Lords Grand Committee
Thursday 22nd October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 12 hours, 40 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
12:15
12:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name in the order Paper. This motion invites the Grand Committee to take note of the ongoing consultation on possible changes to the sitting times of the House. I am grateful to Noble Lords for attending today's debate, for the engagement with the consultation that we have already seen. Any decision to change the sitting times of the House is ultimately a matter for the House itself. Today's debate, therefore, provides a further opportunity for noble Lords to express their views before the Procedure and Privileges Committee considers what, if any, recommendations it may make to the House .
As noble Lords would expect, this is a neutral motion. My role today is to assist the Grand Committee in its consideration of the matter, rather than to advocate any particular outcome. Following the debate, I will seek to respond to the points raised where possible at this stage of the consultation process. The House last considered changes to sitting times in 2022, following concerns expressed by members across the House that the House should sit earlier on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
As noble Lords would expect, this is a neutral motion. My role today is to assist the Grand Committee in its consideration of the matter, rather than to advocate any particular outcome. Following the debate, I will seek to respond to the points raised where possible at this stage of the consultation process. The House last considered changes to sitting times in 2022, following concerns expressed by members across the House that the House should sit earlier on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
In 2022, following concerns expressed by members across the House. Sit earlier on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the PPC conducted a consultation with members and subsequently published a neutral report analysing the responses received. The report was debated by the House on 5th July 2022, when the House voted by 158 votes to 124, not to make changes to the sitting times. Earlier this year, the government chief whip wrote to the PPC seeking its agreement to consult the House again on this question, noting a renewed interest among among members in recognising the issue, the committee agreed and the current consultation weeks seeks views on four options sitting at 1 p.m.
on Tuesdays, sitting at 1 p.m. on Wednesdays, sitting at 1 p.m. on both of those days or making no change. The consultation was launched on the 2nd of September through a member's notice. Members may respond either through an online form or a paper form available from the printed paper office. Since its launch, I have met with backbench chairs and made myself available to speak at all party groups. The administration has also organised drop in stands to raise awareness of the consultation and encourage participation. The consultation has been promoted through a range of channels, including peer hub and digital screens across the parliamentary estate.
As of yesterday, the 21st of October, 360 responses have been received. By comparison, in 2022, a total of 48 submissions were received. It is encouraging to see that substantially more members have engaged with the current consultation. On this occasion, the Committee has deliberately adopted a longer consultation period and sought to maximise awareness and engagement across the House. The response to date suggests that those efforts have enabled a greater number of members to share their views on this important issue. I will remain open until 5 p.m. on the 13th of November. The administration is also examining the potential resource and cost implications for house services arising from various options under consideration.
Further details of that work will be provided in due course and will form part of the information made available to the Committee in reaching its conclusions. This will include advice on the impacts on tours and educational visits, select committees, catering capital projects and staffing issues during the consultation in 2022. This will ensure that the PPC has the best possible and thorough and most thorough analysis when formulating its recommendations to the House. Responses received through the consultation, together with feedback from party and group discussions and information from the administration and bicameral services, will be considered by the PPC Committee early in 2027.
The committee's report will include an analysis of consultation responses alongside information about operational and service impacts. The House will then have a further opportunity to debate the committee's recommendations and to determine whether any changes should be made to sitting times. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords during today's debate. I beg to move.
on Tuesdays, sitting at 1 p.m. on Wednesdays, sitting at 1 p.m. on both of those days or making no change. The consultation was launched on the 2nd of September through a member's notice. Members may respond either through an online form or a paper form available from the printed paper office. Since its launch, I have met with backbench chairs and made myself available to speak at all party groups. The administration has also organised drop in stands to raise awareness of the consultation and encourage participation. The consultation has been promoted through a range of channels, including peer hub and digital screens across the parliamentary estate.
As of yesterday, the 21st of October, 360 responses have been received. By comparison, in 2022, a total of 48 submissions were received. It is encouraging to see that substantially more members have engaged with the current consultation. On this occasion, the Committee has deliberately adopted a longer consultation period and sought to maximise awareness and engagement across the House. The response to date suggests that those efforts have enabled a greater number of members to share their views on this important issue. I will remain open until 5 p.m. on the 13th of November. The administration is also examining the potential resource and cost implications for house services arising from various options under consideration.
Further details of that work will be provided in due course and will form part of the information made available to the Committee in reaching its conclusions. This will include advice on the impacts on tours and educational visits, select committees, catering capital projects and staffing issues during the consultation in 2022. This will ensure that the PPC has the best possible and thorough and most thorough analysis when formulating its recommendations to the House. Responses received through the consultation, together with feedback from party and group discussions and information from the administration and bicameral services, will be considered by the PPC Committee early in 2027.
The committee's report will include an analysis of consultation responses alongside information about operational and service impacts. The House will then have a further opportunity to debate the committee's recommendations and to determine whether any changes should be made to sitting times. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords during today's debate. I beg to move.
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think there are matters of recording for hands on the official report as well. So if we could just follow the instruction to just adjourn for a few moments whilst this issue is investigated, then I'll put the question and we'll continue. Sir, for your patience in moving forward. The doorkeepers and staff and clerks for facilitating it. The result is that our deliberations can be seen and heard by those external to the building.
The question is that this motion be agreed to. Lord Redwood.
The question is that this motion be agreed to. Lord Redwood.
12:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lords, I'd like to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for his opening remarks, his clear and neutral presentation, and, above all, for the enormous work. That he's put in to making this an extensive and fair consultation. And I think we are all very grateful to him and to his team for that work . As a relatively new Lord in your lordships House. I approached the new job, understanding that it would be very different from the spirit and the actions of the House of Commons, and knowing that it is the task of the lordships House to tread very carefully so that we can be seen to be doing good work, making a difference in improving, amending, but that we are not in any way attempting to usurp the powers of the elected government and understand the power of of the House of Commons.
And I think we generally get that right. And when I came here and saw the ancient traditions and some of the more modern customs, they naturally seemed a little strange, as I think they do to many people outside this house. But I saw that many of them were well based in a tried custom and practice that worked very well. And today we are debating our hours of business, and I think this relates to the large, diverse membership that your lordship House enjoys. And I think it is part of the decision that the Parliament and Nation have made, that there should be a second unelected House with a very wide range of skills, experience and talent draw on.
That leads to some of the customs and practices that are so clearly embedded and has led to past sessions of your lordships House deciding that the hours should be as they are today, and we are invited to make a choice between four options. And there is the no change option. And then, as we've heard, there are the two mild options changing one day a little bit and the slightly bolder option of changing two days a little bit. Now I approach it as not someone who believes that all customs and traditions have to be respected, but I approach it as a conservative where there is usually a good reason for a tradition and custom, and you don't want to destroy ones unnecessarily that are part of our our culture and still work.
So for example, from from the other place, past era of Lords reform, I was very strongly in favour of reform of retirement. And I thought it was essential that there was an opportunity for for Lords to retire. And there is a system where, if any of those Lords judgments is a little wanting as to their aptitudes and capabilities, then friendly whips, friendly parties, families and others involved help make sure a sensible decision is made. But this again is relevant to sitting hours. Because if we change the sitting ours too much, we will then deter people from becoming lords or remaining as lords who still has something to offer but need the adapted lifestyle that are rather strange.
Hours produces in past debates over hours in House of Lords, the main case for shifting the hours forward earlier in the day was that people have family and caring responsibilities, and that those tend to be concentrated in the evenings when they wish to be with their families, and that maybe we should have family friendly hours. I see nothing. Family friendly in working to 830 in the evening, because if we gave up at 830 rather than ten, people would still not get home much before 9:30. Probably in most places. Given the difficult transport position in London.
And obviously people who come from a long way away can't get home anyway. They've got to stay overnight and for them it's a nuisance that the Lords doesn't work on because they'd rather the Lords worked on and over fewer days, so that they could then get back to their home for a longer weekend and come in on the Monday rather later. So I don't see how the family friendly bit works. What I do see is that where we where we have Lords who have other serious jobs, they would find it more difficult if you bring the hours forward, whereas you can do a very serious job in the morning through lunchtime, and then come in later on in the afternoon and make your contribution to the House of Lords.
And that seems to me to be a very sensible approach. We also have the the argument about what would happen if you did change the hours. And of course, what would happen is that the working lunch on the Tuesday and the Wednesday would disappear because people would need to be in the chamber at a much earlier hour. So that has an impact on catering staff and catering facilities. It also probably makes it more difficult for those who are doing a full time job most days in the House of Lords, who may wish to have working lunches with people.
And when you look at the dinner hour, it would be very likely that most people would go home and not stay to dinner, whereas quite a few people stay to dinner now, and that can be an important collegiate opportunity. I like the feature in the Lords, where there is a common table across party, because it gives us a chance to have informal conversations in a friendly way across party, which can often be very helpful both to the government and the opposition in clarifying what we are doing. And again, there would be difficulty for catering staff and catering facilities if there are far few fewer covers served at the dinner hour.
Because we had finished early. There's the question of the clash with committees. If you drag the sitting hours too far forward into the morning or the lunchtime, there's the issue of educational visits, which I believe would be impaired. The the more you start up the main chamber earlier, because people would obviously not have the same access to the building that they have at the moment when the morning and the lunchtime means that the main facilities are not being used by your lordships. So putting that all together, as someone who's not against good change, I do conclude that I would keep the present hours as they are because people have arranged their lives around them accordingly.
And I do favour that great diversity, because one of the things that does work, which is difficult to explain to people outside, is that about the right number of peers, seem to turn up for most of the debates, and for the committee scrutinise that we don't have crowding on the red benches, although if you look at the total membership, you think that might be quite a problem, and it is self-regulating that there are enough peers who want to do a serious job every day, there are enough other peers with great talents and experiences and skills who will come in from time to time when that can be relevant.
And that, I think, works very well and provides the balance. And for the public who are concerned about there being too many peers, they need to remember that peers are only paid if they turn up. And I think that is an excellent part of the the whole system, so that we get the experience on tap from all the peers who don't participate very much for nothing. But we do pay a day rate for those peers who turn up regularly, who are doing the real work of scrutinising the government or opposing the government is, and defending the government's ideas through their work in the chamber.
So my conclusion is that I do very strongly recommend we don't tamper with the hours and that we appreciate what we've got, and we do a better job on selling it to the wider public, because I don't think they understand why the membership is so big, and they don't understand that it provides extremely good value, given the remuneration system, and I don't think they understand how we can then harness experience talent in the way that we do.
And I think we generally get that right. And when I came here and saw the ancient traditions and some of the more modern customs, they naturally seemed a little strange, as I think they do to many people outside this house. But I saw that many of them were well based in a tried custom and practice that worked very well. And today we are debating our hours of business, and I think this relates to the large, diverse membership that your lordship House enjoys. And I think it is part of the decision that the Parliament and Nation have made, that there should be a second unelected House with a very wide range of skills, experience and talent draw on.
That leads to some of the customs and practices that are so clearly embedded and has led to past sessions of your lordships House deciding that the hours should be as they are today, and we are invited to make a choice between four options. And there is the no change option. And then, as we've heard, there are the two mild options changing one day a little bit and the slightly bolder option of changing two days a little bit. Now I approach it as not someone who believes that all customs and traditions have to be respected, but I approach it as a conservative where there is usually a good reason for a tradition and custom, and you don't want to destroy ones unnecessarily that are part of our our culture and still work.
So for example, from from the other place, past era of Lords reform, I was very strongly in favour of reform of retirement. And I thought it was essential that there was an opportunity for for Lords to retire. And there is a system where, if any of those Lords judgments is a little wanting as to their aptitudes and capabilities, then friendly whips, friendly parties, families and others involved help make sure a sensible decision is made. But this again is relevant to sitting hours. Because if we change the sitting ours too much, we will then deter people from becoming lords or remaining as lords who still has something to offer but need the adapted lifestyle that are rather strange.
Hours produces in past debates over hours in House of Lords, the main case for shifting the hours forward earlier in the day was that people have family and caring responsibilities, and that those tend to be concentrated in the evenings when they wish to be with their families, and that maybe we should have family friendly hours. I see nothing. Family friendly in working to 830 in the evening, because if we gave up at 830 rather than ten, people would still not get home much before 9:30. Probably in most places. Given the difficult transport position in London.
And obviously people who come from a long way away can't get home anyway. They've got to stay overnight and for them it's a nuisance that the Lords doesn't work on because they'd rather the Lords worked on and over fewer days, so that they could then get back to their home for a longer weekend and come in on the Monday rather later. So I don't see how the family friendly bit works. What I do see is that where we where we have Lords who have other serious jobs, they would find it more difficult if you bring the hours forward, whereas you can do a very serious job in the morning through lunchtime, and then come in later on in the afternoon and make your contribution to the House of Lords.
And that seems to me to be a very sensible approach. We also have the the argument about what would happen if you did change the hours. And of course, what would happen is that the working lunch on the Tuesday and the Wednesday would disappear because people would need to be in the chamber at a much earlier hour. So that has an impact on catering staff and catering facilities. It also probably makes it more difficult for those who are doing a full time job most days in the House of Lords, who may wish to have working lunches with people.
And when you look at the dinner hour, it would be very likely that most people would go home and not stay to dinner, whereas quite a few people stay to dinner now, and that can be an important collegiate opportunity. I like the feature in the Lords, where there is a common table across party, because it gives us a chance to have informal conversations in a friendly way across party, which can often be very helpful both to the government and the opposition in clarifying what we are doing. And again, there would be difficulty for catering staff and catering facilities if there are far few fewer covers served at the dinner hour.
Because we had finished early. There's the question of the clash with committees. If you drag the sitting hours too far forward into the morning or the lunchtime, there's the issue of educational visits, which I believe would be impaired. The the more you start up the main chamber earlier, because people would obviously not have the same access to the building that they have at the moment when the morning and the lunchtime means that the main facilities are not being used by your lordships. So putting that all together, as someone who's not against good change, I do conclude that I would keep the present hours as they are because people have arranged their lives around them accordingly.
And I do favour that great diversity, because one of the things that does work, which is difficult to explain to people outside, is that about the right number of peers, seem to turn up for most of the debates, and for the committee scrutinise that we don't have crowding on the red benches, although if you look at the total membership, you think that might be quite a problem, and it is self-regulating that there are enough peers who want to do a serious job every day, there are enough other peers with great talents and experiences and skills who will come in from time to time when that can be relevant.
And that, I think, works very well and provides the balance. And for the public who are concerned about there being too many peers, they need to remember that peers are only paid if they turn up. And I think that is an excellent part of the the whole system, so that we get the experience on tap from all the peers who don't participate very much for nothing. But we do pay a day rate for those peers who turn up regularly, who are doing the real work of scrutinising the government or opposing the government is, and defending the government's ideas through their work in the chamber.
So my conclusion is that I do very strongly recommend we don't tamper with the hours and that we appreciate what we've got, and we do a better job on selling it to the wider public, because I don't think they understand why the membership is so big, and they don't understand that it provides extremely good value, given the remuneration system, and I don't think they understand how we can then harness experience talent in the way that we do.
12:49
12:49
12:49
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'd like to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for initiating this debate. I'm a little disappointed that there aren't more from the government benches here to speak in this debate, but I I'm speaking in a personal capacity as a former group chief whip and apart from the government chief whip here today, I've probably spent more time in the House in the last nine years at late hours than anybody else in this room. So I've got some experience that I'd like to share as to why I support the proposed new sitting times for Tuesdays and Wednesdays, as a long overdue reform of the House, the key question should be Will the revised hours improve the effectiveness and the quality of our scrutiny work on the government?
In my view, of course it will, because sitting late is helps helps absolutely nobody and actually few like it. And most people vote with their feet anyway, and they're not here. And that's the reality. And 10 p.m. is too late in my book on a regular basis, the government has. We have a slightly ridiculous system that we have to keep the government. Unless there's an agreement between the the whips, the government has to keep 100 people here so they're not ambushed, and 30 people, if there is an agreement with the opposition to make sure the House is not adjourned, because it's not correct.
