Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I too think the Post Office scandal is instructive and I will use it to make my point, which is different to my noble friend’s.

The excellent ITV drama illustrates powerfully what many voters already think about those of us in positions of authority—that too often we do not listen to or take seriously what voters are telling us if what they say or want does not correspond with what we have decided is right and want to do. The travesty was sub-postmasters, the kind of people who represent the epitome of good character in communities, having their concerns dismissed time and again in favour of sophisticated arguments from Fujitsu, Post Office executives, civil servants and lawyers.

What this saga shows is how we—the powerful decision-making class—lose sight of what matters when dealing with complex challenges. While the individuals responsible for the Post Office scandal must be held to account and face the consequences of their failure, we must all understand that this event goes wider than an example of injustice—even though it is the worst of its kind. What it represents is the division between insiders and outsiders that led to Brexit and other democratic shocks that followed in 2017 and 2019.

Too often, we complain that people call for simple solutions to complex problems because “they don’t understand”. People do not expect simple solutions to complex problems, but they do expect people such as us to be motivated by the kinds of simple values that any decent, upstanding citizen instinctively shares. We evidence that by how we do our job, which must include listening and understanding their experience of the problem that only we have the power to fix.

In short, if we want to change the standing of parliamentary democracy and our politics, we must take far more seriously the views and demands of the people we rely on for support and are here to serve. They want us to uphold and share their standards in how we go about our work. If we do not learn the lessons of our collective failure, we would be unwise to believe it will be business as usual at the ballot box when the current Parliament ends.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I support noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his amendments demanding a timescale for the ban on such adverts. Advertising is the only business in the world that spends an enormous amount of money and then suggests that it does not work. It is a curious state of affairs that the advertising industry, as well as the food industry, which spends upwards of £0.5 billion a year on advertising HFSS food, says that advertising does not work, but the fact is that it does.

Research has shown that half of all food ads shown in September on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky One were for HFSS products. That number rose to nearly 60% between 6 pm and 9 pm. Ofcom research also suggests that children’s viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated around family viewing time, between 6 pm and 9 pm. People in food policy have worked, as I have worked, for a very long time for this ban. We thoroughly applaud the Government for doing it. I also applaud my noble friend Lord Krebs for taking apart that protein bar, because it illustrates the way in which the food industry works. I have heard all too often, especially when I first came into this House—albeit not so much now—people saying, “All you need to do is exercise to get rid of the excess weight.” We know that that is a line put out by the industry. The industry is very clever. Yes, they have managed to sell the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, their protein bar, but they have not sold it properly. I hope that, with this ban, the Government will look at all the other sneaky ways in which food companies put things through, whether it is high-energy drinks or whatever, that are incredibly destructive to our health. As my noble friend Lord Krebs, said, we have an unenviable first position in the scale of obesity around the world, and we need to end it now.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare that I am chairman of the Communications and Digital Select Committee. I support Amendment 151A and the others in the name of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. I do so because this is a matter of fairness.

Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said, the broadcasters have accepted that a pre-watershed ban on junk food advertising is coming. They and I also understand that the online platforms face a complete ban. However, once again, the legacy or heritage media businesses are the only ones which will face serious financial penalties if they make a mistake and, for whatever reason, allow a non-compliant piece of advertising to slip through and appear on air. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will emphasise that the difference between the online platforms and broadcasters is only therefore about regulatory burdens and sanctions, but that is the point, and it is why this is unfair.

Why should the media businesses which will be significantly disadvantaged commercially by the ad ban be the only ones fined if something goes wrong? Why should the media businesses which continue to lose ad revenue to online platforms stand by and watch as those same platforms—Google, Facebook, YouTube—are not yet subject to any statutory regulatory regime to prevent their unfair market dominance? How can it be right that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to liability for the ads they profit from? They profit from them to a much larger degree than the broadcasters profit from the ads they run.

When I spoke in Committee, the Minister said in reply that all this would be dealt with via the online advertising programme and that a consultation would start shortly. Any progress on that will be welcome, but there is a limit to how much consultation the media industry can take. What it needs is action, which means legislation to deal with these various digital market and competition issues that currently favour big online platforms and are detrimental to everyone else, including consumers. To fail to do that while prioritising legislation that hits the traditional broadcasters more harshly than online platforms is unfair.

