House of Lords Reform

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Keen of Elie

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for making this debate possible.

I quote:

“There is a place with a proud record of standing up to government. It works diligently and thanklessly to improve legislation. It applies expertise to policy … It acts with a seriousness that is absent almost anywhere else in the political system. It is the House of Lords … through a strange combination of circumstances, the Lords has developed into something unusual in the British political landscape: a functioning chamber. It is, simply put, one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”.


I am, as some noble Lords will be aware, quoting the recent work of the political commentator Ian Dunt—not known for his conservative tendencies.

Can the House of Lords be improved? Of course it can. There is no part of our political system that could not lend itself to improvement in the face of carefully conceived and properly considered examination.

This Government’s expressed intention is to replace the House of Lords with a second Chamber of the regions and nations. A number of your Lordships have alluded to this proposal. I will not spend too much time on it, principally because it is not going to happen during the life of this Parliament and is unlikely to happen during my own lifetime, assuming that to be a longer timeline. I observe, however, that the House of Lords is an integral part of the legislature for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not an assembly of regions and nations, all of which have their own devolved competence. Of course we should be representative of our whole United Kingdom, but not just in terms of geography.

Pending its plan to replace the House of Lords, the Labour Party set out in its manifesto its proposal for immediate reform, which it described as “essential”. This has been touched on during this debate and is expressed by the Government as the requirements for “immediate modernisation”. I believe it important to actually look at the terms of that manifesto, because the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, quoted only one part of the immediate proposal for reform, and repeated references have been made to the importance of the Salisbury/Addison convention.

As noble Lords will be aware, at page 108 of its manifesto the Labour Party stated its proposal for “immediate modernisation” and followed it with this comment:

“Whilst this action to modernise the House of Lords will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords”.


So what is this “action to modernise”? I quote:

“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.


Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. We will reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber”.


That is the manifesto proposal for immediate reform of the House of Lords, pending the longer-term proposal —not simply the removal of the excepted Peers. What we have is the removal of the right of the excepted Peers, who are otherwise here for life, to sit in the House of Lords, a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, the removal of disgraced Members—I do not note any noble Lord having spoken against that proposal, so I do not see why it should not go ahead immediately—and reform of the appointments process to ensure the quality of appointments. I acknowledge that all the foregoing are capable of being done immediately, and the implication that they can be done together is, of course, compelling. As the previous Labour Government repeatedly asserted when faced with Private Members’ Bills such as those of Lord Steel, which addressed only some of these issues, the removal of excepted Peers or their elections could take place only as part of wider reform of the House of Lords.

In order of importance, the list from the Labour manifesto must surely begin with the urgent need to reform the appointments process. Where else in the world does the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, effectively determine the membership of the legislature? Montesquieu would be spinning in his grave. There are minor appointments that do not rely on the Prime Minister’s direct control—the Lords spiritual, the excepted Peers and the people’s Peers—but otherwise our Prime Minister is free to reward political success in the other place. Our Prime Minister is free to reward political failure in the other place. Our Prime Minister is free to reward anything that he puts his mind to, without us being able to essentially discover the underlying reason.

Consequently, how can you dispel the shadow of nepotism and the hint of cronyism—far greater, if unspoken, an issue than the excepted Peers? This point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, when he referred to the appointment of mates and pals, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he talked about the executive takeover of Parliament. So we have an essential and important step to take immediately: how we deal with the appointment process.

The most immediate and urgent of Labour’s manifesto proposals is the modernisation of the Appointments Commission in order that it can effectively challenge Executive appointments. I note that one Prime Minister alone, Tony Blair, made 374 appointments to this House.

I used the word “reward”, and as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, observed, that is not the purpose of this House. We are not here to see people arrive simply because they have been rewarded for whatever service they may have given. They should be here in order that they can participate in an important part of the legislature of the United Kingdom, and our objective should be to secure those who are able and, indeed, willing to participate in that legislative process. I notice in passing that in the past five years the highest rate of participation of any cohort in the House, whether attendance or participation in committees, has been that of the excepted Peers.

However, there is an urgent problem that needs to be immediately addressed. As expressed in the Labour manifesto:

“Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”.


