Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
That a Motion for an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020, laid before the House on 17 July, be annulled because they will permit evictions of individuals who have been served a notice of eviction between 23 March and 28 August before Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the impact of the Rules on (1) homelessness, and (2) the spread of COVID-19 (SI 2020/751).
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in the last general election this Government promised to scrap Section 21 evictions—evictions that are mandatory and require no explanation from the landlord. In March, the Government promised that
“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”.
This Motion, with your Lordships’ support, will achieve those objectives—those two promises from this Government—for thousands of renters who face the pandemic second wave and a bleak winter.
I thank all Peers who have joined me in discussions about this debate in advance. I recognise that this afternoon we may well tour a multitude of issues faced by both tenants and landlords, and many valid points will be made, but I urge Peers to comment on the significant loophole as a result of this statutory instrument, namely the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020, laid before Parliament on 17 July. Its welcome baby sister, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Residential Tenancies: Protection from Eviction) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, was laid on 28 August, introducing six-month notice periods for tenants, unless there are serious issues such as domestic violence and anti-social behaviour or significant rent arrears.
My only question to the Minister today is: why can we not explore methods to apply longer notice periods to ensure parity between those served notice before and after 29 August? This request was shared with the Government yesterday, and I gave the Minister notice of it this morning. I hope that he will answer this specific question. The letter sent to all Peers by the Government yesterday dwelled almost entirely on the second statutory instrument, not the first, which is the subject of today’s debate.
As a result of this identified loophole, an estimated 55,000 households, according to Generation Rent, will not have six months’ notice, so if a landlord served a Section 21 notice to their tenant during the height of lockdown, they could be coming to the end of their tenancy now. Indeed, many notices served at the height of the pandemic have already expired, or the best-case scenario is three months’ notice.
I have asked many parliamentary Questions about how many people will be impacted by this loophole. The MHCLG has answered each request for data with verbal claims of “unprecedented packages”, instead of answering my questions. It has put some data out on Twitter suggesting that the official statistics show that only 3,022 private and social sector landlords applied to the courts for possession of their property between April and June. Perhaps the MHCLG should heed the warning of the Ministry of Justice, which says that
“the data is unlikely to be representative of general trends in possession actions.”
Most Peers involved in this debate will be only too well aware that tenants subject to a Section 21 eviction rarely make it to court, knowing that it is mandatory, requires no explanation from the landlord, has no discretionary role for the judges and leaves the tenant with the bill to pay for both the landlord and themselves.
The 55,000 households teetering on the brink of eviction are the subject of this vote today. That figure is calculated using widely accepted methodology based on population levels and numbers of private tenants. Given that Shelter has already said that by the end of June, 174,000 households had been warned that they would face eviction, we can safely assume that we are talking about tens of thousands having been served with an eviction notice between March and August of this year. All it takes is for a landlord to now reinvoke that eviction notice and during the second wave of an epidemic, in the run up to winter, these families will be searching for a new home. Some will face homelessness and many the misery of temporary accommodation, supported by local authorities that are struggling every day to help. My noble friend Lady Thornhill will elaborate. The winter truce was welcome, but it is too late for these tenants—tenants such as Kevin from Kendal, who told Generation Rent:
“Our landlord has decided to sell their house, no doubt to take advantage of the stamp duty holiday. We have paid our rent on time and in full for almost 4 years, even with the reduced income over Covid-19, but we received a Section 21 Notice. We’re struggling to find a suitable home in our town and are now having to consider moving away and changing our kids’ schools. My eldest son should be starting Year 7 at the local secondary in September. I was a child when I was evicted from my home 24 years ago. I never thought my kids would go through this.”
We must vote down this statutory instrument today to help tenants such as Kevin. The Government were warned and had time to prepare. They could have used the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee back in May to give judges more discretion or to accelerate the abolition of Section 21, but they did not. In this debate, some will want to talk about how difficult it has been for many landlords. I agree, and I wholeheartedly support the package of proposals for tenants and landlords drawn up by the National Residential Landlords Association, Shelter, Crisis, Generation Rent and others, but that is not the subject of the vote today. If we vote against this statutory instrument, will landlords still be able to take action regarding more serious eviction cases? Yes, they will, because of the second statutory instrument. This Motion ensures that there is fairness between those threatened with eviction before August and those threatened with eviction after August. That is all.
