House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that the hereditary Peers are part of the awkward squad—difficult people. I would have thought that there were enough of that category all around in any event.

He said that there has not been a filibuster but how else should we construe virtually overnight putting down 59 amendments in an attempt to swamp this Bill and prevent it making any progress? Perhaps the noble Lord’s speech was short but the plethora of amendments speaks eloquently in a different direction. I wholly endorse and adopt what has been said before, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about reputation. There is an old legal maxim or principle—perhaps no longer said in that way—that if one seeks to define intent it is the natural consequence of one’s acts. What other intent can there be from the plethora of amendments than to effectively destroy this Bill and the reputation of the House?

I will let your Lordships into a secret. Once upon a time, I was in Whitehall for a brief and somewhat inglorious period. I recall a little department, somewhere stuck in Whitehall, the aim of which was to devise means of blocking Bills with an attempt at faint praise. Ministers were told and speeches were written on this basis: “We believe in the principle of what has been put down but now is not the time”, “Rome was not built in a day”, “We should not deal in little steps”, or “We should look at all these matters comprehensively”. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and his friends delved into this same bran tub and will bring out a series of statements of that sort.

Yes, they are clearly against the principle of the Bill. I simply put this question to him: is he happy for this absurdity to continue indefinitely? It is an absurdity and anyone looking from outside must accept it as such. Is he content that by these spurious by-elections, the hereditaries are here by what is, of course, a game of chance—succession? On the other hand, the rest of us are here by—yes—patronage but at least there is an attempt in that patronage to choose people who in principle have a degree of merit. Many of the hereditaries indeed have merit but they may not; it is a game of chance. In my judgment, to continue with this system makes us a laughing stock. If we are serious about the reputation of the House we should wholly endorse this proposal by my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I associate these Benches with the opening remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Dykes, and many others who want to see progress on this Bill. We should not repeat all the arguments we had at Second Reading. Any noble Lord speaking today should endeavour to be brief—I will certainly be.

In addressing the remarks made so far, first, many of those noble Lords who speak about Lords reform accept the principle of the primacy of the House of Commons. The principle of this Bill was approved in 2010 in the then Labour Government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. That received a majority in the Commons and those who are sincere in their belief in the primacy of the Commons should allow this Bill to go forward for Commons consideration.

Secondly, there was the principle about what was said in 1999 and for how many decades or centuries that should be deemed to be binding. There was a principle, which we often refer to and agree with, that no Prime Minister and no Parliament can bind their successors. So I challenge those who are trying to prevent the Bill being properly considered to say whether or not they accept that principle. There is little point in the legislative process unless you accept that you can change a previous decision of a Prime Minister or a Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord True, suggested that this is about trying to pack the House of Lords or change its composition. He is perhaps a little sore at the moment about the position of the Liberal Democrats after the by-election in the area for which he is the council leader. But it is not realistic to suggest that the Bill is about changing the composition of the House since the power of patronage remains with the Prime Minister to appoint more Peers. On Monday a very strong will was expressed across the House that we must do something to improve our credibility and reduce our numbers overall, but there is no point taking such action unless we prevent top-ups. The first way of preventing such top-ups is by supporting the Bill.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I note an element of nostalgia in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the snows of yesteryear when people paid attention to speeches in this House and the other place. The fact that there are other offensive elements in our constitution surely is not an argument against removing one of them. This is a very modest Bill. The by-elections and the retention of the hereditary Peers were meant as a temporary expedient. Some appear to argue that what was devised as a temporary expedient should now become a permanent part of our constitution.

I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Grocott. Clearly, he believes in the politics of small steps. He recognises that there is no prospect of a big bang in respect of House of Lords reform so he suggests a modest, little bang as the only realistic way of moving forward with it at this stage. The removal of hereditary Peers by this simple and painless method requires only a short Bill; therefore, only a short speech is appropriate. I shall not follow my normal practice of making three points—like a sermon—but will make only two points.

First, it is surely impossible plausibly and with conviction to defend the status quo. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, say that there should be no change unless there is a comprehensive change. That is almost the ultimate argument of reaction. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whom I consider a friend, make a point in relation to the blocking of the terrorism Bill put forward by the Government in 2005 but I am not sure how that was relevant to the position of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Had he argued, for example, after looking through the Division lists, that the Bill would not have been blocked had it not been for hereditary Peers, that might have been the start of an argument, but I am not sure it is relevant. Perhaps he can enlighten me.

