EU Council

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The reason we have spent so much time negotiating this deal, which is a good deal, is that we want to ensure that we have a strong relationship with the EU going forward. We are all cognisant of the problems of uncertainty; for instance, that is why we have agreed an implementation period to help ensure that there is not a cliff edge. We are cognisant of the concerns the noble Lord outlined, which is exactly why the Prime Minister has been spending so much time negotiating a deal that is in the good interests of the UK and the EU.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that it would be wrong in principle to embark on a second referendum when we have not yet completed delivery of the instruction from the electorate in the first referendum? But surely there is another reason, which is that it would be pointless to have a further referendum now because, far from people being better informed, the future relationship negotiations have not even started—and those are the ones that will most dramatically affect the future relationship between ourselves and the European Union.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I entirely agree with my noble friend, which is why we are working to make sure that the deal is approved by the House of Commons and we can move forward and, as he rightly says, get to the extremely important position of talking in detail about our future relationship with the EU—a strong, deep one, which we all want.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in this important debate. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by stating quite simply that I voted to remain for reasons that I still consider valid but with which I will not bore your Lordships this afternoon. As soon as the result of the referendum was declared, I took the view that the decision to leave had been taken and that we should all buckle down and get on with delivering it. That remains my view and it is what I rise up to support.

The Bill we are debating—at once both vital and utterly prosaic—simply starts the clock ticking and lets negotiations begin and, in due course, end. That is its purpose. However, it reaches us with huge momentum behind it. Three years ago the referendum Bill was passed in another place without a single opposing vote at either Second Reading or Third Reading. The referendum asked the United Kingdom electorate whether the United Kingdom should leave or stay in the EU—an important point that I make in passing. The result last June was close but clear cut and, though technically it was advisory, the outcome was reinforced beyond any doubt by the repeated commitment of the Government, both in their 2015 manifesto and throughout the campaign, to implement it. So the Bill before us—overwhelmingly approved at all stages in another place and unamended—should command our respect as well as our scrutiny.

I say that in spite of, not because of, the somewhat crude, ill informed and self-defeating remarks of a few people in other quarters on what our duty in this House should be. The sovereignty of Parliament is not confined to one Chamber.

The Constitution Committee called for the decision to trigger Article 50 to be debated and approved in Parliament. We are pleased that that is happening, albeit by a somewhat circuitous route, and I hope the Government will consider carefully the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about the approval that is to be sought at the end of negotiations.

We have called in the past for fast-tracking to be justified on the face of such a Bill. That has happened in this case and we welcome it. It is unusual for a Bill with constitutional implications to be fast-tracked, but this Bill’s significance and the political implications driving the timetable have been widely acknowledged. Its clarity and brevity make fast-tracking more palatable and, as long as this exceptional situation sets no precedent on constitutional issues, it should be acceptable to your Lordships.

We in the Constitution Committee sometimes complain on your Lordships’ behalf about long Bills inadequately scrutinised in another place, but that can hardly apply in this case. Indeed, the very brevity of the Bill underlines its singleness of purpose. That is its strength, which we should not seek to undermine. It is concerned simply with the timing of the negotiations—when they start and when they finish—and no more. It is not a skeleton Bill, it is not a Christmas tree Bill and it needs no adornment.

There seems to have been a tendency in recent months for us all to get ahead of ourselves, rushing our fences. Every time more information emerges, the demand comes for still more, ignoring the advances already made and all the debates, statements and committee work now under way, which my noble friend the Leader of the House illustrated in her speech. Of course the issues are many, complex and often interrelated, and as the binary decision of last June translates into a multitude of different issues, each having a separate decision-making process circling around it, we need to work between government and Parliament together to achieve the best Brexit we can.

We also need a little more cool, calm deliberation. That should reveal that a lot of things are beginning to fall into place. The Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech certainly carried things forward and the White Paper was full of information and undertakings that surely render many of the amendments now in contemplation unnecessary. The Lancaster House speech was transformative. It completely reset the dynamic for the forthcoming negotiations. Now, instead of seeming the anxious supplicant, desperately begging to hang on to so many features of that mighty European construct, she has cast us in a new light, determined to break free from that vortex of institutions, rules and regulations, and to come to the table as an unburdened applicant with much to offer in exchange for the new deal that we seek. That approach has already transformed the mindset of the other side and has perhaps begun to level the uneven playing field that we face.

Trade was mentioned with some degree of pessimism across the Floor of this House. As a former Trade Secretary—there are a few of us in this House; indeed, we are two a penny—my experience was that trade negotiations are usually driven by mutual self-interest, whether in a declining Europe or in a growing world of trade. That mutuality can certainly give us much more reason for optimism than has been expressed in some quarters today.

Now, with things beginning to move and clarity emerging, we should focus on the job in hand. Future debates and statements will be needed and will undoubtedly be plentiful, along with much primary legislation. The planned great repeal Bill—or great repeal and re-enactment Bill—especially will raise some uniquely difficult issues, about which the Constitution Committee is preparing a report at present that we hope will be a helpful contribution to the kind of co-operation between government and Parliament that will be needed.