The reality is, particularly on most evenings after dinner, the number in the chamber is down to about 20 on average. That's my experience, and it gets even lower as the evening goes on. You can end up some evenings, and I've been there as one of two on our benches, two on the government benches and two on the conservative benches. That's the reality. Votes are absolutely hopeless. After dinner, the opposition should know that you can rarely win a vote after dinner because everybody disappears. So what's the effect of that? And okay, oppositions like to keep the morale up of their troops by wearing the government down.
That's what that's what I've done it. You know, we like to wear the you know, we think we feel good from wearing the government ministers down by keeping them here late at night. But is this good for government? Is it good in practice? No it isn't. Does it improve government? No it doesn't. And one day, of course, oppositions will be in government and will realise that. So finishing at 830 will mean that four more people actually will stay. To see the day through. Votes will be more meaningful up to that time. And whereas they're not after the dinner hour and the current arrangements, and we will not lose the scrutiny that we currently have after after dinner, after dinner.
That's the reality. Now, there's one major concern against the change. I'm surprised we didn't really mention this, but I'll address it because I think that's what people say to me. I said, well, we'll meet earlier and still sit late. That's what worries people. Regardless of the change, we will have longer hours. That will be the reality. That's what people say. But I think this underestimates the power of convention in this house of a self-regulating house, and indeed the responsiveness of the usual channels, the companion says. Currently that is a firm convention for the House to finish about 10:00 on a Monday through to Wednesday and 7 p.m.
on Thursdays. This convention will change on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to 830. Now, the reality of that is that the usual channels will then be under pressure to keep to this, except for exceptional circumstances. And those exceptional circumstances are normally when you're trying to finish a bill, and it just makes for convenience and to meet deadlines before a prorogation. That's the reality. Now, the agreement is important in the usual channels, so people should understand. I know what the usual channels are often criticised and they're a bit of a mystery. But one thing is absolutely, absolutely right in this house is that when relationships in the usual channels collapses, then the house gets into a real mess.
That's true. That's the reality. And therefore it's important that in the usual channels and I was there, I know what it's like. We always try to keep relationships together because it's a nightmare when those relationships break down and eventually what happens, it becomes so intolerable for people in the house that eventually they say, call for the usual channels to meet and sort it out. And in my experience, when I was a whip, that's what we did. So relationships in the usual channels are important. And if the convention is 830 for the finish, then the chief whip of the government will be under pressure from the opposition whips to keep to that.
And unless there are special circumstances, as they do now for 10:00. So I don't buy this argument that if we agree to 830 as a finish and an earlier starting time, that we will actually lengthen the hours of the House that will be up to our house as a self-regulating house to make sure that doesn't happen. But I think the relationships of the usual channels are such that that argument won't wash. So that's, I think, is the main argument that I've heard against this change. But we've heard a few more from the Lord Redwood.
So let me just address some of these, because we had them last time when we had this debate. And I remember debating with the Lord speaker, Michael Forsyth, at the time in quite sort of difficult circumstances. So let's just deal with each of those arguments that were put up by Lord Redwood School visits. Yeah. We were told school visits will reduce by 4 or 5000 pupils a year. But frankly, we have an education centre. We have to adapt. If we if it works for the working of the House to meet earlier. And indeed, I think by meeting earlier, we'll give more of an opportunity for schools to stay for 1:00 to see the proceedings actually happening before they have to go back to school, whereas now they will not wait till 230.
They'll have the trip around the the the chamber, but they probably won't stay for the proceedings. So they want to go back. So I don't buy that argument that school visits will be inconvenience necessarily. We have to change. And I think they can be they can be accommodated. Catering budgets will suffer. We're told we don't run the Lords to run a catering service. Frankly, there needs the house come first, I'm afraid, and the catering service can adapt. In fact, I think if people stay to 830 more of them, it'll actually benefit and more people may come in for lunch at a slightly earlier time.
And it will certainly be probably easier to recruit staff. So I don't buy the catering argument. Then we're told that it will hit people working outside the house by having a slightly earlier time. Well, 1:00 is a marginal change. People here mix and match what they do there on select committees. They go to other meetings in the House. They they do outside work and they deal with legislation. We mix and match the whole time, and I think it's perfectly compatible with people working outside the house to have a 1 p.m. start. Not everybody is here at at when the house starts anyway, at 230 people mix and match.
Then another argument we get is that camaraderie over the dining table is important. Well, I thought Baroness Morgan was terrific in the debate we had back in 22, and she said camaraderie comes from working together, not from dining together. And I agree with that. Now. Last time the vote was was was quite close. It was ruined. Actually. I remember it well because a couple of years before we had a vote, which included Mondays for an early start , with the consequence that all our friends from Scotland and from different places voted against that change for having an early start on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
We're not we're not considering it this time. And I think when we had the second vote in 2020, it was still slightly confused by that original debate. And indeed, the number of people who voted was really poor, 284 voted last time. I'm really delighted that we have a consultation of over 350 so far. I just looking forward to seeing what the consultation results show. I suspect there's growing support for improved hours in the House. Better hours will improve the working of the House and the effectiveness of scrutiny on the government, and that should be a major consideration.
We should put more emphasis on improving scrutiny than simply wearing governments or people down. We will stop if we have these early hours, the ridiculous situation where peers are going home as public transport declines in the evening and indeed some evenings in when we go very late, no public transport whatsoever and we will make life better for people working in the house and that will make it more attractive. We should make this change here.
In my view, of course it will, because sitting late is helps helps absolutely nobody and actually few like it. And most people vote with their feet anyway, and they're not here. And that's the reality. And 10 p.m. is too late in my book on a regular basis, the government has. We have a slightly ridiculous system that we have to keep the government. Unless there's an agreement between the the whips, the government has to keep 100 people here so they're not ambushed, and 30 people, if there is an agreement with the opposition to make sure the House is not adjourned, because it's not correct.
The reality is, particularly on most evenings after dinner, the number in the chamber is down to about 20 on average. That's my experience, and it gets even lower as the evening goes on. You can end up some evenings, and I've been there as one of two on our benches, two on the government benches and two on the conservative benches. That's the reality. Votes are absolutely hopeless. After dinner, the opposition should know that you can rarely win a vote after dinner because everybody disappears. So what's the effect of that? And okay, oppositions like to keep the morale up of their troops by wearing the government down.
That's what that's what I've done it. You know, we like to wear the you know, we think we feel good from wearing the government ministers down by keeping them here late at night. But is this good for government? Is it good in practice? No it isn't. Does it improve government? No it doesn't. And one day, of course, oppositions will be in government and will realise that. So finishing at 830 will mean that four more people actually will stay. To see the day through. Votes will be more meaningful up to that time. And whereas they're not after the dinner hour and the current arrangements, and we will not lose the scrutiny that we currently have after after dinner, after dinner.
That's the reality. Now, there's one major concern against the change. I'm surprised we didn't really mention this, but I'll address it because I think that's what people say to me. I said, well, we'll meet earlier and still sit late. That's what worries people. Regardless of the change, we will have longer hours. That will be the reality. That's what people say. But I think this underestimates the power of convention in this house of a self-regulating house, and indeed the responsiveness of the usual channels, the companion says. Currently that is a firm convention for the House to finish about 10:00 on a Monday through to Wednesday and 7 p.m.
on Thursdays. This convention will change on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to 830. Now, the reality of that is that the usual channels will then be under pressure to keep to this, except for exceptional circumstances. And those exceptional circumstances are normally when you're trying to finish a bill, and it just makes for convenience and to meet deadlines before a prorogation. That's the reality. Now, the agreement is important in the usual channels, so people should understand. I know what the usual channels are often criticised and they're a bit of a mystery. But one thing is absolutely, absolutely right in this house is that when relationships in the usual channels collapses, then the house gets into a real mess.
That's true. That's the reality. And therefore it's important that in the usual channels and I was there, I know what it's like. We always try to keep relationships together because it's a nightmare when those relationships break down and eventually what happens, it becomes so intolerable for people in the house that eventually they say, call for the usual channels to meet and sort it out. And in my experience, when I was a whip, that's what we did. So relationships in the usual channels are important. And if the convention is 830 for the finish, then the chief whip of the government will be under pressure from the opposition whips to keep to that.
And unless there are special circumstances, as they do now for 10:00. So I don't buy this argument that if we agree to 830 as a finish and an earlier starting time, that we will actually lengthen the hours of the House that will be up to our house as a self-regulating house to make sure that doesn't happen. But I think the relationships of the usual channels are such that that argument won't wash. So that's, I think, is the main argument that I've heard against this change. But we've heard a few more from the Lord Redwood.
So let me just address some of these, because we had them last time when we had this debate. And I remember debating with the Lord speaker, Michael Forsyth, at the time in quite sort of difficult circumstances. So let's just deal with each of those arguments that were put up by Lord Redwood School visits. Yeah. We were told school visits will reduce by 4 or 5000 pupils a year. But frankly, we have an education centre. We have to adapt. If we if it works for the working of the House to meet earlier. And indeed, I think by meeting earlier, we'll give more of an opportunity for schools to stay for 1:00 to see the proceedings actually happening before they have to go back to school, whereas now they will not wait till 230.
They'll have the trip around the the the chamber, but they probably won't stay for the proceedings. So they want to go back. So I don't buy that argument that school visits will be inconvenience necessarily. We have to change. And I think they can be they can be accommodated. Catering budgets will suffer. We're told we don't run the Lords to run a catering service. Frankly, there needs the house come first, I'm afraid, and the catering service can adapt. In fact, I think if people stay to 830 more of them, it'll actually benefit and more people may come in for lunch at a slightly earlier time.
And it will certainly be probably easier to recruit staff. So I don't buy the catering argument. Then we're told that it will hit people working outside the house by having a slightly earlier time. Well, 1:00 is a marginal change. People here mix and match what they do there on select committees. They go to other meetings in the House. They they do outside work and they deal with legislation. We mix and match the whole time, and I think it's perfectly compatible with people working outside the house to have a 1 p.m. start. Not everybody is here at at when the house starts anyway, at 230 people mix and match.
Then another argument we get is that camaraderie over the dining table is important. Well, I thought Baroness Morgan was terrific in the debate we had back in 22, and she said camaraderie comes from working together, not from dining together. And I agree with that. Now. Last time the vote was was was quite close. It was ruined. Actually. I remember it well because a couple of years before we had a vote, which included Mondays for an early start , with the consequence that all our friends from Scotland and from different places voted against that change for having an early start on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
We're not we're not considering it this time. And I think when we had the second vote in 2020, it was still slightly confused by that original debate. And indeed, the number of people who voted was really poor, 284 voted last time. I'm really delighted that we have a consultation of over 350 so far. I just looking forward to seeing what the consultation results show. I suspect there's growing support for improved hours in the House. Better hours will improve the working of the House and the effectiveness of scrutiny on the government, and that should be a major consideration.
We should put more emphasis on improving scrutiny than simply wearing governments or people down. We will stop if we have these early hours, the ridiculous situation where peers are going home as public transport declines in the evening and indeed some evenings in when we go very late, no public transport whatsoever and we will make life better for people working in the house and that will make it more attractive. We should make this change here.
12:59
12:59
12:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Speaking purely from personal experience. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for initiating this debate. I like the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, am disappointed at the relatively poor attendance and although I'm speaking early like like him, I discern that the majority of speakers are in fact going to be opposed to the change. And it would be better, I think, if there had been more advocates of the change to explain, with varying degrees of persuasion and persuasive force, why we should make this change. And it's sad that they're not here. My Lords, I don't have any outside appointments.
Wants me? No, but I having been quite ill a few years ago, I do have still have an awful lot of hospital appointments to go to, and I'm able to coordinate those largely so that they're in mornings. And I just wanted to be borne in mind that those people who have, if you like things to do in the morning, are not all active in pursuit of filthy lucre. It's not all about peers going off and earning money and having two jobs. We have other obligations as well. Some of them we'd like to escape. I don't want to go to hospital as frequently as I do, but we have those obligations and we need the time to attend to them so that we can give.
In my case, I treat this role in the House of Lords as a pretty as a full time activity. At the moment, that's what I do. I don't, as I say, have outside appointments. I do have outside obligations and changing things like this really for very. I'm not persuaded by the noble Lord. Lord Stoneham's reasons the argument that we're going to have better scrutiny as a result of this. Changing things like this has a serious consequences for members, less so for me than others. But we need to bear in mind those consequences for members. Now, it is the first objection to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, seeks to deal with it is that nobody really believes it's going to work.
And the fact is, we have a convention for stay finishing at 10:00 in the evening. Increasingly, I see today's lists coming out saying, not that the chamber will rise at 10:00 or about 10:00, but the chamber will rise at the conclusion of report stage on this or the conclusion of some other piece of business. The fact is that the whips. I see them. They're grim faced, staring at me. The government, the government whips, the government whips are an effective lot. They get their way. They get the government's business through, and they do not hesitate to trample over convention or the convenience of noble Lords in their pursuit of that, in their pursuit of that.
And to that extent, we must congratulate them for their effectiveness. But the notion that they are going to be on a regular basis, of course, on days when you you have nothing but debates, a Thursday when you only have debates. Of course, the House will rise about 7:00. But on days when the whips. Mondays to Wednesdays, when the whips want to get business through, we will stay late and this will create greater opportunities to do so, because staying beyond ten is so egregious that it is. It is a difficult thing to do. But staying until 9:00.
Let's stay just a little bit longer beyond 830. Well, what is the difference in that you've missed? You haven't. You're not going to get home for the repeats of Vera, which so many of us love because they're on at 8:00 anyway. So stay till 9:00 and it's no difficulty. Settle down, have a bite to eat while you're doing it. You can hear all of those arguments. It is nobody. It's cynical, but nobody actually believes that this is going to stick at 830. A point I raise when we debated this in 2022. I think I'm correct in saying the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham says, is that nobody seems to have consulted with staff.
I found this astonishing at the time for us, not true for a, for a an organisation, for a proposition that was advocated so much by the Labour Party that on that occasion there had been consultant consultation with management as to whether the changes were effective could be put into effect. But there was no consultation. There had been no consultation with staff, trades unions and with staff associations as to what the changes ought to be. Now somebody, I'm not sure who it was, shouted out just now from a sedentary position, that there has been such consultation at the moment and the trade unions have been consulted and staff associations have been consulted.
None of that has been none of those responses have been vouchsafed to noble Lords. So if that has taken place this time, as it should have done, you would see it. We should have seen it before we were allowed. We were invited to feed into the consultation. I'm concerned about the change in the character of the house. There are those who wish to see the house become a full time job. It's a perfectly respectable position, a full time daytime job, like a 9 to 5 job, very much as the House of Commons has in fact become.
Now. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold that view. I mean, if that's one's view, that's that's absolutely fine. But the change in character of the House of Lords would be much more profound than the change that has occurred in the character of the House of Commons as a result of that. And I'm particularly concerned about the consequences for the age profile. We are an elderly house. I think it is to our discredit in the public mind that we are such an elderly house, because people look at us and think we're a bunch of old fogies.
How do you persuade younger people to come into the house who might have careers, the people of experience and ability whom we wish to attract to this house? How do you persuade them to come into the House, if, in fact, doing so is going to preclude their external activities? Not everything that everyone does is done to make a lot of money sharing, chairing a public body, which can be very time consuming two days a week, is the normal sort of commitment you make if you're going to chair a major public body. Look, we've just had an appointment to the chairmanship of Great British Railways in the last few days.
That is a two day a week commitment. Sir John Kingman would not be able to accept an invitation to join this house if we became a full time house. Because he's got two days a week to commit elsewhere, running or chairing, I should say, Great British Railways. That's the sort of thing that becomes very difficult for people to do, especially if they're younger. It has a great change for the consequence for the House and for the age profile of the house, which worries me already. As I've said, any change like this is which I oppose, is going to have little personal effect on me because of my own circumstances.
So I think I can speak about it from a position other noble lords have the opportunity to say for themselves through the consultation how it's going to affect them, but I the thing I took away from the speech by my noble friend Lord Redwood, was that this change does not only affect other noble Lords. This change. There are 10,000 people working on the parliamentary estate now. Not all of them, of course, are at this end of the majority of them, but in. In relation to the other place. But this this change will have an effect on a huge number of people who have happily tailored their lives to the existing working hours of your lordships house, and they are going to have their lives changed significantly.
