The House of Lords is currently on the eighth day of the Committee Stage on the floor of the House of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.  And as Left Foot Forward reports the Conservative Coalition is beginning to panic.

The problem is that the Bill is enormous, running to 301 pages, with 19 clauses and 11 Schedules, and should really be two separate Bills: one dealing with the proposal to have a referendum on the alternative vote system; and the second dealing with the proposals to gerrymander/equalise the size of parliamentary constituencies. 

The Bill was (as is usual) not considered fully in the Commons and so the Lords has been considering it (as is also usual) on a line-by-line basis.  The House has just completed amendment 58ZZZB which relates to Clause 10 (on page 8 of the Bill) – the first clause that deals with the second part of the Bill.  On Monday, which was the seventh day of Committee, the “silence of the lambs” (as I put it) was noticeable – in the debate on one amendment eighteen Labour Peers and two cross-bench peers spoke, but only one backbencher from the Conservative Coalition was prepared to defend the Bill.

Given the importance of the Bill, its complexity and the need for proper scrutiny, all this is taking time. 

And the clock is ticking – the Electoral Commission have said that unless the Bill receives Royal Assent by the middle of next month it will not be possible to hold the AV referendum on 5th May as the Conservative Coalition wants.

One option is, of course, to split the Bill into two parts.  Indeed, Labour peers suggested this when the Bill was first considered in the House of Lords, but the Government didn’t want to know.

The other is to soldier on through the night for each of the Committee days scheduled, but with sixty groups of amendments still to be considered, even that may not allow sufficient time to deal with the Bill adequately.

So rumours are now swirling around that Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, has started threatening that he will table a ‘guillotine’ motion to cut off consideration of the Bill.
This would be unprecedented. It has NEVER been done before.
And as the whole point of the House of Lords is that it takes the time to scrutinise legislation properly, such a motion would be a constitutional outrage.
So not content with appointing dozens of new Conservative and LibDem placepeople to pack the Government benches, the Conservative Coalition is now contemplating playing fast and loose with the Constitution itself, so as to get through their Bill to change the composition of the House of Commons.
Is Lord Strathclyde trying to win the Robert Mugabe Award for Constitutional Innovation?

Lord Marland, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, had a moment of honesty this afternoon in Lords’ Question Time.

He had been asked by Lord Tony Berkeley about the financial impact on consumers of the changes proposed to the United Kingdom’s private electricity networks and survived six supplementaries, when he was finally floored by Lord Dale Campbell-Savours. 

Here is the exchange:

“Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will the Minister ask his officials to reopen the file on rising block tariffs and the benefits that that would bring to consumers?

Lord Marland: I do enjoy these questions, my Lords. I have never been the smartest tool in the box—

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Marland: Thank you. I appreciate the response from the Opposition Benches—I fished for that compliment beautifully. The answer is no. [Laughter.]“

The New Year’s Honours List contains a well-deserved knighthood for Steve Bubb, the Chief Executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. I first knew Steve when we were both involved in the Young Fabians in the 1970s. However, we were also the Chief Whips of our respective London Boroughs, Haringey and Lambeth, from 1982 to 1986 and were inevitably at the centre of the campaign against rate-capping -the attack on local authorities by the then Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher.
It is an irony therefore that, as another Conservative Government again imposes massive cuts on local councils, Margaret Thatcher’s successor, David Cameron, has honoured Steve, who was, of course, one of the Lambeth Councillors who ended up being surcharged and disqualified from office for defying the central government.
Incentivising dissent?

This afternoon in Lords Question Time Lord Taverne asked the Government:

“what steps they are taking to discourage United Kingdom universities from offering Bachelor of Science degrees for courses in alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, reflexology and Chinese medicine?”

The following exchange then took place:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): My Lords, universities decide what they should or should not teach. This is a key protection of academic freedom and helps to maintain the world-class reputation of our higher education institutions.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, with great respect, as lawyers used to say when they meant the opposite, will the Minister convey to his department that that is not an entirely satisfactory Answer? How can the Government justify supporting universities that show no regard for academic standards and offer science degrees in courses which teach that certain essential oils cure specific diseases, areas of the foot lead to pathways to certain inner organs, and health depends on the pattern of energy flows within the body? If the Government believe in evidence-based science, can they really remain indifferent to the fact that some of their funds are used to promote quackery and mumbo-jumbo and call it science?

Lord Henley: My Lords, I again remind my noble friend that it is very important to remember that universities are autonomous bodies and it is for them to make decisions about these matters. The Government have no power to intervene. I have some sympathy with the message that my noble friend is getting across but it would be wrong for the Government to intervene in these matters.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have differentially removed resources from universities on the basis of some of the courses concerned? Does the fact that resources are not being withdrawn from these Bachelor of Science courses suggest that the Government are endorsing the pseudo science that is implicit within them? If they are not endorsing that pseudo science, why are they allowing the funding to continue?