Of more immediate concern, however, is our responsibility to fulfil both our parliamentary role and the declared will of the electorate and to get on with the job of approving this short, simple Bill, free from impediments that might slow its progress, so that the negotiations can begin.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this House has a vital role to play, but we must remember that the elected House has the final say, because it is the elected House. What we can do is add our voice and our expertise to ensure that opinions are reflected, and that we can improve legislation—but we are reliant on the House’s self-regulation and discipline to achieve that. As I said, I believe that we are constructive and we work well together—but if that breaks down, we will have to reflect on what that means.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, I am not at all averse to joining in universal congratulations where they are deserved, and I warmly congratulate my noble friend on her role in helping to bring a sensible conclusion to this matter. This House works best, in a bicameral parliamentary democracy, when each House understands and respects the powers, responsibilities and limitations of the other. I hope that as a result of this past confrontation, now resolved, there will be greater understanding in the future. The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of further consultation between the Houses may well offer an appropriate way forward.

As for secondary legislation, I assure your Lordships that your Constitution Committee has made this a long-running campaign for improvement. This is a besetting sin of successive Governments—it is by no means confined to the present Government—and I would suggest one way forward to my noble friend: if the Government would take a self-denying ordinance over ever inserting primary legislation into delegated secondary legislation, that would be a good start.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I do not want to give answers that diminish the enthusiasm we are showing today, but I shall not make promises I cannot keep. I add my thanks for the work of the Constitution Committee, both for its report on this review and for its wider work, which is extremely valuable and well respected.

Government and Parliament

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I begin by complimenting the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, not only on the timely arrangement of this debate, but on much that she said, with which I find myself in agreement. I believe that her specific suggestions, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which we have just heard, are worthy of further consideration. I hope that this debate will generate a large number of such suggestions that will be considered very carefully.

I propose a slightly more general approach in my remarks. They are triggered as a result of the unsettling mood that exists on constitutional matters at present following the words of the gracious Speech referring to the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons. Why did it say that? What does it mean by it? Others have wrestled with this and reached different conclusions. They are both familiar concepts, but each is utterly different from the other, so the juxtaposition is strange: they are not two sides of the same coin; they do not complement each other, nor does one qualify the other. The sovereignty of Parliament is a familiar and profoundly important core principle of our constitution. It is the basis of the rule of law and of the authority of all our lawmaking. But the Parliament to which it refers is not the House of Commons, but the bicameral Parliament of two quite deliberately and desirably different Chambers, each playing its distinctive part and complementing the other. So the concept of Parliament is thus indivisible. It embraces both Houses.

The primacy of the House of Commons is a fact, but it exists de facto rather than de jure. It is built on the existence of the Parliament Acts, the unelected nature of this House and on various established practices and procedures—perhaps not so strongly nowadays on conventions, because they were broken, or certainly badly damaged, last October. That in itself raises problems that have to be addressed. Primacy, however, is not something for the Commons to claim. It is for this House to acknowledge and to volunteer, as we always do. Our restraint, when we adhere to it, is a vital component of what makes the system work. The reason it has broken, or has been crumbling for some time, is partly the loss of restraint in respect of our normal way of behaving on various occasions, but more so—this is the burden of what I want to say, even though it has already been touched on extensively by others—because of the poor quality of the legislation that has been fed into the system in recent times.

The Constitution Committee, which I have the honour to chair—although I stress that my remarks are of a personal nature—has been reviewing the draft of its sessional report for the year 2015-16. It pains me to say that we have found a litany of bad lawmaking habits. The then Scotland Bill was probably the most egregious, for a whole complicated list of reasons from beginning to end that I will not bore the House by developing today, but it is a shaming indictment of how to make laws. I hope it is never repeated in any shape or form with any other legislation. But there is also the growing abuse of delegated legislation, as referred to by others. We reviewed too high a number of vaguely worded Bills that conferred broad and undefined delegated powers on Ministers, with few restrictions, to achieve legislative objectives.

It has been suggested that an effort is now in place in government to improve the preparation and internal consideration of new legislation before publication. I hope that it happens; we have yet to see it. But whatever happened to Green Papers and White Papers, to pre-legislative scrutiny? Instead we have had a diet of skeleton Bills, Christmas tree Bills, very urgent Bills and Henry VIII powers like a sauce added to everything, followed by a flood of slippery secondary legislation, often hoping to slip though policy changes. The trend is not new with this Government. It is true that the numbers are not very much greater than they have been at any time in the last 20 years, but what is different is that they are longer and have more substantive contents, including the trend towards policy development.

I could go on about this but in setting up the Strathclyde review, Her Majesty’s Government blew their own cover when they described its purpose as being,

“to secure their business in Parliament”.

