David Cameron's chances of getting his next legislative programme through the Lords later this year are "zero to slim" if he presses ahead with a bill introducing an elected second chamber, Lady Royall, the Labour leader of the Lords, has said.
An advocate of Lords reform, backed by a referendum, she claims Conservative peers, and some dissidents on her own benches, will choose to scrutinise bills not just line-by-line but word-by-word, prompting late night votes and clogging up the legislative programme if the government makes Lords reform a centrepiece of its second parliamentary session. "I am not issuing a warning, it is an observation," she said.
Her remarks come as Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, presses for Lords reform to be included in the programme, and some of his supporters have hinted they will not vote through the boundary review if the legislation is shelved.
Royall said in an interview with the Guardian that the general public will simply not understand the coalition's priorities if constitutional reform is given such prominence.
"If and when such a bill arrives in the Lords, little or nothing else will get done, quite frankly. Of course constitutional reform is important, and I believe it should be accompanied by a referendum, but we are in the biggest economic crisis since the 1920s' depression. We have got everyone, from top to bottom in society, concerned about their kids' jobs, who will look after their aged parents, bread and butter issues that people are terrified about.
"The thought that this government could put House of Lords reform at the centre of its programme for the next parliamentary session, I find quite astonishing. If it does, it will say a lot to the people of the country about this government's priorities."
She attacked the way in which the government was trying to neuter debate on current controversial bills such as the welfare bill by claiming financial privilege, a means by which the Commons can order the Lords not to pursue an amendment because it has financial implications beyond Lords' powers.
She said she hoped peers would try to get round Lords amendments being labelled financially privileged by tabling different amendments with broadly similar effects. The Commons last week overturned seven amendments to the welfare bill and required the Speaker to denote them as financially privileged. The welfare bill returns to the Lords next week.
"We don't intend to take this lying down," Royall said.
"The government isn't just trying to legislate. It's trying to oppose the opposition. If they were to go down this path more often, we can do nothing. There is no serious policy that does not have a price tag attached."
Responding to reports that Cameron was planning to appoint a new tranche of coalition peers, she said: "Since the advent of the coalition we have had two lists with 37 Labour and 67 for the coalition which means that balance that we tried to maintain has been completely skewed so there is now a political majority for the coalition in the Lords.
"Precisely because the Conservatives did not get a majority at the general election enables them to get more legislation through the Lords. It's weird but true. They are in a stronger position to get legislation through the Lords than if they had won the general election.
"Humungous chunks of this ghastly legislation has gone through the Lords because the Lib Dems are supporting it. Traditionally they have been good on issues like welfare legal aid and health and would have voted with us all the time." She also urged Cameron to disown reports that he is planning to nominate another 60 coalition peers. The coalition came into power with a commitment — pending a directly elected Lords — to reflect the election result in the Lords.
"If they did that, I would be so angry and frustrated. This looks like packing the House – because it is packing the House. Having loaded the dice, the coalition is now intent on creating a completely stacked deck.
"They would be able to get this place to rubber stamp any crap badly drafted piece of legislation passed to us from the Commons. The constitutional role of this place is to do scrutiny and revision. It is not supposed to be a rubber stamp."
No comments:
Post a Comment