As I have said, those of us who support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Black do not want to delay the ban on junk food advertising, but in introducing it, we should make sure that liability for mistakes and failures to comply with regulations is fair. The Bill as it stands is not. I am very grateful to the Minister for the time she has given to hearing these arguments, but urge her to reconsider the merits of these amendments, especially bearing in mind that we are still a long way from new legislation that will finally level the playing field across the media sector. If my noble friend divides the House, I will vote with him.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I too am very pleased to support Amendment 151A and the following amendments. I also read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to Peers following the debate on this in Committee. He said that it was

“difficult for regulators to keep pace with advertising code breaches without the cooperation of platforms who hold significant data on the process, and host the services”.

That seems to me a recognition of their responsibility in the ad process. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, ads create the vast majority of the platforms’ revenue and so they are responsible for controlling their content.

I read a recent survey on the effect of online advertising on young people, which was carried out by the healthy living charity, Global Action Plan. It showed that the average teen sees on Instagram alone one ad every eight seconds. That is the equivalent of 444 ads per hour. The survey also revealed that Facebook’s ad manager directly targeted young people with risky and unhealthy advertising, including for fast food and alcohol. It was the platforms’ data and algorithms which directed these ads, and they need to be made responsible for any restrictions on HFSS advertising as quickly as possible. There are other, more insidious forms of online advertising, such as product placement in digital content, especially among influencers. All these should be made the responsibility of the platforms to control. I hope the amendments will do just that.

I was glad to hear that the Government are looking at the online advertising programme, but I, like many noble Lords, am concerned by the laggardly start. Can the Minister say when she thinks the consultation will conclude? I hope that will happen quickly, because every day, thousands of young people are going to be harmed by the delay. I also ask the Minister to guarantee that platform liability for hosting product placement and others sorts of insidious advertising will be in scope of the consultation.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The noble Baroness is drawing me into what is a very important debate, but I do not think it is this one in this group. We will come on to it perhaps on Amendment 259 at a later stage. I do not disagree that we have not succeeded where alcohol consumption is concerned, but the nature of the problem has manifested itself more recently, especially in smaller numbers of people consuming alcohol, some not at all, but those who do very often doing so through binge drinking, which is exactly what is giving rise to what we are all most concerned about, which is the significant harm that is resulting for those people. We need to think behaviourally about the nature of the problem in order to find behaviourally what is the nature of the solution.

I need to stop, but I shall raise just one point with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I started with nutrient profiling. Nutrient profiling is terribly important. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made the point that we do not get to look at that, but what it says is terribly important. As I understand it, we are due for a revision, but we have not yet seen it. There was a 2013 study that looked at our nutrient profiling and compared it to that of the WHO and five European countries. It concluded that, in relation to a large number of processed and packaged foods, under our system 47% would be able to be advertised to children, while under the WHO system it was 32%. There is a significant difference in what one puts into the nutrient profiling. It is not an objective truth, and putting alcohol in it completely misses the point, since it is not constructed around that proposition. I ask my noble friend to tell us a bit more about the nutrient profiling process, the timetable, the evidence and how we are going to put it together to meet the objectives under the Bill.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will be very brief. I declare my chairmanship of the Communications and Digital Committee. A lot of powerful speeches have been made all around the House today and clearly, we are all united in our care and concern for the issue of child obesity. The complexity of what is proposed in this legislation has been illustrated to such an extent that there is a case for delaying implementing these measures so that it is got right.

But the main reason for my decision to speak in this debate is the issue of fairness, equal treatment and the difference in the way these regulations apply to broadcasters and to the online platforms. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood have already spoken in some detail about the inequality of treatment between broadcasters and news publishers, and the online platforms.

I spell out clearly that what we are talking about here is that responsibility for the control and compliance of advertising that appears on television or radio rests with broadcasters, which can be sanctioned severely with huge fines by regulators if they allow anything that is non-compliant to air. But responsibility does not rest with the online platforms, which take far more in profit from the advertising they publish on their sites than any broadcaster is able to. They are equally able to control what appears on their platforms, as the noble Viscount powerfully described. Could my noble friend the Minister therefore explain why the Government are not ensuring parity between broadcasters and the likes of Google and Facebook at the point of legislation, to ensure parity in the way this will be applied?

