House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill ends the so-called hereditary aspect of this House. Christmas is approaching, and while, as one of the so-called turkeys directly affected by the Bill, I might abstain on it, I certainly do not propose to obstruct or delay it. However, I note the suggestion of quite a number in this House, including life Peers, that, in ending the hereditary aspect of the House, useful so-called hereditary contributors should be converted to life Peers. We shall see.

I turn to wider reforms, some of which were trailed in the Government’s manifesto. The Minister has had many informal representations, and I think we all admire her for her openness to those. Nevertheless, there comes a point when discussion ends and action follows. I realise that asking “When?” in a Parliament is typically an exercise in futility. However, the hereditaries shortly departing this House in the good faith expectation of wider reform without delay deserve a specific assurance that the Government have a timeframe in mind that they can share with the House. [Interruption.] If the noble Lord could stop gesturing in front of me, that would be very helpful. I therefore ask the Minister to indicate in summing up how and when any formal structured consultations will be organised, over what period they will occur and when legislation for further reform will be brought forward.

Many speeches today include suggestions to the Government, and I shall make two that I believe will be fundamental to successful reform. First, the unrestrained ability of party leaders to dangle peerages as rewards before, and then to appoint, their mates, their loyalists and their donors is both a numerical disaster and a reputational cancer at the heart of this place. I welcome the recent announcement that party leaders must explain their nominations, but that is a long way short of a proper selection and appointment process. Crucially, such appointments must be subject to a tight numerical limit that cannot be exceeded. That would at least put a lid on the inflows from that source.

Secondly, on participation, this is a place of work—of public service. If we can produce legislation to discard some of the most engaged and hard-working Members of this House, surely we can summon up the courage to send on their way those who do not engage or put the work in. I do not take the “everything or nothing” line—I agree with the Government on that—but the participation element should have been part of this Bill, and it would have accelerated progress towards a resized House with active Members. Failure to include that is not only unjust to those who do engage but also has two ongoing negative consequences: first, it tells new, and current, Peers that non-engagement is perfectly acceptable; secondly, it ducks the only meaningful way to reduce the membership both at scale and on a logical basis.

I hear some say that it is too difficult to construct a metric or criterion for that. It is not difficult: we already collect the data; we just need to have the guts to use them. I am talking not about an automated process but about a factual basis for discussions, giving ample opportunity to understand an individual Member’s situation. But Members unable or unwilling to engage sufficiently should resign or, failing that, have their membership ended—courteously but firmly.

No system is without its challenges, but the current lack of any real system to remove non-contributors is exactly why we are where we are today, in terms of both size and engagement. Some others say that this might lead to performative participation, for the sake of it. But engagement with the work of the House, in debates, speeches, committees and so on, requires time, effort and turning up regularly, so I believe that such performative behaviours would die back pretty quickly.

If we are genuinely serious about reducing numbers, and if a peerage does mean turning up and participating, we need to get on with making that the case. The alternative is the continuation of the current culture—something that the removal of the so-called hereditaries by the Bill does nothing to address. Indeed, ejecting engaged Members while leaving untouched the disengaged is an insult to the former and would simply ingrain the behaviours of the latter.

To conclude, I take on trust the manifesto promises of further reform, but I hope that the Government will do four things. First, look again at the “babies and bath-water” aspect of removing useful so-called hereditary Members of this House. Secondly, limit numerically the patronage of party leaders in appointing new Members. Thirdly, commit themselves, within a given timeframe, to implementing an effective participation requirement as a condition of a peerage for both new and existing Peers. Finally, look seriously at limited terms and at enforcing the “two out, one in” principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I believe the noble Baroness just quoted me as saying something about the number of Cross-Benchers. I did not say any such thing; I just said that I hope that some useful hereditary Members would be retained as life Peers. That is all I said.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I said that I understood the noble Lord’s understanding to be that there would be some Cross-Bench Peers who could be converted to life Peers.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I hope that there will be some; I did not give any number, I believe.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. If the Government accept that some excepted Peers deserve to stay, why not extend that principle to all those who have contributed so much to the work of this House? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that an unwillingness on the part of the Government to make such a concession gives rise to the impression that the motivations for presenting the Bill are not as principled as the Government would wish us to accept?

