(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That this House takes note of the case for further incremental reform of the House of Lords to address the size of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to open today’s debate on the case for incremental reform to address the size of this House. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Steel and Lord Lea, for grouping their Motions with mine for the convenience of the House. I will come back to the size of the House; it is important, and we cannot grow indefinitely.
First, however, I will talk about our reputation, something which I know—as we saw over the summer—matters to us all. Sometimes, when an institution attempts to protect its own reputation, the process of doing so can lead to misunderstandings among those to whom we are seeking to make our case. Therefore, we will do a better job of protecting and enhancing our reputation if we place the emphasis on our purpose, making the case for why we exist, and the value of our work to the people we serve. Our core purpose is to complement the work of the House of Commons and thereby give the public confidence in the laws made by Parliament and in the way Parliament holds the Government to account. If we emphasise that, show what it means in practice and ourselves use that same purpose to inform our contributions—when to attend, how to contribute when we do, when to retire, and when to resign if our actions fall short of what people have a right to expect from public servants, especially when they cannot eject us via the ballot box—we will be more effective in securing the reputation of this House and its future. We will be demonstrating that we want to be accountable for why we serve as Members of this House, and that we are committed to the purpose we are here to serve.
We have taken some important steps in that direction in the past few years. On retirement, for example, more than 30 Members have retired so far, and soon 35 will have done so. I sincerely commend them for their public service. However, as an unelected House there is further for us to go to show we are serious about accountability. We are still not clear enough about what it means to be a Member of this House, which in turn can make it harder for others to understand all the different ways in which Members of this House contribute to our work.
I accept that there is no one-size-fits-all model. Members, whether Front Bench or Back Bench, a member of a party group, a Cross-Bencher or a Bishop, make valuable contributions in different ways. However, although Members take different approaches to our work, we should have the same principle at heart: that we are here to serve the public, and when we make our different contributions, as individuals or parties, we should be seeking to make a difference within the proper limits of an unelected House. Greater clarity about what being a Member of this House entails is one strand of our work; another is to examine the steps available to us to address our size.
As I said at the outset, this Government are clear that the House cannot keep growing indefinitely. However, to focus only on our headline size is to misunderstand the nature of this House. Unlike many other Chambers with which we are compared, the vast majority of our Members do not attend all the time, nor are they salaried. Many Peers balance professional lives outside the House with work within it, and their experience adds so much to our proceedings. However, we must recognise that the gap between our headline size and our average attendance adds to some of the misunderstandings about our work and gets in the way of our demonstrating to the world outside the value of what we do. As Leader I am conscious of our responsibility to examine and address the question of our size. It is a responsibility I want us to uphold and I want to work together with Members from across the House to find the right way forward. I want today’s debate to be the beginning of that process, and that is why I am glad to see that the speakers list has so many contributions from across the House.
At this stage I want to keep an open mind. It would be right for me as Leader to do so and I am sure it is what noble Lords would expect from me. However, one of the principles we should have in mind as we proceed is simplicity. The simpler and more straightforward our approach to answering the question of size, the clearer and more compelling any changes will be from the perspective of the people we serve. That is why some of the simpler, although sensitive, approaches such as age and term limits, which will doubtless attract commentary this afternoon—both positive and negative—deserve further consideration. At the same time, it is worth me being clear with the House that I am more cautious about approaches that introduce too much complexity into what we are trying to do, not least because the experience of recent incremental reforms shows that we have been able to make progress when we have focused on simple steps that are readily understood, including by those who may have to scrutinise them in the other place.
Many suggestions will be made today and I may not be able to cover them all when I respond; however, that is not what I believe today is about—we will not reach agreement in a single debate. Instead, now is the time to begin discussions on a cross-party basis. There is no shortage of ideas in this sphere. The lack of progress previously has not been for lack of proposals but lack of political will. That, I am glad to say, is changing. From my conversations with the leaders of the other groups, I sense that there is now a welcome and shared will to move forward, which is why I now want to convene discussions with the other leaders and the Convener to drive this process on. I will lead those discussions in the months to come and I have scheduled our first meeting in the weeks following the Conference Recess. I hope that today’s debate can provide the backdrop which will inform that process as it gets under way, because however we proceed, all Benches must play their part.
