Member News
By Sam Macrory - 24th January 2011
Last week’s marathon Lords session on the bill to reform the voting system brought simmering tensions in the Upper House to boiling point. Sam Macrory canvasses opinion over whether a breakdown of conventions and courtesies is making the Lords feel more like the Commons.
Just a few months ago, the House of Lords was a rather different place. As excitable MPs sparred aggressively, playing out their battles across the floor of the Commons and on into the tea-rooms and bars, a rather more tranquil atmosphere could be found just 100 metres away. For once the parliamentary upholstery turns from green to red, and the average age of parliamentarian begins to climb, the tribalism recedes. Or at least, it used to.
With the result of the general election prompting the creation of the first coalition government since the war, the mood in the Upper House has dramatically shifted – and not for the better, many think. A senior peer talks of colleagues who “can’t face coming in on a Monday” due to the “very unfortunate atmosphere” in the Upper House, while another, a former cabinet minister, talks of his “dismay and anxiety about what is going on”. All is not well, and the blame game has begun.
At the centre of the collapse in relations are the government’s plans to push through legislation to hold a referendum on electoral reform on May 5. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which also contains controversial measures to bring the number of MPs down to the 600 mark, has to be passed by February 16 for the referendum to be held by its projected date, but a series of amendments tabled by Labour peers is slowing progress.
Last week peers engaged in an all-night sitting – a timetable which saw camp beds laid out across the Cholmondeley Room and the Attlee Room as the government attempted to up the pace on the bill. The move did little to ease tensions.
On one side, Labour peers argue that the Upper House has been dangerously politicised by the nature of the coalition deal, the large intake of new coalition peers, and specifically the government’s refusal to decouple the part of the bill dealing with the voting system from the part concerning the reduction and redrawing of constituencies.
On the other, word is being put about that Labour peers, particularly those recent graduates from the House of Commons, are bringing their combative Commons ways to the Upper House, shattering its constructive calm and spirit of self-regulation.
Writing in these pages, Lord McNally, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, noted the “Commons-style roughing up” he received during his winding-up speech on the voting system bill on November 16 last year, but those interventions came from peers of varying vintages; while a blitz of amendments to the bill have been tabled by the likes of Lord Soley, Lord Grocott, Lord Howarth, Baroness Thornton, Lord Falconer, and Lord Campbell- Savours, all established peers.
So where have the whispers of a new generation and their uncouth ways emerged from? Lord Campbell-Savours, a peer since 2001 and, though supportive of a referendum, passionately opposed to the way the bill is being forced through, has a clear idea. “This is a propaganda war. They are trying to discredit our activity by claiming that we are importing House of Commons actions,” he argues.
“They are claiming it is this new crop of people who have come in from the Commons, but apart from Michael Wills and Tommy McAvoy, all of us are old-timers. The main people behind this have actually been here ten years and more.”
He is supported by Lord Foulkes, a Labour peer since 2005, who talks of a government “ploy to diffuse the criticism in relation to this appalling gerrymandering bill”. “It appeared without a green or white paper and it hasn’t been scrutinised. We are doing that properly, and they don’t like it.”
However Lord Norton of Louth, a Tory peer since 1998, sees things differently: “Some Members are feeling that we are starting to be more like the Commons. A critical mass of ex-MPs have come straight in at the same time, and are carrying on their Commons practices.” One peer talks of a “profound change – and to a large extent that must be due to the new peers from the Commons”, while another complains about the people “being brought in with Commons thinking”. Lord Foulkes dismisses the allegations: “We’re having debates, not a series of monologues. It’s about time this House was brought into the 21st century.”
While the voting system bill is the source of the current anger, it is possible to trace the unpleasant atmosphere back to the formation of the coalition government. “Labour peers are so angry with the Lib Dems; they can’t come to terms with what they see as an enormous betrayal,” one peer suggests, adding that this has led the malcontents to “lose sight of what the House of Lords is there for”. “It shouldn’t be about party politics, but now you can see Labour peers dancing, shouting, and having celebratory drinks whenever the government is defeated.”
Lord Campbell-Savours denies the charges. “It is they who are treating the House of Lords like the House of Commons. Bills must be properly debated across the House, and this is something which they have stopped doing as a result of the coalition’s contractual agreement. The government has not worked out the extent to which the elements in the coalition are free to debate those issues in the House of Lords. Some Liberal Democrats are very honest and regard it as a botch job, but the coalition has silenced the House of Lords, and has driven Labour peers into a position where they are fighting over legislation in the way they are now. I am in favour of electoral reform, but there is no debate going on – apart from on our benches.”
Campbell-Savours argues that the bill is constitutional legislation – a claim supported by reports from committees from both Houses who have expressed concern about a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation – and worries that the fact that the influx of new peers means “we will soon be overwhelmed”. The combination is causing the disquiet. “It is congealing on the floor of the House of Lords, creating tensions which should not exist in the way that the Lords deals with legislation,” continues Campbell-Savours. “I don’t like what I am doing, but it’s their fault. The government is changing the face of the House of Lords.”
Another group of peers is also feeling the pressure of the present situation, with increased lobbying of the crossbenchers being reported. A Lib Dem peer was recently overheard arguing for the coalition to “try harder with the crossbenchers”, while Labour peers have attempted to push briefing notes around the cross benches. “It would be appreciated if more of them could sit down and consider what we are trying to get over. This is a constitutional bill. It is the process I object to, and that is what is winding us up,” Campbell-Savours insists.
His colleague Lord Grocott, reflecting on last week’s events, adds a sage observation: “People get tired, and then people get grumpy – and that’s an even bigger reason for not discussing major constitutional issues in the small hours of the morning.” But discuss they did, and grumpily too.
This may be a temporary suspension of the courtesies that have long characterised the Upper House, brought on by an unusually fractious political environment. But others think it is symptomatic of the Lords struggling to come to terms with the demands of 21st century democracy.
In the short term, a compromise should see the bill voted through and the referendum take place as planned, but the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill will not be the final piece of contentious legislation to arrive in the House of Lords this year. Bills on localism, NHS reform and civil liberties will all be debated by peers, and if the mood continues to deteriorate, then moves to introduce stricter timetabling and guillotining may not be far away. Little wonder, perhaps, that a clerk was recently overheard observing that the “red benches are being painted green”.
Meanwhile another attempt is being prepared to end the 100-year quest to resolve the composition of the Lords, this time by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. Those who remember the passing of the House of Lords Act over a decade ago may think that the current fractious mood is nothing compared to that which prevailed when hereditary peers were being removed.
But if Clegg is serious about introducing a substantial elected element, then he can expect all-out war. And the current hostilities will appear trivial skirmishes in comparison.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.