House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his persistence in bringing forward today’s Bill. We have debated in this place and on air the principles that we have been discussing today. We are broadly in agreement on where we are seeking to get to, with occasional differences on the right way to achieve that. The noble Lord does the House a service by bringing the Bill forward.

The debate has reflected the pride taken by active Members of your Lordships’ House in the work that we do. A comment was made, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that, when we hear criticisms of this place, it is not about that we do but often about the appointments system and how people get here in the first place. So our concern about the appointments system is that it is currently inadequate to protect the reputation of the House and, thereby, inadequate to protect the credibility of the work that we undertake.

There were some misconceptions about the Bill during the debate. It tries to achieve the balance between the right of a Prime Minister to appoint appropriate people and that right not being completely unfettered. We have already heard reference by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Wednesday—which we all laughed at, but with a sense of sorrow at the same time.

I say at the outset that criticism of the process is not a criticism of those charged with managing the process. They can work only within the parameters of their remit. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, has himself indicated his concerns as chair about the limitations placed on HOLAC, as did the previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

There are very few in this House who do not consider that reform is needed. We may differ on some of the details, but there is widespread consensus on the size of the House—it is too large—and that all Members should contribute to the work of the House. On the concern raised that there is no way of removing someone who does not contribute, I reassure noble Lords that, if someone does not contribute to the work of the House in a Session that lasts more than six months, they are automatically retired from this place.

Many of us would like to see reform of HOLAC. I think this is the first time in history that we have had a House of Lords that is seeking reform and a Government who are blocking it. This Bill deals with one area that I have referenced—a key one, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said—and that is the reform of HOLAC. I agree in principle that increasing the authority and independence of HOLAC would be a good thing for the appointments process and something that we could support. It makes sense to judge potential appointments against basic criteria. Whether we have the criteria right is a matter that we can discuss, but to have the basic criteria that there is a reason and purpose for how someone will contribute is good. There is also, certainly, a logic in putting the committee on a statutory basis. For me, it is mainly that it gives the committee the right to request and receive information in order to make an appropriate judgment.

I do have some reservations and consider that the Bill would benefit from improvement. I understand the point that at least 20% of Members must be independent, but other than no party having an absolute majority, there are no other recommendations, no guidance and no protection of other groups. Currently, 20% or more seats are guaranteed for the Cross-Benchers, unaligned and independents. The Cross-Benchers make up around 22% or 23% If you include non-aligned Members with them, the figure is around 28%. There has been an increasing propensity for a Prime Minister to appoint non-aligned Members of the House. It is an unusual concept, but it has happened and is likely to happen again. That will affect the proportion of Cross-Benchers in your Lordships’ House.

So there is also a case for looking at other groups. There could be a case—I say this with a smile on my face and hope that noble Lords will accept it—for protecting the size of the Official Opposition of your Lordships’ House. Our appointments in recent years have been significantly less than those of the Government. Looking at the numbers, I believe there have been more Peers appointed to come in as Ministers on the Government side than the entire Front Bench of the Official Opposition. That seems to me the kind of inconsistency that ought to be addressed if we are looking at the size of the House.

I want to make two points on Clause 3(4), which looks at the appointments made by an incoming Prime Minister. It is not just the appointments of an incoming Prime Minister that we need to look at but the appointments made by Prime Ministers while they are in post. To me, this is partly about the culture of your Lordships’ House. It is only 12 years since I came here but the House was much more discursive then, with Ministers making an argument to try to win support for their case. Now, with the large number of appointments, as the leaked Lynton Crosby report makes clear, the idea is: “Put lots more Peers in so we can’t lose a vote.” It is as if the Government can bludgeon their way through legislation through sheer numbers. That does not give the House its best reputation or let it do its best work. If we are reducing the size of the House, we ought to look at that issue in the round and have a more discursive approach so that Ministers can take the advice of the House and perhaps come back with amendments of their own.

We should not just look at this in terms of incoming Prime Ministers; what about Resignation Honours Lists for outgoing Prime Ministers? Noble Lords have already expressed disapproval of that along with the other new concept of deferred peerages. It seems a very strange way to behave to say, “We can put this in the bag for later and you don’t have to accept it now. You can give up at the next election.” That is not a reasonable or sensible way to behave.

It is perfectly reasonable for a Prime Minister to reward and honour those they consider have been especially helpful, above and beyond the call of duty, in their work as Prime Minister. My question, which I think we should consider, is whether that has to confer a peerage for life and a place in the legislature. There are other titles and honours—even a thank-you letter—but it is hard to justify a permanent place in the legislature.

Regarding commission membership, the Bill says how many members it should have and how they would be nominated but there are no criteria for what skills, qualifications or expertise would be required, so the role of the commission would be enhanced but we are not looking at how to select its membership.

Turning to Clause 7, and an important point, it is difficult to look at the issue of diversity if you are dealing only with recommendations that have come forward from political parties and the Prime Minister. Appointments should be more diverse but we should think about whether HOLAC could achieve that or whether there is some other way; I am not clear about that.

On Clause 9, I agree that party leaders who nominate through the Prime Minister should be called upon to justify their appointments. Where I part company with the noble Lord—I think the Bill needs some amendment here, and I have discussed this with him—is that I do not think it is the role of the commission to make a judgment on the processes or procedures that political parties choose to make their nominations. It is entirely right to ask for justifications and reasons, a point partly made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. When the honours list lists who has OBEs and MBEs, there is a citation saying what the person has done, but we have nothing like that for Members of this House. That is something we should look at. There should be greater transparency, not just to HOLAC but to the public as a whole.

In recent years, as I have mentioned, there have been a number of appointments as Ministers in recent years. It is quite reasonable for a Prime Minister to want to enhance a Front Bench if they feel they do not have, even among the numbers that the government party has, people who can serve as Ministers. However, I question whether they should be able to serve as a Minister for the rest of their life. The shortest term that a Minister has served, having been brought in as Minister with a peerage, is only nine days. Maybe nine days of ministerial office should not qualify for a lifetime peerage.

Lastly, we should give more information to the public about those appointed to peerages. This is a point that others have also made: I would like to see some post-appointment assessment, perhaps after two or three years in your Lordships’ House. There are some people who have been appointed who I have never seen in this Chamber, and I do not know how we justify them remaining in the House. Some kind of sensible and measured post-appointment assessment could be looked at.

The Bill deserves a Second Reading and I hope to discuss some of these matters in Committee. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his contribution.