Examination of witnesses (Questions 420 - 441)
TUESDAY 3 MARCH 1998
THE RT
HON THE
LORD IRVINE
OF LAIRG,
QC and MRS
SARAH TYACKE
420. Can you give us any encouragement or indication
as to when your considerations will see the light of day? I have
seen it written that we can expect the Queen's Speech to shed
some light on the programme for constitutional reform of the Lords.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) You know perfectly well,
of course, that I cannot anticipate what will be in the Queen's
Speech or what the contents of the legislative programme will
be, but you also know equally well that our manifesto on which
we won the General Election contains a firm commitment to bring
forward legislation to abolish the rights of hereditary peers
and that commitment is alive and well.
421. Just one final question, I read with some interest
your speech to the Citizenship Foundation and the strong points
you were making, which Mike Hancock referred to earlier, about
trying to involve young people in the democratic process and political
life and so on.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Yes, I believe that.
422. It is a very important issue. Do you think they
would be further encouraged if you in the House of Lords would
take off your wig and sit on something other than the Woolsack?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) The Woolsack, contrary
to what you might think, is quite comfortable and not a bad place
for a speaker to sit, in case you have been worrying about me
, which I am sure you have not. The wig, however, is uncomfortable
and - -
423. Could you sit on the wig perhaps?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I do not think I would
sit on the wig. It is far too beautiful and historic an object
to do it the great damage I would do it if I sat on it!
424. You might have to refurbish it!
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) It would certainly need
an awful lot of refurbishment, I quite agree, after that - - I
see the case for historic dress at state occasions like the State
Opening of Parliament but as daily working clothes I have no affection
for them whatsoever.
Mr Tyrie
425. Just a few questions on House of Lords reform, if
I may Lord Chancellor. Is your Sub-Committee already examining
or has it started examining at all stage two reform, that is beyond
the abolition of hereditary peers? Have you had discussions or
are there any papers?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Obviously I shall not tell
you about Cabinet papers, but of course we are looking not merely
at the issue of the removal of the rights of hereditaries but
we are looking at all issues which are relevant to a reformed
and more representative upper house, the House of Lords.
426. I do not know what you think but I think that it
would be hugely helpful if such fundamental reforms as the reform
of the upper house of the legislature should proceed, if at all
possible, by consensus. I have several questions in this regard.
First, do you think it might be a good idea if you could put your
proposals for stage one reform to consultation, to even approach
all the parties. Some parties are already involved, other parties,
the Conservative Party and other parties, are not involved.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) May I just respond to that
right away. I think there is unanimity in the country that the
rights of hereditaries must go. That is the position of my Party,
that is the position of the Liberal Democrats and, as I read the
puffs of smoke emerging from the Conservative Party, they have
given up as a lost cause the defence of the rights of hereditaries
so I have the impression that there is not a subject there to
consult anybody about because everybody agrees that the hereditaries'
rights are bizarre and have to go.
427. If you are so sure what the outcome of consultation
will be, would it not be better to demonstrate to all concerned
that everybody does agree by inviting views on stage one?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) It is a just a question
of who goes first. If, as I think, the position of the Conservative
Party has become that the rights of the hereditaries are a lost
cause then they should just say so.
Mr Bradley
428. Have they?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I know the feeling. You
are not here to answer questions. That used to be the enormous
strength of my position as an advocate when I was asked questions
by the witness.
Mr Tyrie
429. You said you have already begun work on stage two.
You have also said, or if not I think the Prime Minister said
at some time that further reform would be put to some form of
consultation. If you have already started work on that would it
not be a good idea to consult on the further stages of House of
Lords reform now rather than later?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I think that these are
fantastically difficult questions on which it is necessary not
to arrive at a concluded view but to have the benefit of a Cabinet
Sub-Committee, the benefit of the resources of government, the
benefit of looking at upper houses elsewhere and giving a very
very thorough consideration to what a new model might be. You
know perfectly well, we all know perfectly well what the possibilities
are, wholly elected, wholly nominated, something in between. What
to do about existing life peers? What about what I think is pretty
broadly agreed by people that any reformed upper house should
have a guaranteed place for independents or cross benchers and
so on? We are looking at all the alternatives, all the possibilities,
and we will decide, once we are clearer in our own minds of the
shape that a reformed upper house might have, what the next stage
might be.
430. My suggestion is to try and find some consensus
about that. If you have started to form a view on that you might
consult now.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) My response to that is
government must govern. We have a clear mandate. We have to get
on with developing a policy but obviously that does not preclude
discussions at a later stage.
431. With our unwritten constitution governing proceedings
on these sorts of reform we have to rely heavily on precedent.
I am sure you are aware, are you not, that the precedent in every
case of attempted reform of the House of Lords has been to create
some form of all-party consultative committee. In the 1910 reforms
there was a constitutional conference. In the 1948 reforms Attlee
also had an inter-party conference. In the 1968 attempt - -
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) If I may break into Scots,
muckle good it did them.
432. So your proposal is not to have consultation because
"muckle good it will do them", or whatever you said?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) In my book it is usually
prudent when you cite precedent to cite successful precedent.
You have cited unsuccessful precedent. That is the only point
I was making.