They went on to refer to,

“the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters, and secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/15; col. 25WS.]

These two quotations are, in the first case, a clear statement not about the constitutional proprietaries, where they may have had a case of some sort, but about the Executive getting their way by whatever means they could deploy; and, in the second, at best a highly polished gloss of the true position and at worst a distortion of it.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde accused my committee of castigating him. I am bound to say we did not; we actually let him off the hook because our conclusion was that he had been asked the wrong question and therefore his answer was not really relevant to the issues before us. Our committee and two others separately reached that view. If the words I quoted explain what was meant by the cryptic reference in the gracious Speech to the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons, I suggest that the Government might be about to take the wrong kind of action.

It may be that there is a case for reforming the relative powers of the two Houses. It seems, for example, slightly bizarre that this House can amend primary legislation but has power only to reject secondary legislation. Let such matters be considered in the proper and unhurried way, but it is essential to preserve the present balance of powers between the two Houses. We may be faced with some proposals to codify in some way the damaged convention system. If that can be done in a way that maintains the delicate balance of powers between the two Houses, let us at least examine it—though I am sceptical that a way will be found that does not undermine the standing of this House.

However, if the Government come forward with changes simply to make it easier to get their business, that is quite another matter. That would provoke a strong and sustained reaction here. At the end of the day, Governments must get their business. Overall, the present balance of powers provides for that, and so does the general will of this House. The issue should not be sovereignty, the balance of power or primacy but the nature and quality of the legislation laid before Parliament by the Executive. That deserves close scrutiny. It is high time the Government did a better job.

English Votes for English Laws

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not enter into the heat of this debate this evening, tempted though I was by the intriguing announcement by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that he has discovered that rare nugget, a new Scottish grievance—I thought we had mined them all pretty well. I will not even rise to that particular fly because there are other Scottish Members of this House to speak later, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for example, does grievance far better than I can.

However, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I sought to explain the context of the Constitution Committee’s proposed involvement in monitoring, for a period, the operation of the reformed Standing Orders for the other place, which I understand are to be brought forward tomorrow—assuming, of course, that they will be passed. I do so because it is an unusual matter for our committee to become involved in, and it is not a task that we would have sought. Normally, we never comment on the internal procedures of the other place. However, when one is expressly asked by the Leader of the House of Commons to undertake this task—reflecting, I suppose, the fact that this House had sought, through the Motion it passed in the summer, to be involved in further scrutiny and consideration of EVEL through a Joint Committee with the other place—that changes things. It would, I believe, be wrong to refuse such a request. So in the expectation that the Joint Committee will not now materialise—and conditional on that and on the other place approving the proposals of the Leader of the House of Commons—our committee agreed at its meeting this morning to accept the task. The Procedure Committee and the Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs in the other place will also, I understand, be involved, although separately from our committee.

We will not of course be involved in assessing or commenting on the merits either of the amended Standing Orders or indeed of the policy of English votes for English laws itself—that is not our function. We value the independent, non-partisan nature of our all-party committee. We will, however, proceed with our inquiry over the next few months in our usual way—calling for evidence and interviewing experts and practitioners, including, very possibly, Members of your Lordships’ House—as the new arrangements start to deliver legislation or other business to this House through the use of EVEL. We shall seek to identify any constitutional implications and anomalies that may emerge and, in our usual way, we will draw them to the House’s attention as deserving of further consideration in a report that we will publish thereafter. I hope that my giving that background and clarifying what I see as our role in this business has been helpful to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I must apologise, too, that I shall speak in the gap. This has been an excellent debate and I hope that the Leader will be able to respond to the substantive points raised.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I pay tribute to the Leader—I do not think that she has an easy job—but she needs to convince us tonight that the Government are at least paying some attention to the points raised by your Lordships, because, so far, there is scant evidence of it.

I do not want to go into the circumstances of the failure to respond to our request that a Joint Select Committee be established, but it is a very serious matter that there has been no response. The Leader has prayed in aid Mr Allen’s amendment. Although it may be considered tomorrow, there is no guarantee that the Speaker in the other place will choose it. The noble Baroness prays in aid the amendment as a reason for not responding to your Lordships, but of course her colleagues in the other place will then do everything they can to determine that, even if it is called, it will be defeated. That is not a satisfactory response.

I have noted the point that Chris Grayling made, that he wishes to see our Constitution Committee work with the Commons Procedure Committee, but what does this mean and what if the two committees disagree? If he wants the committees to work together, why on earth not establish a Joint Select Committee?

Of course, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, who made a helpful intervention informing us that his committee has agreed to accept the task that it has been asked to do.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

It is not being suggested that we work together with one of the committees in the other House; we all work independently and we would be more concerned with the output that came through to this House rather than what goes on down there.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I fully understand that, but the question I am raising is: what happens if the two committees reach different conclusions? That is why I think it would have been much better if there had been a Joint Select Committee. From what the noble Lord has said—and I hope that the Leader will agree with me on this—it is clear that accepting this proposition and agreeing to do the work does not mean that the committee is saying that it endorses EVEL or the way in which the Government have chosen to do it.

