Clegg: Lords irrelevant to public

Moves by peers to vote down aspects of the
Government's welfare reform show they
 are out of touch with voters, Nick Clegg said

The House of Lords showed it was out of touch with voters' concerns by trying to water down Government efforts to slash billions from welfare payments, Nick Clegg said.

A series of defeats inflicted on benefit reforms by peers, including leading bishops, were reversed by MPs on Wednesday despite protests from disability and poverty campaigners.

The upper chamber had sought to exclude child benefit from a £26,000-a-year household cap, exempt cancer patients from means testing and stop parents being charged to use the Child Support Agency.

Senior Tories have accused ministers of treating the Lords with "contempt" by using parliamentary convention to prevent the upper chamber proposing further changes in key areas.

Interviewed by parliament's The House magazine in the wake of the defeats, Mr Clegg, who is leading efforts to reform the Lords, suggested it was irrelevant to the public.

"When people are trying to pay the bills, and are worried about their jobs, and are worried their kids going to college and all the rest of it, I don't think the vast majority of people think about the House of Lords at all," he said.

"I don't think it impinges on their daily life at all. When it does, like it did this week, how can I put this politely? I suspect many people will think: 'I am not sure this is a chamber in real touch with my everyday concerns'."

He defended the opposition of some of his own party's peers to aspects of the Welfare Reform Billhowever, saying they had "totally legitimate concerns" over some issues.

They were often being asked to vote in some cases on things they "wouldn't do in a month of Sundays if it was a Liberal Democrat government", he pointed out.

Mr Clegg also expressed his fears that the international stand-off with Iran over its nuclear ambitions could end in conflict or provoke countries such as Israel to launch a military strike. "Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands," he said.

Politicians deliberately withhold information from the public.

Politicians deliberately withhold information from the public by obstructing the work of journalists, the Leveson Inquiry has been told.

John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, which champions freedom of expression, said there is "a determination" in the corridors of power to keep ordinary people in the dark.

The former journalist, who has worked for titles including the Daily Telegraph, Financial Times and the New Statesman, said there was a "very secretive Whitehall mindset".

Lord Leveson is chairing an inquiry into the culture,
practices and ethics of the British press

He said: "There's a suspicion, invariably, of information and ... there's a determination to keep as much information out of the public domain as possible."

He said parliament had "rolled over" on the issue of superinjunctions but it did not do enough for freedom of expression. "The record of Parliament in implementing a force towards better accountability and better transparency is very poor indeed," he said.

Recalling an incident in his time as chief political correspondent for the Financial Times, he said he refused to be "fed stories" by a spin doctor, whom he did not name. The man said: "Take it down if you want more from where this came in the future." There was "a culture of complacency and duplicity", he said.

Mr Kampfner was giving evidence alongside Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN, which campaigns for writers and journalists. The pair were asked by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, about the balance between Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy, and Article 10, the right of expression.

Mr Heawood said: "I think ultimately those are both right. This is not simply about one right trumping another."

John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship

Mr Kampfner said Index on Censorship believes the right to freedom of expression can outweigh privacy. "I think I would take a more emphatic position," he said. "We, as an organisation representing freedom of expression in the UK and around the world, do regard Article 10 rights as fundamental to democracy."

He said there are some examples where the right to freedom of expression are necessarily restricted. "But where there are competing rights, Article 8 rights, as determined by judges ... will come up against those competing rights, but we do start from a straightforward Article 10 position."

©Press Association