Also under the heading of fairness, I say that, in the case of the small manufacturers of the products affected by the advertising ban, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which ensures that the definition of “SME” in the Bill does not provide a loophole exempting large international manufacturers from these advertising restrictions just because they have a small workforce in this country.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I feel the need to balance the sides of this debate. I attached my name to Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I associate myself with everything said by her and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in particular, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who gave powerful and well-evidenced presentations of why we need to see action here. Given the time and the fact that I have a train to catch, I will be brief.

The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Moylan, talked about freedom of speech—the freedom of the advertisers to push on to children whatever they want to push. I put against that the freedom to flourish and live a healthy life with a decent lifespan. The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, illustrated that that is not being achieved and there is a deep inequality in our society.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how difficult it would be to measure or separate out the impact of these measures. We are in a hugely obesogenic environment. We have this huge problem with obesity not because human nature has suddenly changed and people have lost self-control, but because they are bombarded and barraged from all sides with ultra-processed pap, which we should stop all advertising of. I do not think that “High in fat, sugar and salt” goes far enough. There is evidence that under-11s—primary school kids—cannot distinguish between adverts and editorial content, so we have to protect them.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Black, asked about the international comparisons. Perhaps one of the most obvious ones is Norway, which brought in a ban somewhat similar to this in 2012. It has struggled for the reasons outlined by many noble Lords. Indeed, a study was produced by Oslo Metropolitan University last year, using the categorisation of the WHO European Office for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Eight out of 10 adverts that young people in Norway were seeing online were for unhealthy food. That is a problem, but it is an argument not for doing nothing but for tackling the whole obesogenic environment that our young people are growing up in, with demonstrable effects. Norway, which has taken similar action to that which we are talking about today, as have Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania—that is just a shortlist—has half the level of childhood obesity that we do, and it regards it as a serious problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important and engaging debate. There has been consensus that childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems this nation faces—and maybe not just a health problem. We have also talked about the impact of inequality and broader life chances. The latest national child measurement programme data, from 2020-21, showed that some 40% of children leaving primary schools in England were overweight or living with obesity.

That is why, as part of our ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030, it is imperative that we reduce children’s exposure to less healthy food and drink product advertising on TV and online. To be clear, the Government know that this is not a silver bullet, and this action alone will not solve the problem; it is part of a multifaceted plan. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that this includes working with manufacturers on reformulation and to produce healthier food. Indeed, we are clear that products that are reformulated to pass the MPM will be able to be advertised, and we hope this provides a motivation for brands to do so. Obesity is a complex problem that builds over time through frequent excessive calorie consumption. Through this one action, as part of a wider programme, we estimate that we can remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets per year in the UK.

Turning to specific amendments and looking first at what should be covered by these priorities, I will speak to Amendments 253B, 254A, 254B, 247A, 249ZA, 249ZB, 250B, 252ZA, 252ZB, 248, 248A, and 251. We believe that the current approach to defining food that is less healthy provides sufficient legal certainty and is consistent with other healthy weight restrictions and policies. For example, it is used in a similar way in the promotions and placement restrictions for less healthy food and drink, which were made law last December.

It is important to provide detail in the Bill on the two-step criteria to determine what is less healthy, in order to ensure that the primary legislation is sufficiently clear. The nutrient profiling model has been used by Ofcom since 2007 to determine what can be advertised around child-specific programming on TV, although outside the statutory framework. The technical guidance of January 2011, which provides the steps to calculate the nutrient profiling model score, is an existing document that has been specifically developed and used to support industry since it was published. Its substance is not changeable at the discretion of the Secretary of State and, as an additional safeguard, the Government have already amended Schedule 17 to include a statutory duty to consult in the event that a change is proposed to the meaning of “the relevant guidance”.

I can assure noble Lords that the current approach would allow healthier products, which may contain fruit, nuts and seeds or be a source of protein, to not be caught by restrictions, while still restricting those which are less healthy overall. However, that will also need to be underpinned by secondary legislation, which the Government will be consulting on shortly, and the points your Lordships have raised will be considered as part of this.

The proposed amendment to permit the advertising of confectionery of less than 200 calories could mean that adverts for chocolate confectionery products could still be permitted on TV before the watershed and online, given the likely difficulty in determining portion sizes in such adverts. This would undermine the policy and send out the wrong message to consumers and producers.

