Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. Seeing the reference to “remote access” in one of them, I thought it not inappropriate to draw the House’s attention to the tremendous changes there have been in recent years. I first became a Member of the House of Commons 45 years ago. Since then it has changed immensely, largely because of the electronic advances that there have been. The amount of contact with constituents that Members of Parliament now have through emails and so on is one thing. You can also watch Parliament any time you want on the parliamentary television channel. This started with your Lordships’ House, and broadcasting from the Commons followed. There have been tremendous advances and there is no doubt at all in my mind that these have not stopped but will go on in ways that we cannot envisage—any more than we could have envisaged 45 years ago that things would be as far advanced as they are now. So we are not just starting this process; we are hugely advanced along it. It will speed up, in all probability, and of course the sponsor body must take account of it as it goes about its work on this building.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, and their focus on public engagement and awareness. Amendment 1 creates a duty on the sponsor body to promote public understanding of restoration and renewal, while Amendment 2 introduces a need for the sponsor body to ensure the works facilitate engagement and a participatory democracy. Amendment 5 ensures that the sponsor body carries out its duties with the views of Members, staff and the public at the front of its mind. We also welcome Amendments 3 and 4, which strengthen the reference to the parliamentary building works in regard to ensuring the safety and security of staff and the public, as well as to educational facilities.

At the start of the Bill’s passage, one of the main areas on which we sought government reassurance was engagement with the public, as well as with staff and Members in both Chambers. The Joint Committee recommended that the sponsor body should,

“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”,

and we are pleased that the Government now fully accept this. Engagement must be at the heart of the programme of restoration and renewal, as this Palace, as well as the democratic processes and structures it represents, can often feel very distant to many people across the country. It is vital that there is a strong relationship between the sponsor body and the public, so that they have confidence in the programme throughout the process. These amendments help to alleviate our concerns and ensure that restoration and renewal becomes about far more than the necessary bricks and mortar, rewiring and replacement, and sewerage and stairways. They also allow us to change the way Parliament looks and feels, both inside and out.

Like other noble Lords, we read with great interest the results of the 2019 Members survey on R&R, confirming the themes and issues raised during the passage of this Bill in both Houses on accessibility, remote and digital integration, and safety, security and protection. The first survey showed just how vital regular communication, consultation and engagement are now and will be as the programme progresses to its successful completion. In particular, this is a working building for more than 8,000 members of staff, and the omissions in the original Bill on the importance of seeking their views about the works have now been rectified. Amendment 5 is a welcome step forward in helping improve their working conditions throughout restoration and renewal, and this must be an aim for the sponsor body.

In closing, I of course pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his tireless work on these issues throughout the Bill’s passage, and to the Government for their willingness to discuss and address our concerns and arrive at the good place to which the Minister referred.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, everyone who considers this Bill ought to first read the book the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to, Mr Barry’s War. It describes vividly the difficulties that Barry and Pugin had over the decades of building this Palace—it turned out to take decades, but it was not supposed to. The basic problem was that too many people had, or thought they had, a right to be in charge or be consulted as the rebuilding went on. This included the two Houses of Parliament that would occupy it; the Government who had to find the money; the monarchy, as it is a royal palace; the wider public; and numerous people from newspapers and so on, who wished to comment on it. At any given time, the individuals in these different elements did not agree among themselves and had different views. Also, these were not static institutions and did not have a single opinion on what should be done over the decades that followed. Members of Parliament changed, Ministers changed, and minds changed. All these factors are with us still and will be with us as this great project goes on. What the sponsor body is rightly designed to do is provide a single client to try to blend these opinions and put in a structured process for decision-making, approval by Parliament and the actual implementation.

Unlike in Barry’s day, we have agreed to decant—at least, I think we have. Clause 1(3) says:

“If either House of Parliament is located somewhere other than the Palace of Westminster”.


The use of the word “if” suggests some doubt. I hope and believe that there is no doubt in the minds of anyone, except perhaps parliamentary counsel, that it is essential to decant. Throughout the whole thing, the rule should be to make firm decisions after due consideration and not go back over them time and again. For example, I have argued before against the Lords going to the QEII centre and in favour of a temporary building in Victoria Tower Gardens, but the sponsor body and delivery authority must be allowed to make decisions on this, get approval from Parliament once they have done so, and then carry the responsibility. That is the purpose of the provisions of Clause 7 and the agreement provided for in Clause 6, which allow Parliament to have a say at these crucial stages. However, we must not constantly look over their shoulders or jog their elbows, but allow them to get on with it, unlike poor Barry.