I am clear that our core purpose must drive all change and inform our approach. Addressing our size is important in that respect but it is not a silver bullet. It is not the only thing—arguably not even the most important thing—when it comes to maintaining the legitimacy of this House and the work it does. We must not try to address all matters of concern as if they relate only to size. Furthermore, we must not proceed thinking that we can make changes in one giant leap. Recent experience in this House has shown that we are more likely to move forward when we focus on taking simple, workable steps in the right direction. We are not necessarily seeking the perfect solution but looking for what we might do to set a direction of travel. That will not be the end of the journey because legitimacy is about improving our accountability, and there we have further to go. However, it is a good place to start. The public will ultimately judge our success in that endeavour. It is our duty to proceed with them in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I fear that some of your Lordships may find my Motion to be somewhat dramatic, and my request for 12 new UKIP Peers somewhat ambitious, but I hope I can allay such feelings. I am also aware that the strong mood of the House is that too many new Peers are joining us anyway, as was reflected in our vote, by 217 to 45 on 28 February 2013, to say that we very much hoped that restraint would be exercised in the appointment of new Members. It is regrettable that this has been entirely ignored by the Prime Minister.
I should confirm, too, that my Motion is in no way critical of our so-called people’s Peers, all of whom have joined the Cross Benches, surely by far the most valuable element of your Lordships’ House. My Motion is aimed squarely at the Prime Minister’s use of his constitutional privilege to recommend new Peers to Her Majesty. A number of your Lordships wanted me to make the Motion quite a bit stronger by delaying the introduction of any new Lib Dem Peers until a fair number of new UKIP Peers had preceded them. But I understand that this, if carried, would have taken us into somewhat uncharted waters and could have interfered with the Queen’s Writ of Summons, because Peers cannot sit, speak or vote until they have taken the oath or affirmed—hence the milder Motion before your Lordships, with which I hope you will agree.
I have put a copy of my correspondence with the Prime Minister and the last coalition Government online, and will be happy to send it to any noble Lord who wants it. I also mentioned most of the story, at col. 1062 on 15 June this year, in a debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, inviting the Government to review the law governing elections in this country. In the interests of time, I will not repeat it all now but would like it to be taken into account.
In summary, the coalition Government said that they had a policy of appointing Peers in reflection of the votes cast at the previous general election. UKIP received 3% of the votes cast in the 2010 election, which should have given us 23 Peers under the Government’s new policy. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister in May 2010, saying that I understood that it was not an exact science but suggested that UKIP should have had perhaps four new working Peers. The Prime Minister wrote back politely, saying that the media were vastly exaggerating the number of new Peers he could recommend to the Queen. But he said he saw the point and would keep the matter under review. I expect that your Lordships know the sort of letter.
At the time of my letter, the media were speculating that the Prime Minister would recommend the appointment of 60 new Peers, but he went on to recommend 185 during the last Parliament and another 45 now, with none for UKIP. Throughout that Parliament, I wrote several more times to the Prime Minister and asked a number of Oral Questions in your Lordships’ House. The answers were all the same. They stated that the coalition Government’s policy was indeed to recommend Peers in proportion to the votes cast in 2010 but not for UKIP. My noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate also tabled a Written Question on 21 May 2013, and I will leave it to him to reveal the full beauty of the Government’s reply from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
We come to the general election in May, which the Conservatives won. The Prime Minister has deftly turned the coalition policy of Peers being appointed to reflect the votes cast in the previous general election to their being appointed to reflect its “result”. This is not helpful to UKIP because although 3.8 million people voted for the party, or 12.6% of the votes cast, we won only one seat in the Commons. However, I understand that the result of the Conservative victory was achieved thanks only to the UKIP vote. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister again in May and August, pointing this out and suggesting that UKIP should have 12 new working Peers. On 26 August, I received a “pp” reply on behalf of an assistant private secretary in No. 10, which contains the following statement, which your Lordships may find intriguing: “In line with long-standing convention … this dissolution list … provides the opportunity to recognise those who have given long-standing service to the public”.
I have nothing against any of the new Peers personally and am sure that we will all welcome them with our customary courtesy. However, it is clear from the list that they are all party appointees, only a few of whom have given long-standing service to the public, and that in their party capacity. I understand that some of them may even continue to be special advisers and so may not be able to speak or vote. But I will leave it to other noble Lords more versed in these conventions to deal with that possibility.
