Principled House of Lords ignores FOI Amendment

After the outrage following the successful passage of David Maclean's amendment to the Free dom of Information Bill, David Cameron said the Conservative Lords would vote against it. Maclean later made it clear that expenses would be excluded (the quad bike issue necessitated it) but still had trouble finding a Lord to sponsor it, although it looked like Lord Trefgarne would pick up the baton at one stage.

A bill has to be sponsored within twelve sitting days of it being introduced to the Lords. That deadline expired last night and the Public Bill Office confirmed that, fortunately, no-one had come forward.

That this amendment could pass through the Commons but not find a single backer in the Lords symbolises the disparity in principle between the two Houses. Whether down to the whips having less control or the nature of the individual peers, it often seems that when the Commons is a cold house for a mainstream view (particularly socially conservative ones), "the other place" will provide shelter.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Ali Gledhill]

This highlights the necessity for an Upper House independent of the Commons. A fully-elected House of Lords would limit their opportunity to throw out disgraceful Bills like this. Although there was no explicit support from leading front-benchers, it seems likely that if the government could make time for it in the Commons they would have done so in the Lords, too.

[malcolm]

Blair pretty much admitted that he supported it in answer to a question from David Winnick last week. Having said that, the Conservative party doesn't have much to crow about either , only 3 of our MPs actively opposed this bill. Utterly shameful.

[Michael McGowan]

Absolutely right, Malcolm. Unfortunately, the Lib Dems will be able to make capital out of this because they were the Bill's most vocal opponents.

[Ken Stevens]

Isn't it odd how an unelected House of Lords, full of people who could hardly be considered typical of us ordinary folk, turns out on this and on some previous occasions to be a better guardian of our liberty than the elected House!

[Michael McGowan]

Ken, perhaps it isn't odd when you bear in mind that the House of Commons is now full of careerists many of whom could not command the same pay and rations outside SW1A 0AA.

[Ken Stevens]

Michael: then perhaps even odder, considering how many owe their Lords place to political patronage or purchase. Ungrateful wretches, protecting our freedoms in the face of their paymasters!

[George Hinton]

Well well well, there are principles in Westminster, but only in the upper house and thank lord for them.
This is a clear demonstration for the status quo, changes to the upper house will only favour careerist politicians such as we see now. A bunch of unscrupulous charlatans and mendacious tossers hell bent on feathering their own nests at the expense of the taxpayers.

[The Lord Protector]

The news that David Maclean’s shabby little Bill has been smothered in its cot will be welcomed in many quarters. It comes as no surprise that Maclean was unable to find a sponsor in The House of Lords, given that his Bill had acquired the status of a hot iPod offered for sale down your local pub for a tenner.

It seems to have escaped the attention of the press that the Government Whips Office had a big hand in getting this Bill through Third reading. During the final debates no less than eleven out of thirteen Whips voted for the Bill on procedural matters and on the final vote nine out of thirteen did so. Seventy-six out of the ninety-five supporters of the Bill’s Third Reading were Labour members, thirty six of them members of the Government (including PPSs).

This had become a de facto Government Bill.

No wonder, given how many Labour member’s expenses had come in for searching scrutiny in the press.

What now?

Firstly all must be on their guard against some sly, underhand, cheapjack plot to reduce in any way the present level of information concerning MPs and Peer’s expenses. One would not put it beyond Straw and the Whips to have another go whilst we are not looking since the effort they put into getting this one through Parliament suggests considerable determination to cover up their felonies which in turn suggests that the level of scrutiny and coverage so far has really touched a raw nerve: ie they realize they have been caught red-handed!

Secondly, given the damage that this distasteful episode has done to the reputation of Parliament and MPs, has not the time come to shame them into establishing ONLINE Registers of MPs and Peers expenses as has already been done with considerable success by the Scottish Parliament?
(See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/searchGuidance.htm)

An ePetition calling upon the Government to do precisely this has been started on the No. 10 website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mpexpensesonline/ and a Draft Bill that provides a framework for both such a scheme and for criminal sanctions for those who make false or reckless claims whilst applying for their expenses from the authorities is proposed at http://www.freewebs.com/mpsexpensesregisterbill/. Perhaps readers might care to support the petition if they think it a good idea or to comment one way or the other.

[Deputy Editor]

It was noticeable that some news headlines, such as the scrolling one on BBC 24, referred to it as a "Tory MP's bid/amendment/attempt". Tory is always added in front of something unpopular, more so than other parties in much of the media. It's a minor thing, but quite misleading on this occasion when most of those who voted for it were Labour MPs.

[malcolm]

But absolutely predictable Sam given that it was a Conservative MP who launched it. Many commentators (not just me) mentioned this at the time.
Hopefully with the passing of time Macleans bill will be forgotten.

[Victor, NW Kent]

You don't have to be a Conservative to applaud the House of Lords on this one. But, when they have been abolished who will keep the elected snouts out of the public trough?
It is shameful that neither Brown nor Cameron directly opposed this. In Cameron's case I suppose it was because he believes in the rights of the elite over the hoi-polloi but what excuse does the Pastor's son have to turn his blind eye on this nauseating Bill?

