Ministers: Training

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister further on his responses? The Ministerial Code says:

“Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect.”


The point picked up in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is: what happens when they do not? The Minister says that it is a matter for the Prime Minister, but that sets a pretty low bar of sanctions that could be imposed. I ask him to reflect on his answers. I am not saying that in every case a Minister should be sacked—there will be cases in which they should—but there is a lack of clarity about what happens when the Ministerial Code is breached.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not agree with the implied statement of criticism of the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues. That is true at every level of the Government. I have said that Ministers are officeholders, not direct employees, but that does not—either at the human level, the work level or the professional level of any sort—absolve any person in any position in this country from the requirement to observe the highest standards of respect for those with whom we work.

Preparing Legislation for Parliament (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and the experience and knowledge of this House has been extremely evident. It is hard to do great justice in one day to these two very detailed reports. I thank all those on the committee who took part, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who gave a very concise and precise introduction to today’s debate.

This may be a futile suggestion, but I wonder whether we should suggest that these reports be read by every Minister, aspiring Minister, parliamentary draftsperson and civil servant. If we were to act in accordance with the principles held within these reports, our process of legislation might be slightly slower but it would also be more effective and prevent problems further down the road. Both reports are largely about process, but they also rightly acknowledge the political environment we operate in and that political judgments have to be made. Inevitably, this will create tensions from time to time, but good process—as outlined in the reports—can minimise that.

We must recognise that there has been progress with process. I have been reflecting on my time in Parliament since I was elected to the House of Commons in 1997. Back then, Explanatory Notes were perhaps a sentence or two about what the clause did—they were not really Explanatory Notes at all. That has changed. We have seen progress in pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. I served on one of the first standing committees that started its deliberations on a Bill with evidence sessions before moving on to the Bill’s clauses.

We are making steady progress, but when reading through the reports what struck me was that Ministers, in their evidence and discussions with the committee, clearly understand the value of good process. There was very little disagreement about how things should be done, but there seemed to be a complacency in how close the Government think they get to good practice. Given the agreement on basic principles, the key question is why, given the agreement from Ministers when giving evidence to the committee, the legislation brought before Parliament often falls short of those principles.

I was disappointed by the Government’s response to the committee. We have to get defensiveness out of the government mindset on this. I hope that the Minister tonight, who is not known for being defensive or rejecting good ideas, will perhaps be more positive.

There is a wealth of information here, but I shall make a few comments about three broad themes. My first point is on the issues around evidence and judgment. Good evidence and process cannot replace political judgment, but they do enhance it. Whether we agree or disagree with an actual decision obviously depends on our own political perspective—that goes to the heart of the political principle of a Bill—but most of our deliberations in this House are on the viability of legislation and whether it achieves what it aims to do. We examine any possible unintended consequences and the evidence for that proposed course of action.

Although there are some examples, which are in the report, where legislation was unnecessary to enforce a policy, I am not automatically critical of a Government who feel that the importance of an issue is so great that legislation is perhaps not strictly necessary but is nevertheless desirable or helpful. It may be just to send a very public message about the commitment on an issue, which is not ideal, but they may also consider that the longer-term sustainability of that policy requires a legislative base. We cannot dismiss a public demand or political desire to do something in response to an issue, but that is not to give permission to ignore evidence or introduce badly drafted legislation.

I think it was on the Immigration Act 2016 that the Government sought to outsource immigration checks to landlords. This House was able to force the Government to introduce a pilot scheme first, although I am not convinced about a pilot scheme that seeks to prove that something can work rather than to test the viability of whether it will.

The passing of the Trade Union Act in the 2015-16 Session was a really good example of political views taking precedence. Even after passing all its stages in the House of Commons, we still had no sight of any impact assessment. I was grateful when the House overwhelmingly supported my proposal to allow a very controversial, highly political part of the Bill to go to a separate but parallel Select Committee. The evidence sessions that took place brought more light than heat to the debate; interestingly, as we moved back on to the Floor of the House, one Peer, who had strongly supported the Bill throughout, later candidly admitted how little he had previously known about trade unions.

Another example of politics overriding evidence was the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. During the course of the Bill, I asked for the justification and evidence base for reducing the number of MPs to 600. I was told by the then Leader of the House that it was “a nice round figure”. We never had any other explanation for how that number was arrived at, but I sometimes wish the Minister had been talking about himself and not the number of MPs that he was reducing the House to.