This, like the present system of appointment, is liable to bring the House into disrepute in the eyes of the public. It could be remedied immediately. We could adopt the policy of the Scottish Parliament Act 1572. If I might remind some of your Lordships who have forgotten its terms, this provided that every noble, every elected baron of the shire, and every elected commissioner of the royal burghs would be subject to a daily fine if they failed to attend Parliament without reasonable excuse. So, instead of a daily allowance, we might have a daily disallowance. More seriously, it would be a simple matter to immediately require all Peers upon appointment or already in the House to give a solemn undertaking of participation. If they declined, they should not be able to take a seat in this House, and they should not be able to vote. If they fail to adhere to the undertaking, again they should no longer be able to take their seat in this House, and they should not be able to vote. If noble Lords wish, as many do, to reduce the numbers who may sit in this House, I suggest that such an immediate move would probably reduce the numbers by hundreds almost overnight.

The matter of a retirement age is clearly regarded as controversial—I note the number of noble Lords who did not mention it in their contributions. Of course, it does not exist in the other place, and it would clearly remove some talent prematurely. I have to observe that we adhere to the notion that our judges are not competent to interpret and apply the law once they reach the age of 75, while we consider ourselves capable of making the law without any limit of time, so there may be an issue there for us to consider.

What has exercised people more than anything else is apparently the hereditary principle, which was only one part of the immediate reform proposed in the Labour manifesto. One noble Baroness referred to it as “ridiculous” and another noble Lord as “indefensible”. I simply notice that the hereditary principle is the pillar upon which sits our constitutional monarchy, so we must be a little careful about such generalisations as we have heard during this debate.

Why is it so criticised? The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, referred to the work of Gordon Brown, and his report of 2022 lies behind much of what has been proposed here. His report concluded that the 92 excepted Peers could not remain as they were merely the representatives of the landowning class. He raises an interesting point about the idea of a particular class being represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may recall that Sidney Webb drafted the constitution of the Labour Party. When doing so, and in particular when drafting Clause 1, he was determined that workers should receive the proper reward for their labour, and that in order to do so they would have to secure representation in Parliament. That was the objective of the constitution of the Labour Party. So he intended that a class, the labouring class, should secure representation in Parliament. I wonder how that differs from the idea of the landowning class achieving representation in Parliament.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

There are more of us.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, suggests that there are more of the workers. He may be right, but of course we are a democracy, so we all have the right to be represented in Parliament.

Not a lot has changed since Sidney Webb drafted that constitution. I can think of only two changes. One was when Tony Blair sought the amendment of Clause 4 and the second was when the present Prime Minister could not remember what a worker was. On that second point, he might have gone back and read Sidney Webb, who made it very clear that a worker was someone who not only laboured with their muscle but laboured with their brain. So there is a definition out there that we can fall back on and use. In passing, I always thought it was interesting that Sidney Webb became the first Baron Passfield and therefore entered this House as a hereditary Peer.

The issues that we have debated, and which the Labour manifesto identifies as a prelude to the replacement of the House of Lords, are, as I say, capable of immediate and simple implementation. Why then have the Government departed from what their own manifesto described as the requirements for “immediate modernisation”, to contradict their own previous judgment and put forward only one, albeit pending, replacement of this House?

For example, do we need to delay strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed? I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House: if so, why? Do we need to delay reforming the appointments process in order that it is less opaque and open to abuse by the Executive? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why? Do we need to delay the introduction of a much-needed participation requirement? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why? Do we need to ignore the previous Labour Government’s stricture that the removal of excepted Peers should only be part of this wider reform and modernisation? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why?

As many noble Lords observed, including the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Jones and Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Wrottesley, we are threatened with piecemeal reform. We have been threatened with that in the past; it is not an inviting proposition. All the points raised as essential and immediate in the Labour Party manifesto are capable of almost immediate and joint implementation. So I ask the noble Baroness the Leader: why is it that only one aspect of that essential Labour manifesto commitment is taken in the Bill? Would it be so difficult to address the issue of disgraced Peers, the issue of participation and the issue of appointment, which is so critical to the independence of this House as part of the legislature rather than as the poodle of the Executive?