So many risks are involved in the changes—so many risks to our constitution and so many risks to the union—yet the noble Baroness describes them as simply a matter of procedure and the property of the other place. It is a terrible precedent to use Standing Orders in the other place to make what is a huge constitutional change. We have heard that the contrast between the position of Scottish Members here—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very clear on this—and in the other place is not simply a matter of procedure, and nor is the role of the Commons Speaker. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, spoke eloquently about the problems of a Speaker being embroiled in hugely controversial political decisions. The 31 pages of memorandum from the Cabinet Office that we have seen are mostly about the Speaker’s role. There are dangers in involving the Speaker—even with the aid of two wise people, as the health docs used to say—and sharing that decision does not fill one with confidence.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised an important point. A Bill passed by your Lordships’ House goes to the Commons and is passed there, but is vetoed by English MPs because of the lack of a double majority. The constitutional implications of that are profound.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a pertinent point on whether Scottish MPs are to be given a veto in the circumstances he described. My noble friend Lord Reid gave us wise words about the dangers of establishing a series of grievances that put the union at risk, and they should be a warning to us all.

My time is up. I would simply ask the noble Baroness to really convince us that the Government are going to listen. The profound threat to our union and the integrity of the United Kingdom is very apparent in the debate tonight. Procedures in the Commons are not the way to do it.

Economic and Social Inequality

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, the facts do not bear out the noble Lord’s question. I accept that wealth inequality is higher than income inequality—although he is shaking his head—and that is the case both in the UK and across the OECD. However, it has not changed since records began in 2006. Internationally, the level of wealth inequality in the UK remains below the OECD average and significantly lower than that seen in the US.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, we have not yet heard from anyone from either the Liberal Democrat Benches or the Conservative Benches, but because we have so far had some contributions from the Opposition Benches, perhaps I may suggest that we start with my noble friend Lord Lang and then go to the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, in addition to the excellent answers already given by my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, should he not also draw attention to the fact that raising the tax threshold has also been an enormous advantage to those at the lower end of the social equality scale? This, together with the other excellent points he has made, completely confounds the arguments coming from the Benches opposite.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. Since 2007-08, the annual average disposable income of the poorest 20% of households has risen by £100 in real terms, while the average annual income since 2007-08 of the richest 20% has fallen by £3,000.

Implications of Devolution for England

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not think that anybody is asking the noble Lord to go back to the Tudor period. As set out in the Command Paper, there are various points of detail that will clearly be discussed further before any changes are implemented in the way that the other place operates. A Bill, when it comes to this House, will be dealt with in exactly the same way as it is now.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, there are many matters of constitutional importance on which consultation should take place. Certainly I favour consultation whenever possible. It has to be said that 15 years of constitutional devolution have led to an extremely unsettled position in terms of the integrity of the United Kingdom, possibly because there was not wide consultation and asymmetrical measures were being introduced. There is a burning need to rebalance the constitution of the United Kingdom; we cannot go on as we are. I welcome the proposals that have come forward from my noble friend and the fact that a range of options is included. That opens the case for further consultation, and I hope that the Labour Party will take part in that consultation. There is absolutely no reason why it should not. This matter stands on its own, and it is important to rebalance, in the interests of England and of the United Kingdom, the way in which we govern ourselves. I particularly welcome the reference to an English Grand Committee. I assure my noble friend that the changes we made to the Scottish Grand Committee in the 1990s demonstrated the almost infinite flexibility of such a body. It could play an important part in the future of government within England and, indeed, within the United Kingdom.

Leader of the House of Lords

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

I do not know whether it is too late to correct this situation, but I think that your Lordships’ House is united in feeling that something must be done.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

My final point is that I have always been somebody who rather values the fact that we have an unwritten constitution. However, I have gradually come to think that it would be better if certain aspects of how we do things were written down, so that the Government cannot simply ride roughshod over them. The fact that the Companion and Erskine May say one thing and the Prime Minister instantly can do something else should cause us quite serious thought about how our constitutional arrangements can be protected in the future.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, for my excessive enthusiasm to participate in your Lordships’ debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on behalf of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which I have the honour to chair, for quoting so effectively and powerfully from our report. I stand by everything that is in that report. I believe that it does its best to inform the House for the debate and I hope that the House will find it useful.

Regarding the Motion, however, I find I have a little difficulty because I agree with the first part, in which the noble Baroness congratulates my noble friend the Leader of the House, who I believe will be as formidable as she is fearless and will turn this event to good account in her negotiations with the Prime Minister and others in Cabinet. However, in the second part of the Motion, which criticises the Prime Minister’s decision, I think the noble Baroness underrates the extent to which my noble friend Lady Stowell is a prisoner of circumstances, deriving from some years ago. I will come back to that point shortly. That is not to underrate the serious nature of the diminished status under which your Lordships’ House now labours—in defiance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rightly said, of both Erskine May and the Companion to the Standing Orders.

