House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on his perseverance in bringing this Bill—his fourth effort—to your Lordships’ House. I very much look forward to his fifth effort in the next Parliament.

All of us who have taken part in the debates on the noble Lord’s Bills have many happy memories of past Fridays spent debating the details. Assuming that we give it a Second Reading today, I hope that the noble Lord will seek to bring his Bill into Committee at an early stage. From the debate that we have had today, it is clear that there are some very interesting and detailed matters to be discussed.

In a previous life, I sat where the noble Baroness is sitting. I say to her that I felt I did not always enjoy the unanimous support of my noble friends behind me on this issue, but I was always compensated by the sight of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, enjoying similar treatment at the hands of his Back-Benchers. Alas, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has retreated from the field of battle but we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, who is taking his place this afternoon.

[Noble Lords]

Lady Verma!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am so sorry. I am already overcome by the tension in winding up on the noble Lord’s Bill.

I also welcome the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and congratulate them on their excellent maiden speeches. I hope that they will contribute to our future debates on Lords reform, and I am sure they will find one or two more opportunities to do so in the months ahead.

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, deserves congratulation on finally persuading the previous Government to allow for retirements and ending hereditary Peer by-elections. It was disappointing in the wash-up that the Conservative Party would not agree to those provisions going through. I suspect that it now wishes that it had allowed them, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, would not now have the arduous task of helping the House to come to a view on how noble Lords might be encouraged to leave your Lordships’ House. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is now hopeful, as he is now in the coalition, that his colleagues in that Government will be somewhat more sympathetic to him than they were in the past, and we very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness perhaps saying that she accepts the principle of the Bill.

I do not think that there can be any doubt about the Government’s concern about the size of your Lordships’ House. That is why a Leader’s Group has been established, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also have the honour to serve under him and we are examining ways of encouraging Members to leave your Lordships’ House. Our first report was published on 3 November, which shows that the great majority of noble Lords who responded to the consultation felt that there needed to be some way by which Members could leave the House permanently in order to reduce the size of the House. Other noble Lords have commented that the report also makes it clear that primary legislation is required to allow that to happen. The Leader’s Group will of course continue its work, although I think we might need to take account of the five tests of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

One cannot help pointing out the irony of the situation in which we find ourselves. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, is evidently concerned about its size and has asked the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to lead a group to see how it can be reduced. On the other hand, he has presided over a massive increase in the appointment of life Peers. We are promised many more. Indeed, as a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, pointed out, only two days ago we had the promise from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He reiterated the coalition Government’s intention to have a second Chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the general election. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, quoted from the work of Meg Russell, who estimates that if that were to be the case we would end up with a House of 977 Members. Apart from the sheer impracticality of that, it would make reform much harder to achieve. It certainly would make the transition arrangements much more difficult.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that there is method to this. He believes that it is the coalition Government’s intention to show that the House of Lords is not working and that is why more substantive reform should take place. I have another view on why the coalition Government want to create many more Peers. Earlier in this wonderful debate, we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who talked about the impact and effectiveness of this House as a revising Chamber. However, we are in different circumstances. Already we see that with the size of the coalition Benches, and the evident intention of the Government to create dozens of new Peers on top of that is to ensure that they cannot be defeated in your Lordships’ House. The problem is that I do not think this House can do its job effectively if the Executive are virtually guaranteed to win every vote that takes place. You cannot be a revising Chamber unless you can revise. You cannot revise unless you have a decent chance of defeating the Government from time to time.

Let us consider the Public Bodies Bill, which gives draconian Henry VIII powers to Ministers. Noble Lords on all sides of the House know that it is a bad Bill. They also know that if my party in government had produced the Bill, it would have been ripped to shreds. There will be a test of the coalition partners in this House over the next few weeks. A number of Peers from the coalition parties have told me of their horror at the Bill. Unless it is substantially changed, how can this House claim to be an effective revising Chamber?