However, that does not denigrate all political judgments. As a Minister, I recall being informed that I had to authorise a certain course of action because legal advice had been taken—unbeknown to me—and the lawyers said that I had to sign it off. It was completely against my principles to do so and I took the view that I was entitled as an elected representative and as a Minister to make a value judgment on the evidence before me and my own views—so I did.

After two days in court, when I was judiciously reviewed, the judge fortunately agreed with me. It is an important judgment because it says that if you have the evidence, you can bring political judgment to bear as well—it is not just a legal decision. If it is to be just a legal decision, we might as well do away with politicians and just have lawyers. However, those value judgments and political judgments have to be made transparently and with evidence. Clearly, the committee’s recommendation for producing the evidence base or explaining the justification is the right one.

In some ways, I should like us to look more at impact assessments; that is one way in which we could get better evidence. I regret that the Government do not often follow their own guidance on the availability or content of impact assessments. At times, the content has been of little value. When one looks at the alternatives, it just says, “It doesn’t achieve the objective”. It does not say why or what other options have been looked at. A good impact assessment could be a great tool for examining legislation and a real help to the Government and Parliament.

I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for being briefly out of the Chamber while he was speaking. My noble friend Lord Stevenson took some notes for me and I look forward to reading them. The noble and learned Lord made a wise speech, talking particularly about delaying the implementation of a Bill to give further consideration—a point certainly worth considering.

On pre-legislative scrutiny, the reports—and noble Lords tonight—have commented on consultations. Governments set great store by consultations. I am not sure why the consultation period has been reduced and hope the Minister will explain that. However, perhaps a more serious point is that, as consultations have become more embedded in our political culture, they have become largely meaningless. They are sometimes an exercise that must be gone through, with no one taking note of what they contain.

If the Minister does not have the information to hand, perhaps he could write to let us know the number of Government consultations in any one year; the average and longest time it takes the Government to respond; and—a point drawn out in the report—how consultees are chosen or informed of the consultation.

I recall meeting officials to consider consultation responses before signing off a final report on a particular issue. We had a good response, with several good suggestions within the overall policy framework set by the report. However, no changes were proposed to the final report. I asked, “Are there no suggestions worthy of change?” There were, but they were not put in until I raised the question. We made those changes, but too often I fear that good suggestions go into the paper shredder because there is not enough desire to make the changes—it is too much bother once the draft has been printed.

I also recall a time when the consultation response was not even available in time for consideration of the Bill. If we are to have consultations, they have to be meaningful. Let us not pretend that we are consulting when all we do is go through the motions.

I welcome the comments on draft Bills. I know how well this works and that it avoids later problems. I appreciate that, immediately post-election, it can take time for a new Government to get legislation ready, as we saw with the skeleton Bills this House received in 2015. The Childcare Bill started in this House because it was considered non-controversial. In policy terms, it was completely non-controversial, but with a skeleton Bill policy was unacceptably left to delegated and secondary legislation—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out—just because it had not been worked out. That Bill had highly controversial detail, although the policy framework was not controversial. It had a pretty rough ride in your Lordships’ House.

There is a way round that. In most cases, discussion between the Government and Opposition can take the Bill in segments or take part of the Bill and come back to it. We can get good scrutiny without trying to derail the Government’s programme. I entirely endorse the value of Green Papers and White Papers.

A point was made about the role of the Law Commission. I wrote an article for the Times Red Box recently, saying that, given the current hiatus in legislation, we should be asking the Law Commission whether there is an opportunity to do more consolidation, with sentencing Bills welcome. We all know that legislation is hard to decipher. It causes mistakes, in sentencing, for example, and in interpretation. There is an opportunity here to use the time when we are not doing as much legislation as we could be to look at some of those consolidation Bills.

On the appropriate use of delegated powers, I can recall, back in the day, about four years ago, when even the most experienced of political journalists had no knowledge of and showed no interest in secondary legislation. Then came tax credits and the Government’s wildly exaggerated response to the actions of your Lordships’ House in the form of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I take a slightly different view from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on this. This House did not reject the tax credits—it tried to find another way without rejecting them completely. The fatal Motion was rejected by your Lordships’ House. The Motion passed asked the Government to have another look. It was the late, great Patricia Hollis’s Motion that said, “Have another look at this”. This House provided a breathing space for the Government to reconsider and they took the opportunity to do so. We had to be creative to do that, but perhaps we should look at building that into our processes on secondary legislation, so that we do not have an all-or-nothing approach of either accepting or rejecting, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler said. There is something else we can do to be constructive.