I recognise that this House does not like to vote down statutory instruments—it is not a good precedent—but this Government have already abandoned due process. The Commons did not do its job and properly scrutinise this SI. The Government did not comply with the 21-day rule of having 21 sitting days before it was enacted. This week, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, set Parliament the challenge of not surrendering our role because of Covid-19. This is not comfortable parliamentary business, but neither is it comfortable for the tens of thousands threatened with eviction.
As for the Motion to Regret, clearly, I agree with its laudable aims, but if we vote for that, nothing happens. We will come back tomorrow to discuss more Covid-19 regulations, but we will not have changed the law. We must vote down this SI and change the law. The sky will not fall in. Serious evictions will still happen, but thousands of families threatened with eviction, with no cash and no options, will have your Lordships to thank for changing the law and giving them the reprieve that they need in these terrifying times.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interests as set down in the register. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whose Motions have given rise to it. Each of those Motions highlights concerns about the effect of removing tenants’ protection from eviction, which was provided by the stay on possession proceedings between 27 March and 20 September this year. Each Motion expressly criticises this instrument for not going far enough to protect tenants. I hope to demonstrate to the House that this criticism is unjust.
I start by addressing the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, which seeks to annul this instrument. Lest any noble Lord has overlooked this, I need to make it crystal clear that, even though the stay on possession proceedings has now ended, the rules set out in this instrument and the practice direction they introduce contain some vital continuing protections for tenants, which I shall explain. The effect of an annulment would be to remove those protections.
Secondly, I remind the House of the policy the Government have consistently followed in this area since the start of this pandemic, which has been to strike a balance between protecting the vulnerable and supporting the legitimate rights and interests of landlords. I will say more on that theme shortly.
Thirdly, noble Lords should appreciate that this instrument and the accompanying practice direction form part of a wider package of measures that the Government have put in place to ensure fair treatment for both tenants and landlords going forward. I will summarise those measures in a moment, but the point here is that this instrument should not be considered in isolation.
The Government took unprecedented action to ensure that renters were protected from eviction at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, including agreeing with the courts to use powers in relation to court procedure to stay possession proceedings for a total of six months until 20 September—but that stay could only ever be temporary. The civil justice system and the rules that underpin it must be accessible, fair and efficient for tenants and landlords alike.
In what way does this instrument provide protection for tenants? Through these new rules, we have sought to make sure that where possession cases come to court, the resumption of such cases is carefully managed —first, to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed; and secondly, to enable them to make decisions so that the most vulnerable can get the help and support they need, and in particular that tenants have access to legal advice and support.
For any possession proceedings up to 28 March 2021, the new court rules will also require landlords to set out any relevant information about a tenant’s circumstances, including—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, will wish to note—information on the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on both the tenant and their dependants when making a possession claim. This information will enable the court considering the claim to have regard to vulnerability, disability and the social security position, and to those who are shielding. This is a requirement under the relevant practice direction, which parties are under a duty to comply with. The tenant will be provided with a copy of this information and may add to or correct it.
Landlords will also be required to notify the court and their tenant where they wish to continue pursuing a possession claim that was already in the court system prior to 3 August, so giving notice that the claim is being reactivated. If such notice is not filed by 29 January 2021, the claim will be subject to an automatic stay. Where claims are based on arrears of rent, landlords must produce a full arrears history for the previous two years, and they must do this in advance of, rather than at, the hearing of the claim. In other words, landlords cannot just pick up where they left off, so to speak.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, asked how many of the 50,000 people at risk of eviction include families with schoolchildren and whether the Government are considering Crisis’s recommendations. My advice is that the Generation Rent figures she quoted are not to be relied on. Analysis published by the Government shows that 3,022 private and social landlords applied to the courts for possession between April and June, 89% lower than in the same time last year.