And we seem to be giving so little consideration to their interests. And it seems to me a very great shame. Finally, I conclude with a question to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which he may want to be able to pick up at the end. As to whether speeches made in the course of this debate are being fed formally into the consultation process, because I think it would be a great pity if we all had this debate and gave our views, and then it was, so to speak, as nothing from the point of view of the consultation response.
My Lords, I to.
Wants me? No, but I having been quite ill a few years ago, I do have still have an awful lot of hospital appointments to go to, and I'm able to coordinate those largely so that they're in mornings. And I just wanted to be borne in mind that those people who have, if you like things to do in the morning, are not all active in pursuit of filthy lucre. It's not all about peers going off and earning money and having two jobs. We have other obligations as well. Some of them we'd like to escape. I don't want to go to hospital as frequently as I do, but we have those obligations and we need the time to attend to them so that we can give.
In my case, I treat this role in the House of Lords as a pretty as a full time activity. At the moment, that's what I do. I don't, as I say, have outside appointments. I do have outside obligations and changing things like this really for very. I'm not persuaded by the noble Lord. Lord Stoneham's reasons the argument that we're going to have better scrutiny as a result of this. Changing things like this has a serious consequences for members, less so for me than others. But we need to bear in mind those consequences for members. Now, it is the first objection to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, seeks to deal with it is that nobody really believes it's going to work.
And the fact is, we have a convention for stay finishing at 10:00 in the evening. Increasingly, I see today's lists coming out saying, not that the chamber will rise at 10:00 or about 10:00, but the chamber will rise at the conclusion of report stage on this or the conclusion of some other piece of business. The fact is that the whips. I see them. They're grim faced, staring at me. The government, the government whips, the government whips are an effective lot. They get their way. They get the government's business through, and they do not hesitate to trample over convention or the convenience of noble Lords in their pursuit of that, in their pursuit of that.
And to that extent, we must congratulate them for their effectiveness. But the notion that they are going to be on a regular basis, of course, on days when you you have nothing but debates, a Thursday when you only have debates. Of course, the House will rise about 7:00. But on days when the whips. Mondays to Wednesdays, when the whips want to get business through, we will stay late and this will create greater opportunities to do so, because staying beyond ten is so egregious that it is. It is a difficult thing to do. But staying until 9:00.
Let's stay just a little bit longer beyond 830. Well, what is the difference in that you've missed? You haven't. You're not going to get home for the repeats of Vera, which so many of us love because they're on at 8:00 anyway. So stay till 9:00 and it's no difficulty. Settle down, have a bite to eat while you're doing it. You can hear all of those arguments. It is nobody. It's cynical, but nobody actually believes that this is going to stick at 830. A point I raise when we debated this in 2022. I think I'm correct in saying the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham says, is that nobody seems to have consulted with staff.
I found this astonishing at the time for us, not true for a, for a an organisation, for a proposition that was advocated so much by the Labour Party that on that occasion there had been consultant consultation with management as to whether the changes were effective could be put into effect. But there was no consultation. There had been no consultation with staff, trades unions and with staff associations as to what the changes ought to be. Now somebody, I'm not sure who it was, shouted out just now from a sedentary position, that there has been such consultation at the moment and the trade unions have been consulted and staff associations have been consulted.
None of that has been none of those responses have been vouchsafed to noble Lords. So if that has taken place this time, as it should have done, you would see it. We should have seen it before we were allowed. We were invited to feed into the consultation. I'm concerned about the change in the character of the house. There are those who wish to see the house become a full time job. It's a perfectly respectable position, a full time daytime job, like a 9 to 5 job, very much as the House of Commons has in fact become.
Now. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold that view. I mean, if that's one's view, that's that's absolutely fine. But the change in character of the House of Lords would be much more profound than the change that has occurred in the character of the House of Commons as a result of that. And I'm particularly concerned about the consequences for the age profile. We are an elderly house. I think it is to our discredit in the public mind that we are such an elderly house, because people look at us and think we're a bunch of old fogies.
How do you persuade younger people to come into the house who might have careers, the people of experience and ability whom we wish to attract to this house? How do you persuade them to come into the House, if, in fact, doing so is going to preclude their external activities? Not everything that everyone does is done to make a lot of money sharing, chairing a public body, which can be very time consuming two days a week, is the normal sort of commitment you make if you're going to chair a major public body. Look, we've just had an appointment to the chairmanship of Great British Railways in the last few days.
That is a two day a week commitment. Sir John Kingman would not be able to accept an invitation to join this house if we became a full time house. Because he's got two days a week to commit elsewhere, running or chairing, I should say, Great British Railways. That's the sort of thing that becomes very difficult for people to do, especially if they're younger. It has a great change for the consequence for the House and for the age profile of the house, which worries me already. As I've said, any change like this is which I oppose, is going to have little personal effect on me because of my own circumstances.
So I think I can speak about it from a position other noble lords have the opportunity to say for themselves through the consultation how it's going to affect them, but I the thing I took away from the speech by my noble friend Lord Redwood, was that this change does not only affect other noble Lords. This change. There are 10,000 people working on the parliamentary estate now. Not all of them, of course, are at this end of the majority of them, but in. In relation to the other place. But this this change will have an effect on a huge number of people who have happily tailored their lives to the existing working hours of your lordships house, and they are going to have their lives changed significantly.
And we seem to be giving so little consideration to their interests. And it seems to me a very great shame. Finally, I conclude with a question to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which he may want to be able to pick up at the end. As to whether speeches made in the course of this debate are being fed formally into the consultation process, because I think it would be a great pity if we all had this debate and gave our views, and then it was, so to speak, as nothing from the point of view of the consultation response.
My Lords, I to.
13:08
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for initiating this important debate, and I exempt him from any criticism I may make of this consultation and the process. My Lords, I have in my hand here the entirety of the consultation process for changing the sitting hours of the second chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Two sides of a bit of paper. Now Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich, waving a bit of paper and saying, peace for our time. I wave this flimsy document and say it's chaos for our time, because the basis of this document, that is what we might get.
This is not a consultation in any meaningful sense of the word. It is not a it's essentially a multiple choice tick box questionnaire. Do we want Tuesday? Do we want Wednesday? Do we want both? Just tick the box. My Lords, there's no requirement to consider the effect on legislative scrutiny, nor requirement to consider the effect on committees or the effect on staff. No requirement to consider the effect on members who live outside London and can't get home at night. No requirement to consider the effect on the culture of the house, where it simply asks which option would we prefer?
Even more remarkably, the accompanying papers tell us that much of the analysis on service implications is still being processed, so only after we have ignorantly ticked the box will the Procedure committee then figure out what changes we made to committee sitting hours. Only afterwards will the Services Committee decide on what dining services to withdraw, because there will no longer be viable for the fewer peers attending after 2030. What other serious changes to our practical operating procedures will have to be made, and which have not been mentioned in this rather scrappy document? So we've been asked for our conclusions before.
The evidence has been assembled. My Lords, that's not evidence based policy making, it's policy making backwards. Now, my Lords, I oppose these proposals. They may have gathered, but I also oppose the process by which there have been advanced. Yeah, I have a particular advantage and perhaps a particular burden in this debate. I served in the House of Commons both before and after the introduction of the so-called family friendly hours. There are only two other peers participating in this debate who have that experience. My noble friend, the Baroness Ling of Elderslie and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.
The vast majority of noble lords in the House do not have that experience. The three of us did. We witnessed the consequences at first hand. Supporters of those changes promised a more a more modern Parliament. What they did not foresee was the effect on parliamentary culture. The greatest losses were not were not measured in hours. They were measured in relationships. Before those changes, members from all parties met informally throughout the day. We talked over breakfast. We talked over lunch. We talked over coffee. We talked while waiting for committees. Political opponents knew each other. After the introduction of the new hours, much of that slowly disappeared.
The Commons dining rooms have become largely deserted. On Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, members rushed from home to go straight on to committee first thing in the morning, then on to the chamber or one after another, with no thinking, time or chance to talk to colleagues informally, even on their own side. Cross-Party contact diminished politics became more tribal. I think, my Lords, we would all agree that the Commons has become a harsher place in the last 25 years. The lesson I learned from that is simple changing the clock changes the culture. Those advocating this proposal speak as though they're moving a hand on a watch.
In reality, they're changing the character of an institution. Now, every member of this House is equal and every member's opinion deserves respect in this consultation. However, not every member of the House of Lords possesses the same depth of experience of parliamentary procedure. For decisions of this magnitude. Institutional memory matters. Those who served in Parliament before and after the Commons reforms possess, directly evidenced by what happens in practice. We witnessed the consequences. Likewise, members who have spent many years in this House serving on committees, scrutinising legislation and participating in House business necessarily possess a deeper understanding of how procedural changes affect parliamentary effectiveness.
There is one member in this committee who has got 36 years experience of serving in the House of Lords, and that is fortunate. It is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Senior Deputy Speaker, and, of course, the Chief Whip. The government chief whip was 25 years experience, and I. I suspect while there have been. I think it's 25 years, and I suspect they're absolutely neutral in this debate. I suspect they agree with what I'm saying, although they can't.
They can't acknowledge that. Now, my Lord, since July 2024,
This is not a consultation in any meaningful sense of the word. It is not a it's essentially a multiple choice tick box questionnaire. Do we want Tuesday? Do we want Wednesday? Do we want both? Just tick the box. My Lords, there's no requirement to consider the effect on legislative scrutiny, nor requirement to consider the effect on committees or the effect on staff. No requirement to consider the effect on members who live outside London and can't get home at night. No requirement to consider the effect on the culture of the house, where it simply asks which option would we prefer?
Even more remarkably, the accompanying papers tell us that much of the analysis on service implications is still being processed, so only after we have ignorantly ticked the box will the Procedure committee then figure out what changes we made to committee sitting hours. Only afterwards will the Services Committee decide on what dining services to withdraw, because there will no longer be viable for the fewer peers attending after 2030. What other serious changes to our practical operating procedures will have to be made, and which have not been mentioned in this rather scrappy document? So we've been asked for our conclusions before.
The evidence has been assembled. My Lords, that's not evidence based policy making, it's policy making backwards. Now, my Lords, I oppose these proposals. They may have gathered, but I also oppose the process by which there have been advanced. Yeah, I have a particular advantage and perhaps a particular burden in this debate. I served in the House of Commons both before and after the introduction of the so-called family friendly hours. There are only two other peers participating in this debate who have that experience. My noble friend, the Baroness Ling of Elderslie and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.
The vast majority of noble lords in the House do not have that experience. The three of us did. We witnessed the consequences at first hand. Supporters of those changes promised a more a more modern Parliament. What they did not foresee was the effect on parliamentary culture. The greatest losses were not were not measured in hours. They were measured in relationships. Before those changes, members from all parties met informally throughout the day. We talked over breakfast. We talked over lunch. We talked over coffee. We talked while waiting for committees. Political opponents knew each other. After the introduction of the new hours, much of that slowly disappeared.
The Commons dining rooms have become largely deserted. On Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, members rushed from home to go straight on to committee first thing in the morning, then on to the chamber or one after another, with no thinking, time or chance to talk to colleagues informally, even on their own side. Cross-Party contact diminished politics became more tribal. I think, my Lords, we would all agree that the Commons has become a harsher place in the last 25 years. The lesson I learned from that is simple changing the clock changes the culture. Those advocating this proposal speak as though they're moving a hand on a watch.
In reality, they're changing the character of an institution. Now, every member of this House is equal and every member's opinion deserves respect in this consultation. However, not every member of the House of Lords possesses the same depth of experience of parliamentary procedure. For decisions of this magnitude. Institutional memory matters. Those who served in Parliament before and after the Commons reforms possess, directly evidenced by what happens in practice. We witnessed the consequences. Likewise, members who have spent many years in this House serving on committees, scrutinising legislation and participating in House business necessarily possess a deeper understanding of how procedural changes affect parliamentary effectiveness.
There is one member in this committee who has got 36 years experience of serving in the House of Lords, and that is fortunate. It is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Senior Deputy Speaker, and, of course, the Chief Whip. The government chief whip was 25 years experience, and I. I suspect while there have been. I think it's 25 years, and I suspect they're absolutely neutral in this debate. I suspect they agree with what I'm saying, although they can't.
They can't acknowledge that. Now, my Lord, since July 2024,
13:13
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
122 new peerages have been created. Almost 80 of those members are relatively new to parliamentary life and have inevitably had less opportunity to experience the detailed workings of Lords committees, legislative scrutiny and parliamentary procedure. I make no criticism of those colleagues, however, when evaluating changes of long term constitutional significance, greater weight should naturally be attached to those with extensive operational experience rather than new MPs who new peers who are just sworn in in the last few months and have never served in any committees. I turn now to the family friendly argument. I heard that phrase repeated over the years, but family friendly for whom?
Even the Commons at 7:00 finish never meant that members automatically got home in time to read the kiddies or bedtime stories. Many were still 7:00 finish never meant that members automatically get home in time to read the kiddies or bedtime stories. Many were still travelling, travelling across London or much further afield. Children were often asleep before they arrived home. But whatever forced that argument once had in the Commons, it's got little relevance here. The average age of the House is around 71. We're not primarily a house of parents rushing home to supervise homework, my Lords.
However, there is one respectable argument an earlier finish might permit peers and their spouses or partners to participate in more fully in civic, charitable, social or cultural life. That argument has some merit. But that's not what is being proposed. If we were talking about a 630 or 7:00 finish, one could understand it. One could do these things, but 830 is neither fish nor fowl. It's too late for most evening engagements, too early to justify sacrificing the advantages of the current arrangements. And what exactly can most people do at 830 that they cannot do at 10:00?
The answer is very little. And who would benefit from an earlier finish? This consultation is London centric based. Only London members. London based members are those within the M25 who get home at night. All other provincial peers. We'd have to retreat to our luxurious London hotel, costing £125 per night. My Lords, that is not acceptable. Now then, one of the greatest strengths of the House of Lords is that it is not a full time legislature. Indeed, our value lies in precisely the fact that many members do not spend all day inside Westminster. The chamber is an extraordinary national asset.
My Lords, within our chambers sit former cabinet ministers, ambassadors, judges, surgeons, scientists, engineers, military commanders, intelligence chiefs, academics, vice chancellors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, charity founders and leaders of faith communities. We do not possess all of this expertise. Despite our outside experience. We possess it because of our outside experience. Now, many members, as my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, continue to serve on public bodies. They chair inquiries, they lead charities, they practise professions, they advise industries, and remain connected to the real world beyond Westminster. That connection enriches every debate we have. It brings reality into legislation.
It brings experience into scrutiny. It brings expertise into public policy. The present sitting pattern accommodates that contribution. An earlier start inevitably places pressure on it. Supporters describe this as a modest procedural change. My Lords, I suggest it is far more significant than that. It nudges the House towards becoming a more conventional full time legislator and I fear, particularly for the crossbenchers. The crossbenchers are one of the unique features of this house. Now, most of the time I disagree with the way they vote, but nevertheless they are a unique feature of this House. Their authority rests not upon party organisation but upon professional achievement and specialised knowledge.
If parliamentary business increasingly crowds out the external activities from which that expertise derives, then we risk weakening one of the most valuable components of this chamber experience is evidence the House must give it proper weight. My Lords, I turn now to the crucial point of of scrutiny of our role of scrutiny. The House of Lords performs an increasingly important role. Successive governments have relied on this House to identify defects, improve drafting and correct emissions that escaped adequate scrutiny elsewhere. The constitutional value of the House of Lords lies primarily in the quality of our scrutiny. Any reform, therefore, should be judged by one simple test.