Everyone realises that it will be very difficult to control expenditure during this process. I sit on your Lordships’ Finance Committee, and we frequently see the problems inherent in controlling expenditure on such projects. Currently, the two most high-profile projects are the Westminster Hall roof and the Elizabeth Tower, both large projects on iconic parts of the Palace. Their scaffolding alone is a work of art, though fortunately not yet regarded as a heritage asset to be preserved for a long time. The Westminster Hall project is running far above the original budget because, as the work proceeds, new factors have emerged which were not anticipated. Unexpected asbestos has been found in the roofs of both Westminster Hall and the Elizabeth Tower. Extra work is needed to restore stonework, woodwork, metalwork and so on. The costs rise all the time, almost inevitably. It seems to me and my colleagues on the Finance Committee that the old military maxim “time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted” is important in this context. That has been attributed to military men all the way back to Sun Tzu, two and half millennia ago, and even he was quoting, apparently. It is important that the preliminary work is extremely detailed and thorough, with time being taken before decisions are made.

Having done the research and planning, decisions must be made and approval sought, after which Parliament, the sponsor body and everybody else concerned will need to be resolute and firm. They will be beset throughout by people wanting to spend less, saying that it is a waste of money, and by people wanting expensive variations on whatever has been decided. Archaeologists and historians have been much mentioned already, particularly in the wise speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who said some very important things. I am glad that the former chief executive of English Heritage, Simon Thurley, is one of the sponsor board members. I see his role in two halves. He obviously must look out for the heritage aspects of the building and its contents, but also do his best to ensure that heritage pressures from outside are focused and contained, otherwise they will endlessly delay the project and vastly increase the cost.

When I first came to this building, the best part of half a century ago, a lot of Pugin’s work was out of fashion, and a lot of ceiling and wall decorations were whitewashed. It was Sir Robert Cooke, the Member of Parliament for Bristol West, who some will remember, plugging away for years during and after his time as a Member of Parliament, who ensured that Pugin’s work was put back in the way we now see it. The members of the bodies that this Bill set up, and all the staff involved, have a high responsibility for one of our great national assets. We must allow them to do their work, following the procedures set out in the Bill, but without having to look unduly over their shoulders. I do not expect to be here when we move out of the building—let alone when we move back—because it will take some time, but I wish them well, and I wish the Bill well.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who served on the Joint Committee, which has done us such a great service in preparing us for the debate. I am also delighted that in another place they voted, at last, to press ahead with the restoration and renewal of this special building. I have long been convinced that we need to do so, particularly having visited the basement and seen the mechanical services and so on. The point has already been made that the basement and the risers contain the real problems. That is what has to be sorted out, and it is all one building. That is why a full decant will ensure that the work is done as quickly and economically as possible.

Those who still hanker after a partial decant should read Caroline Shenton’s excellent book Mr Barry’s War, which has already been referred to, about the building of the present Palace after the fire of 1834. It took 25 years longer than forecast and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it cost vastly more than predicted. That was partly because both the Lords and the Commons insisted on going on meeting on this site in various patched-up bits of the old Palace that were left by the fire or could be reconstructed during the building work. By the way, they constantly complained throughout these years about the conditions under which they were having to meet. Yet it is that that a partial decant would provide for us. Her book also shows the key importance of having a sponsor board and a delivery authority, as the Motion sets out and which I fully support. The other part of the problem was that they were trying to work for so many different clients—the Government, the House of Lords, the House of Commons and the individual Members of those two Houses and the various people they brought in to advise and make suggestions over the period of a quarter of a century during which they all changed, changed their minds and changed the specifications.

These days, the complications of doing the work are greater because the actual Palace of Westminster, which we are talking about, is only part of the Parliamentary Estate. There is Portcullis House and the other buildings used by the Commons, and we, of course, use Fielden House, Millbank House and Old Palace Yard, as well as other buildings for some of our staff. Decanting, in any case, is far more than just reproducing the two Chambers somewhere else, as it is sometimes expressed as. There are 32 Committee Rooms in this building for Members’ use, yet as we know it is sometimes difficult to book one at peak times. Then there are the Libraries, the refreshment rooms and the offices of Members and staff of both Houses. There are places such as the Public Bill Office and the Printed Paper Office, which need to be convenient for the two Chambers. If one or both Houses were to remain on this site, those needs would also have to be met somewhere on this site, which would of course be a large building site.