Of course one welcomes the acknowledgement by the Prime Minister of the unacceptable nature of the present situation and his clear commitment to put it right as soon as he can. But to help that to happen, we should also acknowledge the nature of what he has inherited: namely, the gradual erosion, over time, of the constitutional standing of this House, which the current event continues. Indeed, I believe that there are two disquieting long-term trends that have contributed to the situation we now face.

First, there is the huge expansion since the 1970s that my noble friend Lord MacGregor spoke about briefly of the range and machinery of government. There are more departments and Governments are doing more, and that has required more Ministers and more Cabinet Ministers. That trend was visible 40 years ago when in 1975 the issue was last addressed and the paid number of Cabinet places was increased from 19 to 21, providing what the Government of the time thought was some spare capacity for future growth. They were too optimistic. Moreover, the Acts of Parliament that governed and sought through financial controls to discipline such expansion were left unamended. Instead, they have been circumvented.

The committee’s report illustrates the recent trend in this century of the concept of Ministers attending Cabinet. Prime Minister Blair used it. Mr Brown, as Prime Minister, entrenched it at six, including two Parliamentary Private Secretaries—both of them, incidentally, his own. He then started recruiting Ministers from outside Parliament—those optimistically referred to as GOATs, or the Government of all the talents. He subdivided the supernumerary attendees to Cabinet into two different categories.

The blurring of government continued with the tsars and envoys and has continued under the present Government. Now, as has been pointed out, there are 11 ministerial attendees at Cabinet who are not Cabinet Ministers. We do not want our Leader of the House to be a member of that second XI. We know that she is first XI material, and I do not doubt for one moment that she will fight as though she is a first XI person.

The second trend is the gradual and perhaps inadvertent downgrading by government of the centrality to decision-making of this House. We are the secondary Chamber, but we have a part to play. Incidentally, I noted that while 4% of Ministers in the Commons are unpaid Ministers, 33% of Lords Ministers are unpaid Ministers. That is in itself unfair—but the solution is not to rebalance it but to ensure that every government Minister is properly paid from government funds at all times.

I do not believe that this is a party-political issue. Both parties carry a certain amount of blame. But it is a constitutional one of fundamental significance that has now left us without a Member of this House in the Cabinet. The change to the role and status of the Lord Chancellor in 2005 forms part of the undermining of the standing of this House—and a very substantial part, as has been commented. It was an object lesson in how not to make changes to the constitution, and I am glad to say that your Lordships’ committee is at present undertaking an inquiry into that role.

Our report does not make recommendations as to the way forward, but it is clear that the amending of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 could offer one possible way forward, although I believe that it would need primary legislation. Our report indicates three possible options for amendment if that is the chosen route. I care deeply about the place of the House of Lords in our constitution. To me, the central issue concerns the bicameral nature of our legislature. That, as our report states, is a core part of our constitution. It is also a core part of our constitution that Ministers are drawn from the legislature. That must include this House at Cabinet level. Those basic principles of our parliamentary system have been blurred and neglected for some time. The restoration of the Leader of the House to full Cabinet membership will be but the first essential step to restoring our bicameral parliamentary system.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very short but powerful debate. The Prime Minister can be in absolutely no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House, as was encapsulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in her superb opening speech. I say that the Prime Minister can be in no doubt rather than the noble Baroness the Leader, because this Motion and the weighty arguments that are being made are not against or about her; they are about the office that she occupies or the office that she should occupy. Like other noble Lords, I emphasise that I have full confidence in the noble Baroness and I know that she is doing and will continue to do a splendid job. I very much regret that she has had such a baptism of fire.

I am grateful to the Constitution Committee for its swift, excellent and informative report and, like the noble Lord, Lord Lang, I care deeply about the position of this House in our constitution. The committee is of course right not to make recommendations, but the information that it provides and its conclusions are invaluable. I was interested to learn, for example, that the current Cabinet manual states that the Cabinet is the ultimate decision-making body of government and, as my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean has said, Erskine May, that parliamentary bible, describes the Leader of the House of Lords as a member of the Cabinet.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, the committee notes that the Leader may often have to give unpalatable advice to ministerial colleagues about the chances of their legislation passing the House or the time that it will take. It goes on to say that in such matters the Leader needs authority. Having been a Minister attending Cabinet, as Chief Whip, and a full member of the Cabinet, I can say to noble Lords that there is a difference; the committee is absolutely right. It is not a question of where the Lords appears on a Cabinet agenda; it is that to be a full member of the Cabinet gives one authority and the confidence that goes with that authority—the confidence to disagree with those who have greater experience and who, because they are Members of the House of Commons, do not understand the impact that their legislation will have in the Lords.

