, that is it. The House of Lords is loveable and clubbable, but this is the moment for change and it must be seized.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to adjourn the debate. I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until after the Third Reading of the Government Spending (Website) Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House of Lords: Reform
2.31 pm
Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, upon completion of the debates and votes in both Houses and subsequent cross-party discussions, we envisage providing a draft Bill first.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not too disappointed by my noble and learned friend’s Answer because the Question may be considered a hypothetical, but I shall be only faintly hypothetical in my supplementary question. By “Government” I mean whoever is the Prime Minister in the next Government, and I will assume that that Prime Minister is a member of the present Government. Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend a specific question which will help the House and might even help him when he winds up the debate by saving him a bit of time. I shall not assume that there is a consensus anywhere. Do the Government still have it in mind, even if there is no consensus, to introduce such a major constitutional Bill without giving a great deal of time for consideration of its contents? Would they do so without recognising that such a major constitutional Bill will inevitably take up so much time as to make it impossible to pass other important Bills during the rest of this Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, part of the reason for seeking a consensus on Lords reform is to try to narrow down the issues as much as possible and avoid precisely what my noble friend Lord Barnett said; namely, excluding time in Parliament for other important issues. That is why, as we have always said—and we say it completely seriously—we are engaged in a serious search for consensus.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 610
Lord Winston: My Lords, given that the introduction of House of Lords reform is presumably in the spirit of improving our democracy, will my noble and learned friend tell us whether the Government intend to consult the public after educating them about the workings of this House in full and then taking proper soundings in an open situation to see what they desire in their upper House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is extremely important that debates about this place are not simply private discussions between this place and another place. We have an important role in leading the debate, but the debate must be a national debate. That is why the White Paper that has already been produced and any further White Papers will seek to engage the public as a whole in this important discussion.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can I make a suggestion that may help the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? If the new Prime Minister announced a moratorium on Home Office Bills, it would have a dual benefit: it would both enable the Home Office to become fit for purpose without another load of legislation and give us all the time we need to get through a Lords reform Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have always envisaged that one of the purposes of this great House is to deal with Home Office Bills. What would happen to us without Home Office Bills?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if nobody else wishes to speak, perhaps I may take a little of the rest of the seven minutes available on this Question. Does my noble and learned friend seriously believe that there is the slightest chance of the Government achieving a consensus between your Lordships' House and the other place to get a Bill through without huge delay? Listening to the debate in this House, I find it hard to believe that anybody could assume that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I say as an aside that perhaps there were no other questions because we have set aside 19 hours for debate on House of Lords reform. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on getting in on the debate without the obligation to stay until the very end. On the question of consensus: yes, I am completely serious. One of the things that we have done, over the years and over the centuries, is to find a way forward.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understood my noble and learned friend to say that he would engage the public. As a major constitutional change is being proposed, does he believe that a referendum will be necessary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not. This is a matter to debate, and the public should be involved in that debate, but ultimately we must decide.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 611
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord believe that a consensus might be achieved by having Back-Bench representation on the Joint Committee as suggested this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and yesterday by my noble friend Lord Forsyth?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Back-Bench representation on the Joint Committee is obviously a matter to be discussed. My own view is that the debates that we are having in this place and those in another place allow all views to be considered. There is not much point, however, in the Front Benches making proposals if they cannot carry them with the Back Benches.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, if the nation felt it appropriate to have a full debate and a referendum on the European Constitution, why should it be wrong, as a previous answer seemed to imply, to do so when it comes to the UK constitution?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in 1999, for example, we made a very substantial reform of the House of Lords. As I am sure noble Lords who have been following the debate in this House over the past two days will agree—I think that everybody agrees—that reform has had a significant effect on this place. We did not have a referendum on that issue and I do not think that we need a referendum on subsequent changes.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I was interested in my noble and learned friend’s reply to my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity. We had a referendum on the Assembly in Wales. I also know that we were defeated by Italy on Saturday by an English referee. And I think that further consideration be given to a referendum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure whether the question was about a referendum on the decisions of the referee or a referendum on further House of Lords reform. I think that I have answered the question very clearly. I am not in favour of a referendum on that.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked the Lord Chancellor whether he would consult the country after ensuring that it was properly informed. I am sure that that is a desirable end. But how can that be achieved when we have heard in this debate from many former Members of the House of Commons—the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is an example—that they sat there for many years without having any idea of what went on in this place? How can that be remedied before the public are consulted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is our responsibility in this House to ensure that people know what we do and the good work that we do. That has been a problem for a very considerable time, but we cannot wait for 200 or 300 years until that has been achieved. We need to take steps now.