Another thing that flows from the fact that the Palace of Westminster is only part of the Parliamentary Estate is that when we decant it will be very important that the alternative accommodation for both Houses is within reach. The Motion before us, like the Commons Motion, endorses a full decant but does not bind the sponsor board and delivery authority to specific alternative venues for either House. Like others, I dislike the suggestion that the Lords might go to the QEII Centre, which was built for very different purposes. More importantly, the QEII is too far away, in my view, from Millbank House, Fielden House and so on. We will need to continue using those—probably even more than we do at present. No doubt we could somehow devise a method for Peers to register a vote in Millbank House instead of having to cross the traffic to get to the QEII, but it would not be convenient, in any case, to have committees in one or the other, with staff having to trek across. It would also separate us further from the House of Commons, which is very undesirable—I agree with others who have made that point.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Naseby that the QEII is an important resource for London as it is at present. It generates valuable business tourism and international trade and has a catalytic role in attracting events to London. I understand that 600 events were held there last year, involving more than 250,000 visitors. Particularly with Earls Court closed, London cannot afford to lose this facility. Like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I suggest that the solution for the House of Lords is a large temporary building, three or four storeys high, in Victoria Tower Gardens. Large temporary buildings are used these days by hospitals, including operating theatres, with all their special needs. They are used by schools, commercial premises and so on. Such a building could readily be made secure and would be convenient for Millbank House and so on. By the way, after it was finished with it could be sold: there is a market for second-hand temporary buildings. I have made this suggestion before and it has been dismissed because part of the gardens, it is said, would be required as a contractors’ yard for R&R, but fortunately there is considerable room.

Some colleagues seem to worry about the effects on the prestige of your Lordships’ House of meeting elsewhere. We would certainly look less impressive if as a result of some failure downstairs we had to exchange these red Benches for stacking chairs, as in the pictures of the potential evacuation chamber that was tried out by Black Rod before Christmas. Personally, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and some others, given the timescale and having myself now reached fourscore years, I do not expect to be still involved—certainly not by the time we come back—but I think that the high quality of your Lordships’ debates and reports will shine through to the public more clearly when not refracted through all this magnificent heraldry and gilt. That, if it happens, would be a bonus.

House of Lords: Domestic Committees

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to contribute to this discussion on the very interesting report of my noble friend Lady Shephard and her colleagues. I have been involved in various capacities in the governance of your Lordships’ House, and I was previously in another place for some years. I am currently a Back-Bench member of the House Committee, but for some years I was the opposition human resources manager, known for historical reasons as the Chief Whip. I was therefore at the centre of the great jigsaw puzzle of who does what, although I hasten to add that I was by no means the only player in that puzzle. I found that, broadly speaking, subject Select Committees attracted plenty of volunteers, but the administrative committees did not, with the notable exception of the Works of Art Committee.

The fact is that few of us take a sustained interest in organisational aspects of the House. There are important exceptions to this, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who spoke so well. Most Members of your Lordships’ House have a lifelong interest and great experience in various policy matters, such as medicine, education, economics or the law. They are only intermittently interested in the administration of the House—and usually, as my noble friend Lord Fowler pointed out, when something goes wrong, or is thought to have done. This tendency of your Lordships’ House is of course strengthened by the efficiency of the clerks, those who serve us so well in Black Rod’s Department and so on. Things generally run smoothly so your Lordships do not need to take an interest.

So what about the changes proposed in the report? With regard to the House Committee, there is not really much change on paper. The proposal is that the House Committee should be replaced by a new senior committee, with little if any change proposed in the remit. The new committee is supposed to develop, set and approve on behalf of the House the strategic plan and annual business and financial plans of the administration, working with the management board of House officials, and then monitor performance. The present terms of reference for the House Committee, as fully advertised, are:

“To set the policy framework for the administration of the House and to provide non-executive guidance to the Management Board; to approve the House’s strategic, business and financial plans; to agree the annual Estimates and Supplementary Estimates; to supervise the arrangements relating to financial support for Members; and to approve the House of Lords Annual Report”.

That is of course what we do. The only extra element of our current explicit terms of reference that is not so far part of the new committee is the reference to the supervision of the financial support for Members, but I am in no doubt that that will come within the remit of the new committee.

Some changes are proposed to the composition of the senior committee compared with the present House Committee: first, that the new services committee and finance committee chairs should be members of the senior committee, which I thoroughly support, but also that there would be two fewer Back-Bench representatives and instead two outside members, described as non-executive, although as a matter of fact those words describe us just as much as they would describe someone from outside. The idea is obviously to bring in individuals with suitable expertise, particularly where administration rather than anything else will be their specialist subject, and I support that.

The new factor is the proposed junior finance committee—below the senior policy and resources committee or whatever it turns out to be called—to do some groundwork, some detailed financial and technical scrutiny, on behalf of the senior committee. The terms of reference for that committee will presumably be very similar to those of the senior committee, except making it clear that it is junior to the senior committee. I worry that this will bring in duplication, which in other respects is what we are trying to get rid of. When the senior committee agrees with the junior committee, all will be well, but when the two disagree then the House itself will have to adjudicate, which might involve considerable delay.