[Londoner]

As one who has mentioned on a few threads what a disgrace it is that the Party in the Commons does not defend the present basis of the House of Lords, and instead is obsessed by this silly elected notion, I am glad that so many are now coming around to my point of view (or coming around to expressing it here anyway).

Two observations:
1. Victor, just above, says "You don't have to be a Conservative to applaud the House of Lords on this one." Why not drop the "on this one"? - the argument for an appointed House of Lords dominated by non-politicians is a proposition fitted for support by those with sense in all parties.

2. The Editor does not entirely do the argument favours by connecting this with social conservatism. It's an argument for judgement, experience and independence. If defence of the Lords is restricted to social conservatives, then it will be doomed. And this latest issue has nothing to do with social conservatism, so why drag that in?

I may have missed it, but was Ken Clarke's report last week entirely silent on the Lords?

[liberalone]

So Sam, for which Party was David Maclean formerly the Opposition Chief Whip?

[malcolm]

Yes Londoner, I was unsure of the relevance of the 'social conservative' remark to this issue.

[Yet Another Anon]

A fully-elected House of Lords would limit their opportunity to throw out disgraceful Bills like this.
To justify a fully elected house there would have to be some kind of difference, in fact a house elected on STV would be far more likely to reject legislation passed by the Commons, whether the system were the same or not the second chamber might well feel itself more legitimate and so be more likely to reject legislation; if held at a time when the parties in government had done badly it could result in a partisan dispute with both houses claiming legitimacy - ultimately what restricts the 2nd chamber from blocking legislation is a combination of The Parliament Act, Royal Perogative and self regulation and not the method of selection of it's members.

Having some kind of expanded select committee system with people who weren't MPs, but had an expertise in some discipline being allowed to be on committees and also allowing people who weren't in parliament to be government ministers as is allowed in the US - the Commons would still have the power to vote down the government in a motion of confidence, there needs to be some modernisation with the facilities for video-conferencing so that people unable to get there and people from around the world can have the ability to address parliament, obviously debates on bills that it is not considered appropriate for outsiders to speak in can still be restricted to members only, MPs should have the ability to vote remotely from some kind of secure location verified as being properly firewalled and generally free of unauthorised interference.

Having a new parliament in a more central location is also a good idea - currently what there is is a sort of crumbling working museum stuck down in one corner of the UK and under threat from rising sea and groundwater levels, huge ornate edifices on it that cost a fortune to maintain, it would be best to privatise the palace of Westminster to a company who could run it as a museum.

[Londoner]

As for the one who thinks Parliament shouldn't be in London "stuck down in one corner of the UK and under threat from rising sea and groundwater levels", may I remind them that:

London is where:

1. The Monarch lives
2. The top law courts are
3. The policy areas of the civil service are (when they have tried to move significant nos of these jobs, a large proportion of the best people resign)
3. The national (and international) financial centre is
4. All the foreign embassies are
5. The largest airports are
6. The centre of the country's arts and theatre are
7. The best shopping is
8. A disproportionate amount of the top soccer teams (2 out of the top 4; plus lots others), and of the top cricket venues (no other city has 2), are
9. The largest centre of population in the UK is, by far
10. There is international remown (for all its faults) as probably the most important city in the world, whilst the UK, sadly, is far from being the most important country.
11. A very high proportion of the largest UK domiciled companies are headquartered.

So if Parliament wants to marginalise itself totally from the centre of most other areas of national life (and international life so far as it hits the UK) then fine, go to the centre (Birmingham Exhibition centre?). But if we want to maintain one of the best things about this country - that the people at the centres of most of the major areas of national life, including politics, have the possibility of intermingling, understanding each other, and indeed marrying and/or loving each other - then better not.

Further, if Westminster is more susceptible to the effects of global warming than elsewhere, might it not help getting that taken seriously if Parliament itself is affected?

But then, coming from someone who wants an elected House of Lords, I suppose such an equally rubbishy idea is par for the course.

[Helen]

Interestingly enough the Conservative group in the London Assembly was defending the Bill as late as yesterday in a plenary session, abstaining only because one or two members said they would not vote against, which had been the original plan. Details on One London blog: http://onelondon.blogspot.com/2007/06/off-message-in-london-assembly.html

[Ken Stevens]

Londoner | June 14, at 18:17

No problem. The English parliament would remain in its historic location in the capital of England. The new, somewhat smaller Federal Kingdom assembly/ Council of the Isles/whatever could be relocated to another place and chatter away about whatever there would be left to chatter away about.

[Ali Gledhill]

"It was noticeable that some news headlines, such as the scrolling one on BBC 24, referred to it as a "Tory MP's bid/amendment/attempt". Tory is always added in front of something unpopular, more so than other parties in much of the media. It's a minor thing, but quite misleading on this occasion when most of those who voted for it were Labour MPs."

