1 RT HON BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, HOUSE OF LORDS BUSINESS STATEMENT: RESPONSE, MONDAY OCTOBER 31 2012

I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for his statement seeking to explain why the House is not dealing today with the business it was expecting to consider. Indeed, the business the House should be considering today. My Lords, until this morning, the order paper for today contained as first business after Questions the second day of the Committee stage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. Yesterday lunchtime, the noble Lords Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Rennard and Lord Wigley tabled an amendment to the Bill the effect of which would be to delay for five years the proposed changes to Parliamentary constituency boundaries for the election of members of the House of Commons. There was an issue as to whether this amendment was within the scope of the Bill. The Parliamentary clerks serving your Lordships House argued that boundary changes were not relevant to registration. Supporters of the amendment consider that since boundaries are determined by the number of registered voters in an area, registration was highly relevant to boundary changes. The amendments supporters obtained written advice from Queens Counsel to this effect. That advice was provided to the clerks. They still disagreed. The House of Lords Companion stipulates that it is for your Lordships House itself, and no-one else, to reach a decision on such contested issues about relevance. The supporters of the amendment have been scrupulous in ensuring that the clerks have had time to consider the issue. Sometime during the course of yesterday afternoon the Government became aware of this amendment. According to media reports, some time during the afternoon or early evening yesterday there was communication between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendment. At 818pm last night, my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip received an email from the Government Whips office saying: Lord Bassam, the Leader has asked me to let you know that the order paper for tomorrow has changed and no longer contains the Electoral Administration Bill. The Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill will thus be first (and only) business. That was the first intimation from the Government business managers of any change. There had been no consultation, as required by the Companion. An order paper was then published today without the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill on it.

Those, my Lords, are the facts. They show not this self-regulating House determining its order of business, through the operational proxy for a self-regulating House of the Usual Channels, but the order of business in your Lordships House being determined by the Leader of the House. That is not right. It is not how this House conducts its business. Of course, the Leader can have an influence on the order of business in the Lords. After all he leads the government party whose business your Lordships House must consider. The government is entitled to have its business considered. But, my Lords, in this case its business is not in jeopardy. The principle of the Lords determining its own business goes to the heart of its independence from the government. My Lords, that principle is reflected in the Companion. It states that: 3.30. The Government Chief Whip is responsible for the detailed arrangement of government business and the business of individual sittings. He consults his opposite numbers in the two main opposition parties. The smooth running of the House depends largely on the Whips. They agree the arrangement of business through the "usual channels". The usual channels consist of the Leaders and Whips of the three main political parties. For certain purposes the usual channels include the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers. The companion allows the peer in whose name a notice is on the order paper to withdraw that notice, but that is intended to deal with cases where the peer for some reason cannot carry out the business. It is not intended to override Paragraph 3.30 of the Companion. We understand, my Lords that the Government is resting its case of its ability to pull business in this way on Standing Order No 42 (1) a standing order, my Lords, passed as recently as March 26, 1852. My Lords, the Government really needs to do better than this. If the Government wants to rearrange business it should do so through the Usual Channels, as made clear in the Companion. The correct course for the Government last night was to seek agreement through the usual channels. If agreement was not forthcoming, the correct course would be for your Lordships House to be asked to agree the change of business today. In other words to make a statement to the House which could then be debated, and if necessary challenged. My Lords, in terms of the merits of the amendment tabled, the argument being put is not a political argument. Certainly not a party political argument.

3 It is an argument about supporting a proper system of democracy. It is an argument about certainty in a democratic system, when candidates for election to the House of Commons are already being selected under a system which is now wholly lacking in clarity. My Lords, that is the argument we on these benches, and on many sides of the House, want to engage in when the amendment in question comes before your Lordships House. And it will then be for your Lordships House, and no-one else not the Leader of the House, not the clerks, not the Opposition to decide on that amendment, on its merits. But, my Lords, at the heart of this issue today is not the merits of the amendment. It is about who determines this Houses business the Leader, or this House. This self-regulating house. So, my Lords, I would be content with the following course: Firstly, the Government accepts the procedural position as to who determines the business if, as I have described it, as set out in the Companion. Secondly, the Government advises the House what its proposed plans are for the Committee stage of the Bill. Thirdly, if the Government were to inform the House that it wished a short pause, say until Monday of next week to consider its position, we would not find that unreasonable because the House would know the date and time when the amendment would be taken, and the pause would be short. But I would like an assurance that the House would indeed be having the committee stage of the bill then. This House needs that assurance. It needs it today. And it needs it beyond it currently being on the order paper. Because as we have seen in this instance, the attitude of the Government towards your Lordships House is that the order paper setting out the business of the House is not worth the paper it is printed on. My Lords, I invite the Leader of the House to give those assurances now.

ENDS