It is sometimes not a comfortable position to be in, but I always did what I did and had to do on behalf of this House. The role of the Leader of the Lords in the Cabinet is distinctive and different from other members of the Cabinet, as has been said; he or she is there to represent the whole of the House of Lords. I had the good fortune for some time to have two noble friends who were also members of the Cabinet, but I was the one who rightly had to take the lead in defending the position of this House. I am glad that my party recognises the distinction and it is clear that we will reinstate the position of the Leader to their rightful place as a full member of the Cabinet. I assure noble Lords that we will not turn the current situation into a precedent. This is a unique and foolish error of judgment. It is a wrong that must be righted.

In his much quoted letter of 22 July to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, the Prime Minister does not mention Cabinet correspondence. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could say whether she is included in the circulation of all Cabinet correspondence, which of course results in much decision-making. I hope that she is. If that is the case, I wonder if this is or has been the norm for all those attending Cabinet. If it is an innovation as a result of the current situation, and if all those now attending Cabinet receive all the papers, it must surely have an additional cost implication. One might even ask if the costs involved over 10 months could add up to the rest of the salary that should go with the office of the Leader.

In relation to salaries, what one might call the rate for the job, the noble Baroness was surely right to refuse to have her salary topped up by the Conservative Party. She is, as has been said, a woman of integrity. However, I wonder if the Government will be complying with the equal pay audit regulations that were discussed in Parliament this afternoon. It cannot be right that a female Leader of the Lords is paid less than her counterpart was; it is a terrible example for the women of this country. All this comes from a Prime Minister who we were told was reshuffling his Cabinet with the aim of promoting women and equality.

Was it by accident or by design that the post of the Leader of the Lords was downgraded? Was it careless disregard, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd? The Prime Minister tells us that it was an anomaly, a temporary necessity, but the right honourable gentleman had a choice about who should be in his Cabinet. He chose not to include the Leader of the Lords. I have to say that it feels very much as though this House is being treated with contempt. That feeling might be strengthened later this week when I suspect that a new list of Peers will be published. We all want to give a warm welcome to new colleagues, but to have a House of more than 800— patronage before principles, that is—cannot be right.

Mr Cameron’s decision to downgrade the position of Leader of the Lords means that the office is diminished, and by diminishing the office we are all diminished. I therefore hope that if the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, decides to seek the opinion of the House, noble Lords on all sides will choose to send a clear message to the Prime Minister by joining her in the Division Lobby.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, when I first came to your Lordships’ House, I asked my noble friend the late lamented Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish what would happen after the State Opening. His answer was that some old codger on the Government side would be asked to propose an humble Address. Your Lordships may understand, therefore, that proud and privileged though I am to undertake this role, it brings with it a certain poignancy, as in the crossing of a threshold, as I come to realise that I am now a fully fledged member of SOCs, the society of old codgers. To my fellow members around the House I say this: we know who you are and we are all in this together.

The mood lifts instantly, however, since my first and pleasurable task is to express our gratitude and appreciation that Her Majesty the Queen has once again honoured this House with her presence to deliver the gracious Speech from the Throne. Her Majesty’s sense of duty and her vitality continue to inspire us all. Her example is followed to the letter by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, whose unstinting support of Her Majesty at all times earns our enduring admiration and respect. We were also honoured today by the most welcome presence of their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. His Royal Highness works tirelessly in support of countless good causes, as can be shown by just one example, that of the Prince’s Trust which is now celebrating 30 immensely successful years of helping young people to get a good start in life.

In our own world, another more modest but much cherished reign has ended with the retirement from the Front Bench of our former Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. His well rounded style, if I may call it that, invested our affairs with a charm that turned away wrath, quality of judgment, and a grasp of the business of politics that has brought benefit to us all over his 25 years of public service. We shall miss his bounteous hospitality.

Happily, his successor, my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, is cast in the same mould—metaphorically speaking. He won instant recognition on entering the House when he so effectively secured the passage of the coalition’s important education legislation. His courteous manner at the Dispatch Box and the intense work he has undertaken in his new role as our Leader win praise, I believe, from all quarters. It is an encouraging sign that, in his room here, the Leader drinks from a mug that bears the legend, “Make tea, not law”. He shares with my peerless noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, and, I feel sure, with the greatly esteemed noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the strong conviction that courtesy and restraint are the essential watch-words for an effective self-regulating House. All three demonstrate it impressively.

The politics of any coalition are never easy, and parties can become frustrated. There are a few loose slates on the roof. However, I recall clearly how, after the general election, our two parties, acting in the national interest, each put aside its own agenda and combined in order to bring stability to the nation’s government after a near calamitous collapse of our economy. Looking back on that crisis, which was years in the making and will take years to surmount, put me in mind of the George Best school of economics. When the famous footballer was asked, towards the end of his life, how he had managed to lose his fortune, he replied that he had spent most of it on wine, women and song and the rest he had just wasted.