If the Bill passes in its current form, the result will be a disproportionate reduction in the number of Cross-Bench and Opposition Peers. We will say goodbye to over 80 noble Lords who come here to scrutinise the Government’s legislation, while the Executive will lose just four of their Peers in this House. If the Bill were seeking to remove any other group of Peers, everyone would see it for what it is. So does the Lord Privy Seal accept that it would be altogether better for the Government to offer life peerages to all those excepted Peers who wish to continue to serve, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has suggested, rather than cherry-pick excepted Peers who may receive life Peerages after the passage of the Bill?

Such an approach would, at the very least, help assuage concerns that many of us have about the Government’s motivations for presenting the Bill. Let us not pretend otherwise: this is not neutral reform. This is about neutering the ability of this House to hold the Government to account, a concern raised by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in relation to the passage of the Football Governance Bill.

The constitutional role of this House can be justified only by the quality of the contribution that we, collectively, are able to make to public life. In the absence of any electoral mandate, we must justify our work through the care with which assist, oppose, scrutinise and amend. Excluding an entire category of Members is profound and fundamentally alters the balance and collective experience of the House. The Bill proposes the removal of many dedicated noble Lords based not on the quality of their contributions but on their collective legal status. It places far greater power for the Prime Minister alone to determine the legislature, a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, my noble friend Lord Murray, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Judged by legal status alone, none of us can be secure that our future in this place will not be cut short at the whim of the Executive.

This Bill does not honour the past, nor does it secure the future. It weakens this House, betrays constitutional commitments and serves no public good. Reform is necessary, but it must be principled and founded in consultation and consensus. Reform must strengthen Parliament, not diminish it. A Government who fear scrutiny are not strong; they are insecure. A House that loses its independence is not modern; it is diminished. I urge this House and this Government to reflect on the path we are taking. Let us find a better way forward that respects our history, honours our promises and secures the integrity of this Chamber for generations to come.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, we are promised a substantial reform of the House of Lords. It is most certainly needed, but I wonder whether we will get it. The age cap may end up in the long grass but, as a mere youth compared with the average age of the House, much less the possible cap at 80 years old, I leave it to others to suggest solutions—indeed, a number already have.

The participation basis may suffer the same fate, which I think would be very regrettable. It is easy to complicate this discussion—choosing what metric, triggering overparticipation for the sake of it and so on—but it is too easy to say that it is too difficult. This is a place of work, and I can think of no other line of work where it would be considered acceptable not to turn up or to turn up occasionally—in some cases just once per parliamentary Session, for lunch, and going away again, or turning up but not participating in the work of the Chamber, in committees or in other ways. Such Peers boost the apparent size of the House to levels that give a wholly false impression of the numbers engaged in the work here.

We claim to be a House of experts, yet we balk at the idea of developing a system that uses the data already collected on participation and following through by, courteously but firmly, saying goodbye to non-contributors. Removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time—which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to earlier—would reduce our numbers by more than 100. I hope that this Government will tackle the participation issue rather than it languishing in the “too difficult” box. If it does, we will drift into a membership of more than 1,000.

The way people get to this House is crying out for reform, as many have already expressed and as has been expressed on all sides of the House at one time or another. A great amount of the good work that this House delivers is getting lost in the drift to an ever-larger House packed by party leaders who appoint their mates. This has brought the House into disrepute and makes the often-mocked hereditary by-elections look like models of transparency. If the time has come to end the hereditary by-elections—and it has—it most certainly has also come to end the ability of leaders, like feudal kings, simply to appoint a list of their pals, donors and loyalists.