Will it improve scrutiny? My Lords, twiddling with the start and finishing time by 90 minutes a day, does nothing for improving the scrutiny and quality of legislation. Our statutory instruments, my Lord. That can only be done with major procedural changes to deal with the way we handle primary and secondary legislation. Now, those changes, which would really improve scrutiny, would include giving many more draft bills pre-legislative scrutiny, giving the government tabling more draft affirmative essays. The power for the Lords to amend essays greatly reduced numbers of Henry VII's clauses and bills. No more skeleton legislation where bills have very little substance, but but many regulation making powers and an end hidden regulation via guidance which has to be obeyed but does not go through Parliament.
My Lords, these will be some of the changes which would really improve parliamentary scrutiny. But of course they're not on offer just now and they never will be , because no government will ever give us those powers. But that's the only thing that I say to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham, that would improve parliamentary scrutiny. Not not an extra 90 minutes in the day or an early start. Now, some say that an earlier start and finish might persuade more peers to turn up and votes if the votes are not too late in the evening. But Lord Stoneham, 20 more peers.
Voting is not increased scrutiny. It may mean 20 more speeches in Parliament, of course, but there is no persuasive evidence that's been produced that finishing at 8:30 p.m. instead of ten will improve scrutiny. Indeed, there are strong grounds for believing that the proposed changes may create procedures without. It may create new pressures without delivering any corresponding benefits. Now, my Lords, I move on to moving on. I move on now to our overnight allowance. Now that's a. We rightly get our travel travel refunded. We rightly get an untaxed daily allowance and now an untaxed overnight stay allowance, which is pitifully inadequate in my opinion.
But that's another matter. However, I sometimes hear peers at the speaker's forum calling for an increase in some allowances, and the Lords speaker and others point out that these things must be agreed with Inland Revenue, who rigorously police the justification for any non tax allowance. So what make the Inland Revenue. See, when we tell them that we will still want the overnight stay allowance agreed for when we finish at ten at night. But now we may finish at 2030 my Lords we might be on very dangerous ground. And I think with our overnight allowance and it could affect possibly scores of peers who may then be considered capable of getting home to places well outside the M25.
We cannot make this change without consulting and having firm evidence about what the Inland Revenue might say or do. I turn to the point about dining together, and this is another issue which troubles me greatly. Now, many people, I think the noble Lord Stoneham regard it as irrelevant. They regard dining together as a social activity. I regard it as a constitutional asset of this house. This house works because members encounter one another outside formal proceedings, we argue in the chamber. We continue discussion over lunch to your dinner. Political opponents sit together, crossbenchers sit with party politicians, relationships develop, misunderstandings are resolved and consensus become possible.
My Lords, that is partly why our select committee reports are often so unanimous. That is why debate here remains remarkably civil compared to many other legislators. The long table tradition is not a curiosity. It's a mechanism through which parliament functions better. Now some other countries understand this. I've researched this and other parliamentary systems have recognised the same principle. Examples include Iceland's Althing, Sweden's Riksdag and the Federal Palace in Bern, Switzerland. Now, none of these exactly replicate the long table tradition, but they introduce a system whereby their members can sit, eat and talk and drink together, and they can speak informally.
So at a time when democracies across Europe are becoming increasingly polarised, why should we deliberately weaken one of the institutions that helps preserve civility and mutual respect? My Lords, I will not say much on staff consultation, because, my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Moylan, has already done that. But I believe the staff have not been properly consulted on this. And if the staff have been consulted, we should see what they say before we come to tick the boxes on this rather shoddy form. So, my Lords, my Lords, this debate is not really about whether we start at 1:00 or 2:30.
It's about what sort of institution we want this House to be. Do we want a house characterised by expertise, experience, scrutiny, independence and legality? Or do we want to gradually become another version of the House of Commons? I know which house I was proud to join in 2011. I know which house I wish to preserve and for that reason, I oppose these proposals.
Even the Commons at 7:00 finish never meant that members automatically got home in time to read the kiddies or bedtime stories. Many were still 7:00 finish never meant that members automatically get home in time to read the kiddies or bedtime stories. Many were still travelling, travelling across London or much further afield. Children were often asleep before they arrived home. But whatever forced that argument once had in the Commons, it's got little relevance here. The average age of the House is around 71. We're not primarily a house of parents rushing home to supervise homework, my Lords.
However, there is one respectable argument an earlier finish might permit peers and their spouses or partners to participate in more fully in civic, charitable, social or cultural life. That argument has some merit. But that's not what is being proposed. If we were talking about a 630 or 7:00 finish, one could understand it. One could do these things, but 830 is neither fish nor fowl. It's too late for most evening engagements, too early to justify sacrificing the advantages of the current arrangements. And what exactly can most people do at 830 that they cannot do at 10:00?
The answer is very little. And who would benefit from an earlier finish? This consultation is London centric based. Only London members. London based members are those within the M25 who get home at night. All other provincial peers. We'd have to retreat to our luxurious London hotel, costing £125 per night. My Lords, that is not acceptable. Now then, one of the greatest strengths of the House of Lords is that it is not a full time legislature. Indeed, our value lies in precisely the fact that many members do not spend all day inside Westminster. The chamber is an extraordinary national asset.
My Lords, within our chambers sit former cabinet ministers, ambassadors, judges, surgeons, scientists, engineers, military commanders, intelligence chiefs, academics, vice chancellors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, charity founders and leaders of faith communities. We do not possess all of this expertise. Despite our outside experience. We possess it because of our outside experience. Now, many members, as my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, continue to serve on public bodies. They chair inquiries, they lead charities, they practise professions, they advise industries, and remain connected to the real world beyond Westminster. That connection enriches every debate we have. It brings reality into legislation.
It brings experience into scrutiny. It brings expertise into public policy. The present sitting pattern accommodates that contribution. An earlier start inevitably places pressure on it. Supporters describe this as a modest procedural change. My Lords, I suggest it is far more significant than that. It nudges the House towards becoming a more conventional full time legislator and I fear, particularly for the crossbenchers. The crossbenchers are one of the unique features of this house. Now, most of the time I disagree with the way they vote, but nevertheless they are a unique feature of this House. Their authority rests not upon party organisation but upon professional achievement and specialised knowledge.
If parliamentary business increasingly crowds out the external activities from which that expertise derives, then we risk weakening one of the most valuable components of this chamber experience is evidence the House must give it proper weight. My Lords, I turn now to the crucial point of of scrutiny of our role of scrutiny. The House of Lords performs an increasingly important role. Successive governments have relied on this House to identify defects, improve drafting and correct emissions that escaped adequate scrutiny elsewhere. The constitutional value of the House of Lords lies primarily in the quality of our scrutiny. Any reform, therefore, should be judged by one simple test.
Will it improve scrutiny? My Lords, twiddling with the start and finishing time by 90 minutes a day, does nothing for improving the scrutiny and quality of legislation. Our statutory instruments, my Lord. That can only be done with major procedural changes to deal with the way we handle primary and secondary legislation. Now, those changes, which would really improve scrutiny, would include giving many more draft bills pre-legislative scrutiny, giving the government tabling more draft affirmative essays. The power for the Lords to amend essays greatly reduced numbers of Henry VII's clauses and bills. No more skeleton legislation where bills have very little substance, but but many regulation making powers and an end hidden regulation via guidance which has to be obeyed but does not go through Parliament.
My Lords, these will be some of the changes which would really improve parliamentary scrutiny. But of course they're not on offer just now and they never will be , because no government will ever give us those powers. But that's the only thing that I say to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham, that would improve parliamentary scrutiny. Not not an extra 90 minutes in the day or an early start. Now, some say that an earlier start and finish might persuade more peers to turn up and votes if the votes are not too late in the evening. But Lord Stoneham, 20 more peers.
Voting is not increased scrutiny. It may mean 20 more speeches in Parliament, of course, but there is no persuasive evidence that's been produced that finishing at 8:30 p.m. instead of ten will improve scrutiny. Indeed, there are strong grounds for believing that the proposed changes may create procedures without. It may create new pressures without delivering any corresponding benefits. Now, my Lords, I move on to moving on. I move on now to our overnight allowance. Now that's a. We rightly get our travel travel refunded. We rightly get an untaxed daily allowance and now an untaxed overnight stay allowance, which is pitifully inadequate in my opinion.
But that's another matter. However, I sometimes hear peers at the speaker's forum calling for an increase in some allowances, and the Lords speaker and others point out that these things must be agreed with Inland Revenue, who rigorously police the justification for any non tax allowance. So what make the Inland Revenue. See, when we tell them that we will still want the overnight stay allowance agreed for when we finish at ten at night. But now we may finish at 2030 my Lords we might be on very dangerous ground. And I think with our overnight allowance and it could affect possibly scores of peers who may then be considered capable of getting home to places well outside the M25.
We cannot make this change without consulting and having firm evidence about what the Inland Revenue might say or do. I turn to the point about dining together, and this is another issue which troubles me greatly. Now, many people, I think the noble Lord Stoneham regard it as irrelevant. They regard dining together as a social activity. I regard it as a constitutional asset of this house. This house works because members encounter one another outside formal proceedings, we argue in the chamber. We continue discussion over lunch to your dinner. Political opponents sit together, crossbenchers sit with party politicians, relationships develop, misunderstandings are resolved and consensus become possible.
My Lords, that is partly why our select committee reports are often so unanimous. That is why debate here remains remarkably civil compared to many other legislators. The long table tradition is not a curiosity. It's a mechanism through which parliament functions better. Now some other countries understand this. I've researched this and other parliamentary systems have recognised the same principle. Examples include Iceland's Althing, Sweden's Riksdag and the Federal Palace in Bern, Switzerland. Now, none of these exactly replicate the long table tradition, but they introduce a system whereby their members can sit, eat and talk and drink together, and they can speak informally.
So at a time when democracies across Europe are becoming increasingly polarised, why should we deliberately weaken one of the institutions that helps preserve civility and mutual respect? My Lords, I will not say much on staff consultation, because, my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Moylan, has already done that. But I believe the staff have not been properly consulted on this. And if the staff have been consulted, we should see what they say before we come to tick the boxes on this rather shoddy form. So, my Lords, my Lords, this debate is not really about whether we start at 1:00 or 2:30.
It's about what sort of institution we want this House to be. Do we want a house characterised by expertise, experience, scrutiny, independence and legality? Or do we want to gradually become another version of the House of Commons? I know which house I was proud to join in 2011. I know which house I wish to preserve and for that reason, I oppose these proposals.
13:22
13:22
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'm my lord. What a pleasure it is to follow the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has just about said it all. But I would like to make three short points. But before doing so, may I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for bringing forward this debate and giving your lordships the opportunity to participate in this consultation. My first point is about the consultation. I was very disappointed to note that when filling in this consultation, we are not asked to identify where we live and where we go home to. When this house rises on the evening, because there is.
There is a huge difference between someone who lives within walking distance, someone who lives an hour's public transport away, and someone who lives in Scotland or Devon or Wales or Yorkshire. Enormous difference. And this consultation would have been a lot more meaningful if the senior Deputy Speaker doesn't mind me making this point directly to him, it would have been a lot more meaningful if it were divided into responses from people who live in different places. I therefore actually challenge whether the results of this consultation are valid at are valid at all. Given that that distinction has not been made.
Secondly, I turn to the question of the nature of this House . Being a member of the House of Lords is not a job. It is public service, and I'm sure that all noble lords present in this room are proud to say that they carry out a public service. We mustn't pretend that we are doing a a normal 9 to 5 job, because that's not what it's about. As Lord Blencathra so eloquently said, we need people in this House who bring expertise and experience from every walk of life, and not just those who have retired from their main career, but those who are still working in their main career.
That is what gives this place its exceptional and unusual value, and therefore we have to sit at times which accommodate other professions, jobs or or. Requirements in other people's lives. And that includes family friendly. There aren't many members of your lordships House who, as a parliamentarian, have given birth to a child and brought up that child, hopefully safely to adulthood while being a full time parliamentarian. But I have, my Lords, I have, and I can tell you that it's the flexibility of our hours that matters. It's not when we begin and when we end, it's the flexibility so that you can carry out your family duties , as well as your parliamentary duties.
And the the, the idea that stopping at 830 would in fact be more family friendly is, I'm afraid, a nonsense. Lord Blencathra has made all the points about the importance of the way in which we interact with one another. This is not a normal place of work. This is a parliament. It is a place where people come to talk to one another, to interact with one another. And therefore the fact that we sit outside normal working hours is a vital part of that. Thirdly, my Lords, I turn to the idea that 8:30 p.m.
could be a normal rising time because that is what this consultation proposes. The fact is that 830 is neither one thing nor another. It's not early enough to go and carry out our family obligations, social obligations, or even going to the theatre or anything that one might want to do of an evening. But it it's it's too late for that, and it's not early enough to take up the whole evening. So if you come all the way from Devon or Scotland and you want to spend your three full working days in this place, you're going to waste an awful lot of time after 8:30 p.m., because then nothing can really be usefully done.
I also say to your lordships that actually the idea of normally rising at 8:30 p.m. is a fiction, and I ask your lordships what actually is the problem that this consultation and this proposal is trying to solve? What is the question that needs to be answered? And I would suggest that the problem that appears to have arisen is that new members have come to Parliament unaware of how Parliament actually works, and they have been horrified to discover that they are expected to be here to defend the government's majority until late at night, and therefore they have complained.
Well, if we were to put these proposals into action, I suggest to your lordships that it would not solve that problem because normally rising at 830 would not mean that we would rise at 830. I put it to your lordships that that is not the problem. The problem is that too many people speak for too long and too often that is the problem. And so I dare say , within the hearing of the government Chief Whip, I dare suggest to your lordships that what we really need, in order to have a more efficient and effective House is time limits on speeches.
And a formal end to proceedings at 10:00, a rule that we stop at 10:00, unless in exceptional circumstances, the House votes not to do so, go past 10:00. But I know that your lordships will say to me, don't I understand that this is a self-regulating house, and that therefore time limits on speeches could not possibly be imposed and could not possibly work? Well, I think that is also a fiction. I am relatively new, my Lords, to this House, and I have been astounded at the patience that your lordships show in their self-regulation.
For those who speak for much longer than is necessary, I say, my Lords, we don't need to change the sitting hours. We need to be more self-aware, we need to be more disciplined, and we need to be more considerate of others. I dare your lordships to give consideration to the possibility of a formal stop at 10:00 , and real time limits to speeches which require to be observed. I promise myself that with a 15 minute time limit, I would say that I would speak for less than ten, so I'd better stop at 842. 30 years of participation in parliamentary debates has taught me that that which can be said in 20 minutes can usually be said far more effectively in ten, eight minutes, 56 seconds.
Thank you.
There is a huge difference between someone who lives within walking distance, someone who lives an hour's public transport away, and someone who lives in Scotland or Devon or Wales or Yorkshire. Enormous difference. And this consultation would have been a lot more meaningful if the senior Deputy Speaker doesn't mind me making this point directly to him, it would have been a lot more meaningful if it were divided into responses from people who live in different places. I therefore actually challenge whether the results of this consultation are valid at are valid at all. Given that that distinction has not been made.
Secondly, I turn to the question of the nature of this House . Being a member of the House of Lords is not a job. It is public service, and I'm sure that all noble lords present in this room are proud to say that they carry out a public service. We mustn't pretend that we are doing a a normal 9 to 5 job, because that's not what it's about. As Lord Blencathra so eloquently said, we need people in this House who bring expertise and experience from every walk of life, and not just those who have retired from their main career, but those who are still working in their main career.
That is what gives this place its exceptional and unusual value, and therefore we have to sit at times which accommodate other professions, jobs or or. Requirements in other people's lives. And that includes family friendly. There aren't many members of your lordships House who, as a parliamentarian, have given birth to a child and brought up that child, hopefully safely to adulthood while being a full time parliamentarian. But I have, my Lords, I have, and I can tell you that it's the flexibility of our hours that matters. It's not when we begin and when we end, it's the flexibility so that you can carry out your family duties , as well as your parliamentary duties.