I am also concerned about the proposal in paragraph 86,

“to align the work of the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee”.

I trained and worked as an auditor and consider that those functions should essentially be independent, not “aligned”, whatever that means, with the finance committee itself. I certainly do not think that the chair of the Audit Committee should only be a member of the junior committee; she—or, at some time, maybe he—should of course be a member of the senior committee.

The other new committee, the services committee, will combine the duties presently undertaken by the three committees. Like others in this debate, I am concerned about the width of those responsibilities on those members and that chairman. It will of course reduce by two-thirds the number of Back-Bench Members serving in these various capacities and so reduce the problem of finding enough committed Members to do the job, but the remit will be very wide, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out just now. Of course, it neatly avoids any boundary confusion between the three committees, which has been part of the difficulties of defining who is responsible for what, and gets round the printer’s ink problem. However, it leaves the problem of defining the difference of remit between the senior committee and the junior committees. What is strategic? So the decisions to be made about the precise remit of these two new committees, including the services committee, will not be very easily made. In any case, neither I nor, I think, the committee or the House believe that these adjustments to the committee structure and senior posts will of themselves make much difference to the reporting procedures or methods of working. They also need to be modified.

There is concern that those of us who currently serve on these committees do not report enough to our colleagues. Perhaps more proposals for change which are thought necessary could be brought to the Floor of the House before being instigated. However, I must warn the House that there is limited appetite for that among Members who want to raise other topics. I notice that the future business currently shows 65 Back-Bench Motions awaiting debate. Only one of those is about administration; the others are all about different aspects of policy.

Perhaps we members of the House Committee and other committees do not advertise our services as a channel of complaints enough. However, in my experience, Members who wish to complain about something that has gone wrong find their way to us quite often, and obviously we take up the points that are made. I add that I have only occasionally reported to the Association of Conservative Peers in my capacity as a member of the House Committee or in that sort of capacity, but I have also rarely observed an appetite for administrative matters to be raised in that forum either. In practice, of course, concerns are usually raised in the weekly session of the Association of Conservative Peers with the Chief Whip, as my noble friend Lady Shephard will recall from her time as the excellent chairman of the ACP. Not the least achievement of the Leader’s Group she chaired was to have brought out the views of Members about governance which are not normally expressed and have not been over the years. This report has given us a useful opportunity to reflect on how this rather special place works, and we can and should go ahead with its proposed changes.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, those of your Lordships who have been Members of this House for a few years may remember that I was the Opposition Chief Whip for some years during Mr Blair’s Government. That Labour Government did not have a majority in this House and nor did we. Sometimes, when we had support from other parts of the House, we could and did use the Lords’ full powers, as has already been referred to on various occasions, but we did so sparingly. I am grateful for that word, which was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as the correct way to refer to our use of those powers—and, for that matter, other parties’ use of them. That was of course because we respected the role of the elected House and recognised our unelected status here, but also because we did not wish to build up the case for the abolition of the House; in passing, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in what he just said, but he will not be surprised by that at all. Both those considerations are still entirely valid.

Rightly or wrongly, the whole issue of statutory instruments and their use—it goes far wider than my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s report—has now been put on the table. That is as a result of the ingenuity of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Meacher. My noble friend’s report is the best course immediately in dealing with the situation that has arisen. I am in favour of option 3, but it needs a little further thought before we implement it. Of course it is right that this House should not be in a position to entirely overrule the elected Chamber. At the same time, we should place secondary legislation on a basis more nearly the same as that of primary legislation. If my noble friend’s proposal has logic, it implies—it does not actually say it—that affirmative instruments should always be debated first by the House of Commons and secondarily by this House. That is usually but not always the case, and it would need to be.

Another aspect has drawn a lot of attention in this debate: when there is to be a second Commons consideration, it should always include an opportunity for debate. That is easy to say, but we should recognise that it involves alterations to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and is not within our gift. However, it should be part of what you might call the deal. The opportunity for debate is more important, and actually a better approach, than the idea of a particular time lapsing after a defeat in this Chamber.

As I said, this debate has gone a lot wider than just the immediate considerations that my noble friend dealt with. The table in appendix C of his report suggests that the number of statutory instruments has remained broadly static since 1997, but a longer view shows that they have considerably increased in both number and importance over the years—certainly in the time that I have been in one or other House. Particularly after the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I subscribe to the view that the number of statutory instruments has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. I am also a supporter of the Hansard Society’s call in its note on the Strathclyde proposals that there should be a new and wider review on the preparation of legislation, on the lines of the excellent 1975 report by my late friend Lord Renton. It is regrettable that David Renton’s report was only partially implemented at that time, and of course it went a lot wider than this issue. It called for an overall look at the process of drafting legislation in the first place, and therefore what goes into a statutory instrument, for example, and the way in which legislation is debated once it gets into the two Houses of Parliament.