So where do we stand now in your Lordships’ House? With the help of the Library, I have drawn up a little chart, which I will put online or give to any noble Lord who wants a copy. This chart shows that 24% of the electorate cast 11.3 million votes for the Conservatives in May, which gave them victory, with 330 seats in the Commons and now 250 Peers here, or 48 more than they would have had under the coalition’s policy. For the Labour Party, 20% of the electorate cast 9.3 million votes, which gave them 232 seats in the Commons. They will now have 220 Peers here, or 54 more than they would have done under the coalition’s policy. UKIP came third in May, when 8% of the electorate cast 3.8 million votes for us. But that gave us just one seat in the Commons and we still have only three Peers here, or 66 fewer than we should have had under the coalition policy. Then we come to the Liberal Democrats, who came fourth, and for whom only 5% of the electorate voted, with 2.4 million votes. That gave them eight seats in the Commons. However, with their 11 new Peers, they will now have 113 Peers, or 70 more than they should have had under their very own coalition policy. So we have 66 fewer Peers than we should have had under their policy and they have 70 more. I trust your Lordships see why I singled them out for mention in this Motion. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrats are now to have £288,525 per annum to help them run a Front Bench in your Lordships’ House, which I do not understand at all.
What I have said about the unfairness of UKIP’s position applies also in smaller measure to the Green Party, which has one Peer here, or 19 fewer Peers than it should have had. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, cannot speak in this afternoon’s debate but I am happy to make this point on her behalf.
As to the Government’s Motion, I suggest that the most obvious way to address the size of your Lordships’ House is for the Prime Minister to stop recommending so many Peers to the Queen. With this latest list, he will have recommended at least 230 new Peers since 2010—I am not quite sure where that stands in the record books.
Even so, I trust your Lordships will agree that UKIP should have more Peers, especially when we are about to start debating the EU Referendum Bill and the case to leave the EU is so underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.
When I look at the statistics that I have just given, I cannot help concluding that the problem for our democracy—the elephant in the room—is not the size of your Lordships’ House but the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer a democracy. Your Lordships may be shocked by that statement, but my understanding is that a democracy is a system whereby the people elect and dismiss those who make their laws. But last May, only 11.3 million voters got the Government they wanted, while 18.75 million did not.
To the statistics I have given should be added the Scottish National Party, which does not want any seats here, but for which only 3% of the electorate voted, with 1.4 million votes in May. However, this gave it no fewer than 56 seats in the House of Commons. So the composition of the Commons under our first past the post system, which was designed when there were really only two parties, no longer reflects the wishes of the British people.
I appreciate that I have strayed a little beyond the Motion for today’s debate, but the democratic legitimacy of the House of Commons lies above what we are debating today and I wanted to take the opportunity to flag it up. I trust that we can return to it another day, because there is not much point in tinkering with your Lordships’ House when our democracy itself no longer works.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for their courtesy in including my Motion along with this take note debate. I am not going to get involved in an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, except to point out to him that the Prime Minister said in a speech in Singapore in the course of his five-day tour:
“It is important the House of Lords in some way reflects the situation in the House of Commons. At the moment it is well away from that”.
So the noble Lord should be careful what he wishes for, because UKIP on that basis is overrepresented in this House as it stands.
However, I want to stick to the Motion before us. I thank the Leader of the House for the way in which she introduced the take note debate, which was extremely helpful. Before I come to the terms of my Motion, I hope that we do not lose sight, while we talk about incremental change to this House, of the longer-term objective of looking at the role that this House should play in the constitution of our country. Things are changing in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales, and even in England, with the Prime Minister talking about English votes for English laws. So we are missing a chance by not having the constitutional convention for which many people have argued. Indeed, the noble Baroness herself said last week in replying to another Member:
“The noble Baroness knows my party’s position on a constitutional convention. We do not feel that that is a priority at this time”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. 1213.]
But when will it be a priority? A constitutional commission or a convention is bound to take some time, and it is important that we do not lose sight of the vow made by the three party leaders to the people of Scotland during the referendum and that we look to a reformed House of Lords as being a pivotal part in a quasi-federal constitution in the future. That at least is a long-term discussion which we should have.
Let me return to this immediate debate, which is about the House as we know it today. I am grateful also to the Prime Minister for what he said in that same speech in Singapore, and I quote him:
“It is now possible for people to retire from the House of Lords, and a number of people have taken up that option under the Steel Bill, and I think we should encourage that”.
Well, I thought that was a bit rich. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, smiling, because he will recall as I do the struggle that we had to get the Government to accept even a tiny part of that Bill. It would never have happened but for Dan Byles, the MP in the Commons, winning a place in the ballot and getting it on to the statute book in its limited edition. It was a struggle, and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—I pay tribute to him and his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, both of whom were extremely helpful. But, of course, one of the big stumbling blocks was the Deputy Prime Minister, as he well knows. I still remember the press conference when he announced that they were withdrawing after the failure to get the Bill through the House of Commons. At the press conference, he was asked about the Steel Bill and he said, “I do not propose to legitimise the illegitimate”. I took personal offence at that, and I thought it was offensive to the House as a whole. What I find illegitimate is the practice of the three party leaders, copying from Lloyd George, of continuing to give peerages to people who have done nothing for the parties except sign large cheques for the party coffers. That is the most disgraceful thing about the current practice.