I mentioned support. It is important that all parties receive appropriate support, and we have worked with the judiciary to put in place new court arrangements to that end. I am grateful to the working group convened by the Master of the Rolls and chaired by Mr Justice Knowles, who have played a key role in this.
The working group contained a broad range of stakeholders and, resulting from its recommendations, the judiciary will look to prioritise cases that can be classified as the most egregious—that is to say, those involving anti-social behaviour, extreme rent arrears, domestic abuse, fraud and deception, illegal occupiers and squatters or abandonment of a property—as well as claims started before the stay commenced in March 2020. That prioritisation will provide assurance to landlords, their tenants and neighbours, especially those who are having to confront really difficult and pressing situations.
I mentioned the availability of legal advice for those facing possession proceedings. We have made adjustments to the legal aid Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme to ensure that it can be delivered remotely where necessary. We have also tendered for new contracts to fill gaps in provision, to ensure that this vital support can be accessed by those who need it, wherever they are in England and Wales.
A number of speakers referred to notice periods for tenants, and I stressed a few minutes ago that this instrument should not be looked at in isolation. We have taken decisive legislative action, through a statutory instrument laid on 28 August to require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice in all but the most serious cases. That SI amends Schedule 29 to the Coronavirus Act 2020 and came into force on 29 August, providing reassurance to responsible tenants that they will not face new court proceedings during this time.
We recognise that in some circumstances, landlords have been dealing with a difficult situation in which there is no reasonable alternative to possession proceedings. We have therefore lowered notice periods for cases involving anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse, fraud and egregious rent arrears of more than six months to enable landlords to progress those cases more quickly. This approach ensures that tenants will remain safe and have additional time to find new accommodation, while empowering landlords to take action where necessary—for example, if a tenant’s anti-social behaviour is severely impacting their neighbours’ quality of life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked whether we might explore ways to apply longer notice periods for those who were served notice before 29 August. As she will recognise, the difficulty here is that of applying retrospection to existing law and thereby undermining the certainty that the law should provide to all parties. In practice, those who received notice before 29 August were protected from eviction by the suspension of possession hearings until 20 September, as well as by the prioritisation of cases in the courts and the new requirements placed on landlords to which I have referred.
The noble Baroness referred to Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, which permits no-fault evictions. I therefore add that the Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation to abolish Section 21 in due course. That does not mean ignoring landlords’ legitimate interests. Any such legislation must balance greater security of tenure with an assurance that landlords are able to recover their properties where they have valid reasons to do so.
A number of noble Lords expressed concerns about forced evictions. We are taking steps to ensure that no enforcement of evictions will take place in areas where local lockdown measures are in force that restrict access to premises. Guidance has been issued to bailiffs to ensure that no enforcement of possession orders will proceed where local lockdown regulations restrict gatherings in residential properties to protect public health. I will write to noble Lords with further details about that.
One or two speakers, including my noble friend Lady Altmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the need to provide tenants with enhanced financial support. In addition to the measures I have mentioned, I remind noble Lords that the Government have already put in place a major package of financial support to help communities through the pandemic. There is the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has provided support for businesses to pay staff salaries. We have also strengthened the welfare safety net with a nearly £9.3 billion boost to the welfare system. That includes an extra £1 billion to increase local housing allowance rates so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents, meaning we now have a £25 billion budget to help people with rent payments in the private and social rented sectors. For renters who require additional support, there is an existing £180 million of government funding for discretionary housing payments made available this year. That is an increase of £40 million from last year for local councils to distribute to support renters with housing costs.
We need to look at all these measures in the round. Taken together, they strongly encourage landlords and tenants to sustain tenancies as far as possible and to discuss their situation before seeking possession and bringing a claim to court. Where cases end up in court, these measures ensure that court time can be used effectively, that the most egregious cases can be dealt with as a priority and that court users, both tenants and landlords, have the additional support they need. Comprehensive new guidance for landlords and tenants to explain all these new arrangements and how they impact on the court possessions process has also been published.