In response to Amendment 244, we do not believe it is necessary to consult on whether alcohol should be included as a “less healthy” product, as these provisions are aimed at reducing the exposure of children to less healthy food and drink advertising. Unlike alcohol, less healthy food and drink products are not age-restricted at the point of purchase. In addition, as noble Lords have noted, there are other measures in place that address the advertising of alcohol.

Turning to Amendments 247, 250A and 253A, I assure noble Lords that brand advertising is out of scope of the restrictions, as these clauses focus on identifiable products. Including an exemption in the Bill for something that is already out of scope would have no legal effect and therefore may cause undue confusion.

I turn to Amendments 248B, 251A and 253C on who will be covered by these proposals. We intend to define food and drink SMEs as businesses with 249 employees or fewer, as outlined in our consultation response. By doing this, the Government want to ensure consistency with other similar definitions, such as for out-of-home calorie labelling. We will consult on the secondary legislation defining food and drink SMEs shortly, but this approach will allow Ministers to act promptly to change the definition of food or drink SMEs in future, should it be necessary.

I turn to platform liability and other questions regarding the watershed hours in Amendments 250ZA, 253ZA, 254A, 255A, 255B, 257B and 253AA. Platform liability is incredibly important. During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors in the online advertising supply chain should have responsibility for breaches alongside advertisers, but concluded that this was not the right place for this broader issue, given the far-reaching impacts for the industry. However, I reassure my noble friend Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and many others that the Government intend to consider platform liability as part of the wider online advertising programme.

On the question of when these restrictions should apply, Ofcom’s research—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am so sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but can she please give us a timescale for that?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I believe it is being conducted this year, but I will check that and come back to my noble friend and all other Members of the Committee, because I know there is significant concern on that point.

On the timing of the restrictions on television, Ofcom research suggests that children’s viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated between 6 pm and 9 pm. In this period, half of children’s viewing takes place during adult commercial programming. We do not therefore believe that introducing advertising restrictions only on the weekend is sufficient to meet our policy objectives.

We are committed to ensuring that businesses are supported now and when the regime comes into force. We will, of course, consult on the secondary legislation and guidance, which should give stakeholders more clarity. However, in response to Amendments 245, 255, 256, 257 and 317, we believe that the overall policy direction has been set out effectively and we do not think that there is a need to add the kind of gap between publication of final guidance and implementation, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendment.

In response to Amendments 249A, 252A and 257A, I can assure your Lordships that we will conduct a post-implementation review five years after implementation. This is intended to be based on the variables set out in the impact assessment, published in June 2021. However, the Government believe that further tying down of the criteria at this stage would be counterproductive. We will also use this opportunity to look at any displacement of advertising to other media not covered by the restrictions, such as outdoor advertising.

However, in response to Amendment 244A, there is insufficient evidence at this stage of the influence of further national advertising restrictions in other media on calorie consumption in children, which is why these restrictions focus on TV and online only. We would also advise against adding a sunset clause, as it would pre-empt this evaluative work and could undermine compliance. We have heard quite a bit from noble Lords about the need for certainty on the Government’s approach in this area. I say to my noble friend that a sunset clause on these regulations would undermine that case.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support this Bill. It is right that we should ease lockdown, and it is critical that we push the economic accelerator. Jobs and livelihoods are at stake. I am particularly pleased to see the hospitality sector reopen and for people to be able to get together again in pubs and restaurants but, like other noble Lords, I have some concerns about the threat of anti-social behaviour, especially as a result of off-sales in open containers. I hope the noble Earl will provide some assurance in his response, and I have heard some interesting mitigations from other noble Lords.

Rather than dwell on that specific point, I want to use this opportunity to talk more broadly about personal responsibility as we begin once again to enjoy our liberties. The lifting of lockdown also presents an important opportunity to reinforce and, in some cases, reset, other essential elements to help us create a better future for everyone. I am talking about our common understanding of what we should be able to expect of each other when it comes to our conduct and behaviour in a public place, and our willingness to promote and uphold a common set of standards.