Putting the nation first was not mere rhetoric. We needed discipline and a new direction to avoid the abyss. To have reduced the deficit—although not yet the national debt—by one-third, and to have seen more than 1.25 million new private sector jobs created in the past two and a half years despite a state of chronic recession in the eurozone, our biggest export market, has been quite an achievement. I pay renewed tribute to Sir John Major, who won for this country the right to stay out of the euro. I welcome the continuing commitment expressed in the gracious Speech to promoting economic competitiveness through the rigorous reining back of unaffordable increases in public expenditure and to the maintenance of low interest rates. These constitute the two most fundamental of policies for growth. If we gave up on them, the burden of past extravagances would come back to haunt us. As a certain Lady once said, “There is no alternative”. In that regard, I acknowledge in particular the courage of my right honourable friends George Osborne and his Chief Secretary, the articulate and unflappable Danny Alexander. They personify the coalition at its best: stalwart, steady and united, they continue to put the nation first.

Some pundits thought that coalition would be a recipe for paralysis. However, at this half-way stage in the Parliament, it is notable how much really major legislation has reached the statute book. I am thinking of the giant strides of my right honourable friend Michael Gove in education and of my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith in tackling the wasteful and damaging morass of the world of welfare. These are great and far-reaching breakthroughs, of Beveridge proportions, from which one may feel sure that the nation will benefit for years to come and of which many single-party Governments, over an entire term, would be proud. Now, in the gracious Speech, there is more to come in both areas.

Indeed, the gracious Speech reveals no loss of impetus, with many significant new measures, for example on pensions and immigration. There is the long-term care and support Bill, a matter surely of compelling interest to your Lordships—we will all have to declare our interest when speaking on it. It is a measure of vital long-term importance to a growing proportion of the population. Another Bill will tackle anti-social behaviour—to which the other place may wish to pay specific attention.

A pro-business agenda is reflected in the deregulation Bill and in the employment assistance proposals. As for the HS2 paving Bill, to bring London closer to the cities of the north, as Sir Humphrey would say, “Courageous, Minister”. As one who travels regularly by train between Westminster and my home in Scotland, I feel sure that my grandchildren may benefit from it—in old age.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

Contentious though it may be, the need to upgrade our infrastructure and to improve access to the country away from the south-east must surely resonate with your Lordships. Business, too, will welcome that.

In my early years here, I used to raise Scottish issues—always to be told, “That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament”. Now when Scotland features in our deliberations, it usually means trouble: most recently the Scotland Act and the order to allow a Scottish independence referendum to take place. Troubles come not singly.

Scotland is a great nation but that greatness has been achieved within the United Kingdom. The Scottish Enlightenment came after 1707; so did the great industrial growth and the global breakout, when Scots travelled the world, keeping the Sabbath—and anything else we could lay our hands on. We are the land of inventions: from the steam engine to the bicycle, the mackintosh, the television, the Glenlivet, the Glenfarclas, the Glenfiddich and the Glenmorangie—and of course the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Not many people know that copper wire was invented by two Aberdonians quarrelling over a penny.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

If the forthcoming referendum were to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom, we would all suffer, but Scotland most of all. Your Lordships will have noted the passing reference in the gracious Speech to,

“co-operation with the devolved administrations”.

One cannot tell yet what that may mean but co-operation is a two-way street. I believe that constitutional fracking leads to fragmentation, so I trust that Her Majesty’s Government will always concentrate on strengthening the United Kingdom and do nothing that might weaken it. In this Parliament of our nation state are found the emblems of all its parts. The thistle stands proudly alongside the rose. I welcome the strong leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on this matter, and his commitment, echoed in the gracious Speech, to fight with unwavering determination to save the union.

It is an irony that might have delighted Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan that, in so elegantly moving this Motion last year, my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley was able to draw attention—with that subtle blend of loyalty and realism that is the province of all Chief Whips—to a proposed Bill for the reform of this House. That proposal was not altogether welcome here. This year, by contrast, many of your Lordships look eagerly for such a measure, but in vain. Of course, last year, for some it was a case of reform by abolition; for most, our ambitions are, I believe, more modest but more practical. One might argue that there is nothing wrong with this House that would not be solved by a little bit of quantitative easing, but there is no mention of reform of the House in the gracious Speech, so I should not speak of it and I will not—except to say:

“We are the very model of a Chamber constitutional

We simply try to better Bills with changes quite profusional

We are not revolutional; our aims are evolutional

Not to want to welcome that is surely just delusional”.

When King George V was asked by the minister of Crathie Kirk what he should preach about in his next sermon, it is said that he replied, “About seven minutes”. Happily, your Lordships have four days in which to debate the gracious Speech. The debate will range widely and one may be sure that it will benefit from the great expertise and experience to be found in all parts of the House but perhaps especially on the Cross Benches. There may even be time to contemplate those tantalising perennial words that appear at the end of every gracious Speech:

“Other measures will be laid before you”.

On one occasion, a Welsh farmer, watching the State Opening on television and hearing those words, turned to his wife and said, “Udder measures, Megan? The English must be having trouble with their cows again”.