An elected House has its supporters but, on balance, I support an appointed House for all the usual reasons. But that brings the challenge of who does the appointing and the danger of the establishment simply appointing itself from among its own social and professional circles, and mainly in London. As a first step towards a thought-out appointments process, HOLAC should go on to a statutory footing and play a role beyond that of its currently advisory status, including nurturing a House that is socially and geographically inclusive, clear in its demands and made up of committed participants.

I also support the idea of 15-year terms and the two-out, one-in principle suggested in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This would enable better forward planning for representation, numbers and specialist knowledge. I would be very interested to hear from the Leader of the House whether and when any of this is anticipated from the Government.

Finally, we know—and seem to have spent a lot of time today discussing—that the hereditary elections, which are already suspended, are over, and that the remaining so-called hereditary Members are on the cusp of being ejected. I have spoken on this before and will not tire the House with a detailed repetition. In short, it is a matter of babies and bath-water. Simply throwing the supposed toffs to the populist lions would ignore, at least on the Cross Benches, the fact that the so-called hereditaries are some of the most active and diligent Members giving service to the House. There are, of course, Peers of all types who are diligent and hard-working but, on the Cross Benches in particular, there is a strong service ethos, as we do not have any party position to advance, nor any prospect of, for example, ministerial positions.

While I believe most Members, and probably most people, agree that the hereditary tag, which is often forgotten in our day-to-day work, is well past its use- by date, I have been struck by the number of life Peers I speak to who think that the so-called hereditaries will simply be converted into life Peers. I have not seen any indication of that from the Government. My view —and I declare my obvious interest here—is that Peers who have a track record of contribution, have experience, expertise and energy to offer, and are committed to further public service in this House should be converted. That would end the hereditary issue once and for all, meeting the Government’s manifesto commitment—job done. Then we can get on to fuller reform and the other pressing matters before us.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, nothing is more important than feeling safe and secure in your own home. My noble friend Lady Taylor, who is sitting with me, is well aware of this as a former council leader. The department is aware of the issue and is looking into it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for the very moving and, in a true sense, infuriating sharing of that Statement. I think we would all agree that dealing with the issues has been far too slow. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others have pointed out, it is now seven years since Grenfell. Is it to be reasonably expected, given the size of the challenge, that, when we reach the grim 10th anniversary—or even the 15th—there are still going to be buildings with flammable cladding on them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I very sincerely hope not. It is our intention to accelerate this as quickly as possible. It would be a failure if, in 15 years, we still had cladding on those buildings. We would not be fulfilling our obligations as a Parliament, a Government and a country.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion ZH, the government amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 329. The intention of the earlier Lords amendment was to make local plans more specific in spelling out the housing needs of each locality and the ways in which those needs are to be met. This would identify how homelessness and temporary accommodation can be eliminated over a reasonable timescale. The amendment, devised by Shelter, detailed what the local plan should cover, including the needs of all those registered on the local housing authority’s allocation scheme. This would mean all local plans highlighting the need for, and the steps to provide, the homes sought by those now in increasing difficulty as opportunities to buy or to rent have become alarmingly scarce.

The government amendment seeks to take this on board in a somewhat condensed version. It requires the local plan to

“take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed”.

This takes us into the same territory as my amendment and would sharpen up local plans to provide more precision in identifying and addressing the need for housing for those who are homeless or in temporary accommodation or on the never-ending waiting list for a home that they can afford. What is on the face of the Bill will now need to be buttressed by guidance for local planning authorities, to put a bit more flesh on the bones of this legislative measure. It would be good if the Minister could provide an assurance that this ingredient will be incorporated in forthcoming planning guidance.

The government amendment in lieu also raises the thorny question of defining “affordable housing”, which has been debated in this House on numerous occasions and not resolved. The government amendment adds that “affordable housing” means social housing as it has been defined—very broadly and often misleadingly—since 2008. However, the amendment adds some new, encouraging words that “affordable housing” could mean housing of

“any other description of housing that may be prescribed”.

This is helpful. It opens the door for a new definition of affordable housing which, in the future, this or another Secretary of State may prescribe. It would be good to see whether agreement can be reached in the months ahead on a more satisfactory definition, to update the old one from 2008 in readiness for the first opportunity to substitute a better version.