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, clearly recognises that. I acknowledge the careful drafting that he has undertaken. A number of noble Lords referred to Clause 8(2), in which the noble Lord sets out that a coalition of parties forming a Government shall not have a majority of Members in the House of Lords. He goes on to state that in the event of a coalition, the largest party in the coalition shall be entitled to a larger number of Members than the Official Opposition but that the majority of the larger party should normally be no more than three per cent over the Official Opposition party. Clearly, the noble Lord has gone into this matter carefully. I ask him nonetheless whether a coalition, whatever parties are it, would still have an effective majority because of the relatively low voting turnout of the Cross-Benchers. I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who spoke of the careful judgments made by Cross-Benchers when they come to vote. However, their turnout is roughly 20 per cent, compared with the turnout of Members of the main parties, which is more than 50 per cent. This is a matter for consideration in Committee but it is a factor when one comes to a view about getting the right balance between the parties and the Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I would suggest having more Cross-Benchers, but of course we are trying to reduce the number of noble Lords.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Perhaps I may suggest that the important thing is that, when all Cross-Benchers vote in one direction, it shows that one side has got it wrong. It is not the regularity of the voting that matters, but certain critical votes in which the Cross-Benchers really show that someone has got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is a significant point, although in the end the numbers count as well. The matter is one for Committee.

I would also appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on Clause 1, which ensures that only the commission can make recommendations to the Crown for the appointment of new life Peers. Will he clarify whether, when it comes to party leaders’ appointments, he expects the commission to be able to choose from the nominees put forward by the party leaders, or whether it will simply accept the number of names on the list that it has asked for. I note that in Clause 9 the commission has to satisfy itself about the procedures to be followed by the party leaders. I have some reservations about what is essentially a quango, however august, having to look into the procedures of the political parties. I have concerns about the consequences, but that is more a matter for Committee than it is in terms of the principles of the Bill.

I turn to the most important matter—the relationship between the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the committee on Lords reform chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. I detected in the initial words of the noble Lord that he thinks that the Government's timetable might be slipping and he therefore argues that there is a strong case for passing his Bill in the interim. I suspect that the interim period could be anything from two to 200 years. Will the noble Baroness say what the current timetable is? When do the Government expect to bring forward a substantive Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses? Does she believe that it is the Government’s intention to seek consensus with your Lordships' House after they publish a draft Bill or are they prepared to use the Parliament Acts? What is Her Majesty's Government’s intention on the transitional arrangements? Is she prepared to give a definitive definition of what “grandfathering” actually means? Finally, can she assure me that powers will be looked at by the Deputy Prime Minister’s group?

I am pro-reform and have consistently voted for an elected House, but I am convinced that the powers of an elected Chamber will need to be codified. My noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Wills made that point. I am convinced that the House’s current notional powers will have to be reduced if primacy is to be retained by the House of Commons. Under a mostly or wholly elected second Chamber, the current conventions will not hold for one moment because they are constraints voluntarily adopted by a House that understands itself to lack the legitimacy of election. It is abundantly clear that an elected House will not operate within those conventions. I believe that my party was also unrealistic on this matter, but simply to maintain that an elected House can live alongside the voluntary conventions we have is impractical and, in the end, it is dishonest about what an elected House will achieve in future.

We will be interested in the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Steel. For our part, we wish the noble Lord well and look forward to debating this Bill in Committee on many Fridays to come.

Socioeconomic Equality Duty

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

I am sorry. I did not realise the time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With respect, the noble Baroness rose on the 19th minute.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

Thank you. This is a quick question, but I have been thinking about it. We know that the gender pay gap has widened. The Equality Act was a long time in gestation and the pay gap is a central tenet of trying to reduce inequality in our society. What parts now being enacted will help to narrow that gender pay gap? That in itself would mitigate so much inequality in our society.

Public Bodies: Reform

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We believe it right that the work of non-departmental public bodies should be scrutinised and kept under review. Indeed, that is what the Labour Government were doing. We reduced the number of arm’s-length bodies and delivered record efficiency savings, but we did it as part of a considered, orderly approach, avoiding the massive disruption in stability which may result from the Government’s approach announced today.

Why is it being done? We heard from the Minister a number of reasons, but I would take him back to the announcement made round the Queen’s Speech 2010, when we were told it was to reduce the cost of bureaucracy and that savings of around £1 billion per year were anticipated. Since then there seems to have been a shift in emphasis; we are now told that the purpose is to increase accountability. Abolishing transparent independent bodies and bringing some of their functions into central government departments is not what I would describe as an increase in accountability. How is accountability increased by bringing these functions into virtually invisible units within large central government departments? How in future will we know what work is being done? How will the people doing it be held to account? I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that.