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to take us back to a debate we had last week. Those matters have been dealt with. I am making clear that it is not for the Government to interfere. We offer guidance to HEFCE. The letter to HEFCE from Dr Vince Cable and David Willetts went out yesterday. That sets out the parameters for HEFCE to make the appropriate decisions about university funding, but it is not right that we should do that.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough: My Lords, given the legislation that went through this House last week, which will now see the taxpayer underwriting degree courses at £9,000 a year, does the Minister accept that the taxpayer should fund what is little less than quackery in universities such as Thames Valley which offer BSc honours courses in homeopathy?

Lord Henley: My Lords, again I make it clear that it is for the higher education institutions themselves to make these decisions. It would not be right for the Government to interfere.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, in choosing to fund these courses in universities, will HEFCE treat them as science, technology, engineering and medicine courses, in which case they will receive a higher allocation than if they were not treated as such?

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the answer to it but I will certainly make inquiries and write to him. Again, I reiterate the fundamental point that these are matters for HEFCE to decide, not the Government.

After a brief diversion, while a number of peers described their personal affection for chinese remedies, the Minister was pressed again:

“Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is at the discretion of HEFCE as to how university courses should be funded differentially. Is he actually saying to the House that it is a matter for HEFCE as to whether or not funding for the humanities and social sciences teaching is to be cut by 100 per cent?

Lord Henley: My Lords, we have offered guidance to HEFCE in the letter that I mentioned, which was published yesterday. I will make a copy available to the noble Lord. It is then for HEFCE to make its decisions.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, what does that guidance say about pseudo-science and the courses which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, mentioned in the first place?

Lord Henley: My Lords, I will make the letter available to the noble Lord as well.”

So the Government have given “guidance” about funding but can’t say what it is ….

The Conservative Coalition came under sustained fire from all sides in the House of Lords this afternoon over the proposal to abolish the role of the Chief Coroner – a proposal tucked away in the Public Bodies Bill.

My contribution, in support of an amendment from Baroness Finlay of Llandaff that had the effect of removing the proposal to abolish the role from the Bill, was as follows:

“My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the advisory panel on deaths in custody. That is relevant because the panel made recommendations on the back of the legislation that created the role of the chief coroner that were endorsed by the ministerial board on deaths in custody.

There are a number of reasons why Amendment 26 should be supported. The first relates to process. Whereas the passage of the Coroners and Justice Act involved a very long process in this House that included a considerable period of debate on what was a major piece of legislation, the Public Bodies Bill seeks to overturn by means of what is almost a footnote—one line in Schedule 1—all the work that was done in both Houses, which considered the issues in great detail. In addition, the Coroners and Justice Act was regarded by many people as long overdue. The process point is whether it is right and proper that such a major piece of legislation should be dismembered by a single line in the Bill.

The second process point is that we have had no adequate explanation of why the Government regard the proposed abolition as being able to produce significant savings. I am aware that every death in custody costs the taxpayer, on average, £500,000 or so for the investigation process and all that goes with it. A good and effective coronial service that picks up the lessons from deaths in custody could easily save substantial sums of money. One of the problems, on which my panel made recommendations about the role of the chief coroner, is the need to draw out at national level the material that emerges from narrative verdicts and from Rule 43 reports and to identify the best practice that emerges from those.

Another reason why my panel felt that the role of the chief coroner is important is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has just referred to—the impact that delays can have on families. One issue that concerns me and the panel that I chair is the very long period that can elapse before a proper hearing or inquest is held into the deaths of people who die while in the custody of the state. Sometimes there are good reasons for such delays, but sometimes the reasons are extremely obscure. There is certainly a problem in the allocation of work among coroners. The appointment of a chief coroner provided the possibility of being able to allocate work more rationally by perhaps creating specialist coroners who could look in detail at particular types of death and thereby build up a body of experience. The chief coroner could also draw attention, where necessary, to the fact that some coroners might be inadequately resourced by local authorities, which is the mechanism by which coroners are funded.

Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the charter for bereaved people, I understand that the coalition Government have said that they wish to make the charter even stronger. However, the key point about the charter is that, if a bereaved person feels that their charter rights have not been met, there is a mechanism or route that they can go to, which involves the chief coroner. Exactly how will that mechanism be strengthened in future?

We are assured that, by some magical process, civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will be able to fulfil the role that will now not be fulfilled by the chief coroner. How exactly will that be done? I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us chapter and verse on how that will happen. Like all other government departments, central administration in the Ministry of Justice is being reduced by 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Perhaps some of these things could have been done by Ministry of Justice civil servants before those reductions, but given that that has not happened, why should we believe that somehow, with reduced resource in future, the benefits that would have accrued from a chief coroner will magically be delivered from within the Ministry of Justice? The noble Baroness’s amendment deserves the support of the House.”

There were powerful contributions from Viscount Slim:

“After any military action, it is a fairly awesome job—not a pleasant job and a very moving job—to gather one’s dead who have made the supreme and final sacrifice for King or Queen and country. They are dead. Dead is dead. Why then does it take one, two, three or more years to declare such a person, man or woman, officially dead? What about the grieving widow? What about the mother? What about the family waiting, not really understanding what a coroner’s inquest is, not being told, not being supported, not being moved to the inquest, not being paid for, not being looked after? That is one of the reasons why we need a chief coroner.