With these comments, I say that I feel that the Government have made a serious effort to take on board the need to sharpen up the local plan in respect of meeting housing need. I am grateful to the Government, and to the Minister in particular, for this change that they are willing to make to the Bill.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have one remark to make in support of Motion M1, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Earl, with whom it is always so difficult to disagree, stated that the reason the Government are unhappy with the idea of climate change becoming more central is that it opens up a wide range of challenge. But climate change is going to be the central, existential issue of planning beyond our lifetimes. It is not an add-on; it is not planting a few trees in order to get planning permission. It is absolutely core, and dealing with that will make life very difficult for planning applications. I support this amendment so that climate change becomes central to the decision-making process, not an adjunct.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly to speak to three Motions in this group—first, Motion ZH, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just spoken. It is the substitute for an amendment on housing need that he promoted on Report. There is a crucial difference between the original amendment, which required local authorities not just to assess need but to make provision for it. The Government’s amendment deletes that last half—making provision for need. None the less, we have heard some encouraging words about social rent. It is a brave man who seeks to outbid the noble Lord, Lord Best, when it comes to speaking or voting on amendments on housing, so I am happy to follow his lead and not press that. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing on this.

Secondly, it was disappointing to hear my noble friend Lord Howe say that Motion N1 on healthy homes, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, still had to be resisted. Ever since the Private Member’s Bill was introduced, we have had numerous debates in Committee and on Report, and each time, in response, the noble Lord has moved further and further towards the Government. There never was a wide disagreement, because the Government always said that they agreed with the thrust of what he was trying to do.

It is worth reading out what may be the only sentence of the original amendment that remains:

“The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.


That is apparently too much. It continues:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system of standards”.


In other words, how that objective is reached is left entirely to the Secretary of State. Far from cutting across, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, the amendment seeks to bring it all together under a comprehensive framework to promote healthy homes.

The last point I want to make is on Motion R1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It repeats an amendment that I originally proposed in Committee that gives local authorities powers to fix their own planning fees. In the other place, the amendment was resisted on these grounds:

“It will lead to inconsistency of fees between local planning authorities and does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col 186.]


Central government should be quite careful before it preaches to local government about inefficiencies. This is the month in which we abandoned most of HS2. Pick up any NAO report and you will find criticism of the MoD on procurement. There has been criticism of the new hospitals programme and of HMRC in its response to taxpayer inquiries. If I were running a planning department in a local authority, I would be slightly miffed if I were told that, if I had the resources I needed, it might lead to inefficiencies.

There are problems in planning departments, but they are because a quarter of planners left the public sector between 2013 and 2020, so of course they cannot turn around planning applications as speedily as they might. The argument about promoting inefficiency does not really hold water. If one were to take that argument, why stop at planning fees? What about taking books out of a public library, swimming or parking? Are these not areas where local authorities might conceivably be inefficient?

Almost the first sentence of the White Paper introducing the Bill said that it would promote a “revolution in local democracy”, but allowing planning departments to set fees, so that they can recoup the costs of planning, is apparently a step too far. Yes, you will have inconsistency of fees, but that will happen if you have local democracy. We already have inconsistency of fees in every other charge a local authority makes, including building control fees. The argument that it will somehow confuse individuals or developers does not hold water. How many individuals make planning applications to a range of different local authorities and then express surprise that the fees are different? Yes, developers will be confronted with different fees, but they want an efficient planning department that processes their applications quickly.

I cannot understand why the Government are digging in their heels on this amendment, which empowers local government and gives them resources. It does not get resources at the moment because, in a unitary authority, the planning department, which does not get enough money from planning fees, has to bid for resources from the council tax in competition against adult social care and other services. It is no wonder that it misses out. At this very late stage on the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government could show a little ankle on this, move a little towards empowering local government and trust it to get this right.