433. There was the Parliament Act of 1911 and the Parliament
Act of 1948. Were those considered unsuccessful?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) What I think we were talking
about was the various other attempts that there had been to deal
with the rights of hereditaries and create a new composition for
the House of Lords. The Parliament Acts of course concern the
powers of the upper house in relation to the elected chamber.
We are now talking about two separate things, are we not? What
powers ought the so-called upper house have, recognising that
the House of Commons is the superior chamber? And what ought the
composition of a more representative upper house be? I do not
actually think that the two Parliament Acts are much guidance
on that particular issue.
434. Just to clarify, you would not favour trying to
generate consultation with all the other political parties in
this country?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I have not said that. I
have said the reverse.
435. You are welcoming approaches.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I have said the reverse.
I have said that we do not exclude discussions with the other
parties at an appropriate time but meanwhile it is the job of
this Cabinet Sub-Committee - -
436. To decide what to do.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Not to decide what to do.
To get ahead with the considered development of policy and to
accumulate information from around the world and other upper houses
and to be fully informed before coming to views which could perfectly
appropriately, once these views are developed, be the subject
of consultation.
Chairman
437. I know it is at the end of a very very long session
but I do want to ask one or to questions about the Public Record
Office not least out of courtesy to the Keeper of the Public Records
and also because they are part of the Bill in the sense of how
well thought through the Bill is. Could I ask you therefore whether
you think that the White Paper and what it proposes on the Public
Record Office is entirely consistent? In other words, where it
refers to how accessible or what your rights will be in relation
to the 30-year rule to get access to documents, why is there not
a unified approach to openness in respect of current records and
historical records covered by the 30-year rule?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) I come back again to the
same point I made earlier, you should not be looking for symmetry
here. The point is that what we have got in relation to freedom
of information is a regime which is under consideration and which
will end up in the Bill which will be remarkably liberal in relation
to current records. Once documents pass the age of 30 years then
basically they should come free. Necessarily, therefore, the regime
that applies to documents post 30 years of age is more liberal
than the regime that applies to documents which are to be classed
as current and less than 30 years. Just to apply the same criteria
to both would, incidentally, diminish accessibility to historic
records, that is to say those over 30 years of age. The other
thing that I would like to emphasise is that the whole area of
public records is going to be enormously enhanced by giving the
Information Commissioner new rights in relation to public records,
so that is entirely new. So what you have got is a measure of
control and surveillance of a strong character by the Information
Commissioner in relation to public records which was not there
before and a statutory regime for freedom of information for current
documents which I do not think anyone in this Committee has disputed
is pretty liberal.
438. We do not but the Public Records Act, for instance,
only covers the orders of central government and the Freedom of
Information Bill will have a much wider range than just central
government.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Certainly.
439. Why can it not apply to all public records, not
merely those of central government?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Is this now the proposition
that public records legislation should extend beyond the archives
which it presently extends to and should be co-terminus with the
freedom of information legislation?
440. It is worth running the case for that, is it not?
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Well, you can argue it
but what you are talking about, of course, is a great upheaval
in relation to the preservation of public records on the back
of freedom of information legislation which you never had before.
I think what I will do is invite the Keeper to explain what the
practical implications would be of even contemplating extending
the range of public records legislation to the whole range of
bodies who produce documents and information which will be within
the ambit of freedom of information legislation. The way to consider
this is to see the practicalities.
(Mrs Tyacke) Perhaps I can help you on this. Obviously
public records those that come out of central government come
to the Public Record Office but you may imagine stretching across
England and Wales and indeed in Scotland and Northern Ireland
the separate jurisdiction for record keeping which is under the
local authority and each local authority, be it unitary, metropolitan
or shire, has its own record-keeping arrangements. And I think
that while it would be entirely sensible to offer advice to local
authorities as to how they might follow, if they wish to do so,
some of the provisions in FOI - and indeed with the data protection
registrar we intend to offer guidance to them if they wish it
- I think that to actually consider what you are proposing would
affect them greatly and I would suggest that it is better to offer
central advice than to demand the great upheaval that the Lord
Chancellor has spoken about.
441. I will wind up this exceptionally long session which
has ranged very far and wide. I think I should say that you should
be left under no doubt that this Committee is strongly in support
of the Government's White Paper and is hopeful that there will
be no resiling from the principles in the White Paper in the actual
Bill when we see it in draft form initially in very few months'
time and we would very much welcome your commitment that there
will be no resiling from the excellent principles in the White
Paper when we see the draft Bill. I should also say that our purpose
in having you here this morning, and indeed other witnesses that
we have had, is entirely to one purpose: to try to ensure that
where there are going to be differences between the way that the
Data Protection Bill and the Human Rights Bills are going to work
that they are got going to cause confusion for the general public
and our constituents. On the issues we have raised in relation
to whether there should be a Commissioner for Freedom of Information
but we should suspend judgement on human rights, we need to understand
why a Commissioner is a good thing in one case and not in another,
and in relation to parliamentary accountability why there should
be an Ombudsman and a Joint Committee for Human Rights and no
Parliamentary accountability for the Information Commissioner.
We need to know why there are different things chosen for the
different aspects of the three different Bills or proposed Bills.
It is for that purpose. In that context I do want to thank you
very much for your forbearance, endurance and the answers you
have given to all our questions this morning.
(Lord Irvine of Lairg) Thank you very much. It
has been a great pleasure.
| 