I also support the suggestion in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s report that further thought needs to be given to the precise definition and effect of Commons financial privilege. We are all aware of the general idea, and of some of the ways in which it impinges on primary legislation, but it needs further thought as to how it should work in respect of secondary legislation.

English Votes for English Laws

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, until this week, we had a statement of principle from the Scottish National Party that its Members would not vote on or be involved in purely English or English and Welsh matters. That was effectively, in practice, English votes for English laws. I suppose that it might, in time, have become an accepted constitutional convention, as these things sometimes do in Britain. However, the SNP has abandoned that principle, as we know, and that makes other action necessary.

Polls for the McKay commission and others showed overwhelming support for English votes for English laws in principle. Most recently, Populus polled 10,000 people over the age of 50 for Saga plc on Scotland’s position in the UK. Of those polled in England, 75% supported the principle that English-only laws should be decided by English MPs—the principle that the SNP has now ditched.

The West Lothian question has, as we have heard this afternoon, been avoided, evaded and kicked about for far too many years. Of course we need to debate it, as has been said by all who spoke this afternoon, and a Joint Committee is certainly a good way to do that. However, we need to move and be seen to be moving towards a decision. The English need it to happen.

House of Lords

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the thought behind this Motion so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will have wide support in your Lordships’ House. Most if not all of us regret the consequences of the great increase in the number of active Members of the House. Those consequences of course include: time limits on speeches that curtail debate, making it much more difficult to have a proper debate across the House; the competitive nature of Oral Questions; the pressure on facilities, particularly on days when the House is very full; and, perhaps less obviously but definitely, the weakening through overload of the House’s long-appreciated ability to absorb some of the more rebellious Members of another place into its culture of reasoned debate rather than point-scoring, and of cross-party respect, friendship and so on. I think that we all agree that the House cannot go on growing as it has been doing.

I spoke of the number of active Members having increased. Others have made this point. Of course, there were far more Members when I first came to your Lordships’ House before the 1999 reforms. However, many of them were far less active. There are various reasons for that but it is partly because the nature of a peerage and hence of this House has changed progressively over the past few decades. Being “raised to the peerage” is, we all recognise, both an honour and a job. The job is as a legislator, watching and guiding the Government. The job element has become much more emphasised. These days, most new Peers selected for membership of the House either by the main political parties or by the Appointments Commission, as was suggested just now, are grilled—that is not too sharp a word—as to whether they will be able to play a full part if they are appointed. That is from the point of view of both their expertise and also how much time they will have available and so on. Therefore, most arrive here having assured those who helped to select them that they can and will work hard at the job. They duly do so when they get here, working much harder than many Peers did in years gone by. So we have these difficulties flowing from the larger numbers and greater activity of Members. The problem is how we get to a substantially smaller figure.

Of the various solutions, I am not attracted to term limits or age limits. We have daily examples here of how either would weaken the House by the removal of experienced Members. We can all think of examples from all parties. The first suggestion usually made when this comes up is that fewer Members should be appointed—“Pull up the ladder”, as it were, and, “We have enough”. However, can that potential solution—in the form of a moratorium as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just now—survive when the coming general election seems likely to produce such a different result in detail and maybe overall from that in the past? After all, this House will have to reflect at least to some degree the new political situation that will result from the general election. In any case, the House needs new Members. Many new Members make a valuable contribution. Each of us would judge slightly differently who makes the best contribution and who is less satisfactory, but we need new blood—as has already been said.

We come to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. His starting point was the necessity or desirability of finding a solution which could be implemented by this House without the necessity for statute. I must say that I agree with that element. If we can find a solution that this House can implement, that is desirable. Part of the answer may indeed be, as others have suggested, modifications to our ways of doing things, but I do not think that the full answer will lie there, although improvements may be made.

A key element of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is, after all, that once the proportions have been decided by his method or some variation of it, Members would voluntarily go along with it: that those who were, as it were, required to resign or take leave of absence would indeed do so. I am not sure what would happen to those who resisted the blandishments to retire or to stop coming and insisted on coming. The writ would apply and they would presumably still be able to come. I do not think that this House would be able to stop them from answering the writ if they insisted on doing so, although their colleagues did not wish it as a result of the arrangements made.

Of course, the House prides itself on its self-discipline and self-regulation. After all, we can already volunteer to leave the House. We have had the announcement today of Lord Jenkin of Roding taking retirement under the new arrangements. Lord Grenfell did so a few months ago. I do not think that many of us would have thought that either of them had come to the end of their useful contribution to your Lordships’ House, but they clearly felt so. I hope that each of us will realise when it is time for us to retire. The time will come for each of us. Of course, the grim reaper may arrive before we have come to that conclusion, or before we should have come to that conclusion, but we are getting older. This way to reduce the number by voluntary retirement is beginning to have effect. A dozen Peers have so far resigned under the various arrangements available, and another 50 or so have taken leave of absence. Without them, the situation would be considerably worse. We should not ignore that in considering the way forward.