Economic Update

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is absolutely true that people across the United Kingdom are worried about the cost of living. I apologise if I did not answer the question from the most reverend Primate; I will answer it now, but it might not be the full answer required. It is not always easy to remember everything that one is asked at the Dispatch Box, so I sincerely apologise to the House. The Government have announced £37,000 million of support for the cost of living this financial year. We have the energy price guarantee and the energy bill relief scheme, which will help millions of households. We are supporting millions of vulnerable households, which will receive £1,200 in one-off support, with additional support for pensioners and those claiming disability benefits, as the noble Baroness knows.

However, obviously the issue of uprating benefits and other aspects of government spending are being considered in totality. The Work and Pensions Secretary is conducting her annual review of benefits and I promise the noble Baroness that more will be said on this in the medium-term fiscal plan.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the recent article in the Financial Times that suggests that a future Government of any complexion will simply be a creature of the bond markets and not the other way round? Does he agree, and is that a good thing?

[Lord True (Con)]

I do not know that I do agree. I fear that I am not the most assiduous reader of the Financial Times—certainly not its editorial copy. The Government’s aspiration is to serve the people, not the bond markets.

Ukraine

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House share my concern that some western negotiators may view eastern parts of Ukraine as bargaining chips that could be included in a negotiation? Does she share my feeling that that would be a terrible precedent to set and that the Government of Ukraine would certainly view it as a betrayal?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. Certainly, we are absolutely committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to providing it with a full range of support.

House of Lords: Governance

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords—I use that term advisedly, given our previous speaker—welcome back. I will endeavour to follow the excellent speeches we have had so far. I will focus on just one issue, highlighting the governance of the key decisions necessary to make progress on restoration and renewal. This cuts across both Chambers, but this is my opportunity as a Peer to raise it in this one. I should perhaps mention that I served until quite recently on the Finance Committee and am now on the Audit Committee. One of my first questions was indeed, as the previous speaker alluded to: why do we have two? But that is for another day.

The Members of the two Houses have the right to decide when, and even whether, to move out and let R&R get fully under way. I know that it would be heretical to question whether essential infrastructural, engineering and health and safety decisions such as these should be made in that way. I cannot bring to mind another public or private sector organisation where that would be the case.

In reserving that right, Members also need to be clear on their associated responsibility for the eye-watering costs being incurred in the interim by delays in the necessary decision-making. The R&R project bodies—the sponsor body and the delivery authority—are set up, staff are appointed and costs are being incurred, but the final decision on going ahead depends on decision-making by parliamentarians to fix conclusively whether or not they are even willing to move out.

I thought the matter had been voted on and settled months ago, but it appears that it will be considered once again and voted on in January. I am not going to stray into the financial implications of one or even both Houses refusing to move out. I simply note that this would very substantially increase R&R costs. My point today is simply this: it is about the money being wasted through delay. I believe that well over £100 million —in fact closer to £200 million—has so far been spent on R&R, despite it not having started and no intrusive surveys having yet taken place.

Substantial sums of public money—in the order of £10 million a month, I believe—will continue to be spent simply on maintaining these buildings and keeping them safe until they can be worked on, for example, keeping the sewerage system going and the fire precautions updated. Much of this expenditure will be nugatory, which is to say that it will not be part of the R&R transformation but is required simply to keep the place ticking over until a decision is made by Parliament and R&R goes ahead in the form that it decides. I believe that not all who govern this decision—nor their constituents, in the case of MPs—are fully aware of the costs that are now being run up in this way. I therefore ask the Senior Deputy Speaker to obtain these figures, which are publicly available, and bring them to daylight. Can he bring further attention to this governance bottleneck? I urge both Houses to exercise their governance roles in this area to enable a speedy and conclusive resolution.

Afghanistan

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the many preceding eloquent and erudite speeches reflect perhaps a measure of agreement on a number of points. We went to Afghanistan with the US and others largely to strike, successfully, at terrorist capability based there. However, an Afghan proverb says that community is not created by force. The mission creep that followed resulted in a far wider—laudable, but much longer-term—set of objectives being taken on.