And the the, the idea that stopping at 830 would in fact be more family friendly is, I'm afraid, a nonsense. Lord Blencathra has made all the points about the importance of the way in which we interact with one another. This is not a normal place of work. This is a parliament. It is a place where people come to talk to one another, to interact with one another. And therefore the fact that we sit outside normal working hours is a vital part of that. Thirdly, my Lords, I turn to the idea that 8:30 p.m.
could be a normal rising time because that is what this consultation proposes. The fact is that 830 is neither one thing nor another. It's not early enough to go and carry out our family obligations, social obligations, or even going to the theatre or anything that one might want to do of an evening. But it it's it's too late for that, and it's not early enough to take up the whole evening. So if you come all the way from Devon or Scotland and you want to spend your three full working days in this place, you're going to waste an awful lot of time after 8:30 p.m., because then nothing can really be usefully done.
I also say to your lordships that actually the idea of normally rising at 8:30 p.m. is a fiction, and I ask your lordships what actually is the problem that this consultation and this proposal is trying to solve? What is the question that needs to be answered? And I would suggest that the problem that appears to have arisen is that new members have come to Parliament unaware of how Parliament actually works, and they have been horrified to discover that they are expected to be here to defend the government's majority until late at night, and therefore they have complained.
Well, if we were to put these proposals into action, I suggest to your lordships that it would not solve that problem because normally rising at 830 would not mean that we would rise at 830. I put it to your lordships that that is not the problem. The problem is that too many people speak for too long and too often that is the problem. And so I dare say , within the hearing of the government Chief Whip, I dare suggest to your lordships that what we really need, in order to have a more efficient and effective House is time limits on speeches.
And a formal end to proceedings at 10:00, a rule that we stop at 10:00, unless in exceptional circumstances, the House votes not to do so, go past 10:00. But I know that your lordships will say to me, don't I understand that this is a self-regulating house, and that therefore time limits on speeches could not possibly be imposed and could not possibly work? Well, I think that is also a fiction. I am relatively new, my Lords, to this House, and I have been astounded at the patience that your lordships show in their self-regulation.
For those who speak for much longer than is necessary, I say, my Lords, we don't need to change the sitting hours. We need to be more self-aware, we need to be more disciplined, and we need to be more considerate of others. I dare your lordships to give consideration to the possibility of a formal stop at 10:00 , and real time limits to speeches which require to be observed. I promise myself that with a 15 minute time limit, I would say that I would speak for less than ten, so I'd better stop at 842. 30 years of participation in parliamentary debates has taught me that that which can be said in 20 minutes can usually be said far more effectively in ten, eight minutes, 56 seconds.
Thank you.
13:31
13:31
13:31
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Pleasure to follow the noble lady, Lady Lang of Elderslie. My Lords, I'd like to thank the Deputy Speaker for bringing this debate and for all the thought and neutrality, he has put himself a. And previously, the sitting hours of this House are a compromise which fit no individual's way of life perfectly. Rather, in order to contribute to its work, we all have to adjust our lives to them, often making complicated arrangements which over time have come to work smoothly. This is one important reason why , with we should not, we should be circumspect about making changes.
Any change will come with a considerable cost, considerable cost to everyone in upset, to the established patterns of the lives they have framed to meet the many different commitments they may have. In addition to the work of this House, any such change would need to bring a great deal of extra good before it outweighed the harm. But in fact, the change now proposed starting and finishing earlier on two days will be damaging in itself, undoing our finely balanced compromise. That compromise is on the first level between the need to have enough sitting hours for the government's business and the House's business, and on other, and, on the other hand, the demands of noble lords lives .
On the second level, the compromise is between the different sorts of demands. There are three main types. First, many members are engaged in professionals or work apart from their functions. Here, as has been said by noble Lords , and as we all recognise, this is one of the central features of this House, which gathers mainly not professional politicians, though we do benefit from them. It contains all kinds of people, experts of different kinds, from different walks of life. They are engaged with their. Many are engaged with their specialist area of expertise, be it the law, business, medicine, the media, the universities, the sciences or humanities.
Local government. The voluntary and charitable sector. Second, there are demands more directly related to the business of the House. Careful preparation for bills, committees, committee meetings, contributions and for some ministerial duties. The new proposed. Third, there are the demands of family and social life, which came up in the previous consultation too, which might include parenting, grandparenting and other caring duties. The new proposals ostensibly concern the compromise between the different sorts of demand, given the number of sitting hours needed. The first of these demands to balance and the work we do for this House and the work we do perhaps outside, or the preparations for this house, can be met by the present sitting hours, and for it leaves a good part of the working day on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, with time to do that work, with time to prepare, and so on.
And which leave the. Also, though, leave time for all the other demands, because on a Thursday and a Friday and Saturday and Sunday, we have time for those. So it is a compromise, but it works to allow for the different sorts of activity and specialism and preparation. Those proposing change. Change may not agree. Some may think that the compromise should be weighted more towards family and social life that than it is at present.
I disagree with that. Most people bearing equivalent equivalent responsibilities outside in other.
Any change will come with a considerable cost, considerable cost to everyone in upset, to the established patterns of the lives they have framed to meet the many different commitments they may have. In addition to the work of this House, any such change would need to bring a great deal of extra good before it outweighed the harm. But in fact, the change now proposed starting and finishing earlier on two days will be damaging in itself, undoing our finely balanced compromise. That compromise is on the first level between the need to have enough sitting hours for the government's business and the House's business, and on other, and, on the other hand, the demands of noble lords lives .
On the second level, the compromise is between the different sorts of demands. There are three main types. First, many members are engaged in professionals or work apart from their functions. Here, as has been said by noble Lords , and as we all recognise, this is one of the central features of this House, which gathers mainly not professional politicians, though we do benefit from them. It contains all kinds of people, experts of different kinds, from different walks of life. They are engaged with their. Many are engaged with their specialist area of expertise, be it the law, business, medicine, the media, the universities, the sciences or humanities.
Local government. The voluntary and charitable sector. Second, there are demands more directly related to the business of the House. Careful preparation for bills, committees, committee meetings, contributions and for some ministerial duties. The new proposed. Third, there are the demands of family and social life, which came up in the previous consultation too, which might include parenting, grandparenting and other caring duties. The new proposals ostensibly concern the compromise between the different sorts of demand, given the number of sitting hours needed. The first of these demands to balance and the work we do for this House and the work we do perhaps outside, or the preparations for this house, can be met by the present sitting hours, and for it leaves a good part of the working day on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, with time to do that work, with time to prepare, and so on.
And which leave the. Also, though, leave time for all the other demands, because on a Thursday and a Friday and Saturday and Sunday, we have time for those. So it is a compromise, but it works to allow for the different sorts of activity and specialism and preparation. Those proposing change. Change may not agree. Some may think that the compromise should be weighted more towards family and social life that than it is at present.
I disagree with that. Most people bearing equivalent equivalent responsibilities outside in other.
13:36
13:36
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
And have to accommodate the family and caring commitments anyway. They have to accommodate them to their professional work and obligations. And even if they are no longer working outside our house, they will have had to do so during working life. In any case, as noble Lords have already said, the changes proposed to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday and will not bring and will not achieve the object sought. If the house rises at 830, noble Lords might at the earliest, if they're lucky, be home at 915 or 930 if they live nearby. But for many of us, and this has been mentioned, I'm an example of that.
If your commute is at least two hours, sometimes longer, when the trains do not work and an 830 finish will allow no one social or family or life. And for many of us, 830 finish will still mean we'll be lucky to be home by 11 if the trains run. And I say to the noble Lord, it's not only the last trains that tend to be cancelled for some days. You have all trains cancelled, say after 6 p.m. because of some problem on the line or something else, and it may not be the noble Lord to mention that, but that it would be easier to travel.
And if trains, if you if we left earlier because we'd be more certain of getting home. But I don't think the way transport is we would . Anyway. I don't believe it. An 8:30 p.m. change would make any great difference to the demands we have. There's also reason to fear that the new proposals would just aim to. At. Adjust things just for the first level of compromise by increasing our total number of sitting hours, and so leaving us with less time for anything else, work or social. They already do so openly . Since the start of the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions proposed is being.
If we take. Both days is being made 3.5 hours earlier in all. While only three hours is planned to be trimmed at the end. But no, seriously, it is hard to believe that the 830 finishing time will in fact mean an 8:30 p.m. finishing time. And I enjoyed the repartee where I felt it was probably true where the whips get together and they agree that it's how to keep their members there for the important votes. And it won't necessarily make government business any easier to get through. It would be, and I don't agree that it would be less likely to stop a drift from 830 onwards.
A little later, a little later. And I would like to say, in response to Lord Stoneham that I, I, I see what you're getting at when the noble Lord says dwindling numbers. He doesn't like to see them. I don't think, as an 830 will make any difference to that. The reason is that people are there late at night when they're in the committee of a bill, or when they're in a second reading, because they have expertise, interest, specialism and are involved in that. And they will they will be there for the 830 sitting as much as they are there now.
I don't think it will make a difference. It reflects the specialism and the experience of and their involvement in different subjects, which they want to help the scrutiny, particularly because they can contribute. And I still see them their last thing at night when there's quite a camaraderie. In fact, when at the the last groups that are called and people stay to contribute there, if they are interested and knowledgeable about the subject, the. So the proposed changes, therefore, in my view, will do harm and not produce the results desired. Most important, the work of this House will suffer if sitting times prevent members from preparing properly and exclude them from professional activities that allowed this chamber to.
To scrutinise and do the work it does and fulfil its important role in a bicameral system. So I therefore oppose any change.
If your commute is at least two hours, sometimes longer, when the trains do not work and an 830 finish will allow no one social or family or life. And for many of us, 830 finish will still mean we'll be lucky to be home by 11 if the trains run. And I say to the noble Lord, it's not only the last trains that tend to be cancelled for some days. You have all trains cancelled, say after 6 p.m. because of some problem on the line or something else, and it may not be the noble Lord to mention that, but that it would be easier to travel.
And if trains, if you if we left earlier because we'd be more certain of getting home. But I don't think the way transport is we would . Anyway. I don't believe it. An 8:30 p.m. change would make any great difference to the demands we have. There's also reason to fear that the new proposals would just aim to. At. Adjust things just for the first level of compromise by increasing our total number of sitting hours, and so leaving us with less time for anything else, work or social. They already do so openly . Since the start of the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions proposed is being.
If we take. Both days is being made 3.5 hours earlier in all. While only three hours is planned to be trimmed at the end. But no, seriously, it is hard to believe that the 830 finishing time will in fact mean an 8:30 p.m. finishing time. And I enjoyed the repartee where I felt it was probably true where the whips get together and they agree that it's how to keep their members there for the important votes. And it won't necessarily make government business any easier to get through. It would be, and I don't agree that it would be less likely to stop a drift from 830 onwards.
A little later, a little later. And I would like to say, in response to Lord Stoneham that I, I, I see what you're getting at when the noble Lord says dwindling numbers. He doesn't like to see them. I don't think, as an 830 will make any difference to that. The reason is that people are there late at night when they're in the committee of a bill, or when they're in a second reading, because they have expertise, interest, specialism and are involved in that. And they will they will be there for the 830 sitting as much as they are there now.
I don't think it will make a difference. It reflects the specialism and the experience of and their involvement in different subjects, which they want to help the scrutiny, particularly because they can contribute. And I still see them their last thing at night when there's quite a camaraderie. In fact, when at the the last groups that are called and people stay to contribute there, if they are interested and knowledgeable about the subject, the. So the proposed changes, therefore, in my view, will do harm and not produce the results desired. Most important, the work of this House will suffer if sitting times prevent members from preparing properly and exclude them from professional activities that allowed this chamber to.
To scrutinise and do the work it does and fulfil its important role in a bicameral system. So I therefore oppose any change.
13:41
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Can I also echo many of the comments that other noble Lords have made, and thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for this debate and the way that he has introduced it? The key question for me is what is the problem we're trying to solve, and do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? And we've had a number of noble lords speak on why they believe that there are significantly more disadvantages and advantages. And can I actually thank the noble Lord Stoneham, because it is good to have an advocate to explain why he believes that there are positives to this proposal, and he did introduce the issue of scrutiny.
And I would like to come back to that later, because I think it's a very important point, albeit I disagree with him on that point. But it does seem, at least in the consultation. The key point is this is about enabling noble lords to return home at a reasonable hour and participate in family life. And I think I echo the opinion of many other noble lords that, quite frankly, the difference between 830 and 10:00 to a family life, to putting your children to bed and so forth is pretty much small and wouldn't have a dramatic impact.
Similarly, if you wanted to go out of an evening and so forth. So I'm not sure that that is really the case, albeit there may be 1 or 2 people who live around the corner who have a significant benefit. The alternative question is on attendance and quality of debate, of going long into the night, and albeit in my sort of two and a half years here, I haven't the experience of many other noble lords, but I have had experience of the 1:00 and the 2:00 at night. And I have to say that was not particularly enjoyable.
And the noble Lord Stoneham is right that there were only 1 or 2 people from each bench there. But actually the issue of going late at night is not an issue of what time we start the day. It is the fact that we have too much poor quality legislation. And I'm not talking about the principle of legislation, but poor drafting, lots of late amendments coming in. And in fact, we're about to debate the representation of the people bill, and I'm told we're going to get over a hundred government amendments half way through committee stage. That is not the right way to do proper scrutiny.
Yeah, you could fix that. I am sure that we would have a much better scrutiny, and it would have a much better impact than starting an hour earlier. They all do it. I do, however, see a lot of downsides from these proposals, and a number of noble Lords have raised the issue of the fact that we are a very diverse house. We have a lot of expertise of very different issues. In fact, one of the most interesting debates I had was on broccoli and Brussels sprouts, which sounds a very esoteric topic, but it was a brilliant debate going through the whole farming gamut from fertilisers to planting to logistics chains and whatever.
And the reason it was such a good debate is we had a vast range of different people with different niche expertise, and you realize just what it takes to get a Brussels sprout on your Christmas dinner table and all the things that have to work. I am not so sure that in the other place, we would have had that interesting debate, and it's just an example of what we can do in terms of scrutiny. So one thing, and I say that as a new peer, that that's what I've seen, because we don't have people with full time parliamentary careers.
They have careers outside this place and they bring that knowledge to it. And I do worry that if we make it and we move towards a full time professional house, we completely change the character of this. And that is the thing that most worries me about this. This is a move towards excluding other people who bring so much expertise to the house. And I even say as myself and experience my only other role in life at the moment is a counsellor. And one of the benefits of having Mondays and Tuesdays mornings is that I can stay in my patch, I can meet residents, I can attend meetings.
Now all of a sudden, if I have to be here an hour and a half earlier, that's gone. The hour and a half extra I get in the evening is not meaningful. An hour and a half on a morning is a full morning. An hour and a half when you're halfway through the night is not a full evening, and it will also impact those who commute. Now, I live around about 90 minutes or so when the trains are running properly away from here, which means most days I can commute to turn back when I'm not, when I know I'm going to be late in 10:00 and whatever.
I book a hotel. I'm sure there's many like me. There are others who, because they live in Scotland or will stay here all week. What are they supposed to do with that extra hour in the evening? You know, whereas that full morning is much more useful.
And I would like to come back to that later, because I think it's a very important point, albeit I disagree with him on that point. But it does seem, at least in the consultation. The key point is this is about enabling noble lords to return home at a reasonable hour and participate in family life. And I think I echo the opinion of many other noble lords that, quite frankly, the difference between 830 and 10:00 to a family life, to putting your children to bed and so forth is pretty much small and wouldn't have a dramatic impact.
Similarly, if you wanted to go out of an evening and so forth. So I'm not sure that that is really the case, albeit there may be 1 or 2 people who live around the corner who have a significant benefit. The alternative question is on attendance and quality of debate, of going long into the night, and albeit in my sort of two and a half years here, I haven't the experience of many other noble lords, but I have had experience of the 1:00 and the 2:00 at night. And I have to say that was not particularly enjoyable.
And the noble Lord Stoneham is right that there were only 1 or 2 people from each bench there. But actually the issue of going late at night is not an issue of what time we start the day. It is the fact that we have too much poor quality legislation. And I'm not talking about the principle of legislation, but poor drafting, lots of late amendments coming in. And in fact, we're about to debate the representation of the people bill, and I'm told we're going to get over a hundred government amendments half way through committee stage. That is not the right way to do proper scrutiny.