That problem was of the Government’s own making. It was not that the previous Government had allowed for the changes; the Government were abusing the system. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made that point as well. When the Government misuse the delegated powers procedure—it has been abused once—we have to be creative in our response. The content of the tax credits SI—the significance of the change that was being made—was far more appropriate to primary legislation. That is why this House responded as it did.

We are now in a position where the number and range of SIs, as shown in the charts and documents, is unsustainable. Something I have suggested in the past, particularly in relation to Brexit but it applies across the board, is to have an earlier sight of drafts of SIs so that public and House consultation can take place. The report makes the point that amendments can be made before they get to the House. However, as I said, secondary legislation has been used when policy has not been worked out. A trusting and generous person might suggest that this is to provide additional time for the Government to bring forward the detail. But a suspicious person—I would not put myself in that category—might suggest that it is to evade proper scrutiny and the possibility of amendments.

Looking at the committee’s recommendations, I may be wrong, but I sense that the House would be reluctant to end the constitutional restraint that we respect. We are an unelected House; we recognise the primacy of the Commons and the value we bring to legislation. That restraint, however, must not be abused by the Government. That is the problem at the moment. If we keep to our side of the deal, there is an obligation on the Government to do the same and I do not think that is happening at the moment.

The current position is deteriorating and it is in no way due, as the Strathclyde report tried to make out, to any tension between the two Houses of Parliament. The only tension is between the Government and this House when the Government use statutory instruments inappropriately. It was Patricia Hollis who proposed to the Procedure Committee that there should be a middle way—a different way of looking at SIs—and I think that is something we should revisit. I entirely agree that a Motion to Regret is a way of putting something on the table and making a point, but the Government rarely listen, except in the most extreme cases. I should like that to be further considered by the Procedure Committee and this House.

I have gone on for slightly longer than I intended, partly because of the quality of the debate. I hope we will hear a positive response from the Minister tonight, but we have work here. This is not something that we will debate today and walk away from. Two further reports are to come. The message is that this House is restrained. We play our part and undertake our role seriously, but we expect the Government to hold to their obligations and responsibilities as well.

Subordinate Legislation: Transparency and Accountability

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was present in the House of Commons on that historic date but I cannot remember which side I was on, because I cannot remember whether it was before or after the general election in 1979. The noble and learned Lord’s suggestion of a commemorative stamp is a good one, but it might be subject to a statutory instrument.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my appreciation of the Joint Committee for the work it does, which is hugely valuable, particularly when we have so many statutory instruments coming forward. However, the noble Lord and the committee rightly made much of avoiding delay, and I make a plea about accuracy. One of the problems with SIs, understandably, is that they cannot be amended. If, in the Government’s haste to get so many through in such a short time, they are not accurate, as my noble friend Lord Rowlands said, that has enormous consequences. Can the Minister consider—I do not know whether he knows the answer to this—how many days there are between an SI being published in draft form and its being debated? That is when there is an opportunity to pick up any inaccuracies. Does he think that sometimes, they come through a little more quickly than one would anticipate is necessary to allow proper scrutiny prior to their being tabled?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Affirmative resolutions cannot come into effect until they have been debated in both Houses, while negative ones should be laid in draft 10 days before they are made and 21 days before their coming into force. Those 10 days are to give the committee time to recommend a change from a negative to an affirmative resolution. In the 48 cases where it has made that recommendation, the Government have agreed. On errors, as I said in response to an earlier question, the overall percentage of errors in SIs has decreased and we are working hard to maintain progress.

Government Policy: Plain English

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord may have read the Manchester Guardian in 1794, when the same issue arose. I quote:

“The nonsensical jargon of the old Ministries must be replaced by a simple style, clear and yet concise, free from expressions of servility, from obsequious formulae, stand-offishness, pedantry, or any suggestion that there is an authority superior to that of reason, or of the order established by law”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the reasons this House always welcomes the Minister to the Dispatch Box is that he fulfils his obligations, is always clear and concise and, as we have seen today, answers questions with some wit and humour. That is not always the case with answers to your Lordships’ House. In the spirit of Christmas I will not name names, but may I suggest that a new year’s resolution for the Minister might be to hold training classes for his ministerial colleagues so that we may have the delights of similar answers from all Ministers?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

