Implications of Devolution for England
Lord Lang of Monkton Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(14 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.