Yeah, you could fix that. I am sure that we would have a much better scrutiny, and it would have a much better impact than starting an hour earlier. They all do it. I do, however, see a lot of downsides from these proposals, and a number of noble Lords have raised the issue of the fact that we are a very diverse house. We have a lot of expertise of very different issues. In fact, one of the most interesting debates I had was on broccoli and Brussels sprouts, which sounds a very esoteric topic, but it was a brilliant debate going through the whole farming gamut from fertilisers to planting to logistics chains and whatever.
And the reason it was such a good debate is we had a vast range of different people with different niche expertise, and you realize just what it takes to get a Brussels sprout on your Christmas dinner table and all the things that have to work. I am not so sure that in the other place, we would have had that interesting debate, and it's just an example of what we can do in terms of scrutiny. So one thing, and I say that as a new peer, that that's what I've seen, because we don't have people with full time parliamentary careers.
They have careers outside this place and they bring that knowledge to it. And I do worry that if we make it and we move towards a full time professional house, we completely change the character of this. And that is the thing that most worries me about this. This is a move towards excluding other people who bring so much expertise to the house. And I even say as myself and experience my only other role in life at the moment is a counsellor. And one of the benefits of having Mondays and Tuesdays mornings is that I can stay in my patch, I can meet residents, I can attend meetings.
Now all of a sudden, if I have to be here an hour and a half earlier, that's gone. The hour and a half extra I get in the evening is not meaningful. An hour and a half on a morning is a full morning. An hour and a half when you're halfway through the night is not a full evening, and it will also impact those who commute. Now, I live around about 90 minutes or so when the trains are running properly away from here, which means most days I can commute to turn back when I'm not, when I know I'm going to be late in 10:00 and whatever.
I book a hotel. I'm sure there's many like me. There are others who, because they live in Scotland or will stay here all week. What are they supposed to do with that extra hour in the evening? You know, whereas that full morning is much more useful.
13:46
13:46
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Like people have mentioned this collegiate issue of dinner. Every organization I have worked in the best work where you solve the problems, where you discuss in depth are outside of the formal meeting, the chamber or whatever it is over dinner, it is the water cooler moment. Those are really important and I have had so many incredibly helpful conversations with world renowned experts . Down in the canteen, on the long table in the coffee room. Those the loss of those would be huge because that is brought to the chamber. And in fact, in many instances, a problem is solved and isn't even brought to the chamber.
So I really do care about that. And that's the operation of the House. And other people have raised the issue. So I'm not going to go on to it about how all committees work. What about the other meetings and so forth and the group meetings? I would also ask, you know, when we want to meet with outside parties, meeting in and around lunchtime works incredibly well. I'm not so get so many takers to meet in and around 8 or 9:00 at night. So again, that is a loss of the opportunity to engage with outside parties.
So I really do care about that. And that's the operation of the House. And other people have raised the issue. So I'm not going to go on to it about how all committees work. What about the other meetings and so forth and the group meetings? I would also ask, you know, when we want to meet with outside parties, meeting in and around lunchtime works incredibly well. I'm not so get so many takers to meet in and around 8 or 9:00 at night. So again, that is a loss of the opportunity to engage with outside parties.
13:48
13:48
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
And as others have said, I fear that 830 will not be seen as a hard stop. It will be a soft stop and it is a lot easier to just nibble away. Whereas at ten minutes, as others have said, people do start voting with their feet, I won't. Others have raised the issue of staff and facilities etc. education, so I won't do it. But I do want to get on to the point of scrutiny. Yes, the number of people in the chamber is an important factor in scrutiny. But actually what is even more important is the quality of debate, the diversity of opinions that are there, and the expertise of the people involved.
If you start excluding people because they are. not here, because they have other careers, because they're involved in other organisations, we weaken our debate. And when it's an important debate, I have been here at ten or even 11:00 at night with significant numbers of people, because it was an important debate and they had real value to add. Yes, I've also been here when there has only been a few people here, because , frankly, we were going through the motions because actually the debate had already happened on the key issues. So I think that diversity of opinion, that expertise is absolutely critical, and we cannot lose that from this House.
It is something that we add in the parliamentary process that doesn't happen in the other place. My Lords, I'm puzzled. I can see many downsides to this proposal, but little upside. We should not seek change for change's sake. And this concern is really that we have too many very late night settings. Would it not be better to examine why this is the case, rather than facilitate the problem by, in effect, extending the hours of this house? Okay.
If you start excluding people because they are. not here, because they have other careers, because they're involved in other organisations, we weaken our debate. And when it's an important debate, I have been here at ten or even 11:00 at night with significant numbers of people, because it was an important debate and they had real value to add. Yes, I've also been here when there has only been a few people here, because , frankly, we were going through the motions because actually the debate had already happened on the key issues. So I think that diversity of opinion, that expertise is absolutely critical, and we cannot lose that from this House.
It is something that we add in the parliamentary process that doesn't happen in the other place. My Lords, I'm puzzled. I can see many downsides to this proposal, but little upside. We should not seek change for change's sake. And this concern is really that we have too many very late night settings. Would it not be better to examine why this is the case, rather than facilitate the problem by, in effect, extending the hours of this house? Okay.
13:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I too would like the Senior Deputy Speaker for scheduling this debate and for introducing it so well. It's my honor to follow so many noble Lords, excellent speeches, and I'm afraid I'm going to repeat some of it because so much so many good points were made. But I, too, see no compelling reasons to change our sitting hours. Our long established arrangements serve this house well. What problem are we trying to solve, and would these changes create more difficulties than they resolve? I recognize that our present hours do not suit everybody, but any change must bring clear benefits to the House as a whole.
These proposed changes would force members to choose between attending committee meetings and taking part in the chamber business, making it much harder to fulfil both parliamentary responsibilities. These changes would also leave us less time to prepare in the morning, and I really need those hours in the morning preparing questions, speeches and amendments require research, thought and consultation and otherwise we cannot prepare ourselves properly, squeezing it into a shortened morning will not improve our scrutiny. Colleagues try travelling from outside London would be particularly disadvantaged. As many have noted before me, they already face long journeys and the uncertainty of delayed or cancelled trains will affect them.
Earlier sittings would mean leaving home even earlier or travelling the night before. Increasing accommodation costs to the taxpayers . And what would we gain? As mentioned by many noble Lords in early Start does not guarantee an earlier finish. Lord Stoneham mentioned 830 instead of ten being meaningful. But unless it's 6:00 instead of ten, as many noble lords have mentioned, I don't think it is very meaningful. And hour and a half at that time of the evening where we can't do anything else. And many colleagues could still be unable to get home in the evening. Unless we control the volume of business, we risk lengthening the parliamentary day with greater demands on members and staff alike.
The Prime Minister has promised the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen. Yet these proposed changes would risk pulling the House, putting this house in precisely the opposite direction, making it more London centric. I personally don't have a dog in this fight, as I live three stops away from Parliament, but we need colleagues who live and work across the country. We need knowledge and practical experience of affairs from the world of business, medicine, law, education and science. We will lose. Those earlier sitting would make those professional commitments harder to maintain. We would be poorer for losing that experience.
As many noble lords mentioned before me, working lunches, early evening and engagements matter too. They give us the opportunity to hear directly from experts, charities and people affected by our decisions. These meetings help us to do our work properly. Nor do I see how earlier hours would help families. Colleagues with young children would have to leave home earlier and still arrive back after bedtime. Where is the benefit for them? We also need to consider our doorkeepers. Many commute into London themselves and their concerns deserve our attention. We depend on them every day. Their working lives matters too.
And as we said before, we have not seen what their position is on the changes of times. My Lords, I care about the character of this House. We should not become a house of full time professional politicians. Our strength lies in the knowledge we bring from various various professions, communities and wider life experience. Our arrangements enable members to continue their professional work while contributing to the work of this House. The role of this House is to scrutinise legislation, draw on the widest possible experience and enable colleagues from across the country to participate. I see no convincing case that changing our sitting hours to those proposed would help us achieve any of those aims.
I therefore support our present arrangements.
These proposed changes would force members to choose between attending committee meetings and taking part in the chamber business, making it much harder to fulfil both parliamentary responsibilities. These changes would also leave us less time to prepare in the morning, and I really need those hours in the morning preparing questions, speeches and amendments require research, thought and consultation and otherwise we cannot prepare ourselves properly, squeezing it into a shortened morning will not improve our scrutiny. Colleagues try travelling from outside London would be particularly disadvantaged. As many have noted before me, they already face long journeys and the uncertainty of delayed or cancelled trains will affect them.
Earlier sittings would mean leaving home even earlier or travelling the night before. Increasing accommodation costs to the taxpayers . And what would we gain? As mentioned by many noble Lords in early Start does not guarantee an earlier finish. Lord Stoneham mentioned 830 instead of ten being meaningful. But unless it's 6:00 instead of ten, as many noble lords have mentioned, I don't think it is very meaningful. And hour and a half at that time of the evening where we can't do anything else. And many colleagues could still be unable to get home in the evening. Unless we control the volume of business, we risk lengthening the parliamentary day with greater demands on members and staff alike.
The Prime Minister has promised the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen. Yet these proposed changes would risk pulling the House, putting this house in precisely the opposite direction, making it more London centric. I personally don't have a dog in this fight, as I live three stops away from Parliament, but we need colleagues who live and work across the country. We need knowledge and practical experience of affairs from the world of business, medicine, law, education and science. We will lose. Those earlier sitting would make those professional commitments harder to maintain. We would be poorer for losing that experience.
As many noble lords mentioned before me, working lunches, early evening and engagements matter too. They give us the opportunity to hear directly from experts, charities and people affected by our decisions. These meetings help us to do our work properly. Nor do I see how earlier hours would help families. Colleagues with young children would have to leave home earlier and still arrive back after bedtime. Where is the benefit for them? We also need to consider our doorkeepers. Many commute into London themselves and their concerns deserve our attention. We depend on them every day. Their working lives matters too.
And as we said before, we have not seen what their position is on the changes of times. My Lords, I care about the character of this House. We should not become a house of full time professional politicians. Our strength lies in the knowledge we bring from various various professions, communities and wider life experience. Our arrangements enable members to continue their professional work while contributing to the work of this House. The role of this House is to scrutinise legislation, draw on the widest possible experience and enable colleagues from across the country to participate. I see no convincing case that changing our sitting hours to those proposed would help us achieve any of those aims.
I therefore support our present arrangements.
13:55
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Lords are. I'm a new boy, and so I feel myself under the lash of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in speaking to this debate. But having only spent less than three years so far, and probably having not much more than that to go, if the age restrictions are going to come into operation, I don't have any big fish to fry, so I think I can be somewhat objective in looking at this, just using my experience elsewhere. See, it's a good idea or not. All the same, I'm hesitant to speak on this, especially as so many noble lords have, have, have said so many good things about this, but I.
I hope I can add 1 or 2 small points. I had difficulty figuring this system out of the Lords is complicated. There's a huge amount of many different things that the Lords do, and you really have to work hard to understand it and try to make yourself effective in it. But but having figured it out, I've now adapted my lifestyle to the way the Lords works, and I find myself perhaps slightly more effective than I was when I first arrived. And then now we have some relatively small changes, my Lords being offered to us. And so we have to consider that there's our situation, the complication being that we debated these already in 2022, we seem to be adopting the the Irish approach to referenda.
If you don't vote the right way first time, we'll come back and get you to vote again until you do. But but they're not huge changes, my Lords. Are they important enough to oppose? And I've thought about that quite hard. And and I think yes, they they should be because they worsen things. They don't better things and they constitute a direction of travel that should be stopped right now, just as it was in 2022. Why do I say this? Well, in former times that perhaps I'm one of the few here today, my Lords, to actually have been there and remember it, given my ancient position, age and outside experience was highly valued attribute in both houses of this Parliament and.
And probably it's artificial nostalgia to look back to those times and lament it, their greatness compared to now. But there were certainly some very great politicians in those times, most of them having that age and experience. They had widespread experience from outside these houses. And now we've taken one step, which is to professionalize the other house. And and there is much lamenting that I don't have to rehearse too lengthily over what that greatly eloquent person, Dominic Cummings called PPE bluffers coming straight out of university, going to going into some kind of Spad work, eventually getting a seat at a fairly early age, staying as professional politicians.
All of their life. I sorry if I'm boring noble lords on the other side. But but that professionalization has not been for the good. The amount of scrutiny that's going on in the other House, my Lords. I mean, I, I shouldn't I, I'm sure I shouldn't criticise the other House. I can only say what others have criticised the other House for. They're criticised for having very little non-political experience. They're criticised for doing very little scrutiny. They're criticised for seeing themselves as professional politicians for whom, for every problem there ought to be a law. And by the way, we know best so that so that laws proliferate and the country is regulated more and more.
They're criticised for having form and not substance, and they're criticised for having slipshod work. That, my Lords, has been the outcome, according to these critics, of the professionalization of the other House. And now we have a repeated attempt, as I said, to do the same move in that direction for the House of Lords. Our Lords, the House of Lords is a part time house for a reason, and it's part time house that is a revising chamber whose effectiveness is, I would argue, unequalled around the world as a revising chamber. People, as we've heard, complain about 800 peers, but the vast variety of those peers, the vast number of those peers, come in only when their experience is called upon, as other noble lords have said, and as they've said, they are only expense to the Lords when they come in those part time peers, 800 of them nearly all.
Many at least, have a hinterland. A hinterland means we can call on a plethora of knowledge from those 800 peers. That makes us effective as a revising chamber. It means knowledge of what really works in the real world, not of what works in theory, in a law, anything that makes it more difficult for that general hinterland held by those peers to operate is bad for the effectiveness of this house, and a hinterland needs access to the outside world to keep going, and that access has to take place between 9 and 5, because that's when the rest of the world operates.
So any hour that we take away from noble peers , access to the outside world between 9 to 5 is cutting off their access to reality. My Lords, every generation wants change. By no means should every change be resisted, but this change should be change. For change's sake is no benefit. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, we haven't really heard any strong arguments as to the benefits. But as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, and other noble lords have, there are multiple. Dis benefits. The change to the other House made it worse. Why should we want to have similar changes here, however small.
Like any successful long standing institution, my Lords, the House of Lords has developed its way of working over many years. In fact, in our case over many centuries, it has many odd and unique features. Each of those features has a reason, including the ones we are debating here today, and that's why each is jealously guarded. Together. They make up an institution that is now with the decline in scrutiny in the other house. More important than ever, we should stay.
My Lords, as we are.
I hope I can add 1 or 2 small points. I had difficulty figuring this system out of the Lords is complicated. There's a huge amount of many different things that the Lords do, and you really have to work hard to understand it and try to make yourself effective in it. But but having figured it out, I've now adapted my lifestyle to the way the Lords works, and I find myself perhaps slightly more effective than I was when I first arrived. And then now we have some relatively small changes, my Lords being offered to us. And so we have to consider that there's our situation, the complication being that we debated these already in 2022, we seem to be adopting the the Irish approach to referenda.
If you don't vote the right way first time, we'll come back and get you to vote again until you do. But but they're not huge changes, my Lords. Are they important enough to oppose? And I've thought about that quite hard. And and I think yes, they they should be because they worsen things. They don't better things and they constitute a direction of travel that should be stopped right now, just as it was in 2022. Why do I say this? Well, in former times that perhaps I'm one of the few here today, my Lords, to actually have been there and remember it, given my ancient position, age and outside experience was highly valued attribute in both houses of this Parliament and.
And probably it's artificial nostalgia to look back to those times and lament it, their greatness compared to now. But there were certainly some very great politicians in those times, most of them having that age and experience. They had widespread experience from outside these houses. And now we've taken one step, which is to professionalize the other house. And and there is much lamenting that I don't have to rehearse too lengthily over what that greatly eloquent person, Dominic Cummings called PPE bluffers coming straight out of university, going to going into some kind of Spad work, eventually getting a seat at a fairly early age, staying as professional politicians.