In her intervention, I think the noble Baroness has made me even more unpopular than before with my ministerial colleagues.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why Richmond House was selected was the direct access to the rest of the Parliamentary Estate from that building, for security reasons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we all agree that it is important that we keep the costs down and ensure value for money during the restoration and renewal project. I turn to two specific areas, not about the Chambers but about the office location for Peers following decant. First, is it correct that available offices in government departments in Whitehall which were identified by the Joint Committee as possible office space have now been blocked and ruled out by the Government because they are being used by the additional staff who have had to be brought in for Brexit, thus forcing more expensive options to be considered for office space for Peers? Secondly, can he quantify the extra costs incurred by delay not only in terms of the additional maintenance and prevention work that is needed but also the increased costs of the work involved?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On value for money, the Government have published a draft Bill. Under Clause 2(4), the sponsor body must ensure that the works represent good value for money. I was not aware of what the noble Baroness has just said about the government departments blocking access to buildings but I will make inquiries. If the noble Baroness is referring to the overall cost of the project, which is now estimated at some £3.52 billion, the overall management of the project is a matter for Parliament. It is not a matter for the Government. Responsibility will rest with the sponsor body, which is now being set up, and the delivery body. But, ultimately, it is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for Parliament as to how this matter is progressed.

Infrastructure and Projects Authority

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I say to the noble Lord that I was around 20 years ago during the gestation of HS1 and precisely the same arguments were adduced against that: it was environmentally unsustainable; it was not value for money; there were other, greater priorities. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House today would now argue that we should not have gone ahead with HS1. My own view is that in 20 years’ time, or whenever HS2 is complete, the same view will be taken of HS2.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware, of course, of the IFG report entitled What’s Wrong with Infrastructure Decision Making? produced in 2017. I hope he has had the opportunity to look at its recommendations and will explain to the House which of those recommendations the Government have implemented. Also, when he talks about the skills needed by civil servants, will he accept that in these long-term projects the turnover of project managers is far too frequent? There is a stop–start approach, when what is needed, as well as the skills, is that civil servants, or whoever is in charge, should undertake a project from beginning to end so that we can see some continuity.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I concur with that observation. There is a strong argument for having continuity of leadership within departments when you have these projects that run over many years. But as I said a few moments ago, the IPA is seeking to address that problem by building up the skills within the Civil Service with a new leadership programme and other initiatives. But I take the point, and I will feed it back to the IPA and the departments, that continuity within project leadership is essential if these projects are to be delivered within budget and on time.

Referendums: Parliamentary Democracy

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the great danger in speaking late in a debate with so many thoughtful contributions and such experienced noble Lords is that the old adage rings true: perhaps everything has been said but not yet by everybody. Therefore, being one of the last speakers, I feel somewhat apprehensive.

I genuinely and warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on securing such an interesting and valuable debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for providing an excellent briefing. It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which I have heard two first-rate maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I have form on debating, in that we had neighbouring constituencies when we were both in the other place. I rather like the sound of his grandfather, but I expect that it will be a vain hope to tempt the noble Lord back to his political roots. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is known to many noble Lords through his former work as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, at which he distinguished himself. With his speech today, he distinguished himself in your Lordships’ House as well. We are very grateful to have two such impressive additions to this House and we welcome them both.

Despite the general title of this debate, it was inevitable that it would focus on the 2016 referendum on our EU membership. There are several issues to address in talking about the general subject of referendums and parliamentary democracy: why do we have referendums in the first place; what is their interaction and relationship with the democratic process; and can we do better in future? Quite often a high moral objective is attributed to referendums. Proponents assert that they are an opportunity to break away from decision-making by the so-called elite so that the people can have their say, but the reality is that they are rarely used because the Government want to seek public opinion; they are more likely to be used for reasons of political management, and it is interesting to look at the three UK-wide referendums that we have had.

In 1975, a referendum was held on whether to stay in the Common Market. Harold Wilson inherited a divisive policy after Ted Heath took the UK into the European Community. All the indications were that people wanted to remain in the Common Market, so there was little risk in having a referendum, but by having a public vote and allowing his Ministers the freedom to support whichever option they chose, although the debate was quite heated and difficult at times, Harold Wilson avoided a damaging split in his Government and his party, and he reinforced his own political position.

