Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2016-05-24
Topic: Housing
Igor Judge (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, much of what I want to say has already been said, but I will say it anyway. First, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I sat and listened to the housing Bill. I knew very little about it and I did not intend to vote. I listened as a Bill was debated that consisted of a whole series of almost blank pages. Metaphorically speaking, there was nothing to be debated. A debate took place. The Minister very graciously, with great courtesy if I may say so, conceded this and that and eventually we got to regulations. She again, very graciously, said, "This will be affirmative resolution". I thought, "Isn’t that wonderful?" If we are to have affirmative resolution procedures decided in the passage of primary legislation, it is built into it that this House can say no when the affirmative resolution comes to be considered. We really cannot have another Strathclyde review when affirmative regulations under the housing Bill come for debate before this House. It is an indication that the old rules are ceasing to apply. That is because the whole nature of legislation is changing. My second point arising from Strathclyde is Strathclyde arising—that is, the tax credits debate. I listened to impassioned speeches, beautifully argued, half of them saying, "This is financial privilege. You have no business touching it". Every time I listened to one of those I thought, "That’s obviously right". Then I listened to impassioned speeches saying, "You didn’t really engage financial privilege at all. It’s not engaged", and I thought all of them correct and positively right. If this issue had come before the Supreme Court, it would have divided five to four and the judgment would have taken 497 pages My point is this: either financial privilege was engaged, or it was not. It was not an issue for debate. It should have been clear. Our system should work so that it is clear. Of course, noble Lords will all understand that I am not making a personal point about the Leader of the House, but how can we take notice of her view on such a subject when she is, by definition, a member of a political party and of the Government? What is our Speaker doing? Why do we have a Lord Speaker? Surely it is right on these occasions to take advice and say, "Financial privilege does apply here", or, "It does not apply here". Then we can all get on with the debate, or be bound not to go on with it Again to copy the noble Lord, Lord Richard, this issue needs to be addressed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, but I have a great antipathy to any single individual being able to make a bare assertion that something applies. But whatever we do, we have to have a system that says, "Yes it does", or, "No it doesn’t". Every single Bill I can think of—perhaps not every single Bill; the odd criminal justice Bill does not—has cash implications. Money will be spent. Can we address that when we consider the primacy of the Commons and the sovereignty of Parliament If we are to work, and if the public are to have confidence in the way we work, can we please address the size of the House? It is a joke. It is the issue of all issues that brings us into disrepute. We have become a laughing stock. There are more of us than there are in the Commons. Over the last 15 years, Prime Ministers on both sides have exercised what seems to be an astonishing virtual royal prerogative to appoint as and when they wish. This cannot go on. I am not so naive as to think there is any Prime Minister in the world who would give up this power, and say, "I propose a simple Bill: Clause 1, ‘There will be no more Members in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons’; Clause 2—hurrah—‘The Prime Minister will give up his power’", or will have his power circumscribed, reduced or extinguished. That will not happen But what are we to do about it? We are supposed to be part of the system that controls the Executive. Yet here we are, being filled by the head of the Executive. This is simply constitutional madness. More importantly, it detracts from the value of the work we do. At some stage we will have to resolve—I use the word "resolution"—to address this question and quickly, if only to get across to the public, to John and Jane Citizen, who take these issues seriously, that we recognise that we are not a jest. Our views cannot be brushed aside as a jest by a bunch of thousands of us sitting here with nothing better to do.