All of their life. I sorry if I'm boring noble lords on the other side. But but that professionalization has not been for the good. The amount of scrutiny that's going on in the other House, my Lords. I mean, I, I shouldn't I, I'm sure I shouldn't criticise the other House. I can only say what others have criticised the other House for. They're criticised for having very little non-political experience. They're criticised for doing very little scrutiny. They're criticised for seeing themselves as professional politicians for whom, for every problem there ought to be a law. And by the way, we know best so that so that laws proliferate and the country is regulated more and more.
They're criticised for having form and not substance, and they're criticised for having slipshod work. That, my Lords, has been the outcome, according to these critics, of the professionalization of the other House. And now we have a repeated attempt, as I said, to do the same move in that direction for the House of Lords. Our Lords, the House of Lords is a part time house for a reason, and it's part time house that is a revising chamber whose effectiveness is, I would argue, unequalled around the world as a revising chamber. People, as we've heard, complain about 800 peers, but the vast variety of those peers, the vast number of those peers, come in only when their experience is called upon, as other noble lords have said, and as they've said, they are only expense to the Lords when they come in those part time peers, 800 of them nearly all.
Many at least, have a hinterland. A hinterland means we can call on a plethora of knowledge from those 800 peers. That makes us effective as a revising chamber. It means knowledge of what really works in the real world, not of what works in theory, in a law, anything that makes it more difficult for that general hinterland held by those peers to operate is bad for the effectiveness of this house, and a hinterland needs access to the outside world to keep going, and that access has to take place between 9 and 5, because that's when the rest of the world operates.
So any hour that we take away from noble peers , access to the outside world between 9 to 5 is cutting off their access to reality. My Lords, every generation wants change. By no means should every change be resisted, but this change should be change. For change's sake is no benefit. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, we haven't really heard any strong arguments as to the benefits. But as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, and other noble lords have, there are multiple. Dis benefits. The change to the other House made it worse. Why should we want to have similar changes here, however small.
Like any successful long standing institution, my Lords, the House of Lords has developed its way of working over many years. In fact, in our case over many centuries, it has many odd and unique features. Each of those features has a reason, including the ones we are debating here today, and that's why each is jealously guarded. Together. They make up an institution that is now with the decline in scrutiny in the other house. More important than ever, we should stay.
My Lords, as we are.
14:03
14:03
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for opening the debate with such patience, a quality he will clearly need, because I suspect that every noble Lord has an opinion on. Most of us have several on this issue. It sort of. It was a bit upsetting for me that we moved rooms because what I was going to say, and I think I will still say it, is that it's actually appropriate that we're doing this in the Moses room. Moses knew a great deal about long sittings for 40 years in the wilderness. And not once, not once did anyone propose finishing at 8:30.
And when he came down, when he came down, when he came down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, I've checked them very carefully. Not one says, thou shalt sit at 1:00 on a Wednesday. If it was good enough for Moses, my Lord, it's certainly good enough for me. We, of course, as has been said, been here before the 2022. The Committee consulted and on this question, and here we are just four years later, we're being asked again. I admire the persistence. It reminds me of my grandchildren asking whether they can stay up late. The answer doesn't change, but the arguments get more creative.
So let me declare an interest which opposes to something that Lord Stoneham says. And in supporting Lord Jameson, my interest is that I like lunch. 1:00 start is not a modest procedural tweak. It's an actual assault on one of the house's oldest and most effective convention, I explain. Much cross-party agreement has been reached over a bowl of soup and a building. Many an amendment has been quietly withdrawn over the main course, and more than one bill has been rescued by the pudding. Move the start to 1:00. We lose not just a meal, but possibly the most productive committee in the House.
Now we are told the reward is going to be finishing at 830. My Lords, I have nothing against going home early, especially when Liverpool are playing at 8:00. But I have sat in this house long enough 11 years this week to know that normally around eight 30th May be very optimistic indeed. My Lords, a bill does not get any shorter because we start and finish earlier. I do take seriously, of course, the case made about the staff of the House who look after us so well, and their well-being must be part of this decision.
And I take too seriously the argument that late nights are not family friendly, though I gently observe that for a good number of noble lords, getting home in time for bedtime is less about the children's bedtime, more about our own. So let me look at the consultation itself. It offers four options. Three of them change or tinker thing. Tinker, literally tinker, and one of them does not. And as a conservative, my Lords, I found that the choice is makes it itself the present arrangements. My Lords, are not perfect. Nothing in this place or any place is perfect, but they work.
They let members bring the outside world into the chamber in the afternoon, having been out in it in the morning. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And if it's a little bit broken, please don't fix it either at 1:00 or at 830. But I want to finish following the words of Baroness Lang, who is demanding these changes. My Lords, if you join a gym, you join a choir, you join a golf club. You know there are certain rules, such as many people at a golf club might want to start on the fifth tee or wear collarless tee shirts.
You've joined the club, you know the rules. So when new members come here to our house, they. They know the rules and the regulations and they know what they're signing up to. So I'm all for change and modernisation where it's appropriate, but I just fail to understand, like other Lords have said, that some of these changes being discussed, how they will help our deliberations and how they'll help our effectiveness, where in fact are those people wanting changes? The noble Lord Ponsonby has given us an opportunity to discuss. It's a bit a bit like the assisted dying bill and those debates we've had every Friday, the vow of silence from those who supported the bill and then accused those with opposing views of wasting time by advancing arguments and putting forward amendments.
So I ask and I finish, where are those people today who are proposing these changes?
And when he came down, when he came down, when he came down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, I've checked them very carefully. Not one says, thou shalt sit at 1:00 on a Wednesday. If it was good enough for Moses, my Lord, it's certainly good enough for me. We, of course, as has been said, been here before the 2022. The Committee consulted and on this question, and here we are just four years later, we're being asked again. I admire the persistence. It reminds me of my grandchildren asking whether they can stay up late. The answer doesn't change, but the arguments get more creative.
So let me declare an interest which opposes to something that Lord Stoneham says. And in supporting Lord Jameson, my interest is that I like lunch. 1:00 start is not a modest procedural tweak. It's an actual assault on one of the house's oldest and most effective convention, I explain. Much cross-party agreement has been reached over a bowl of soup and a building. Many an amendment has been quietly withdrawn over the main course, and more than one bill has been rescued by the pudding. Move the start to 1:00. We lose not just a meal, but possibly the most productive committee in the House.
Now we are told the reward is going to be finishing at 830. My Lords, I have nothing against going home early, especially when Liverpool are playing at 8:00. But I have sat in this house long enough 11 years this week to know that normally around eight 30th May be very optimistic indeed. My Lords, a bill does not get any shorter because we start and finish earlier. I do take seriously, of course, the case made about the staff of the House who look after us so well, and their well-being must be part of this decision.
And I take too seriously the argument that late nights are not family friendly, though I gently observe that for a good number of noble lords, getting home in time for bedtime is less about the children's bedtime, more about our own. So let me look at the consultation itself. It offers four options. Three of them change or tinker thing. Tinker, literally tinker, and one of them does not. And as a conservative, my Lords, I found that the choice is makes it itself the present arrangements. My Lords, are not perfect. Nothing in this place or any place is perfect, but they work.
They let members bring the outside world into the chamber in the afternoon, having been out in it in the morning. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And if it's a little bit broken, please don't fix it either at 1:00 or at 830. But I want to finish following the words of Baroness Lang, who is demanding these changes. My Lords, if you join a gym, you join a choir, you join a golf club. You know there are certain rules, such as many people at a golf club might want to start on the fifth tee or wear collarless tee shirts.
You've joined the club, you know the rules. So when new members come here to our house, they. They know the rules and the regulations and they know what they're signing up to. So I'm all for change and modernisation where it's appropriate, but I just fail to understand, like other Lords have said, that some of these changes being discussed, how they will help our deliberations and how they'll help our effectiveness, where in fact are those people wanting changes? The noble Lord Ponsonby has given us an opportunity to discuss. It's a bit a bit like the assisted dying bill and those debates we've had every Friday, the vow of silence from those who supported the bill and then accused those with opposing views of wasting time by advancing arguments and putting forward amendments.
So I ask and I finish, where are those people today who are proposing these changes?
14:08
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Yeah, yeah, yeah, my Lords, Lord Ponsonby, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this and debate it. And I am against the proposals to alter the sitting times of the House. And I, like everybody else, I think certainly a large number anyway, caution, noble Lords, that reform, particularly with void of evidence, does not always result in any improvement. And the House is, with much regret, becoming increasingly overpopulated exclusively by professional, full time politicians. We should be mindful of the fact that the strength of this House has always been vested in the ability to be a house of experience and expertise, made up of men and women who have led businesses, commanded our armed forces, conducted our foreign affairs, practised medicine and the law, served in local government and academia, and contributed eminently to civil society.
We should therefore be encouraging these people of lived experience to participate fully, not making it harder. And I fear that any of the options that have been touted thus far will do just that. As has already been said, the question before us should not be how we make the House of Lords more convenient place for us to work, but how we ensure that it remains an effective place in which we are able to scrutinise and hold the government of the day to account on behalf of the British people. Earlier sitting times will exclude peers who wish, or in most professional cases, need to continue to practice their profession.
A lawyer who is required in court, a surgeon who operates in the mornings, or a business leader running a company in the city should not be disadvantaged from participation in this place, simply because they cannot conform to what is increasingly becoming a rigid parliamentary timetable. The more we make the membership of this place a full time parliamentary occupation, the greater the danger of creating a metro focused political class that is entirely detached from the realities of the communities and profession of which we are constitutionally assembled. To understand, I fear, my Lords, that the constant attempt to tinker with and modernise the Lords is, sir, is turning us from a house of working experience to a home for experienced politicians looking for work.
Your lordships house, conventional workplace. It is certainly not the House of Commons, and it should never be seen as such, for our constitutional value in this House lies precisely in being different and being adaptable. It is absolutely inconsistent to appoint people to this place in recognition of their achievements beyond West, beyond the Westminster machine, only then to reorganise ourselves in such a way that they are increasingly expected to abandon the activities from which they accumulate their knowledge and experience value in this House, my Lords, is not in how close we can replicate the professional trappings of the commons, but in how effective we can be in being something and offering something different.
Our operating hours reflect the responsibilities of your lordships, legislative and scrutiny functions, as opposed to simply replicating for nothing more than convenience. The working patterns and convenience of the whiter of the wider Whitehall estate. I further put it to your lordships that there is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake here. The government of the day should not be permitted to determine the intensity, convenience or effectiveness of the scrutiny of which it is subjected. It is not the responsibility of this House to organise itself around the convenience of Whitehall and ministers. The government has a constitutional responsibility to make itself available to Parliament.
There is a. My Lords, there is, my Lords, a very real danger that this House is increasingly becoming an administrative department of the executive , and simply processes legislation and through changes in our sitting times, there is an inherent risk that we are through the back door, surrendering the institutional independence and practical work of this place before bringing in any changes to the sitting hours of the House, noble Lords should carefully consider whether or not earlier starting times may directly disadvantage noble lords travelling from outside of London, and this. This point has been made, but it's an extremely important one.
The proposal to start our sittings earlier in the day risked establishing two classes of parliamentarians those whose lives revolve around Westminster and those whose lives continue to contribute to the country beyond it. We must be careful to avoid creating a situation by which London residency becomes the unofficial qualification for the effective membership of your lordships House. Further still, my Lords, the Union of Nations is constantly going through incredible strain and we must therefore make sure that any changes to sitting times do not inadvertently make it impossible for peers travelling from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to properly participate.
So I think we have to strongly consider the Union in everything we do. Like other noble Lords, I have witnessed late night sittings how some of the most important scrutiny occurs when a debate is allowed to develop, when ministers are pushed, and when this House refuses to be hurried. We are sadly developing a culture here by which the tyranny of the parliamentary clock and the predicted finishing times are discouraging. The level of scrutiny that your lordships House was once admired for the world over. My Lords, the more we seek to make this House resemble the other place in its working practices and professional character, the harder it will be to argue and explain why a house elected by a political patronage should be here.
We should therefore preserve our distinctiveness as the layman legislators of expertise, because it is that distinctiveness which helps justify our very existence. And I'd further go further to say, if we are going down this rather slippery slope, this isn't the only thing. We're only an example of that of diminishing the standing of this House in pursuit of. And I'm afraid I'm going to call it political gimmickry. The Whitehall conformity. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before the government will announce the establishment of a House of Lords North to compliment the much vaunted. North.
Whatever our differences, I hope that the Committee can at least unite to discourage anyone from entertaining any such ambition, especially as the last person who moved government to the North of England as Henry the First did, didn't end well as he died from dysentery as a result.
We should therefore be encouraging these people of lived experience to participate fully, not making it harder. And I fear that any of the options that have been touted thus far will do just that. As has already been said, the question before us should not be how we make the House of Lords more convenient place for us to work, but how we ensure that it remains an effective place in which we are able to scrutinise and hold the government of the day to account on behalf of the British people. Earlier sitting times will exclude peers who wish, or in most professional cases, need to continue to practice their profession.
A lawyer who is required in court, a surgeon who operates in the mornings, or a business leader running a company in the city should not be disadvantaged from participation in this place, simply because they cannot conform to what is increasingly becoming a rigid parliamentary timetable. The more we make the membership of this place a full time parliamentary occupation, the greater the danger of creating a metro focused political class that is entirely detached from the realities of the communities and profession of which we are constitutionally assembled. To understand, I fear, my Lords, that the constant attempt to tinker with and modernise the Lords is, sir, is turning us from a house of working experience to a home for experienced politicians looking for work.
Your lordships house, conventional workplace. It is certainly not the House of Commons, and it should never be seen as such, for our constitutional value in this House lies precisely in being different and being adaptable. It is absolutely inconsistent to appoint people to this place in recognition of their achievements beyond West, beyond the Westminster machine, only then to reorganise ourselves in such a way that they are increasingly expected to abandon the activities from which they accumulate their knowledge and experience value in this House, my Lords, is not in how close we can replicate the professional trappings of the commons, but in how effective we can be in being something and offering something different.
Our operating hours reflect the responsibilities of your lordships, legislative and scrutiny functions, as opposed to simply replicating for nothing more than convenience. The working patterns and convenience of the whiter of the wider Whitehall estate. I further put it to your lordships that there is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake here. The government of the day should not be permitted to determine the intensity, convenience or effectiveness of the scrutiny of which it is subjected. It is not the responsibility of this House to organise itself around the convenience of Whitehall and ministers. The government has a constitutional responsibility to make itself available to Parliament.
There is a. My Lords, there is, my Lords, a very real danger that this House is increasingly becoming an administrative department of the executive , and simply processes legislation and through changes in our sitting times, there is an inherent risk that we are through the back door, surrendering the institutional independence and practical work of this place before bringing in any changes to the sitting hours of the House, noble Lords should carefully consider whether or not earlier starting times may directly disadvantage noble lords travelling from outside of London, and this. This point has been made, but it's an extremely important one.
The proposal to start our sittings earlier in the day risked establishing two classes of parliamentarians those whose lives revolve around Westminster and those whose lives continue to contribute to the country beyond it. We must be careful to avoid creating a situation by which London residency becomes the unofficial qualification for the effective membership of your lordships House. Further still, my Lords, the Union of Nations is constantly going through incredible strain and we must therefore make sure that any changes to sitting times do not inadvertently make it impossible for peers travelling from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to properly participate.
So I think we have to strongly consider the Union in everything we do. Like other noble Lords, I have witnessed late night sittings how some of the most important scrutiny occurs when a debate is allowed to develop, when ministers are pushed, and when this House refuses to be hurried. We are sadly developing a culture here by which the tyranny of the parliamentary clock and the predicted finishing times are discouraging. The level of scrutiny that your lordships House was once admired for the world over. My Lords, the more we seek to make this House resemble the other place in its working practices and professional character, the harder it will be to argue and explain why a house elected by a political patronage should be here.
We should therefore preserve our distinctiveness as the layman legislators of expertise, because it is that distinctiveness which helps justify our very existence. And I'd further go further to say, if we are going down this rather slippery slope, this isn't the only thing. We're only an example of that of diminishing the standing of this House in pursuit of. And I'm afraid I'm going to call it political gimmickry. The Whitehall conformity. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before the government will announce the establishment of a House of Lords North to compliment the much vaunted. North.