To be fair, this also happens to Labour-generated issues that embarrass the government. The Lib Dems do seem to get away with this sort of thing more than most, though.

[Yet Another Anon]

Further, if Westminster is more susceptible to the effects of global warming than elsewhere, might it not help getting that taken seriously if Parliament itself is affected?
Rather more likely it would just disrupt parliamentary proceedings while there were emergency moves elsewhere.

As for an elected House of Lords - I no longer see the point of there being a second chamber and favour expanding Select Committees.

London is where:

1. The Monarch lives - doesn't make that much difference especially as the monarch has a number of residences available about the country, anyway I favour the Head of State being appointed by the Privy Council and they could be in the same location as the national parliament, but following your logic parliament would actually be moved into Buckingham Palace to be in the same place as the monarch.
2. The top law courts are - well they could be moved, but actually it doesn't make a lot of difference really as the law courts and the legislature are separate anyway.
3. The policy areas of the civil service are (when they have tried to move significant nos of these jobs, a large proportion of the best people resign) - as part of downsizing of the public sector so if people resign then the size of the Civil Service could be reduced dramatically without paying much in the way of redundancy money.
3. (Ignoring the fact you have 2 sets of 3's) The national (and international) financial centre is - well the actual international finance centre is in New York really, the Stock Exchange could continue functioning as before, of course if everything in the UK centralises on London and also London is more prone to higher sea and groundwater levels then the Stock Exchange will be affected adversely by that whether parliament remains there or not - transport will increasingly be disrupted as it struggles to cope with greater congestion and the increasing cost of having to keep down the levels of the Thames.
4. All the foreign embassies are - over a relatively short time they would relocate, in fact many small countries might well prefer somewhere with cheaper property costs.
5. The largest airports are - they are also the most congested airports as well, I'm sure there are still enough railways and airports to get ministers and MPs about in the rest of the country. Most farming goes on in the country, but I don't think it would be very practical to move defra HQ to the middle of a field somewhere.
6. The centre of the country's arts and theatre are - who cares, what have arts and theatres got to do with actual neccessary political decisions, state funded arts & theatres are the stuff of Communism.
7. The best shopping is - I have no idea whether this is true or not, but on days when they are working MPs and ministers should be paying attention to their work, not shopping.
8. A disproportionate amount of the top soccer teams (2 out of the top 4; plus lots others), and of the top cricket venues (no other city has 2), are - Sport is largely unimportant to the functioning of the economy, or international affairs - it should not be a matter for the public sector.
9. The largest centre of population in the UK is, by far - Many countries in the world have their capitals in places other than the largest city and it actually works quite well, avoiding problems of congestion, it's not the centre of gravity populationwise even if you consider just England - the South East of England as a whole has only about a third of the total population of England.
10. There is international remown (for all its faults) as probably the most important city in the world, whilst the UK, sadly, is far from being the most important country. In terms of importance - for a long time Washington DC and New York have been the most important cities in the world, and rapidly Shanghai, Beijing, Delhi, Mumbai and Singapore are overhauling London in the global psyche. The US has been the major world power since the First World War and Russia, China and soon India are all overhauling the UK as world powers.
11. A very high proportion of the largest UK domiciled companies are headquartered.
And many are moving away because of the high costs through high overheads generally from high wage expectations and high property costs in running a business in the UK generally but especially in London.

[Londoner]

Condemned out of his own mouth really, at least for a Conservative audience:

1. "I favour the Head of State being appointed by the Privy Council"

2. Law Courts "could be moved" so the Inns of Ct, Royal Ct of Justice etc all become museums too presumably.

3. On a large proportion of the best people in the civil service resigning - "as part of downsizing of the public sector so if people resign then the size of the Civil Service could be reduced dramatically". I said "the best people". Who will buy those empty central office buildings when all the other elements I mention are moving out too?

4. "still enough railways and airports to get ministers and MPs about in the rest of the country" To an extent but much of our transport infrastructure is based on a London hub. So more needless disruption and expense changing all of that.

5. Arts and theatres - "who cares?" So no intermingling of government people and culture.

6. "Many countries in the world have their capitals in places other than the largest city and it actually works quite well" No it does not - this is my whole point, it leads to an isolated governing group who do not mix with leaders in other works of life and who, following your logic, have no interest in sport, culture, the law, good transport links or the stimulation of living in one of the greatest cities in the world. If you want government to be parochial and inward-looking, and MPs with even less possibility of a hinterland outside politics, whether in outside work or other interests then fine. But that is not the British way, thank God.

7. Major companies "And many are moving away". Please name me the "many" FTSE 100 cos which have recently moved their corporate HQs out of London. You appear as ignorant of business as you are of London, culture and British values.

Finally, if your scheme happened and the essentially linked national functions moved with them - then it would be a real possibility that London and its immediate environs would leave the UK taking all their tax revenues with them, and become a City State. Quite a lot of advantages if freeing ourselves from the likes of "Yet Another Anon" I suppose.

[cavan paul mulvihill]

Who in the Tory Party lied to God after it was said that the testimony of Jesus is true?