Finally, I return to the terms of the Motion to recall that this year marks the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen’s coronation. But an even earlier occasion also springs to mind. In a broadcast marking her 21st birthday, Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth pledged her future life, whether it be long or short, to the service of this country. That vow has chimed like a clear bell through all the years since, as Her Majesty has fulfilled it with dedication and grace. Long may she continue to reign over us, for hers is a reign that will shine through history.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I did not participate in any of the earlier debates over the years on the reform of this House. I thought that I would wait until the traffic eased up a bit and the pressures died down, so that I would be able to dilate at leisure. Clearly I waited in vain. I am now being lapped by many noble Lords, in some cases for the third or fourth time. However, I at least have the comfort of knowing that, if I bore your Lordships on this subject, I shall be doing so for the first time.

My noble friend the Leader of the House proclaimed yesterday that this reform was promised in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend, who is not in his place, that that does not necessarily make it right. Given what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said before the last election, I find myself surprised to discover how quickly we seem to have reached our third term.

On reading the draft Bill, so many thoughts crowded in on me as to what was wrong with it that I remained baffled. What, for example, is the point of a Bill that seeks to bring increased democratic legitimacy to this House through election but would deny the elected the right to exercise that legitimacy? Surely that is unsustainable. What is the point in bringing into this House, hot from the hustings, elected and politically motivated Members, as they would be, who had probably tried and failed to be selected for and elected to the other place, and forcing them to confine their energies here to the detailed scrutiny and revision of legislation that is at present done so well by existing Members—and to do that all in the name of the holy grail of democratic legitimacy? I shall return to that issue shortly.

By common consent, this House has a diverse range of expertise and experience that the House of Commons lacks. Every Member of this House has been appointed because he or she has something to offer. The electorate will not benefit if we destroy that, and nor will democracy. Incidentally, 300 Members would not be enough. There may be only 300 to 400 Members, on average, active in the House at the present time, but they are not always the same ones. To change this would inevitably lead to frustration among the new, elected Members and then to challenge. It could destroy the invaluable equilibrium between the two Houses that is afforded by the present arrangements.

There seems to be an aggressive antagonism towards this place, implicit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals. Surely that is entirely the wrong way to go about reform, which should be gradual and consensual. Consideration of reform should not be only about this House or that House, conducted in isolation with no thought for the constitutional ripples between and beyond the two. We have a bicameral system of government. We are two Houses of the same Parliament that have evolved together over centuries. I do not think that enough has been said about that bicamerality. Of course there has been passing reference, but, in this House, in our system, it has a particular and special quality. Our two Chambers interact in a unique way. They are like the two ventricles of a human heart; they share the same heartbeat. Cut into one and the other will suffer as well; complementarity and equilibrium will have been destroyed.

The bigger the change in the make-up of this House, the greater will be the need to re-examine the balance of powers and the conventions that operate between the two Houses. Together, these two Houses represent a parliamentary democracy—asymmetrical, certainly, but highly functional. It is not a textbook democracy of abstract, theoretical perfection, but a living, practising one. To those who would suggest that only elections can bring legitimacy, it is worth pointing out the obvious: this House has never been elected and yet its democratic legitimacy has over the years been deemed fit for purpose.

We acknowledge that the elected House has primacy and in any dispute must ultimately prevail. I want us to retain an appointed upper House precisely because I respect the primacy of the other place. That way we can continue to differ from it but defer to it. Democratic legitimacy is not bestowed simply by ticking the directly elected box; it is achieved by time, by custom and practice, by function, by performance and by popular acceptance. I believe that this House has popular acceptance. If it did not, it would not have endured. Those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the draft Bill seem to be saying that this House should become an elected one in order to make us as popular as the House of Commons. I believe that we can do better than that.

Still less is legitimacy achieved by the added twist of proportional representation. After all, was it not Lloyd George who described proportional representation as a “device for defeating democracy”? As to the 80 per cent elected option, quite apart from the difficulties of a hybrid and two-tier House, if an elected House is the Deputy Prime Minister’s guiding principle, then 80 per cent elected is four-fifths of a principle, which is rather like being four-fifths pregnant.

It is unprincipled to contemplate changing the membership of this House without first considering and agreeing what we want this House to do. If the powers and role are to remain the same, then so should the membership. If we change the membership, then the powers and role will assuredly change, irrevocably. I cannot believe that that is what the other place wants.

There is much need for reform within this House—reform of the way we are appointed, of our numbers, of some of our procedures and perhaps even of our length of tenure. One senses a clear consensus on that. We should press on with deciding on those and other reforms in our traditional, evolutionary way. This Bill, by abolishing the House as at present constituted and replacing it with something quite different, would enforce the unprovoked disruption of our constitution. It would cut into the very bone and marrow of our parliamentary democracy. I believe that it is an affront to our country’s constitutional integrity and we should have nothing to do with it.