If legislation is available, the solution put forward by my noble friend Lord Jopling some years ago and repeated by him very clearly today is the best way forward. It would require legislation and it would require a slight delay of the House before State Opening; but, particularly when there is a change of government at a general election, the speed with which the whole machine is supposed to turn around and point in another direction—I speak of government as well as of Parliament—is hasty by comparison with other countries. To take the American example, the election takes place in November but the new President does not take office until well into the new year. That is much more common in other places.

My noble friend’s solution draws on the immediate precedent of the cull of hereditary Peers in 1999 and the longer-term precedent of the removal of the Irish Representative Peers which took place in 1920. From the point of view of the House, the system used in 1999 worked well. We finished up with 90 elected Members, whom I think were the best, broadly speaking. Of course, they were topped up by a number of hereditary Peers who were given life peerages, so the number in the end was more than 90. The system of selection worked well because Members were selected by the different party groups, for the most part, but also because we know those who make the most effective contribution. That was a good thing to do. However, I entirely acknowledge, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that it was very unpleasant at the time—particularly so for those involved, the hereditary Peers, as opposed to life Peers such as me.

The advantage of my noble friend Lord Jopling’s solution is that the House would reflect the most recent election result and that the choice of whether existing Members remained in the House would lie with the other Members of the party. It would reflect the voting of the nation while continuing some of the essential and desirable characteristics of your Lordships’ House at present.

All those suggestions need further consideration and further detail to be worked out, so I very much support what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said about referring the matter to the Procedure Committee with an options paper. Clearly, the options should include the proposals put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, this afternoon. Time is of the essence. If it can be done without legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, the House should do its best to do that and implement it to show that the self-discipline of the House extends even to this major consideration of the future of the House, because it is necessary to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House.

Leader of the House of Lords

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I think the House would not thank me for entering into that particular argument at this stage of the evening. I simply ask: where was the corporate memory in all of this? The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, described the change in the role of Lord Chancellor as an object lesson in how not to make changes. I think that it has a rival in this current situation. Perhaps I could just say a word about the change of the role of Lord Chancellor because I was a beneficiary of it in one sense, as I then had the honour of representing this House as the first Lord Speaker.

I have two things to say. First, the Government of the day were stopped in their tracks. I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lang. They took a long time to work out that policy properly; it was not implemented immediately because it was seen to be wrong. I believe that we are in the same situation now and we should stop. Secondly, constructive suggestions have been put forward on how this could be corrected. It needs to be corrected because it matters not only that the Prime Minister has his personal opinion—I am sure that he is honest in describing his respect for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—but that the Leader of the House has clout with fellow members of Cabinet matters. The Leader of the House should be someone who not only attends but is a member of Cabinet.

I shall say one last thing about those arguments about the change in the position of Lord Chancellor. There were passionate debates, often because there would be a reduction in the representation of this House at Cabinet level to possibly only one. That was considered to be a serious issue but no one, not the most outspoken opponent of those changes, ever suggested that it would be possible that this House would be totally unrepresented at Cabinet level. Others have made the case why that would be. As someone who had a role, of which I was immensely proud, in representing a House that I believe is an essential part of our bicameral legislature, I think that to allow that to happen would be a constitutional outrage, as others have said, and something that we should take steps to change.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, as has been mentioned, I went with my noble friend Lord MacGregor to see the Prime Minister about all this last week. I went because, while I greatly welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Stowell and congratulate her on it, like others I was shocked by the decision on the status of our new Leader of the Lords and wanted to challenge that decision.

Our objective was, first, to ensure that the Prime Minister understood the outrage felt throughout your Lordships’ House and then to see what could be done about it. It was clear that he fully understood, at that time at least, the outrage. He explained that the decision on her status arose from the fact that the Leader of the Commons had not recently been a full member of the Cabinet, but as that is now my right honourable friend William Hague, who is also First Secretary of State, it was impossible to demote him. Further, he said that ministerial heads of department these days are all Secretaries of State—a fact to which I will return—so that all the available spaces allowed by the 1975 Act were taken up, as explained in the excellent report from the Constitution Committee.