13 Mar 2007 : Column 612
Airports: Elderly and Disabled Passengers
2.40 pm
Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What representations they have received about the treatment of elderly and disabled airline passengers at United Kingdom airports.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are advised in these matters by their statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has recently advised the Government to consider lifting the exemption of air transport services from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act concerning access to goods and services.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that there are considerable discrepancies in the way in which elderly and disabled people, particularly those using wheelchairs, are treated by airports and by individual airlines? The introduction of the new EU regulation, which makes charging for assistance unlawful, is very welcome, but why is it necessary for us to have to wait another year before those provisions come in? In addition, is my noble friend aware that blind and partially sighted people have particular problems at our airports, especially with respect to the accommodation of their guide dogs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am very concerned to hear the noble Lord’s first point. One reason why it will take a little longer for this regulation to be introduced is that we want to hear very clearly from those who have the misfortune of a disability or suffer an impairment due to frailty through age; we want to use that time to consult properly so that we can collect together their thoughts and reflections on how we implement the European regulation. For that reason, the process of implementation is two-stage, culminating in July 2008. We shall set out our thinking later this year through the consultation document.
I understand that the noble Lord’s second point raises the particular concern that some guide dogs have experienced difficulties at airports with regard to the issue of “spend”, which is a technical term.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, which airlines are charging to help disabled and elderly people?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that airlines do that but, if the noble Baroness has any information and details in that regard, I would be happy to pass it on, because airlines should not be following that practice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when will the Government take decisive action on this matter? We know what the Minister has said about preparing a consultative document, but when does he envisage that the Government will do something about this?
13 Mar 2007 : Column 613
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the first swathe of the regulations will be implemented by July 2007 and, following further consultation, the second phase will be fully implemented by July 2008.
Lord Addington: My Lords, background evidence suggests that no-frills carriers are among the worst at providing adequate support. Will the Government ensure that those carriers realise that if they do not look after this group of people they will acquire considerable bad publicity and the rest of their messages may well be overlooked?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point and am sympathetic to the thrust of his argument. One benefit of the EU regulation will be to put in place minimum standards and ensure consistent levels of service throughout all European airlines. That is one issue that the regulation should finally sort out.
Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, the assistance that airports and airlines are willing to provide is very welcome and the EU regulation is doubly welcome in that it will have a standardising effect on what airlines and airports are willing to do. Does the Minister recognise, however, that one problem at the moment is that inappropriate assistance may be offered? For example, blind and partially sighted people may be offered a wheelchair when that is not what they need; it would be much more appropriate, if it is a long distance to the gate, to have a buggy to take them there or even just sighted guiding assistance. Through the consultation process and in any guidance issued as a result on the implementation of the EU regulation, will the Government make it clear that disabled people should be asked what kind of assistance they would find most valuable?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am entirely with the noble Lord on his point; the code of practice should absolutely cover that. We are aware that the issue of appropriate assistance is real and should be dealt with through adequate training provisions, which the code of practice will cover.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it is clear from the questions that we have all been heavily and well briefed by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I shall stick to what it has been asking so that we clear its sheet, as it were.
Will the Government’s assurances given during the passage of the Civil Aviation Act 2006—that airlines’ practice of charging for the checks required to comply with PETS will be outlawed in 2008 when the EU regulations are fully implemented—be honoured? What practical changes will be necessary for that to happen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we should of course honour that commitment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that booking services are already covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. It is reasonable to expect airlines to make reasonable
13 Mar 2007 : Column 614
Public Officials: Powers of Entry
2.46 pm
Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How many categories of public officials, for whom Ministers are responsible, have the right to enter private property without a warrant; and how many of these categories have been so empowered in the past 10 years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, there is no central record of all the categories of public officials who are entitled by law to enter private property without a warrant. We are considering if and how it would be possible to rationalise powers of entry and associated powers, and have announced a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Part of this process will involve an audit of existing powers of entry, and their potential to be identified at a central point with public access.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What has happened to the old doctrine of “An Englishman’s home is his castle”? Has all that gone out of the way, with everything else?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly not. This House and the other place are privileged to debate, as each power is asked for, whether it is right and whether it should be granted. Parliament has its say.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister not answer the Question, or does she not know the answer? My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked how many had been introduced by the Government. The Minister says that she does not know. Is that how the whole Government have been working for 10 years? Do they not know whether they are coming or going, or what Acts they are putting on the statute book?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is not the answer. The noble Earl will remember that, in 1980, when noble Lords opposite were in power, the Mitchell report looked at the issue and came up with 700 different powers. We have about 650, but that is not a complete list. You have to go through the legal database and see how many powers are extant and how many are not. That is why, in accordance with the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, we shall see whether there can be better synergy and whether we can do a little better. The noble Lord is right to raise the Question; I have a great deal of sympathy with him.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |