House of Lords Appointments Commission

Debate between Lord Norton of Louth and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to place the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this debate is limited to one hour. That is very tight and, in order to give time for the Minister to respond, all noble Lords apart from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, need to stick strictly to no more than two minutes.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord True will note the number of Peers contributing to this short debate. Each, as has been mentioned, will have two minutes. My noble friend will have 10 minutes to say what he could probably say in 10 seconds: namely, that the Government have no plans to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis. They should have: for some of us, this is unfinished business.

I have the honour to be convener of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. My noble friend Lord Cormack chairs the campaign. We formed it more than 20 years ago to make the case for strengthening the existing House in the valuable work that it does. The key changes that we sought were embodied in the House of Lords Bill introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood. Some of what we included in that Bill we have managed to get enacted, primarily through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House of Lords Bill included a clause establishing the House of Lords Appointments Commission—that is, putting it on to a statutory basis. I wish to explain why it should be done and how it can be done.

In an Ipsos MORI poll in 2007, respondents were asked which factors were important to determine the legitimacy of the House of Lords. The option attracting the most support was “Trust in the appointment process”—75% of respondents ranked it as “very important” and 19% as “important”. Trust in the appointment process ranked higher than “The House considering legislation carefully” and “Having many Members who are expert in their field”. I note that it considerably outstripped “Having some Members elected by the public”. How appointments are made is thus crucial to how the House is seen by the public. At present, the process falls short. At times it is mired in controversy, and there is little transparency in the selection of nominees. However worthy the individual nominees may be, their merits are lost in media criticism of the process and public perceptions of the type of person elevated to the peerage.

The existing Appointments Commission examines all nominations and puts forward nominations for Cross-Bench Peers, but it is limited in two significant respects. It can examine nominations only in terms of propriety, not suitability, and it is the creature of the Prime Minister. Having an Appointments Commission that is not only independent of the Prime Minister but is seen to be independent strengthens both the Prime Minister, confirming the merits of the persons nominated, and the legitimacy of the House.

Putting the Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Powers will have to be vested in it and, I shall argue, can be without jeopardising the Prime Minister’s role as principal adviser to the sovereign in recommending individuals for peerages. How, then, can it be done? As noted in the Library briefing for this debate, I have introduced a Bill that has now had its First Reading. I have sought in it to ensure that the commission can have an impact through vetting nominations to ensure that they meet a high-quality threshold, through requiring the Prime Minister to await the advice of the commission before putting forward names to the Crown, and through ensuring transparency in the process by requiring the Prime Minister, and other party leaders as appropriate, to inform the commission of the process by which the names were selected to be put forward. As noble Lords will see, it also includes provision for the Prime Minister to have regard to the principles that I believe are widely supported by the House, not least in terms of size.

The case for putting the commission on to a statutory basis has been made by a number of bodies, including the Government, over the past two decades. It was made by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. It was a proposal that was accepted by the Government but not acted on. I served on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill, which also endorsed the proposal. As I said, it was a key provision of the House of Lords Bill that was variously debated and widely supported in your Lordships’ House.

The proposal itself is modest relative to the report of the royal commission, which recommended transferring the power to nominate Peers from the Prime Minister to the Appointments Commission. My proposal would retain the existing position whereby the Prime Minister recommends names to the sovereign, although he would be required to wait until such time as he had received the advice of the commission. The Government, in 2001, proposed that the commission should have responsibility for managing the balance and size of the House. My Bill provides for the commission to offer advice on how to reduce the size of the House, but does not empower it to determine the size. This, therefore, is a modest proposal, and it may be prudent for the Government to accept it rather than wait until overtaken by more radical demands for change.

When questioned on the issue of reform of this House, my noble friend Lord True said that the Government did not support piecemeal reform. Well, as a Conservative, I do—and so, too, to judge by their election manifesto, do the Government. The 2019 manifesto stated that the Conservative Government had enacted legislation to enable Peers to retire and to remove those who committed a serious offence. That was not strictly accurate. What they had done was support, or at least acquiesce in, the passage of the Private Member’s Bill that I drafted, which was introduced in the Commons on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber by Dan Byles and taken through this House by Lord Steel. That was piecemeal reform, which I believe has proved its worth.