The 2011 vote on the voting system under the coalition Government sought to manage the relationship between the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

In 2016, we had the EU referendum, which has since proved to be very controversial and divisive, and it is on that that today’s debate has focused. In 2011, the coalition Government introduced legislation which had first been proposed by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It was rejected by the two other parties, which then provided for a referendum should a new treaty transfer additional powers to the EU. However, there was no political will to maintain that position. I was interested to hear from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as it was Nick Clegg as the Lib Dem leader who campaigned for an in/out referendum on membership, and then 81 Conservative Peers defied the Whip to support such a poll. With that growing dissent in his own party and an electoral threat from UKIP, David Cameron made it a manifesto commitment. Therefore, again, it was for political management. Similar to 1975, it was a straightforward yes/no vote about remaining in the EU or leaving. I think that that referendum has brought much of the theoretical discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of referendums to life, particularly given the closeness of the result.

A number of questions have been raised today. Do referendums undermine or enhance parliamentary democracy? Do they provide a tool or a tactical device for Governments, especially authoritarian ones, or can they be a check on Governments’ powers? Are they a genuine means of engaging the public or are they dominated by the elite and by well-funded groups? Does the legitimacy of a yes/no question do justice to complex issues? Also, in the same way as it is often difficult to disaggregate why voters vote in a particular way in elections, can we be confident that a single referendum question is really the issue on which people make a judgment?

The most challenging of all the issues is the interaction and relationship with the democratic process. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, opened the debate with the wise question: can any referendum result be binding on a Parliament? The dilemma here is that, for any referendum to have any legitimacy with the electorate and to get them to take part, the public have to be given some authority. But can that legitimacy or authority extend to overriding parliamentary democracy and representative government and, if so, how can that be judged? Would it be by the national result or, if the voting was counted in that way, by constituency?

Let us be honest: few people call for or support a referendum unless they think they will win it. The decision whether or not to proceed with a referendum lies with the Government and Parliament, so they are likely to take place only when the Government of the day decide that it is in their interests and that they will win.

Throughout my political life, I have argued that democracy is about more than voting: it is about participation, engagement and education, and, as your Lordships’ House is only too aware, it is about scrutiny and compromise. That becomes almost impossible if it is a binary choice in a referendum. Democracy is not a finite act that is exercised with one stroke of a pen. When votes are cast in a referendum, in order for them to be respected by the elected representatives, it should be done in a way that unites rather than divides. Elected representatives have to act in the context of their wider responsibility to the country and to their constituents. They have to, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, translate that decision into legislation.

We all understand the inevitable tensions both before and since the 2016 referendum. But there can be no excuse for the way in which some newspapers and journalists expressed their view that those who did not agree with them were not acting in the national interest. Comments as extreme as calling people “traitors”, and worse, deny the very foundations on which our democracy is founded.

That was not all about the referendum. There was of course something else going on, symptomatic perhaps of wider changes in the world, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Wilson, that fed into much harsher personal attacks on social media. Often, this was in the form of tweets from those hiding behind a pseudonym, but occasionally it was done in person. The worst of all examples is the murder of our parliamentary colleague Jo Cox.

What is the way forward? When the Independent Commission on Referendums reported earlier this month, it was able to reflect not just on the last referendum but on others that have taken place. Two paragraphs of the report have been raised in this debate, and I think they are key. In one, the report says:

“In some circumstances, referendums can exist alongside the structure of representative democracy without difficulty. Where a referendum takes place on a precise proposal for change that has already been worked through the representative process, it can make and legitimise a final decision”,


and,

“strengthen representative institutions by enhancing the connection between representatives and voters”.

That is because the voters know exactly what they are voting for. The report adds:

“By contrast, where a referendum takes place on an imprecise proposal, difficulties can be created. As a consequence, parliament can find itself left with an instruction from voters, but with wide disagreement on what that instruction means. That is particularly so if those who called for the change are not among those responsible for its implementation”.


Essential for the legitimacy of any referendum is clarity of choice, an understanding of the implications of that choice, and confidence in the quality of information and the integrity of those providing such information. That is even more pertinent now, following the finding on the Vote Leave campaign’s actions. In 2010, having examined the issues, our constitutional committee was clear that a national referendum was appropriate only in a limited range of constitutional issues. However, I think that much greater caution will be exercised in future, not because of the outcome of the 2016 referendum but because, as a number of noble Lords have said, of the lack of clarity around what was voted on. Because of that, everyone can claim that they know why people voted. That has led to a weak and divided Government, and we are probably in a position where there is no majority for any option currently on the table in the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about a lack of public confidence; this referendum has decreased our confidence and trust in politicians rather than increased it. With the referendum, the public expected politicians to sort it out but they are failing to do so.

There is probably just one issue that Baroness Thatcher and Clem Attlee agreed on many years ago which was that they feared that it was not democratic if the loudest and richest had the greatest say. They made the point that government is not just about the will of the majority but about protecting minorities.