[Lord Elton]

I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I was arguing that we were put here, trusted to see that excessive power was not given to Governments. That is exactly what we did and what this House did. We were entrusted, among other people, with the job of seeing that what succeeded the old system should not be less able to challenge Governments than the new, and the need for that was demonstrated in 2005.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

But that element of trust on behalf of the British people is surely for all of us and not in any way restricted to hereditary Peers, although I accept that it is perhaps rather odd that the hereditary Peers provide the only element of election for membership of this House.

As my noble friend Lord Grocott very plausibly and convincingly said, the Bill will allow the current hereditary membership to wither on the vine by allowing current Peers to remain Members for the rest of their days or until they choose to retire. It ensures that their successors to be Members of the House of Lords must be subject to the same criteria and procedures as the rest of us. There is no particular wisdom that can pass from one hereditary Peer to his son—why should there be? They should be dealt with and regarded in the same way as all the rest of our population. Hence we are talking about the removal of a nostalgic vestige of the old regime, which was agreed for tactical reasons in 1999.

Secondly, there is of course a case for wider reform. This is supported by the recent remarks of the Lord Speaker. I say in passing that the current Lord Speaker has started well and I hope he will continue to make comments on matters of interest of this nature. He states that the number of Members of this House should be cut to below 600, no greater than the number of Members of Parliament. Presumably he would want it to be capped at that figure and not to be increased by successive Members of Parliament. I invite Members to look at the recent appointments in the resignation honours of Mr Cameron and see the way in which No. 10 has been honoured so massively, and contrast that with what Mr Blair did in refusing to have resignation honours, when there were a number of people in No. 10 who were eminently worthy of coming to this House. I think of Jonathan Powell, for example, who facilitated the agreement in Northern Ireland and made a great contribution to this country. But Mr Blair said, I think correctly, that it was not appropriate to have such a resignation honours list.

[Viscount Waverley]

I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House. The noble Lord might be giving the case for reversing the whole process of entry into this House. Perhaps the selection process ought to be under scrutiny and elected by Members of this House rather than by appointment—forget the whole system of appointment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That is an interesting point but perhaps an argument for another day. I revert to what I was saying about the numbers in this House, which are getting quite impossible. I note also the argument of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who has argued persuasively for separating honours from the peerage, as many categories of worthy recipients of honours would not wish to participate in the work of this House. Of course, many procedures for reducing the numbers have been canvassed. Some argue for one for one—one out, one in—but that would not in itself reduce the numbers. The voluntary principle for retirement has had only a marginal effect, with 52 retirements since 2014. Perhaps that number might be increased, dare I say, with some form of financial inducement—a bronze handshake—but that is another argument. A retirement age has been mooted, with Members forced to retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80.

Clearly, more radical culling has to take place if the aspirations of our Lord Speaker are to be met. Ultimately I would like to see this House more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole, perhaps with regional assemblies putting forward their own lists, away from No. 10. But if the numbers are allowed to rise inexorably, when this House returns in 2028—or when we move, as is suggested, some time after 2020—the Queen Elizabeth II Centre will not be large enough to accommodate us. We shall have to look elsewhere, perhaps even to Wembley Stadium, to accommodate the numbers.

[Lord Elton]

I declare my friendship for the noble Lord as well. If he persists in pursuing issues that are not part of this Bill, I suggest that he considers the Bill coming up, I believe, on 21 October, which will actually reduce the number of Members of this House, whatever the fate of this Bill.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I shall certainly follow the noble Lord’s invitation to look at that Bill as it appears. Still, that debate is for another day. Can the Government say how close that day is? Do they envisage any reform at all, even the modest reform that would include the matter now before us, during this Parliament? The sanction for this House is surely that if we do not seek consensual proposals, even if incremental, even if the politics of small steps, the Government may be forced by public opinion to tackle the current anomalies and absurdities, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, called ridiculous, such as is done in this Bill.

Civil Service Fast Stream

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Indeed, I can confirm that, and my noble friend makes a good point about ensuring that civil servants from Scotland are exposed to Whitehall.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I joined the foreign service in 1960 as a working-class boy from the University of Wales. There were only two women and no one from the ethnic minorities at that time. Does the noble Lord agree that our schools, because of the collapse of language teaching, are often unable to provide sufficient language competence and we need to look carefully at language potential? Such matters should never trump merit and competence.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. We have come a long way but there is always more to be done. I concur with him about language skills.

House of Commons: Ministers

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sure that noble Lords and Members in the other place will wish to return to this matter as the boundary review continues its work. Let me remind noble Lords that, if the number of MPs were reduced to 600 but the percentage of Ministers in the other place were to remain the same, the number of Ministers would need to fall by about seven, in my calculation, from 92 to 85. However, as the noble Lord points out, over the years there has been a considerable rise in the number of Ministers. In researching for this Question, I came to the understanding that there were about 60 Ministers when we had an empire. In the intervening period, while we may have lost an empire, Ministers have certainly found a role.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not a little disingenuous for international comparisons to use just the number of Ministers? Should the Minister not look at the total payroll vote, which includes Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and rework those figures to give a more accurate picture of the power of the Executive over Parliament?