The same applies to the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She is unable to be here for this debate, but she would very much like to have been, to support the case for putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.

Even if my noble friend Lord True says that the Government have no plans to place the commission on a statutory basis, he could indicate a willingness on the part of the Government not to oppose such a move. Simply saying that there are no plans does not mean that the Government do not accept the merits of the case. My noble friend has not really engaged with the principle. He has the opportunity today to say whether he accepts the principle. The Government need not commit significant resources, including time, to getting a measure through. They can instead facilitate the passage of the Bill or another Private Member’s Bill with a similar aim. The important thing is to get it on the statute book.

In short, it can be done. My contention is that it should be done. It will not undermine the position of the Prime Minister but rather bolster it, certainly in the case of a confident Prime Minister, in making nominations, and it will enhance the legitimacy of this House.

Queen’s Speech

Debate between Lord Norton of Louth and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, today’s debate is billed as being on “The Constitution and the Union”. That should be “The Constitution, including the Union”. We should not see the union as some discrete issue. Part of the problem of the past century has been treating parts of the United Kingdom as somehow separate, of treating Northern Ireland as a quasi-state and leaving it to its own devices. We need to be looking more holistically at our constitution. The way to promote the union and to ensure that we remain a union is not to promise more funding or devolution of powers. That is to play into the hands of those who favour independence. We should not be in response mode, nor should we misinterpret why people wish to stay in the union.

In 2014, when an opinion poll suggested that there might be a majority in the referendum for Scotland becoming independent, all three party leaders went to Scotland and promised a greater devolution of powers if electors voted to stay in the union. When there was a majority to stay in the union, the Government delivered on that promise. Then, as now, the Government appeared to assume a causal relationship. There is no evidence that there was one. Survey data revealed that those who voted for Scotland to remain in the union did so for several different reasons; that of wanting more devolution hardly registered.

If we are to maintain the union, we need to be on the front foot, making the case for the union, not on the back foot, making promises in response to demands from those who want independence. I remind the House of the Constitution Committee’s excellent report The Union and Devolution, published in 2016. It noted the ad hoc way in which power has been devolved. As it reported:

“This haphazard approach to the UK’s constitution, in which power has been devolved without any counter-balancing steps to protect the Union, recently culminated in an existential threat in the form of a referendum on Scottish independence. An inattentive approach to the integrity of the Union cannot continue.”


We need to be making the case for the union in all parts of the United Kingdom. The attempts to keep Scotland in the union have exacerbated the English question. The Government should be to the fore in trumpeting the benefits of the union—one constitutional entity under the Crown. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart was saying, the whole is far greater than the sum of the parts. The case also needs to be made for moving away from what has been characterised as a grace-and-favour approach to the devolved nations and adopting one of mutual esteem and participation. I welcome especially the report of my noble friend Lord Dunlop. We need not more legislation but an attitude shift on the part of government.

In the short time available, I cannot cover all the constitutional measures in the gracious Speech, but I want to make one point about the constitution. As we have heard, there will be a Bill to replace the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act is generally unloved and was the product of a rushed attempt to deal with a particular problem. It was agreed by negotiators who were not necessarily experts in constitutional matters. As the Constitution Committee noted, the policy behind it

“shows little sign of being developed with constitutional principles in mind.”

Both the Government and Opposition are committed to replacing the Act. As we have seen with the discussion on the Government’s draft Bill and as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, indicated, putting the situation back to what it was before September 2011 is not a straightforward task.

The 2011 Act was one of several constitutional measures over recent decades. They have been notable for their number as well as for being disparate and discrete. We need to be wary of rushing in with more. I have made the case before that we need to stand back and make sense of where we are before we embark on further constitutional change. We should not be talking of restoring balances without being clear as to what the existing balance is and should be. Change should be the result of considered reflection and, for a Conservative Government, grounded in a Conservative narrative for democracy. We need to avoid repeating the mistakes of those responsible for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

We need to stand back and understand the nature and value of our constitutional arrangements and make the case for those arrangements. We need to ensure that we do not lose the value of what we have. Once lost, it is difficult, if not impossible, to recreate.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we try and keep to the five minutes advisory time. If not, we are going to run extremely late in this debate.