I will write to those noble Lords whose questions I have not covered in the time available, but please understand that things never stand still. The Government are clear that all measures to protect renters over this period will be kept under constant review in the light of the evidence on public health. I therefore say to the House that this instrument should be supported as a vital element in the safeguards that we are providing to parties and to manage cases sensibly in the courts. For those reasons, it most certainly should not be annulled; nor, I submit, should it be viewed as a matter for regret. I therefore do very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will feel able to withdraw their respective Motions.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I feel compelled to repeat one paragraph from my opening speech because it seems that it was not heard originally. I apologise if it lacked clarity. If we vote against this statutory instrument, will landlords still be able to take action regarding more serious eviction cases? Yes, because of the statutory instrument that was tabled in August, which is not the one the House is voting on today. I want to make sure that noble Lords are absolutely clear that egregious cases, domestic violence, long-term arrears, et cetera are included in the statutory instrument that was tabled in August.
It is therefore possible to vote to annul this instrument. It will not freeze or stop the egregious cases. If, as the Minister said, I am talking about so few cases—I do not agree with him; I think that the loophole is larger—then why not do it? What is the harm in ensuring that there is a longer notice period for people who were served notice between March and August? This is not for the egregious cases, just for the no-fault evictions under Section 21 with no explanation, because judges still have no discretion whatever.
I completely understand that it is difficult and messy to do this retrospectively. However, if this instrument falls, it would be up to the Government to come back. This House has done the job that the Commons failed to do: ask the Government to think again. This is about a very small but incredibly important factor; I believe that it is 55,000. The Minister has alternative figures, which I disputed in my opening speech.
Fourteen years ago, the Joint Commission on Conventions met. When summing up, the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling—Jack Cunningham—from the Labour Benches said:
“It is not incompatible with a revising Chamber to reject”
a statutory instrument. I agree, and have thought long and hard about this since I put down this humble Address at the beginning of the summer. The Government tabled this statutory instrument with no 21-sitting-day period for it to be considered. That consideration did not happen. The Commons did not do its job, so it is up to this House to do the job for it. For that reason, the fatal Motion should go ahead. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Housing and Planning Bill
Baroness Grender Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group that are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. The amendments are designed to ensure that vulnerable tenants are protected under this new legislation on abandonment. I raised concerns about vulnerable tenants in the context of this policy change in Committee.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that those noble Lords who are participating in the Bill will want to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, so we will allow a little time for noble Lords to leave the Chamber. I urge noble Lords to be as quiet as possible in their exit so that we do not take up unnecessary time waiting for them to depart. I think that now is a good time for the noble Baroness to restart the introduction to her amendment.
Baroness Grender
I thank the noble Baroness for that mini-filibuster to help me. I raised concerns about vulnerable tenants in the context of this policy change in Committee. The amendments would ensure that, in addition to contacting the tenant, where there was a person, a charity or a housing authority that had paid or contributed to the deposit, they would be contacted, too. So the amendments are aimed in particular at those tenants who are vulnerable and already known to charities or local authorities. This is critical because, as we all know—especially those of us who have debated the Bill for several hours—the end of a private tenancy is now the most common cause of statutory homelessness, accounting for 31% of all households accepted as homeless in England and 42% in London.
In the majority of cases where the landlord requires a deposit from the tenant, they will have paid the deposit themselves—but that will not always be the case. Sometimes the deposit will have been paid by a relative or an employer, but in many cases, in order to ensure that vulnerable people have access to the private rented sector, local housing authorities and charities will pay the deposit on behalf of the tenant. These amendments would ensure that, where the deposit had been paid by a third party and the landlord had commenced the abandonment proceedings, when they sent written notices to the tenant they would also have to notify the deposit payer. The deposit payer could therefore stop the process by confirming in writing to the landlord that the property had not been abandoned or by making a contribution towards the rent, which could be a nominal sum.
The amendments would provide additional protection to a vulnerable tenant who, for any reason, was unable to respond directly to the landlord. An example, which we discussed in Committee, is someone with mental health issues who is known to a charity, which has paid or contributed to that tenant’s deposit. The charity would be able to get involved at an early stage and, if necessary, put a stop to the abandonment process. In effect, if the local authority, charity or any other person who had paid the deposit confirmed that the property had not been abandoned, that would bring the abandonment process to an end.