We came away with two undertakings, which we asked him to put in writing and he did so, in the letter which has already been referred to. The first was that this was temporary. Secondly, he promised that in practice meanwhile it would make no difference, as my noble friend Lady Stowell will be treated exactly like her predecessor, although she is not officially of Cabinet rank. In my view, the Prime Minister saying—and then putting it in writing—that our Leader, although not a member of the Cabinet, is to be treated as if she was one itself marks a profound, if apparently temporary, change in our constitution. My noble friend is, by the Prime Minister’s fiat expressed in the letter, exempted from the restrictions which would normally apply to those who merely attend the Cabinet. In our flexible constitution, as chairman of the Cabinet, he can do that.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I attended Cabinet for a period. It was my noble friend Lady Thatcher’s Cabinet, while I was acting Chief Whip after the Brighton bomb. As Chief Whip my duty was to ensure that the Cabinet understood the views of MPs, particularly but not only the views of the Government’s supporters in the Commons, and to give advice on smoothing the Government’s path in Parliament. I was of course not there to contribute my personal views, which was for members of the Cabinet to do. Nor was I there to vote on the rare occasions when the voices were collected to make a decision. I assume that my right honourable friend Michael Gove will follow the same precedents in the current Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s decision and the terms of his letter will, I have no doubt, be studied in academic and other circles to gauge his idea of Cabinet government. I note that those now considered as essential members of the Cabinet are the Secretaries of State—the ministerial heads of the various departments. They are regarded as more essential than the Leaders of the two Houses of Parliament. That is a profound comment on the way in which our constitution and the attitude to Parliament have developed, particularly in a bicameral Parliament.

As far as I am concerned, it gives rise to two reflections. These days there are no heads of departments in the Lords, which used to be quite normal. For example, my noble friends Lord Young of Graffham, Lord Cockfield and Lord Carrington headed departments not long ago in the constitutional reckoning of time. In spite of all the huge numbers of appointments to the Lords, no one has recently been appointed to be head of a government department.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, perhaps I might point out to the noble Lord that we had two members of the Cabinet in the Lords: my noble friends Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis, both of whom headed departments.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

Yes, I said that the examples which I drew were recent, but I accept that the particular examples given were a little further away. I entirely accept that those are perfectly acceptable ones as well. It used to be quite a normal thing, but the fact that there is no head of department in the Lords at the moment is perhaps an indication of the view of the Lords held in other places.

My other reflection is that all heads of departments now seem to be Secretaries of State and, as a result, are covered by Schedule 1 to the 1975 Act. Of course, that was not always so in days gone by. I have heard it justified by the fact that, because of the wording of many statutes, Secretaries of State alone can issue statutory instruments. So the proliferation of Secretaries of State flows from the proliferation of statutory instruments in Bills and Acts. I have complained before in your Lordships’ House about legislative drafting habits and the difficulties that this particular practice gives rise to, but that is a side reflection.

For these constitutional reasons, I regard this decision as most unfortunate. I believe that it has already changed the constitution temporarily by allowing my noble friend the Leader of the House the full status of a Cabinet Minister even though she does not hold the rank. I hope, as the Prime Minister does, that it will prove temporary and certainly that it will not be a precedent.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved on Wednesday 9 May by

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cope of Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

It is a special privilege, my Lords, to be invited to move this Motion for the humble Address in Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee year. Her Majesty’s attendance here today in person illustrates her exemplary attention to duty, which is, I think, her greatest gift to our nation. Queen Victoria also lived to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee, but she opened Parliament only seven times in person in the 40 years after the death of Prince Albert. Her Majesty comes in person every time.

Her Majesty has, of course, the wonderful support of His Royal Highness Prince Philip—and it is his Diamond Jubilee, too, as consort. They have also set a fine example of how to move gradually with the times without losing the essential magic of the monarchy. Your Lordships’ House needs the same skill.

The nation is also looking forward to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, on which so many hopes are pinned and on which two of our gold-medallist colleagues —my noble friends Lord Coe and Lord Moynihan—are working so hard.

Mid-term often brings problems to Governments, and Her Majesty’s Government are in choppy waters, just as others have been before. Coalition brings inevitable strains too, but my experience of 25 years on the Front Bench, in both Houses and on both sides, suggests that they are similar to the strains within parties and within Governments. In this House as in the other place, the relationships at the top remain good within the coalition. My ever-buoyant noble friend Lord Strathclyde remains resilient and full of energy. Our gallant allies, without whom of course life would be much more difficult for us, are led my noble friend Lord McNally, who seems comfortable in coalition with almost the only party he has not belonged to, and who continues to amuse us with his wit and humour. Our Chief Whip is always smart in every sense, if not quite as resplendent as her male predecessors as Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms on days like this.

Perhaps I may also pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland, until now the Deputy Chief Whip. I can confirm from experience that he has long been a reliable member of the usual channels, the smooth functioning of which is so important to your Lordships’ House. At the same time, however, I cannot fault his retirement from the Front Bench at the age of 70, as I did the same thing at the same age five years ago. His genial Yorkshire approach will be missed.