Civil Society

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He and his fellow bishops have made a valiant effort to set out broad principles that might guide, in their words,

“the people and parishes of the Church of England”.

It is clear from the speech of my noble friend Lady Uddin and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that it has a much wider relevance. I am not wholly convinced, however, that the man or woman in the pew confused about voting would necessarily have emerged after reading this report with anything other than a higher level of confusion. Why? Because all the mainstream parties in this country claim to follow those Judaeo-Christian principles. Perhaps the only errant part of the election campaign was the leader of UKIP, who claimed that immigrants should have limited access to the NHS. That put him somewhat outside the pale and was immediately repudiated by his one MP.

Essentially, the aim of the letter is not to provide answers but to encourage Christians and others to think in a Christian way, as Dr John Stott did so well for all of us. The bishops give a set of principles in paragraph 120, emphasising identity and community. I come from the same city as my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, where we define our city, Swansea, as a series of villages held together by gossip. Perhaps I romanticise a little, but it is important.

Yes, the intermediate bodies and the suspicion of power that comes from,

“Put not your trust in princes”,

puts up barriers, checks and balances, but let us remember that it is not just from voluntary effort. It is the church that has been behind much of the effort of institutionalising that welfare provision. It was Adolph Kolping in Cologne, the great Catholic priest, and, of course, Lloyd George, who relied very much on his Scotch Baptist principles, who led the proposals for a welfare state in their countries. I confess that at times the principles enunciated by the prelates come rather close to Tony Blair’s third way, although they probably repudiate that. No doubt their brave efforts will be attacked from several angles. “Politics is a dirty game”, they will say, “Be separate. Bishops, keep out of politics and minister to the spiritual needs of your flock. Cobblers, stick to your last”. John Milton gave perhaps the best answer to this:

“I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue … that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat”.

Obviously, the powers that be would like a quiet life and prefer not to be challenged by the church—or they enlist the church, as Putin has done in Russia. However, as we saw in apartheid South Africa, Christians will embarrass politicians on human rights issues. I think of the work of Archbishop Tutu and Catholic Bishop Hurley, who were leaders in this field. Perhaps the civics, the small platoons that proliferated under the apartheid regime, are one of the reasons why there are barriers to the tyranny of the majority in South Africa. They must be praised. Michael Cassidy, the Christian leader from Pietermaritzburg, says that after a long discussion with Botha, the then state president, the state president loftily read to him this:

“the powers that be are ordained of God”—

scant comfort for persecuted Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere. But even those of us who are in the comfort and security of the United Kingdom must avoid the politician’s temptation to agree with everyone, to take the easy way out and to avoid values by relying on focus groups.

Who, then, is my neighbour? Christ’s answer was clear. He told a story about a Samaritan—a stranger from a despised group—who helped someone in need. The problem with the bishops’ letter is, of course, that it sets out basic principles, and in so doing avoids some hot potatoes such as the population problem and its effect on God’s creation in the environment, although I concede that it cannot be wholly comprehensive. However, it is not for bishops but for politicians to implement those principles in a world of limited resources, half-loaf compromises and competing pressures.

A current example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lord Judd concerns the migration pressures in the Mediterranean, where there is obviously a clash of values. The moral response is easy in the short term. If we have the capacity to save drowning individuals, it would be wholly immoral to fold our arms, pass by and fail to save them, so we applaud the humanitarian work of HMS “Bulwark”. But having rescued these people in the Mediterranean, is it moral then to wash our hands of them and say that they must be the responsibility of Italy or the overcrowded island of Malta?

Yet we cannot accommodate in Europe all those who would like to come here—those who wish to escape from the awful countries of Eritrea and South Sudan, let alone Iraq and Syria, however nasty their Governments are. Politicians have obligations to their own people and way of life, and it is obviously not moral to have an open-door policy. But there lies the key moral dilemma of where to draw the line. In the medium and longer term, politicians will choose a mix of policies such as destroying ships, targeting traffickers and safe-haven deals, perhaps also opening agricultural markets.

The church and politicians must work together. When Ahab was challenged by Elijah, he called him a troublemaker. May our right reverend prelates continue to be noble troublemakers. Niebuhr had it right when he referred to the,

“relevance of an impossible ideal”.

Bishops and politicians should strive together, imperfectly, to achieve the best attainable outcomes.