The amendments were tabled as a result of an extremely helpful meeting with the Minister and I thank her for that. She showed clear understanding of and compassion for the vulnerable tenants I have described and an understanding of the need to ensure that a third party is involved in the process. I also thank the Minister’s officials for engaging in discussions about the best way to deal with abandonment while protecting the most vulnerable.
We on these Benches are not able to support Amendment 40 in this group because we believe that it would add a layer of bureaucracy without swiftly ending the abandonment procedure, which a third party could do under all the other amendments in this group.
Shelter and Citizens Advice originally highlighted the potential problems for vulnerable tenants in this part of the legislation. While they continue to have one or two misgivings about the clause, they are both very happy with this change. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments but will also take the opportunity to raise a drafting point which I do not think has been addressed in the Bill following Committee; nor indeed is it addressed by this amendment. In short, I am unconvinced that the legislation as it stands always supports the warning notice timetable set out by the Government. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this matter with officials and for her follow-up letter of 4 April with the attached flow chart, but I fear that my concern has been inadequately expressed and continues to fall on stony ground.
The issue is in fact very straightforward and relates to when the unpaid rent condition is met—particularly, say, where rent is payable monthly in advance. For the purposes of the Bill, when no rent at all has been paid since the end of, say, month three, is the unpaid rent condition met on day two of month five or only at the end of that month? If the latter, I have no issue with the Government’s analysis. However, I took from our meeting with officials that the former was the case, and in those circumstances the second warning notice could be given in a little over 31 days from the start of month four in this example, and the first warning notice from day five of that month, which would enable the notice bringing the tenancy to an end to be served at just after eight weeks rather than the suggested 12 weeks.
I am not seeking to be difficult on this matter but, if it is agreed that there is a lack of clarity, it would seem to make sense to put matters beyond doubt either by a simple amendment from the Government at Third Reading or at least in some guidance.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, it is not often that I get to say this, and indeed I am stealing my noble friend’s thunder, but I am delighted to confirm that the Government welcome and support Amendments 39 and 41 to 50, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. As the noble Baroness said, these amendments require a landlord who has received a deposit for the tenancy paid by someone other than the tenant to serve the written warning notices under Clause 57 on that person, as well as the tenant and any named occupier. This is an important change as it enables the deposit payer to respond to the warning notices to advise the landlord that the property has not been abandoned, and by doing so that will end the process. As the noble Baroness said, this is particularly relevant where the tenant is a vulnerable person. The noble Baroness has championed the interests of vulnerable tenants during Committee, and her helpful amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will go a long way in mitigating any potential adverse impacts on them. I thank her for working with us.
Often, a vulnerable tenant would have received assistance and financial support, including through payment of a tenancy deposit, from the local authority or a charitable organisation to secure accommodation in the private rented sector. Through these amendments the deposit payer will be able to respond, instead of the vulnerable tenant, to the landlord to confirm that the property is not abandoned or make a payment to stop the process from continuing, pending, perhaps, further enquiries as to the whereabouts of the tenant. There is a real stake in a local authority, or for that matter any other deposit payer, acting quickly to confirm that the property is not abandoned or in making a payment pending further enquiries as to the whereabouts of the tenant, since they will lose all or most of the deposit if the unpaid rent condition is met. It is also likely, therefore, that a deposit payer—indeed, any deposit payer—will want to be absolutely satisfied that the unpaid rent condition is met, the property has been abandoned and the landlord has followed the correct procedure.
The requirement to send the notices to the deposit payer improves the provisions further and builds on changes we made in the other place to ensure that payment of any rent would halt the abandonment process; that is, the requirement that the written notices be sent also to the address of any guarantor and that a third notice be affixed to the property so that the procedure is not open to abuse and vulnerable tenants are adequately protected.
Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, would require the landlord to seek confirmation from the local authority that it suspects that the property has been abandoned. This would apply in all cases and not be limited to those where the local authority had paid a deposit. However, on the face of it, there is no obligation on the local authority to respond to that inquiry, but the landlord cannot end the tenancy until such a response is received. Unlike where the authority is the deposit payer, there is no direct incentive or reason for it to respond to the request quickly, so the amendment would simply cause further delay in recovering the abandoned property as the arrears continued to accrue. I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that. Although the amendment would not require the authority to respond to the notice, the landlord would have a legitimate expectation that it did so and within a reasonable timeframe. That could leave local authorities exposed to legal challenges where they incorrectly responded or failed to respond promptly.