These are the hallmarks of a society that works for the benefit of everyone, because they show that we share something in common with each other, whatever our background, age or the position we hold in our work. Upholding them is an expression of mutual respect. Over the last few years, political events and this pandemic have exposed the divisions that exist in our society. In recent weeks, it has felt as though some have tried to deepen them further and create new divides, with unacceptable acts of thuggery, vandalism and violence.

There is a lot that needs sorting out if we are to address the inequalities behind some of these divisions, which is why I am so pleased that we are getting on with restarting the economy. However, we will not achieve all that we need to achieve unless and until we all feel that we belong to, and are part of, a shared endeavour. The Bill temporarily lifts some burdens on business—but with those freedoms comes greater responsibility. We should recognise that landlords, restaurateurs, shopkeepers, bus drivers and anyone else responsible for public spaces are important leaders in our local communities. They, alongside the police, deserve our respect when they help to set standards and seek to uphold them. If we are relying on them, they need to know in return that they can rely on us to back them, and we should all be clear about why this is so important.

Now, more than ever, we need to support each other actively, by sticking to the same standards or rules and challenging those who do not, especially when it comes to basic manifestations such as queuing, face-coverings or things that we know are unacceptable—but are scared, these days, to challenge—such as litter, feet on seats and loud music. These small things matter. They help to prevent worse things happening, and the sense of unity that upholding them creates is critical to our success in building a stronger economy.

I notice that Clause 5 refers to the possibility of the Secretary of State setting conditions and Clause 8 to the issuing of guidance in the context of licensing. While I am not suggesting specific legislation for the sorts of things that I have just been referring to, I would none the less be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government have any plans in this area.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Flather]

Somebody was muttering. I was brought up a Hindu. Personally, I have never understood why there is such a lot of prejudice against the Jews, in Europe and in other countries. They are very clever people. They believe in education and achievement. Why is it that people do not really feel the same about Jews as everybody else?

I have stood up to speak because when I learned about the Holocaust it had a very deep effect on me. I have become an atheist as a result, because I could not accept that 6 million people could be killed like vermin and nothing happened for them. If nothing happened for them, what do I need God for? I am sure not many people think like that, but it is how I feel. I am going to Auschwitz-Birkenau in August. Of course, somebody said, “You must go to Birkenau; it was a factory”. Silly me, I thought it was a factory making something. It was a factory killing people in the most careful and planned way, just killing people. I cannot believe that we are living in this century.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is another amendment in this group in my name, but I am afraid it is nothing to do with the Holocaust memorial, so forgive me for changing the topic. It is about co-ordination of major programmes and projects.

At Second Reading I raised the need for clarity on responsibility and accountability for all the major programmes of work ongoing at the Palace. As we know, we currently have the roof works, there is the masonry project and Big Ben, and soon to start will be the Northern Estate. My concern is the scope for confusion and the potential for all manner of things to go wrong if there is not a single body responsible for all these separate programmes to make sure they are co-ordinated properly.

Clause 1(1) makes provision for the sponsor body and the delivery authority to be responsible for building works beyond the restoration and renewal project itself. Since the Second Reading debate, I was pleased to receive a letter from the noble Earl confirming that responsibility for the Northern Estate will soon transfer to the sponsor body, so one of those major projects will now be within the remit of this new body. That is very welcome. I have also learned since Second Reading that within the House authorities, Strategic Estates is responsible for the other projects which are expected to be completed before the decant.

None the less, I have tabled my amendment because of the scope for things to go wrong when these big works eventually commence. I would like some reassurance from the noble Earl, or from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, that the Strategic Estates team has a formal responsibility for proper engagement with the sponsor body on all these projects; and that if there is any question that responsibility should shift to the sponsor body in the best interests of the future of the Palace of Westminster in the round, it will be considered swiftly. I would also be grateful if the Minister could let us know to whom Strategic Estates is accountable. If there was to be any change in responsibility for those major projects which could impact on the restoration and renewal project itself, which decision-making body would make that decision?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it has been a real pleasure to listen to so many expert and well-informed contributions to this debate. Coming at the end of the Back-Bench contributions, there is not much that I can add to what has already been said, but I shall try to make mine a meaningful contribution none the less.

It is three years since the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster published its report. It was a privilege to co-chair the committee and serve on it with other Members of your Lordships’ House. It made a clear recommendation that Parliament should decant in full to facilitate urgent and necessary mechanical and electrical works to the Palace. We concluded that that approach represented the most cost-effective, quickest and lowest-risk option.