In the subsequent two decades, many have died and been injured and I join in the condolences and tributes expressed by other speakers today. It is for others to decide whether the sacrifice was worth it but, as other noble Lords have said, it disrupted terrorist activity and kept our country safer from attack. It also gave a generation of young people, particularly women, in Afghanistan a tantalising taste of another way of living.

Withdrawal at some point was inevitable and we really had no choice other than to leave once the US pulled out. It is the regrettable manner of the allies’ withdrawal and the chilling messages that it sends that so many have spoken about today. Many points have been made and moving examples cited and I will not repeat them here.

However, I will ask the following questions and I would be grateful for the Minister’s replies. First, on UK relationships, where does this leave the UK-US relationship and what role, if any, does the UK now have in seeking to work with China and Russia on Afghanistan and its neighbours, given the pretty poor relationships that we have with both at present? I cannot help but wonder what their embassies are saying to the Taliban today.

Secondly, on the Taliban, to what extent do the Government actually believe that Taliban 2 is really different from Taliban 1? Will internal pressures with those who have lived and fought alongside them create splinter groups and renewed conflict? We heard a great deal from the Front Bench early in the debate today that the Taliban must do this or not do that, but what ability do we have to enforce any of that? Can we now expect a boom in the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan across central Asia to Europe and beyond?

Many today have spoken about those people coming to the UK. Over the last day or so, the Taliban appear to have been allowing an exodus, but on what grounds does the Minister believe that this will continue for the several months—nay, years—envisaged in recent announcements? Would it not be wise to have a plan for when the Taliban start to restrict or even select—we need to ponder this point—those whom they allow to come to the UK?

I close with a chilling phrase from Sun Tzu’s Art of War:

“When … your ardor”


is

“damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no person, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.”

We need a plan to avert the consequences that, in different ways, now threaten both us and the vulnerable people of Afghanistan.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, although I have to say that his speech reminded me of that old aphorism that a pessimist says things could not be worse, but an optimist assures you they can. It is also a joy to take part in a debate that does not have reference to Brexit, although I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, took us dangerously close at one point—I was relieved he stopped there. Similar to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I have been tempted to suggest that a decant should be to somewhere further afield, with Birmingham being an excellent choice, but the leaden indifference with which that suggestion has been greeted by my colleagues makes me realise that it is not really going to fly.

Many of us love this place: the atmosphere, the history and being part of an iconic symbol of parliamentary history and culture. It is like a stately home and a club house on the Thames all rolled into one, complete with an art collection, library and watering holes. It is undoubtedly, as my noble friend Lord Laming said, a privilege to work here. But how suited is it really for use as a 21st-century Parliament? Speaker after speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Maude, in particular—told us the answer to that. Staff do their best, with heroic efforts, but we all know the shortcomings of the facilities here, not just in terms of safety—many of those intense shortcomings have been mentioned—but also of sheer functionality. From our sewerage to the roof, from our voting procedure to the wiring, from our firewalls to our fire hazards, we are at risk, as covered so well by the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Laming and others. I am in no doubt at all that the building needs very substantial work just to protect it. I am also certain that the most workable solution is a full decant, as many have said tonight. But I am less clear that the real costs involved in the project have been forensically examined as well as they need to be. I was encouraged to hear the Leader say that the business case will come before the House. I hope that in that process it will be examined in detail, and I know that at least one speaker later tonight proposes to scratch the surface of that.

I do not expect to be popular for saying this, but the second concern I have is the assumption that we will return here, reflected in putting point (8) into law. How usual is it for public servants, which is what I think we are, to demand that when they leave a premises they have a legal right, enshrined in law, for them—or quite possibly, as many have said tonight, their successors—to return to the same building a decade or more later? It is not something I am familiar with. Maybe, if we move to new premises temporarily, we will not want to come back. Maybe this renewal and revitalisation of our democracy that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke so well about will mean that we do not wish to return to these premises. I suspect we will, but are we really right to bind the hands of our successors and future Governments to a commitment that we must come back here? I am not so sure.