In response to the drafting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I will write to him, but I can confirm that we will bring forward clear guidance setting out the procedure and timescale.
So while we support Amendment 39 and Amendments 41 to 50, we do not think that Amendment 40 would achieve the same assurance that the deposit payer would respond at pace, if at all. Subsequently, it would place undue burdens and risks on local authorities. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, not to press that amendment.
Baroness Grender
Baroness Grender
Baroness Grender
““tenancy deposit”, in relation to a tenancy, means any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant arising under or in connection with the tenancy, or(b) the discharge of any liability of the tenant arising under or in connection with the tenancy;”
Channel 4
Baroness Grender Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks made by the Prime Minister on 4 November (HC Deb, col 965), what information they are using to estimate the financial gains from privatising Channel 4.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he wants Channel 4 to have a strong and secure future. No decisions have been made about the channel’s prospects. The Government are looking at a range of information to assess a broad spread of options including those proposed by Channel 4’s own leadership.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Is the Minister aware that while the Prime Minister says that private investment will safeguard Channel 4, leaders in the advertising industry and Campaign magazine say the exact opposite? How is it possible that a great Thatcherite success that supports more than 350 independent production companies annually is now under threat of what looks like the equivalent of a one-off car-boot sale?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.
Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Grender Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. Like many noble Lords, I share the dismay expressed so eloquently by the noble Baroness that, for the first time in history, there is no Member of your Lordships’ House in the Cabinet. That of course demeans the position of your Lordships’ House and lowers the standing of the Leader in the eyes of everybody, as we have already heard.
I suspect that this wholly unprecedented situation was arrived at by accident. Thus, I imagine that it cannot be corrected without disrupting existing appointments or, perhaps, coalition dispositions. What a price we pay to keep this coalition in place.
Who is the Prime Minister’s principal adviser on this matter? Presumably, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, explained, it is the Cabinet Secretary. Was the Cabinet Secretary’s advice taken on this occasion? What was that advice? That we shall never know, but it has caused this terrible situation and, I hope, can be corrected. If the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, chooses to divide the House a little later, I shall join her in the Division Lobby.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I want to make one very brief point. I would hate this debate to pass by without making the point that while many here are talking about a constitutional outrage, there remains a constitutional outrage that this place is unelected. I want to mark that point.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I think the House would not thank me for entering into that particular argument at this stage of the evening. I simply ask: where was the corporate memory in all of this? The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, described the change in the role of Lord Chancellor as an object lesson in how not to make changes. I think that it has a rival in this current situation. Perhaps I could just say a word about the change of the role of Lord Chancellor because I was a beneficiary of it in one sense, as I then had the honour of representing this House as the first Lord Speaker.
I have two things to say. First, the Government of the day were stopped in their tracks. I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lang. They took a long time to work out that policy properly; it was not implemented immediately because it was seen to be wrong. I believe that we are in the same situation now and we should stop. Secondly, constructive suggestions have been put forward on how this could be corrected. It needs to be corrected because it matters not only that the Prime Minister has his personal opinion—I am sure that he is honest in describing his respect for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—but that the Leader of the House has clout with fellow members of Cabinet matters. The Leader of the House should be someone who not only attends but is a member of Cabinet.
I shall say one last thing about those arguments about the change in the position of Lord Chancellor. There were passionate debates, often because there would be a reduction in the representation of this House at Cabinet level to possibly only one. That was considered to be a serious issue but no one, not the most outspoken opponent of those changes, ever suggested that it would be possible that this House would be totally unrepresented at Cabinet level. Others have made the case why that would be. As someone who had a role, of which I was immensely proud, in representing a House that I believe is an essential part of our bicameral legislature, I think that to allow that to happen would be a constitutional outrage, as others have said, and something that we should take steps to change.