As we have heard, this is a major and complicated project, but it is not predominantly about external or structural repair works to the building; rather, it is about cabling, pipes, wiring, asbestos, heating, plumbing, drainage and sewerage—the elements that are essential for the building to be habitable and usable for any purpose. I have described it previously as vital surgery to major organs, arteries and veins.

It needs to be understood that, even if we decided that the Palace should no longer be the home of Parliament and were to become a museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has argued, these works must go ahead to protect the future of this building. As we have heard, the risk of catastrophic fire is real and doing nothing is not an option. As for moving out of London and our residing in another part of the UK, it is my view that it does not matter where Parliament resides; it will make no difference to how the public feel about Parliament from where they sit if we as parliamentarians do not listen more to them.

The Joint Committee published our report in September 2016, just a few weeks after the referendum result. By then it was even clearer that the project presented an opportunity, or catalyst, for Parliament to respond for people’s demands for change. That relies on how we approach our responsibility as custodians of this building, which for some is the home of democracy. Indeed, for many, this building represents a big part of our identity. This project should not just be about restoring the building, but also, I believe, about representing the interests of the people even better. I certainly support and endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, also made some interesting arguments as to how we might do that.

It is possible—probable even—that the role of the House of Lords will be different by 2035, the date when it is suggested we return to the Palace. But whatever form the second Chamber of Parliament might take by then, and whatever the needs of its Members, the most pressing need now is for us to make sure that the building’s future is safeguarded in such a way that renewal represents better the interests of the public we serve.

I stand by the Joint Committee’s conclusions and I support the main purpose of the Bill, which is the creation of a sponsor body and a delivery authority. I am somewhat concerned that, even before works have started, we are already behind the schedule that we as a Joint Committee expected for the project to begin. That is in part because it took some time for the original Motion to come to Parliament when it did, in January 2018. What was important at the time of that debate was, as I said then, that we made some headline decisions, made some progress and continued down this pathway. Having made the decisions we did then, it is important and very pleasing that we have continued to make progress.

Clearly, clarity of responsibility and accountability is always important in big projects of this kind, especially when so much public money is involved. I certainly agree with remarks made by other noble Lords that, once we have appointed the delivery authority, we must allow it to get on with delivering the project. However, we know that this major restoration and renewal project is not the only buildings or works project happening at the Palace of Westminster at this time. There is Big Ben; the roof works; the external masonry; the Northern Estate; and the works going on in Westminster Hall. Can the Minister tell us, when he comes to wind up, which is the body responsible for overseeing all these major projects?

The Bill before us makes provision for the sponsor board to take responsibility for works that go beyond the specific R&R programme. I am sympathetic to this because I am worried about the risk of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the confusion that will reign when all these different projects are going on. What discussions have taken place about whether the remit of the sponsor body for restoration and renewal might be extended to take control over all these works? Indeed, has the sponsor body itself expressed a view on whether it would want that wider remit?

During the Bill’s passage through the Commons, I understand that an amendment was proposed—it may have been during pre-legislative scrutiny—that the sponsor body be given responsibility for public engagement as part of its remit, but the Government did not consider this to be appropriate, arguing instead that it was the job of Parliament. I am sympathetic to that as well: I think it is for Parliament itself to be concerned about how, when we return here to the Palace of Westminster, we can improve the way we go about representing the public. Again, who within Parliament is responsible for leading the thinking on this and making sure that the public get a proper say in how Parliament will be different in a restored Palace of Westminster? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, made some important points about making sure that we, as Parliament, set out very clearly what our priorities are for this major project. I think it is essential that we have a way of channelling those, so that it is not just all of us as individuals.

As I said, I am firmly of the view that now is the time to take another big step forward, while recognising that final decisions on budget and design have still to be made, subject to more detailed work by the sponsor body and the delivery authority. I believe that the Bill rightly establishes those, and it has my full support.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, and it was a great privilege to be co-chairman of the Joint Committee. Because of that, naturally I am pleased that last week the House of Commons accepted our recommendations. I should like to use my time today to provide for your Lordships a little information on how we arrived at our recommendations, and in doing so to reassure noble Lords that this House played an equal part in reaching our conclusions and recommendations.