One reason for the stress on accountability is that the Government are nowhere near to the savings in expenditure that they thought they were going to get when they announced the policy. Where is the £1 billion per year savings that we were promised? In fact we were told this morning on the “Today” programme—not in Parliament—that saving money is not the principal objective. All the evidence suggests that it will cost more money than it saves in relation to a number of the organisations, among them the Audit Commission, the RDAs, the British Film Council and Standards for England. When you take account of the redundancy, relocation and retraining costs and the contracts which will have to be stopped midway, you can see that that is not surprising. What is the total cost of implementing these plans this year and next?

We support the drive for efficiency. However, let us look at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, an internationally respected organisation which performs a very important role at modest cost. If we set that role against the cost of disruption to the organisation and its staff, we realise that transferring its functions to another regulator is surely not worth doing. I also suggest that it shows some disrespect to this House. I would remind the Minister of the debates that we held early in the decade when this House agreed to extend the research purposes to which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority could give approval. One of the key reasons why, after a seven-hour debate, this House agreed to the extension was the respect in which we hold the HFEA, its integrity and its robustness. We throw that reputation away at our peril. What does the Minister have to say to his noble friend Lord Willis, who pointed out in Oral Questions yesterday that,

“as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said ... the fact [is] that we enshrine in legislation and through regulation the very special status of the embryo. Since 1991, the HFEA has carried out that function very effectively indeed and it has done so because it has the support of the British people”.—[Official Report, 13/10/10; col. 512.]

There are similar points to be made about other organisations. What will be put in place of the General Teaching Council? There was a general welcome for the establishment of a professional body of regulation for the teaching profession. When its abolition was announced in the other place by Mr Michael Gove, he was unable to answer questions about how a replacement structure would be put in place. It is right that the Minister should tell us today.

Why do the Government wish to abolish the Health Protection Agency? Its role is to provide an integrated approach to protecting UK public health, including the provision of independent scientific advice to government. The problem is that the Government intend to pull the work of the HPA inside the Department of Health. They will also bring a number of other independent expert advisory bodies within the department. Much though I respect the Department of Health, the fact is that independent scientific advice is sometimes uncomfortable to Ministers. Will the scientific advice now being brought inside the department be made publicly available? Will it be known to Parliament if Ministers disagree with the advice?

The abolition of the UK Film Council has caused great concern among leading film makers. What will be the cost in terms of lost experts? I also question the uncertainty being caused by the review of CAFCASS when we know that it is under considerable pressure in supporting children. What about Consumer Focus? My experience at the Department of Energy and Climate Change was that it had a valuable role to play in bringing forward concerns among consumers in matters to do with energy. We are told that its role is to be taken over by the citizens advice bureaux, but the CAB does a very different job. Are the current responsibilities, powers, duties and functions of Consumer Focus to be transferred lock, stock and barrel to the citizens advice bureaux?

The Statement referred to regional development agencies. I know from living in Birmingham, in the West Midlands, that there is great concern about the loss of the RDAs. They have done fantastically valuable work. Local enterprise partnerships will simply not have the budgets, nor will they be up to the task. It is already clear that, in the West Midlands, the Black Country is to be split off from Birmingham, creating two separate local enterprise partnerships. That is a crazy decision which will break up the cohesion that we have seen in the past few years.

What is the job impact of these decisions on the regions? I hope the Minister will be able to tell me. What has happened to the quangos that were promised in the Conservative Party manifesto? We have heard a lot today about the iniquities of these bodies, and some of their officials, too, but what about the 20 new quangos promised by the Conservative Party? Can the Minister confirm that those quangos will now not go ahead?

Very little detail is given in the Statement about the proposals. Nothing is said about actual amounts of money, either costs or savings. Nothing is said about the impact on jobs. I suggest to the Minister that, in respect of each public body that is being abolished or changed, the Government should provide a statement showing which activities are going to be carried out in the future, which will be transferred to another body, how many full-time equivalent staff will be saved and how much money will be saved. It is also very important that, before legislation reaches us, there should be an early opportunity for the House to discuss these matters in full. I hope he will encourage the House authorities to allow us to have a full debate on these matters.