I hope the Minister can respond on this. It is clear that in future we need greater rules and criteria that are fit for purpose, including on how social media and modern technology can be used and abused in these proposals. It is clear that the legislation needs to be updated but it has to bring clarity to what is being asked for and honesty and integrity to the arguments, which do not denigrate experts.

House of Lords Reform: Elected Second Chamber

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I say to the noble Baroness that no discourtesy was intended and that it allows noble Lords more time to ask questions. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the proposals in the noble Baroness’s House of Lords Reform Bill last year. The hereditaries would disappear, to be replaced by 292 elected Peers for eight years on a regional basis. The rest of us, including the Lords spiritual, would survive. We would be able to speak but not vote—we would be talkers but not walkers—enabling the Whips to focus their skills on the small minority who actually mattered. I think that having non-voting and voting Peers would introduce unacceptable class barriers into your Lordships’ House. It would also pose a problem for the Cross-Benchers. If the Cross-Benchers wanted to survive, they would have to stand for election, which might prove to be an indignity for some of them. The noble Baroness also suggested that, if they wanted to do that, they would have to stand as a party. We would all envy the role of the Convenor in trying to corral the various Members on the Cross Benches into a party. That would make the rest of us look positively disciplined.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness talks about elections to this House, we should perhaps be mindful that an elected second Chamber might not be so mindful of the primacy of the elected House. A constitutional convention may well be the best way forward. When we look at reform, we know that the wheels of progress sometimes move very slowly. But this House has already agreed a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee made proposals to reduce the size of the House so it would not be as large as the Commons, for 15-year terms and, to get to that point, for there to be two out and one in. Does he not think it is time the Government took those proposals on board and moved forward on Burns? Reform has been agreed by this House: it is the Government holding up reform, not your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness will know that the Prime Minister responded to the Burns report, and my party has responded very positively to the suggestion that numbers should come down. The House may remember the figures I gave in an earlier exchange: 15 noble Lords have retired since October last year—eight Conservatives, four Cross-Benchers, two Labour and one Democratic Unionist—but, sadly, no Lib Dems. My party has played its part in reducing the number of Peers. We urge other parties to follow our example.

House of Lords: Size

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Andrew Tyrie was a robustly independent-minded chair of the Treasury Select Committee in the last Parliament and regularly held the Government to account. I spoke to him this morning and I can confirm that he will be sitting as a non-affiliated Peer. I gather that if you want to join the Cross Benches, you have to do a period of quarantine if you have been a member of a party. Since he took up the job as chair of the CMA, he will sit as a non-affiliated Peer and therefore not be in receipt of the Conservative whip.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the original Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, asked what plans the Government have to reduce the size of the House. As illuminating and entertaining as the Minister’s answers always are—they are very enjoyable—I have not yet heard the Government’s plans. Given that the only sensible, credible plan on the table is that of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, and that other parties have agreed that if the Government abide by its terms then we will too, is that not the plan which the Government have to accept and move forward on?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Prime Minister set out the Government’s plans in her four-page letter to the Lord Speaker dated 20 February, which I referred to. There are two basic elements. One is restraint on appointments; the Prime Minister has said that she will sign up to it and I think that she has already shown that. The other is to take forward the work which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to yesterday. The Government are prepared to play their part in those discussions as the Burns committee continues its work.

House of Lords: Membership

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this House has already accepted the principle of reducing its size. On 20 February, the Prime Minister’s letter to the Lord Speaker regarding the Burns report described the current list as a legacy issue but said that in any future appointments she would,

“allocate them fairly, bearing in mind the results of the last general election and the leadership shown by each party in terms of retirements”.

In fairness, I suggest that it should be about departures whether by retirement, resignation or by those who have died. On these Benches, we have lost 12 colleagues since the last election, more than any other group in your Lordships’ House. The Burns report recommended that the appointment of Peers should reflect departures—two out, just one in—and better reflect the votes at the previous election. I have been clear that we are ready for that, including all departures and appointments since the 2017 election. When will the Government genuinely make the same commitment?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

So far as reducing the size of the House is concerned, if one puts on one side the appointments which the Prime Minister inherited from David Cameron and the hereditary Peers by-election, there have been 59 departures and 21 appointments since she became Prime Minister. That is well within the two-out, one-in ratio recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. So far as representation is concerned, my party got 42% of the votes and we have 31% of the membership of your Lordships’ House. Compared with some other parties, I maintain that my party is still underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.