I propose in this Motion that there should be a cut-off, and I admit right away that this is an age cut-off under the Act which we passed. Members may now retire, and as the Leader said, 35 will have done so. But if we had an automatic cut-off with anybody over the age of 80 at the end of each Parliament departing, it would enable the House to be refreshed after each election without the numbers becoming excessive. In fact, if this had happened at the last election, 158 Members would have left. If it happens at the end of this Parliament, 260—including myself—would have to go. I think that that is probably a very good thing—I am not referring to myself, but to the generality. It would enable an incoming Government to make new creations without the numbers becoming excessive.
That was my view, and then over the Summer Recess I happened to meet up with my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford. He said, “You might have more chance of getting this through if you allowed an exception for those people whom we would be very sad to miss”. That is why I included in my Motion the proposal that those who are retiring,
“should elect 12 of their number”,
to stay on—rather on the same analogy as the hereditary Peers. In fact, I got it quite wrong because the noble Lord, Lord Lee, was proposing that the House as a whole should choose, not just those who are retiring. My mind was on how many fish we would catch on the Tweed that day, so I did not get this quite right.
However, I think that the age limit is not an unreasonable instrument, if rather crude, given that judges have to retire at 75 and Lord Lieutenants retire at 75. When I was a young MP a lot of Members of the House of Commons were over the age of 80, but that is no longer the case. Because of the process of parliamentary pensions, coupled with selection processes, very few Members are above that age in the Commons. It is not unreasonable to say that at a certain age people should abandon their public life.
I end with an example. I suspect that most of those over 80 are not familiar with the social media. I enjoyed the letter I read in a publication recently from one such person who said:
“I haven’t got a computer, but I was told about Facebook and Twitter and I am trying to make friends outside Facebook and Twitter while applying the same principles.
Every day, I walk down the street and tell passers-by what I have eaten, how I feel, what I have done the night before and what I will do for the rest of the day. I give them pictures of my wife, my daughter, my dog and me gardening and on holiday. I also listen to their conversations, tell them I ‘like’ them and give them my opinion on every subject that interests me … whether it interests them or not.
And it works. I already have four people following me; two police officers, a social worker and a psychiatrist”.
That letter typifies the problem for those of us who reach the age of 80, and it is not unreasonable—a crude instrument it may be, but it could be effective. I have included the Motion as a contribution to this general debate.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for including my Motion on the Order Paper.
On the range of reputational issues, I suggest that the first precept should surely be the old adage: “Let the punishment fit the crime”. I am not sure that we have all that in perspective at present, but I will allude to it later.
On the formal subject of the debate, if we are to make progress on this issue, our line of travel must have two prongs. First and foremost, we need to turn the tap down on the numbers coming in, as well as encouraging Members to go out. The two must be included together. I did not hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say that, and I trust that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition might acknowledge that it is a fact.
The noble Baroness appeared to imply that the numbers coming in had nothing to do with it. I may have missed it, but I do not think she acknowledged that. The necessity for this twin track, if I may make a statistical point, is pellucidly clear if one looks at the numbers, as set out in a succession of excellent Library Notes. We are very well served by the House of Lords Library on these questions. Since 2000, 472 new Peers have come in and 289 have gone out, for one reason or another. In passing, I also draw attention to the fact that it is a bit rich for the Prime Minister—who is cutting every penny in sight, in local government, social services, et cetera ad infinitum—to imagine that we can ignore the additional costs of 45 new Members. In November 2010, in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Bassam, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who was Chairman of Committees at the time, said that the average cost per Member was £156,000 a year, including a share of the overheads. Over 10 years, that is a cost of £1.56 million per Member: £15 million for 10 Members—I stand to be corrected—or £60 million for 40 Members.
Secondly, the number of Members leaving the House, far from having diminished, much less dried up, has hovered around 20 more or less every year for the past 15 years. Again, I draw on the Library Notes as the fount of all wisdom on this. I remember asking my noble friend Lord Grocott for this number when he was a Whip and he confirmed it. It was always about 20 and it is still about 20. The big change has not been the number going out but the escalation of people coming in. The announcement of 45 new Members on 27 August this year was not a record, but—despite all the talk along the lines of “It can’t go on like this”, which we have heard in this House and in the press for a long, long time—it is right at the top of the range, the outrider being 82 in 2010.