Whatever our differences, I hope that the Committee can at least unite to discourage anyone from entertaining any such ambition, especially as the last person who moved government to the North of England as Henry the First did, didn't end well as he died from dysentery as a result.
14:16
14:16
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I rise to speak. And just for clarification, as with the end of life Bill, I speak in a personal capacity. We have a free, free vote on this, the Liberal Democrats. Clearly the conservatives have a different view on this. That's for your party to determine. And and I have to say that listening to the argument today for the opposition and the surprise that there is no one here from the Labour Party. Well, the party's obviously learned from other occasions that perhaps to keep the powder dry, because at the end of the day, whatever the outcome of this will be, the usual channels will meet.
And if the whatever the outcome, it will come to the house and there will be a vote, a free vote in the House of Lords. And that's where this will be determined eventually. It won't be determined by a committee or who's made the best speech in any given time. Well, I come at this from a different angle. As a person who is now the chief whip for the Liberal Democrats, who who has had a number of occasions already to take elderly female members from this House past two, 2 p.m. in the morning, out through the carriage gates at the top and put them in taxis home, because when we're in this house, we are protected.
We've got armed guards, we've got doorkeepers, and at 12, one, two in the morning, you're debt free outside. And I can't because I'm speaking personally. I'm not going to reflect on the speakers that's here. That wouldn't be fair because you haven't got that right to reply. But one thing I would say is when we do sit late now, the doorkeepers, their their arrangements for them to be taken home, the taxis take doorkeepers home. Taxis don't take members of the house home. After late night sittings. We make our own way home. So that may be something that maybe we should be looking at as well.
And if the whatever the outcome, it will come to the house and there will be a vote, a free vote in the House of Lords. And that's where this will be determined eventually. It won't be determined by a committee or who's made the best speech in any given time. Well, I come at this from a different angle. As a person who is now the chief whip for the Liberal Democrats, who who has had a number of occasions already to take elderly female members from this House past two, 2 p.m. in the morning, out through the carriage gates at the top and put them in taxis home, because when we're in this house, we are protected.
We've got armed guards, we've got doorkeepers, and at 12, one, two in the morning, you're debt free outside. And I can't because I'm speaking personally. I'm not going to reflect on the speakers that's here. That wouldn't be fair because you haven't got that right to reply. But one thing I would say is when we do sit late now, the doorkeepers, their their arrangements for them to be taken home, the taxis take doorkeepers home. Taxis don't take members of the house home. After late night sittings. We make our own way home. So that may be something that maybe we should be looking at as well.
14:18
14:18
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Sooner or later. We have a new members coming now and the. You sit down with them, the proposed members, and they say, when do you sit. What do we do? And when you tell them that, we say at 230, okay. And 3:00 and 11:00 they said, why on earth do we do that? Well, that's tradition. That's the history. That's the value of the House of Lords work. And that's our problem. We're living in the past. Modernisation is coming, the world is changing, and the members of this House is changing radically. I know that from experience because the Liberal Democrats from, say, 2014 15 to 2020 plus had no new peers because of the number of MPs, we didn't qualify.
So I have an I have an older group of members proportionately to our numbers. And that brings its own challenges for me to bring. But we are getting newer MPs through the allowances and other parties are getting the same. And they now look at this place and just wonder what's going on. Yes, we have the expertise. Yes, we have the knowledge. And yes, we sit. But we are not a dining club. We are not a meeting place. And the idea that over a bowl of soup you can change government policy is, frankly, for the birds.
We're here to do business, to hold the government to account, to make legislation better. And I can't understand how anybody could argue that is best done past ten, 11, 12:00. arguing for
So I have an I have an older group of members proportionately to our numbers. And that brings its own challenges for me to bring. But we are getting newer MPs through the allowances and other parties are getting the same. And they now look at this place and just wonder what's going on. Yes, we have the expertise. Yes, we have the knowledge. And yes, we sit. But we are not a dining club. We are not a meeting place. And the idea that over a bowl of soup you can change government policy is, frankly, for the birds.
We're here to do business, to hold the government to account, to make legislation better. And I can't understand how anybody could argue that is best done past ten, 11, 12:00. arguing for
14:20
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Changes, we begin to bring things into into a line of the rest of the world, basically, because I don't know any companies that run these sorts of hours that we've done , and people say, well, that's not us. We're different. We're different. We are somehow superior. We're not. We are not insular. We all come from somewhere. We all have families. We all speak to people. We read the newspapers as if we have to be available to meet somebody, to come in to tell me something's going wrong in America or somewhere else. I know that information. I pick it up myself.
And if I haven't got time to prepare for a speech in the morning, that's my fault for not getting up early enough. But if I'm not getting to bed till three in the morning, then that makes it more difficult for me. So what I'm saying as a person is that if we do nothing, somebody will do something to us. Eventually somebody will. It will be a government of whatever persuasion is at the moment. Legislation is coming thick and fast. It's difficult to do. But everybody, I believe in committees and report stage do the best thing.
Nobody's here to stop anything. We're here to all the government to account and they can speak for themselves. I'm here speaking as a as an independent Liberal Democrat peer who comes from Stockport. I stay every week. I come down on Monday and I warm Thursday or Friday, so the hours really don't matter to me. But it does matter to other people. There are other people that it is at a certain age. As time goes on in the evening, it becomes more difficult to concentrate, to be part of and to take meaningful participation. We should, as a house, be able to allow everybody to take meaningful participation whenever they want and whenever they can.
And that must be better for the House itself if those hours are made more regular. So as a person, I'll be voting for these changes. This is the beginning, I think, of modernization. If the legislation for the age limit comes in at 80, everybody knows what that means for the House. And that's the point of what I'm trying to say today. Change is coming. We should embrace change. We shouldn't resist change. We are not Luddites. We should be more modern. We should be more thinking forward. And we should be putting some of the ancient traditions to one side, because we're the 21st century now, and we should act like that.
And if I haven't got time to prepare for a speech in the morning, that's my fault for not getting up early enough. But if I'm not getting to bed till three in the morning, then that makes it more difficult for me. So what I'm saying as a person is that if we do nothing, somebody will do something to us. Eventually somebody will. It will be a government of whatever persuasion is at the moment. Legislation is coming thick and fast. It's difficult to do. But everybody, I believe in committees and report stage do the best thing.
Nobody's here to stop anything. We're here to all the government to account and they can speak for themselves. I'm here speaking as a as an independent Liberal Democrat peer who comes from Stockport. I stay every week. I come down on Monday and I warm Thursday or Friday, so the hours really don't matter to me. But it does matter to other people. There are other people that it is at a certain age. As time goes on in the evening, it becomes more difficult to concentrate, to be part of and to take meaningful participation. We should, as a house, be able to allow everybody to take meaningful participation whenever they want and whenever they can.
And that must be better for the House itself if those hours are made more regular. So as a person, I'll be voting for these changes. This is the beginning, I think, of modernization. If the legislation for the age limit comes in at 80, everybody knows what that means for the House. And that's the point of what I'm trying to say today. Change is coming. We should embrace change. We shouldn't resist change. We are not Luddites. We should be more modern. We should be more thinking forward. And we should be putting some of the ancient traditions to one side, because we're the 21st century now, and we should act like that.
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:23
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
We've had two two vote in favour of the proposed two speeches in favour of the proposals and and everyone else has spoken against it. I have actually been, as noble Lords will know. I have been to the Association of Conservative Peers, and I've also been to the Lib Dems, and I will be going to the crossbench peers next week. And I think I can absolutely say that within each group there is a diversity of views, and it's certainly my understanding of the position is none of the political parties are putting forward a collective view, and it will be for individuals to, to, to vote as they as they wish.
I wanted to make a couple of opening comments, my Lords, as was noted by Lord Blencathra, I've been around this House for a long time. However, I've had a whole career outside this house. My whole working life was was in a completely different world in the oil and gas world. I worked as an engineer, but I did come in here occasionally, well, fairly frequently actually, to participate as and when I could. I've also been a magistrate for 22 years, which which I did, and I've spoken about that in the House many times. I will be sitting as a magistrate tomorrow, for example.
One point which no, no noble lords have made, which actually I was reminded of by the noble Lord, Lord Lister's speech is that in. Of course, in local government they all sit in the evening when they're considering local government matters, and I was actually a councillor when the noble Lord, Lord Lister, was the leader of Wandsworth Council. So it's an exceptional thing to say. It's the way the council's up and down the country. Having said those comments, I'm of course neutral on this issue and I will do my best to address some of the points which noble Lords have made.
First of all, Lord Redwood. All all the points the noble Lord has made will be considered by the PPC, and I take the point he makes about the importance of championing the work skills of those members of this House. I think that is very important. The House of Lords has one role in life, and that is to be different from the House of Commons, and it's by its expertise that it justifies its existence, and it's the quality of the work that the House of Lords produces. So I agree with those points with noble Lord makes Lord Stoneham.
He made the point, which is actually a very fundamental point, that, of course, the 830 stop is ultimately a question of the of the usual channels and self-regulation. The. The noble Lord, the chief whip, was here, and he and those noble Lords have direct experience of working in the usual channels. And there is indeed a. I think it's right to say there will be an expectation of a stop unless there are particular, particular examples. So we'll see. The only other point I will make is that it will be for the PPC to. To set up a review period, if it wishes to, to see whether any new regulations that may be brought in, to see whether they're operating as as the expectation is.
Lord Moylan made, I thought a fair point about his medical appointments, that that's not a point that you often hear in these debates, but it's a very fair point. There has been consultation with trade unions. They're certainly aware of this, and the speeches of today's debate will formally be fed into the consultation process. Lord Blencathra.
I wanted to make a couple of opening comments, my Lords, as was noted by Lord Blencathra, I've been around this House for a long time. However, I've had a whole career outside this house. My whole working life was was in a completely different world in the oil and gas world. I worked as an engineer, but I did come in here occasionally, well, fairly frequently actually, to participate as and when I could. I've also been a magistrate for 22 years, which which I did, and I've spoken about that in the House many times. I will be sitting as a magistrate tomorrow, for example.
One point which no, no noble lords have made, which actually I was reminded of by the noble Lord, Lord Lister's speech is that in. Of course, in local government they all sit in the evening when they're considering local government matters, and I was actually a councillor when the noble Lord, Lord Lister, was the leader of Wandsworth Council. So it's an exceptional thing to say. It's the way the council's up and down the country. Having said those comments, I'm of course neutral on this issue and I will do my best to address some of the points which noble Lords have made.
First of all, Lord Redwood. All all the points the noble Lord has made will be considered by the PPC, and I take the point he makes about the importance of championing the work skills of those members of this House. I think that is very important. The House of Lords has one role in life, and that is to be different from the House of Commons, and it's by its expertise that it justifies its existence, and it's the quality of the work that the House of Lords produces. So I agree with those points with noble Lord makes Lord Stoneham.
He made the point, which is actually a very fundamental point, that, of course, the 830 stop is ultimately a question of the of the usual channels and self-regulation. The. The noble Lord, the chief whip, was here, and he and those noble Lords have direct experience of working in the usual channels. And there is indeed a. I think it's right to say there will be an expectation of a stop unless there are particular, particular examples. So we'll see. The only other point I will make is that it will be for the PPC to. To set up a review period, if it wishes to, to see whether any new regulations that may be brought in, to see whether they're operating as as the expectation is.
Lord Moylan made, I thought a fair point about his medical appointments, that that's not a point that you often hear in these debates, but it's a very fair point. There has been consultation with trade unions. They're certainly aware of this, and the speeches of today's debate will formally be fed into the consultation process. Lord Blencathra.
14:27
14:27
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Lot here from the noble Lord. So, so so I acknowledge the points he made. I mean, essentially, he expressed his views very fully as as he normally does. And it will be for the PPC to, to, to look at this. The only point I will make is the additional information about the consultations and the the effect on working practices that additional information will be available to the PPC when it makes its final recommendation, and that information will also be available to the House when the House considers whatever recommendation may come out of the out of the PPC.
14:28
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
The noble art I. I'm very grateful. It's reassuring that the PPC will have that information, but. But in the meantime, 800 peers have been asked to make a decision tick box on for Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or both without knowing that information in advance. So the consultation may result in an overwhelming majority wanting a change. But then the PPC gets the information about the changes might be and peers are in the dark as to what those consequences would be as we make our decision.
Now that makes sense.
Now that makes sense.
14:28
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, with the great respect the noble Lord, you're not making a decision now, correct? You. You have responded to a consultation and you were able to put a text, a it wasn't just text, but a tick box. You were able to to write more than that. Nevertheless, I take the point the noble Lord makes. And it's certainly my earnest hope that the decision made, the views, the, the, the issues looked at by the PPC and subsequently the House will be as well informed as possible. And I think one thing which is encouraging is we've had 360 responses as of yesterday, and that is a huge improvement on the situation.
The last time this matter was considered.
The last time this matter was considered.
14:29
14:29
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My Lords, regarding Baroness Lang raised a couple of particularly pertinent points. I can say that there will be a breakdown of responses regarding claimed expenses and overnight expenses, so it won't be specifically on the address, but it will be on those two factors that will be part of the analysis as presented to the PPC. And there will also be an analysis on the on how often the respondent actually sits in the house. So that will be part of the analysis as well. So it won't it won't identify individuals. But for example, if a, if a a member sits, say, ten days in a session, then that will be identified within a the data presented to the PPC.
So I hope that addresses the point. She. Yes, she. She makes the noble lady, Lady Lawler. Spoke about compromises and trade offs for sitting patterns. Well, I mean, here we are making the consultation on exactly that. It's a. I mean, I don't know whether she was sitting in oral questions earlier today, but there was a noble Lord behind me who was saying this. These changes are far too modest. Nevertheless, that was on the table right now. And so and I think that's the basis which which we're making this consultation. Lord Jameson said it's a modest change, but he questioned whether it would affect the quality of legislation.
Again, this will, if if appropriate, the PPC would would have a trial period for six months or a year or something like that, or to see whether it's any any changes should should be kept to. Baroness mayor asked, what's the problem we're trying to solve? I think the answer to that is we all want to do a good job, and I see my role. My primary role is making the House of Lords do the best job it possibly can. I've been defending the House of Lords for for many, many years, and I don't defend it on the grounds of who we are.
I defend it on the grounds of what we do, and we need to maintain the quality of what we do, both in the scrutiny of public law, but also all the select committees and that. And that is the essential reason for the existence of this chamber , and maintaining that quality must be uppermost in in anyone's considerations. So I missed anybody out. I'm not sure. But nevertheless, my Lords, I think this has been an interesting debate.
As I said, it will be taken. Account of by the PPC, and I beg to move.
So I hope that addresses the point. She. Yes, she. She makes the noble lady, Lady Lawler. Spoke about compromises and trade offs for sitting patterns. Well, I mean, here we are making the consultation on exactly that. It's a. I mean, I don't know whether she was sitting in oral questions earlier today, but there was a noble Lord behind me who was saying this. These changes are far too modest. Nevertheless, that was on the table right now. And so and I think that's the basis which which we're making this consultation. Lord Jameson said it's a modest change, but he questioned whether it would affect the quality of legislation.
Again, this will, if if appropriate, the PPC would would have a trial period for six months or a year or something like that, or to see whether it's any any changes should should be kept to. Baroness mayor asked, what's the problem we're trying to solve? I think the answer to that is we all want to do a good job, and I see my role. My primary role is making the House of Lords do the best job it possibly can. I've been defending the House of Lords for for many, many years, and I don't defend it on the grounds of who we are.
I defend it on the grounds of what we do, and we need to maintain the quality of what we do, both in the scrutiny of public law, but also all the select committees and that. And that is the essential reason for the existence of this chamber , and maintaining that quality must be uppermost in in anyone's considerations. So I missed anybody out. I'm not sure. But nevertheless, my Lords, I think this has been an interesting debate.
As I said, it will be taken. Account of by the PPC, and I beg to move.
14:32