In sum, it is a privilege to work here but certainly not a right. Let us agree to a full decant and let us set up the delivery authority, but I have distinct reservations about tying the hands of Parliament—possibly several Parliaments hence—in obliging it to return us here. Despite that reservation, I think we should fully support the Motion before us, reject the amendment and, as many speakers before me have said, get on with it, preferably well before 2025.

House of Lords: Size

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I fear that I may be about to be branded as awkward but an old joke asks, “What do you call 40 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?”. The answer, of course, is, “A good start”. You can make the same joke with 400 or 4,000 lawyers because the issue is not the number but the public perception of lawyers. Lawyers—we have them here aplenty—say that they are a useful but simply misunderstood part of our society.

Exactly the same applies to us. There is a silly chattering-classes soundbite going around that compares this House to the National People’s Congress of China, and I am sad to have heard it repeated by Members of this House. It is an absurd point but the cheap jibe is a symptom of the real underlying problem of poor public understanding of what we do here. It is not that we are many but that we are still perceived, including by Members of the House of Commons, as a fuddy-duddy gentlemen’s club for men in ermine drinking port and thwarting democracy. The soundbite about numbers has simply been added to that list.

Organisations that offer expertise, as we do, typically like to boast of the number of people on their books, not get rid of them. Those who know us appreciate that we draw on a great range of people who have successfully dedicated their lives mainly to activities other than winning elections. The public value this depth and breadth in our House.

There is also a suggestion that our numbers should be the same as those in the House of Commons. Why? Where is the logic in that wholly false symmetry? We are different in so many ways and, again, we seem to be concerned with the superficial—the cosmetic. Do we suppose that the public would like us to imitate the Commons? Most people whom I speak to value the very differences between us and the House of Commons.

The thing that I dread most is a gradual remaking of this Chamber into a smaller cadre of semi-professional politicians who can trade soundbites on almost any subject, rather than specialists, a wide group of whom may speak only occasionally but really know their subject. That would be to ape the Commons in a way that would do a disservice to the people and Parliament alike, and it would remove one of the most unique and important contributions of this Chamber.

I have asked proponents of shrinking this House what problems they are seeking to solve and very often I have been surprised by the answers. Rather than office space, cost or crowding—at least, for 30 minutes every day—I have been told that the numbers are indeed a cosmetic issue and that we must cut them as a fear-based PR exercise. Further, I am told that the typical level of participation is around 450—well below the 600 touted as matching the Commons. Most surprising of all is that those apparently targeted for removal are the Peers who seldom turn up—in fact, the very people who make almost no impact on the effective numbers but who in some cases make occasional but very valuable specialist contributions rather than anodyne speeches on almost any issue.

Party balance, reflecting the Commons, has also been raised by a number of speakers today. Are we to have a Peers’ hokey-cokey, where Peers go in and out as elections reconfigure the party balance of the other place? That is just not a workable system—not least determining who goes in and who goes out on each occasion. Symptoms are being muddled with causes. If this House defies rather than advises the other place, which is certainly the greatest bugbear one hears from Members of the Commons, perhaps we need to revisit that—or has the recent announcement put that particular dog back in its basket for now?

Coming back to numbers, I recognise that if ever more Peers are appointed and attend, which not all do, as some have pointed out powerfully tonight, there must be an attendance overload point—not because of silly comparisons with China but for the House to be capable of functioning. I can only echo what others have said about inflow and outflow: if you want to lower the level of your bath-water, there is no point bailing out one end with the taps full on at the other. That is our current situation and a swathe of sackings would achieve only a temporary reduction.

Detailed solutions are for another day, so I am not going to go there. However, to conclude, if only as a dissenting voice in the debate, I believe that we are running scared and addressing the wrong issue. We need to focus on representing ourselves far more effectively, so that both our contribution and our value for money can be properly understood. After all, if people do not understand what we do, how can they possibly know whether we are too many—or, indeed, too few?