So our starting point as a matter of balanced public policy must surely be a self-denying ordinance that only about 20 Members come in each year. Of course, this could be done more readily in practice by averaging over a spread of years—the arithmetic would mean 40 over two years, 60 over three years, et cetera—if that is more convenient administratively. Before anybody says that this will never be accepted by any Prime Minister, I say, “Hang on a minute, we live in a democracy”. Surely the fatal flaw in the present system of appointments, which must change as the first priority, is that alone among western democracies we allow the Prime Minister of the day to decide unilaterally on appointing new Members, with no attempt to hide the motive, which is normally to bring changes to the party composition of this House and to spread the Danegeld uneasily between the other party leaders.
If one steps back from it, it becomes all the more self-evident that this is an absurd and indefensible system—just try defending it in public. A few months ago, I was in Maputo in Mozambique, chairing a seminar for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the Labour Party’s sister parties in Africa. It was a session on good governance and, indeed, bad governance. We put words on blackboards for discussion and for question and answer sessions, based on suggestions from the floor. They were all pretty basic issues. For example, if you are the Finance Minister you do not make your brother-in-law the auditor-general. You obviously do not act like a bunch of kleptocrats, stealing money from the public purse to buy up houses in South Audley Street—although one of them said, “Why not?”. I am not sure whether that was a joke. I was keenly aware that if I had written on the board that, in an advanced democracy, not only could there be no written constitution but the Prime Minister could simply change the composition of one of the legislative Houses of Parliament to suit their political advantage, it would be laughed out of court, even—I might say particularly—in Maputo. I add that I did not have time to explain the concept of elected hereditaries.
While I am being diplomatic about last month’s announcement, the facile rhetoric that the Government do not have a majority here, as they do in the Commons, begs every question in sight, even though it is endlessly regurgitated by lazy political journalists as though it is sensible analysis. Going back 100 years, the Labour Party lived with that lack of a majority when they had a majority in the Commons, not only more recently from 1997 to 2010—despite the big reforms in 1999—but from 1945 to 1979. The Labour Party never said that that was something it could not operate with. It is a pretty thin argument.
The additional, technical reason why this idea of a lack of a majority is a nonsense is that, apart from anything else, we have some 200 Cross-Benchers. An overall majority is patently impossible, yet we see this nonsense regurgitated. Talking of Cross-Benchers, a former Member of this House—a field-marshal who also lives in Crondall, if that helps to identify him—mentioned to me only last week that he had retired in part because the House was getting too crowded. “But”, he said, “Look what happened: those spaces were filled up almost overnight”. This is a key point: if, as I trust, we are to adhere to voluntarism in this matter, as the Life Peerages Act implies, what sort of an incentive is there if we see that that is the result?
My Motion refers to a new statutory appointments commission. I want briefly to mention its two key functions as I see them. I do not think it is game, set and match to say that Prime Ministers will not accept it. I accept that we probably need a mini constitutional convention. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for whom I have the greatest respect: is it really a fact that we cannot have a mini constitutional convention to deal with this without waiting for an all-singing, all-dancing maxi-convention for everything in the United Kingdom?
There seem to be, inter alia, two important legs to the statutory appointments commission. One concerns agreeing the formula for the balance of new appointments between the parties, which could correspond to what I would call a three general election moving average, based on seats rather than votes, given the electoral system.
I refer in the Motion to the reputation of the House. We all know that cash for peerages is often talked about. Therefore, I also propose that the political parties lodge with the SAC their own processes and criteria for their internal party selections. However, for the avoidance of doubt, it would not be for the SAC to choose between individuals A, B and C from the party list. That would be down to the parties.
I said at the start that reform will work only if it has these two prongs. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, would not wish, I think, for his Motion to stand in isolation, since, apart from anything else, it would do nothing to curb the flow of new appointments. He is nodding; I am glad. Incidentally, he and I happen to be the same age: 77. The new leader of the Labour Party is 66. I would say that 77 is the new 66; otherwise I would, no doubt, be consigned to the knacker’s yard in three or four years. I think the noble Lord, Lord Steel, might be one of the chosen few. However, I doubt he would find consensus that there are only 12 distinguished and active colleagues among the 133 in this House who are more than 80 years old. The point has already been made that people’s lifespans are, on average, extending. I hope that the Front Benches will acknowledge later in this debate that the twin-track approach is therefore the sine qua non for a reform that will go the distance.