Further Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Keen of Elie

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have said something new.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, began by referring to the Prime Minister leaving no-deal threats on the table or not taking such a deal off the table. Similar observations were made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, contented himself with alluding to a fantasy. Let us be clear. This may help some people’s conscience, but the Prime Minister did not put no deal on the table; nor did she threaten with regard to no deal. This Parliament put no deal front and centre of the issue. This Parliament passed the referendum Bill. I wonder how many people here voted against it. They passed the referendum Bill. Then this Parliament passed the Bill to allow the Article 50 notification to be served. I wonder how many people here voted against that. I see one or two.

[Lord Liddle]

I did.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Well done, you are entitled to refer to a fantasy; others are not. The consequence of that was that we were leaving consequent on the application of Article 50, which required at the level of international law that a certain notice period should be given.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Keen of Elie

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not going to draft at the Dispatch Box and I will not give undertakings about any part of this clause at this stage. I am saying that we will look at it in the context of the observations that have been made in Committee, and we will do that responsibly.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I welcome that assurance from the Minister. I have been surprised by the passion that this short debate has aroused. It raises many serious issues about what powers the Government are giving themselves as a result of this Bill. The Minister is aware of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith about this power. To my non-legal mind, when my noble and learned friend talks about the power that is in consequence of this Act because it repeals the European Communities Act 1972, the potential scope of what could be done is extremely large. When we come back to this on Report I hope that the Government will be able to provide us with some assurance that the scope will not be impossibly big. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Keen of Elie

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

This seems to confuse a number of different issues because the parallels are the same as those in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. If you are a UK citizen in Gibraltar and you are also entitled to apply for and be granted citizenship of Spain, you will then hold dual nationality or dual citizenship, and as a citizen of Spain, for as long as it remains a member state of the EU, you will enjoy the right to EU citizenship. It is no different from the position in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In the same way, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—perhaps referring to something she may have read in the Daily Mail—talked about people applying for citizenship of Malta in order to ensure they can maintain EU citizenship. This is how it happens, but the fundamental point is that you cannot be a citizen of the EU unless you are a citizen of a member state. That is written into the treaties.

It may appear—and it will almost certainly appear to the Chief Whip—that I have digressed slightly from some of the amendments; he will be watching. I just seek to touch on some of them. I hope I covered in my opening remarks some of the points made. Amendments 160 and 170 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Amendment 202 by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. Unfortunately, she was not here to speak to it, but it was referred to. As I have indicated, at the end of the day, we will have to conclude the negotiations in respect of the withdrawal agreement treaty and then draw it down into our domestic law. Tying Clause 9 to a particular outcome is not going to assist that.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, moved Amendment 210. Again, I hope I have set out the Government’s position on this. We appreciate what we have achieved by way of the joint report, and we go on to the detailed negotiations in the hope it will effectively mean that we can confirm in domestic law not only the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom, but the right of UK citizens in the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, moved Amendment 211, which details a requirement to keep equivalence with the EU on rights and protections. Again, this is prospective. We are addressing it in the course of negotiations and we hope to achieve it in many respects. In my view and in the view of the Government, it would not be appropriate to bring this into our domestic law.

Finally, we have Amendments 49 and 52, which I hope I have gone some way to addressing so far. The Bill aims to provide a stable and certain domestic statute book on exit day. That is its point, irrespective of the result of the negotiations and of any final agreement with the EU. Of course, once we achieve a final agreement, we fully appreciate that we are going to have to draw it down into our domestic law. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise it.

[Lord Liddle]

If, as I am sure we both do not want, the withdrawal agreement is not reached, what then happens to EU citizens’ rights? Do we not have the opportunity now to guarantee them, whatever the case?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, if there were no agreement, then it would be for this sovereign Parliament to decide what it was going to do about that in domestic law. We have already made clear expressions of intent as regards their status. There is an issue here of time and place. While I understand the expressions of concern that we have heard from across the House, this is not the time and this Bill is not the place for these amendments. In these circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press them.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Keen of Elie

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Yes, of course. The noble Lord to whom the noble Lord refers is not in the House today.

It is my intention to make some progress with this matter. The Prime Minister clearly set out her vision for the future of the UK post-exit in her speech on 17 January, including our future trading relationship with the EU. She was clear that we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead, we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. We want the UK to have the freest possible trade in goods and services with the EU’s member states but also to be able to negotiate our own trade agreements. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, observed, we seek our own, bespoke deal.