As we have heard from my noble friend the Leader of the House and others, we fielded a strong team from your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Joint Committee: the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Laming, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and my noble friend Lord Deighton. I make specific mention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Deighton because they added their invaluable experience and expertise in successful major project management to our deliberations. Given that this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I also pay tribute to our clerks, Sarah Jones and Tom Healey, our specialist adviser, James Bulley, and my own private secretary at the time, Mark Davies, who did an awful lot of work on this report. I thank the whole of the restoration and renewal team who have been working incredibly hard over the past few years, assisting the two Houses in their various deliberations to get us to this point.

The Joint Committee was never divided by the two Houses; we worked together because this is one Palace of Westminster. I also pay tribute to Chris Bryant and the other members of the committee from the other place for securing the support of the Commons for the recommendations. Chairing a committee of a rather eclectic group of different individuals was an experience I ended up enjoying, even if I was not sure I would at the start of the process.

As we have heard, Parliament has been in a state of indecision for some years. When the Joint Committee was formed in July 2015, a series of different parliamentary committees and commissions had already examined the issue. It has led to the commission in the Commons and the commission of the House of Lords commissioning a group of independent consultants led by Deloitte to undertake a comprehensive and, I should add, very costly study of what works were needed. It came up with three basic options for doing so: full decant, as we have now learned to call it; doing these works in two stages; and a continuing or rolling programme of works.

Deloitte found that the cost of full decant was significantly lower than the other options. That was quite clear. It did not make a recommendation, but that was its finding. When we came together as a committee we had one strategic aim, having had all these deliberations and all this work before us, which was to move us forward to a place where some headline decisions could be made. We would not be able to come up with our own detailed, fully costed solution and felt that to try to do so at that stage would be unwise. Instead, we wanted to make a clear set of recommendations based on solid scrutiny of all the evidence and to give people confidence. We wanted to give Parliament confidence that it is now possible to reach a headline decision and we wanted to give taxpayers confidence, before any budgets are signed and big money is spent, that all the right preparatory work will be completed.

We set ourselves three basic questions. What works need to be done—or, if you like, are the horror stories that we had heard really true? How should the works be carried out: in one go, in at least two stages or on an ongoing basis? And who should do that detailed planning, project management and oversight of the works once a headline decision has been made? Starting with the works, the case for them is now clear to all of us. Back in 2015 some of us on the committee were still sceptical, but the case has now been very clearly made. Indeed, in the 18 months since we published our report there have been some very telling examples of how bad things are. I think only the other week 200 toilets were taken out of action throughout the Parliamentary Estate.

As noble Lords have already heard, the main issue we need to address is not structural. It lies in the building’s mechanical and electrical services—those vast networks of pipes, cables and machinery that heat, ventilate and carry power, data and anything else around the building. The fantastic maintenance team has been a victim of its own success in keeping everything going over the last couple of decades. That approach is no longer sustainable. The risks are high and the costs of our continuing along that route will grow. These works are not a facelift or about dealing with an isolated injury to one or both arms. This is major surgery to fundamental organs, veins and arteries—all the stuff that keeps us alive and the bits we cannot see that keep this building habitable and functioning. I might add that this is true whether it remains the home of Parliament or ends up becoming a museum. The key point is that there are no separate systems for each House: there is just one system running right the way across this Palace of Westminster. If we think of it in those terms, it becomes clearer why it makes most sense to do the works in one go.

There were two drivers of our conclusion: cost and risk. The process of costing the options at this stage is complex; it is very hard to put exact prices on works when so much rests on assumptions instead of detail. Indeed, it was because we did not have, and could not conceivably obtain, the level of detail needed to price the options in more exact terms than the consultants had already done that we did not try. We debated whether to do so at some length, but we were clear that, had we tried to do that, we would not have provided people with the kind of confidence that we knew they needed to make a final decision. We wanted to be able to say confidently that the consultants’ methods were robust enough for our purposes of comparing the options, so the committee interrogated exhaustively the methodology used and called in the NAO. The methodologies have since been endorsed by the Commons Public Accounts Committee.