We need a leader in this outfit somewhere. We need someone who can administer, speed the process and make certain that everything is done more speedily and correctly. The chief coroner must be rather special. He must be a leader and an administrator. I do not mind whether he is a judge or not, but he must be competent. He must grip these coroners who are scattered around the country, a little lethargic and not necessarily working every day of the week. There needs to be a little bit of cohesion here. The chief coroner is vital.

Is an unproven, newly constituted Ministry of Justice good enough to do this? I do not think so. Who is the leader who will emerge from this legal morass? I wonder. I do not think that this is possible. Surely the Government have heard enough today to realise that they are on the wrong track and that there has to be a chief coroner.”

And from Baroness Butler-Schloss:

“My Lords, I declare an interest as a former assistant deputy coroner—something that I did for as short a period as I could. Coroners, like judges and judicial officers, sit alone and quite often become isolated. If they always sit in the same place, there is a danger that their arrangements will not be consistent with those of adjoining coroners or indeed of coroners in other parts of the country.

Coroners receive a certain amount of training, as did I. As far as it went, it was good but it was not sufficient. The advantage for judges and judicial officers is that not only do they have the Judicial Studies Board but, infinitely more important, at the top of the ladder is the Lord Chief Justice, and under him are senior judges who keep the standards up and give very important guidance. That is absolutely essential. The purpose of the chief coroner and the deputies beneath him or her is to give important guidance to individual coroners right around the country who sit on their own and are isolated, and to offer guidance and keep the standards up, as the standards also vary. Losing a post not yet filled would leave coroners to carry on without that necessary help. It would also deny the public a sufficiently good coronial system.

In answer to a Question asked at Question Time some weeks ago, the Minister said that the guidance would be given by the Ministry of Justice. Like judicial officers and indeed judges, coroners are independent, and it is just not good enough for the Ministry of Justice to offer guidance to those who sit in a judicial or semi-judicial capacity. It just will not do. The Minister clearly did not understand—or perhaps, rather more importantly, the Ministry of Justice did not understand—that the sort of guidance it would give would not be good enough. Judges would not accept it, and why on earth should coroners accept it when it is possible to have a much better system? It is clear to me that the roles of chief coroner and the deputy coroners and so on are essential, as set out so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and that this amendment absolutely deserves to be carried.”

A number of Tories and Liberal Democrats also indicated their dissent with the Conservative Coalition’s proposals (although most abstained rather than voted against the Government).  However, the vast majority of the cross-benchers voted for the amendment and in the event the Government was defeated by 277 votes to 165.

Ken Livingstone has announced that Val Shawcross AM will be his running mate and nominee for Deputy Mayor in the London elections in May 2012.
I have known Val since she led Labour to victory in Croydon, overturning many decades of unbroken Tory control. We were both elected to the London Assembly in 2000 and, when I became the first Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, she became the first Chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. She has real and serious experience and her record in Croydon and LFEPA was outstanding. She will – I am sure – make a superb Deputy Mayor.

Last night I hosted an event in the River Room of the House of Lords (by kind permission of the Lord Speaker) to launch the new Freedom Charity.  The event was well-attended despite the weather and there were inspiring speeches from Dr Humayra Abedin (an NHS doctor who was kidnapped by her parents in Bangladesh after she rejected the husband they had selected for her), solicitors Anne-Marie Hutchinson and Aina Khan, as well as Baroness Patricia Scotland, the former Attorney-General.

The charity’s aim is to combat forced marriage and dishonour killings and intends to work to empower young people through education and school awareness programmes.Next year, the Charity hopes to distribute a book aimed at teenagers, “But It’s Not Fair”, written by Freedom’s founder, Aneeta Prem, to every school in the country.

A charity well worth supporting.

Nearly eighteen months ago I reported that Cressida Dick had been appointed as the first female Assistant Commissioner in he history of the Metropolitan Police.  There is now a second with the appointment of Lynne Owens as Assistant Commissioner for Central Operations.  This is another excellent appointment and prompted a gloat from Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met Commissioner, that he now had more women on his Management Team than any previous Commissioner and that there were certainly more than in my time as Chair of the MPA.  Next he’ll be telling me that Kit Malthouse is a feminista.

I have spent several hours this weekend – to be honest, more than I intended – finishing reading Chris Mullin’s second volume of diaries, “Decline and Fall” – the excellent follow up to “A View from the Foothills”.  I had thought that without the vignettes of (junior) ministerial life, it might be less interesting than its predecessor.  In fact, I found I could hardly put it down.  His account of the last days of Pompeii (editorial note: this is a metaphor) remained riveting and his accounts of those events where I too was present were unerringly accurate and beutifully described.  So, if you’ve not already bought it, I recommend you get it for yourself as an early Christmas present.