The United Kingdom has always been a leading voice for free trade, not only in the European Union but globally, and we have been consistently clear that we want the maximum possible freedom to trade for businesses in both Britain and Europe. But we also want to take back control of our laws and control immigration to Britain from Europe.

Being a member of the EEA would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement the four freedoms—in respect of capital, goods, services and people—without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would mean not having control over immigration. EU leaders in the other 27 states have been clear as to their belief in the indivisible nature of the four freedoms, and we respect that. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, not to maintain partial membership of its bodies or institutions. When the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union institutions, they did not intend that we should leave by the front door and rush back to attempt entry by the back door.

As set out in the White Paper, we recognise that we will require alternative forms of dispute resolution once we leave the EU and are no longer subject to the European Court of Justice. But again, these mechanisms are common both to agreements between the EU and third countries and in international agreements to which the United Kingdom is also party, of which there are many examples. Once we leave the EU, the EEA agreement will no longer be relevant for the United Kingdom. It will have no practical effect. It will be an empty vessel. That is because the agreement is defined as covering all EU members and those three EFTA states—Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway—which have chosen to join the EEA. As we are leaving the EU, we will automatically be outside this definition, as found in Article 126 of the EEA agreement. So there is no choice open to us to leave the EU and remain a member of the EEA, which would require a separate negotiation with the EU and the three EFTA states that I have just mentioned. For example, Switzerland, which is also a member of EFTA, has separate bilateral agreements with the EU even though it is not in the EEA. EFTA membership is not, of course, the same as EEA membership.

Although it will have no practical effect after the EU exit, we are considering what steps might need to be taken formally to terminate the EEA agreement as a matter of law, as we will remain a signatory to the agreement. This could be done through Article 127 of the EEA agreement on giving 12 months’ notice, or by some other means, but no decision has yet been taken on that. We have laid out in the White Paper, however, the relationship we are seeking: a new strategic partnership which includes a new customs agreement and an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement. We are seeking the greatest possible access to the single market as part of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the fact that we would not be at the table. That is absolutely right, and that is not what 52% of our population voted for when they voted leave. It is one thing to have power without responsibility; it is another to have responsibility without power, and that is what we would have in these circumstances. It was suggested that freedom of movement could be open to a variety of interpretations. That is not the view in Europe. It is open to only one interpretation—one which we have been under for a number of years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, referred to the report of the House of Lords committee. I can reassure her that we take the terms of that report very seriously, and we will be taking forward our consideration of it in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the suggestion that somehow we could keep our options open so far as the EEA is concerned, but that is not the case. EEA membership is not an option that is simply open to us if we leave the EU. As I said, it becomes an empty vessel. We have to face up to the indivisibility of the four freedoms, as insisted upon. It is not a case of going to Europe and saying, “We would like to negotiate out of one of the four freedoms”. We are told repeatedly that they are indivisible, and we have to take that into account.

At the end of the day, we cannot embrace membership of the EEA any more than membership of the EU without freedom of movement in Europe. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment on the understanding that we cannot retain membership of the EEA for the reasons I have sought to set out.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, there is one issue on this question which is very important to the national interest. When the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, came to the Select Committee to answer questions about the Government’s negotiating strategy, I asked him whether—as part of a transitional arrangement—they had ruled out membership of the single market or the EEA, and he said they had not. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s current position?

Whatever the Front Bench opposite thinks, most observers think it will be impossible to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement within the practical 15 months of negotiation that will be available after the German elections. This implementation phase that the Prime Minister talks about is in fact a transition. Are the Government saying that under no circumstances would we consider being members of the EEA, or the single market? If they are, we are facing the most horrendous cliff edge as an economy.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I do not accept that we face a cliff edge—there is no cliff and therefore no edge. We fully intend to negotiate a suitable settlement within the period set out in Article 50 and that is the course of action on which we are setting out at this time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, questioned whether this amendment was within the scope of the Bill. That is a question for others, but clearly it is not related to the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is concerned with process and, if we lose sight of that, we are liable to become rudderless in very difficult waters.

[Lord Liddle]

Will the Minister give me an answer to the question? It is a reasonable question on such a vital matter of national importance: is this ruled out in a transitional arrangement or not?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, the noble Lord’s question proceeds on a supposition that I do not accept.