We spent a very long time trying to find ways of retaining some foothold in the Palace and exploring whether we should carry out the project in stages. We understood—indeed, it was a view shared by some of the members—that a lot of Members of both Houses would want to see this explored. However, we were sure from our interrogation of the costings that the staged option would significantly increase the price. Just as compelling was the evidence from a range of professional bodies about increased risk if we were to do this in stages. Doing the work in stages, or keeping one of the Chambers open, would be like saying that we want to keep the left arm and leg working while we remove and replace all the veins, arteries and major organs of the rest of the body. To do that, we would have to build new major organs outside the body for the veins and arteries to connect to without knowing whether it would actually work. Even if it worked, the level of noise and disruption to the workings of Parliament while it was happening would be huge. There would be the potential for a sudden catastrophe and an evacuation once we got the show on the road, and the costs would go up again.

We were clear that a full decant was the most cost-effective and lowest-risk option. There is much more work to be done. As for who should do the detailed work once the headline decisions have been made, it should be a delivery authority of professionals —we do not have that expertise here in Parliament—but it should be accountable to a supervisory board. We felt that there is enough evidence now for Parliament to take this big step forward to get the project right; there is enough evidence now for us to decide that we should go ahead with the works and do so with a full decant. If we take this big step forward, we have time to get the project right, to involve all parts of the UK in the supply chain of parts and contractors, and to create the potential for old crafts to be restored and new trades to be established with proper apprenticeships. We can work out how a restored and renewed Palace of Westminster will be, and feel, more open and accessible to the people in whose interest decisions are made in this historic place. We are the custodians of something precious that belongs to everyone. We owe it to the public, whose building this is, to follow the route that is quickest, with the lowest cost and the lowest risk. I commend the original Motion; it has my support.

House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and all members of his committee on the work that they have done in grappling with this difficult issue. They have produced a good report which makes a series of compelling recommendations in addressing the symptoms of the size of your Lordships’ House, which I broadly support.

However, I want us to be tough not just on the size of the House but on the causes of it. Defining the problem we need to fix only as the size of the House means that we miss the bigger point. It risks us shifting responsibility away from ourselves to successive Prime Ministers, whether those of the past or those in future. In the volatile world that we are in right now, where institutions must respond correctly to society’s need for change if they are to survive, we do not have the luxury of misdiagnosing the causes of some of the problems we are grappling with.

I do not have a principled objection to a membership of your Lordships’ House capped at 600, but if we want it to happen and future Prime Ministers to respect that objective, we need to be clearer about what kind of House of Lords we want to be in the 21st century. I think that there is a real need for this House. In an era when people want and need more honest, frank debate that is not motivated by party politics, your Lordships’ House has an opportunity to be a shining beacon.

But for us to be effective, we have to define our purpose; we have all to sign up to it and address our behaviours and conduct where they get in the way of meeting that purpose. I was struck particularly by paragraph 82 of the report, which states:

“We suggest that the Prime Minister may wish to task HOLAC with ensuring that all nominees are aware, before they accept a peerage, of what being an active member of the House of Lords entails”.


I endorse that. I do not endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about HoLAC having a role in suitability, but I endorse the idea of it being clear about what is expected of new Members of this House. But what about those of us who are already Members? Are we all able to say to each other, quite honestly and right now, that we know what we should expect from each other as Members of this House? I am not entirely sure that we do.

I want increasing our accountability and serving the public better to be the driving force behind change in this House. So if we are to introduce term limits or a retirement age, which I would also support, surely we have to apply that to ourselves as well. I do not think we can wait until new Members come into the House in future. We made significant progress before 2015 by introducing permanent retirement, automatic expulsion for Peers sentenced to more than a year in prison and the power for this House to expel on the grounds of gross misconduct. Yet we sweep under the carpet the fact that some Peers remain Members of this House, even though they received prison sentences of more than a year, and we have yet to introduce a disrepute clause, even though the Privileges and Conduct Committee agreed on a recommendation for one in the spring of 2016. These are some of the things that have to change.

I believe in this House. I think that its Members are some of the most talented and accomplished people in our country. We do some great work, but if we are to remain relevant and serve the people of this country well, we have to address all the things that matter—and that is not just our size. More than anything, I want us to define our purpose for the 21st century and for us all to be united in meeting that purpose.

Business of the House

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 12 July to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Mobarik set down for today shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of Lord De Mauley to 3 hours.

Motion agreed.