Opposite us, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, leads for the Opposition with all her charm and cool authority. We on this side are divided from her by politics but we know that she always has the interests of the House and its proper functioning high in her priorities. Blaisdon and Berkeley are divided by the mighty River Severn, which is a mile wide in drought or flood—or both, as now—but they are both in Gloucestershire.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when he was a departmental Minister, sorted out the football hooligans most effectively. Whether that experience is useful to him in his present job, I have absolutely no idea.

The gracious Speech made clear that we can look forward to a full legislative programme, and the central themes of growth and jobs are right. I was glad to hear the repeated commitment to reducing the burdens on business. Some of that, of course, will be employment legislation, which may seem unexciting to some, and threatening to others, but the creation of new jobs has to be a priority.

The Government finances remain stretched—and I speak as an accountant, although admittedly a rusty one. We are in difficult economic times. Looking across to the eurozone, I am delighted whenever I hear that farsighted companies are looking to China, India, America—north and south—and the Commonwealth. We have long had trading relationships all round the globe and we need to build on them now, as Ministers remind us. We are promised necessary legislation on banking following the Vickers report and on the green investment bank, which is also welcome.

As usual, the Home Office has a batch of Bills—it is a serial legislator, a recidivist, one might say. The creation of the new National Crime Agency and the other measures go to the heart of people’s concerns, but nothing is more important than the protection of our citizens from terrorism. The security and intelligence services are crucial to that. The new legislation is intended again to strike the balance which allows them to be effective while not trespassing on the liberty of the subject. There is great experience of those matters around your Lordships’ House.

A notable feature of the legislative programme is the number and importance of Bills carried over from the previous Session. In particular, the new timetable for the Session overlaps awkwardly with the annual financial cycle. This year’s Finance Bill has been carried over, but that is for the Commons. Also carried over are the Civil Aviation Bill, the Financial Services Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. The number of Bills which Parliament has seen in draft is also an interesting feature. Pre-legislative scrutiny is welcome all round. It enables Parliament to focus on the practical effect of proposals and to appreciate and draw attention to the unintended consequences rather than just the headline reasons for legislating.

Among the draft Bills which have been considered is one on individual electoral registration. That is of high importance given the very low turnout in recent elections. It concerns all of us that politics and politicians are held in such low esteem. The turnout at the local elections last week of below one-third should concern us all, even if some find other aspects of the results pleasing.

Your Lordships will have noted the slightly opaque reference in the gracious Speech to the future of your Lordships’ House, in which we all have an interest. No doubt the exact words were carefully dissected and weighed in advance. They fall short of a commitment to press forward with the draft Bill of the last Session. That is no surprise given the report of the Joint Committee, the alternative report and our debate on them both last week. No doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House will expand in the course of our debate in subsequent days on the meaning of that passage of the gracious Speech.

In any case, we in this House need to remember that we will not have the last word. If the Commons takes the advice of the Joint Committee, there will be a referendum. The electorate will be asked whether the problem with the governance of Britain is a shortage of politicians, or whether it is a surfeit of expertise. Our approach to Lords reform and to other measures in the gracious Speech in the coming year will affect the way that the argument about the House’s future goes. We will strengthen or damage our reputation for civilised, erudite, principled and practical debate.

Clearly, the House needs some reform. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood and others have shown the way, and the House has already accepted some of the propositions which affect composition. However, the bigger questions remain. Should we have a largely elected Senate in the interests of democratic accountability, and will a fixed 15-year term give sufficient accountability? I speak as one who has been in this House for 14 and three-quarter years. Will the Commons accept the dilution of their authority, and have the Executive realised the effect on their ability to govern?

Others may, as I say, have the last word, but I have no doubt that noble Lords will explain in the debate the pros and cons of those proposals—probably mainly the cons—and some may even say something novel on the subject. My party’s election manifesto promised to seek a consensus on these matters. I have to say that, at present, I do not think that there is even a consensus about how to measure a consensus. This House constantly changes in smaller ways, but not always easily. Some of us remember the painful atmosphere in 1999—or, at the other end of the scale, the debate about the Lord Chancellor’s trousers. Interestingly, we have now become completely used to the Lord Speaker’s skirt without even debating it.

Finally, I must return to the Motion itself. The debate will range widely on the contents of the gracious Speech and the Government’s legislative programme, which is inevitably controversial. However, the Motion in its literal sense will, I think, have universal acceptance in your Lordships’ House as an expression of gratitude to Her Majesty for her part in today’s ceremonial and for all that she does and has done for the last 60 years —leading the country with her example of duty, self-restraint and honour. I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.