House of Lords Reform

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the most reverend Primate in a debate of this importance, particularly because each of the three noble Lords who have spoken before me have taken us one step further towards clarifying the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, gave a clear insight into the fundamental importance of the central issue, which, put simply, is: is this House likely to improve if a substantial elected element is introduced to it? That is the great fundamental question and I have some sympathy with her proposal of a referendum on the consideration of that. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, reminded us that a number of transitional changes are featured in the Steel Bill, which, whatever happens, will need to be considered. As we have argued many times, they have and could have been considered already. That is the quality of the questions we are considering.

The first and fundamental question is whether there should be elected Members here. One of the problems is that we will not gain much from arguing about the procedure for resolving that; from arguing about the appropriateness of a draft Bill now, next week or next year; or from arguing about what committee should be designed to consider the problem and disentangle the difficulties so as to make it easy to go on with the next step. The difficulty is that every political organisation addressing this question is divided within itself. All the parties are divided. Both Houses of Parliament are divided, which causes gaps between the leadership, as well as between the sometimes slightly misleading term of the organisation. For example, we understood that this would be something for a third term of a Conservative Government, but somehow impatience has carried it in a different direction.

We want this caucus of Front-Bench representatives from the three parties to seek a way forward, and I can understand why. It then has to be commended to both Houses of Parliament. Both Houses have to address this fundamental question of elected Members and be persuaded in their judgment that it is a positive improvement for this legislative structure. Because that question concerns this House alone in the direct sense, it is very disagreeable to find any suggestion to the effect that the views of this House can be pushed to one side and that, above all, we do not require a clear majority persuaded in favour of this change in this House.

Therefore, where the evidence is on which the case for change is to be based becomes the important question.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords—

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Before the noble Lord speaks, I should say that it is not customary to give way in a speech of this kind. I fell into the habit on the Front Bench in the other House of yielding too often to interrogative bodies. I would like to have freedom from that on this occasion in this House.

I draw attention to the total lack of evidence that can justify a change of this kind on this scale. It is interesting to look at the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 19 May in which he said that his second objective was to,

“reform to reduce the power of political elites and to drag Westminster into the 21st century, starting with the House of Lords”.

That is the proposition he advanced and it is the proposition which it is necessary to establish if this case is to get anywhere at all.

What will be the effect on the composition, style, quality and expertise of this House? It is that which is of crucial value and we need considered debate about it, as we have had frequently. The first quality is one that we hardly need to be reminded of: it is the sheer expertise of this House. Its difference and its quality are wholly distinct from that of the other place, and therefore it makes a very distinct contribution. Only in the past few weeks we witnessed a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on genomic medicine. That is not a topic I even begin to understand anything about, but the House was privileged to have taking part in that debate not just the noble Lord himself, a profoundly authoritative expert on the subject, but four members of two royal societies, including the president the Royal Society of Edinburgh and two Fellows of the Royal Society, the president of the British Academy and chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, two Ministers, one a Minister of Health, and several other well qualified medical people, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and above all, the noble Lord, Lord Winston. That is the kind of quality that to a large extent would be impaired and destroyed if we were to accept the concept of a wholly elected House.

I take your Lordships’ minds back to the debate four days after 9/11, on the Friday when we debated what would happen in Iraq and when, sadly enough, our views did not prevail so as to prevent that disaster. The people who took part in that debate included three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, three former Foreign Secretaries who had played a role in that part of the world, two former Home Secretaries, two former ambassadors, two former Defence Secretaries and many others with service experience. The House has its character because of the accepted presence of a substantial number which makes up the quality that it is necessary to preserve. That is only one thing which would be damaged if we were to accept a substantial elected element here. Grave damage would be done to the quality, diversity and expertise of this place.

Secondly, I turn to the argument about legitimacy, about which we have heard mention already. It is a strange argument that is inconclusive in its impact because an apparent consequence of legitimising us by making us elected would be to provoke much more savage and regular conflicts between the two Houses. There is no doubt that if we were to feel as extravagantly self-important on the issues of this kind as the other place sometimes does, conflict would be repetitive. Nothing would be gained by sharing legitimacy in that way.

Another consequence would be the change in cost if this House were to represent people who had been elected with access to the same level of privileges, facilities and services as exist in the other place. I make no complaint about that, but where is there any evidence to suggest that elected Members here would effect an improvement in the quality of our performance? It is a question that I have asked many times. Curiously, we find that Parliament’s shortcoming is most frequently attributed to shortcomings in the other place. I have quoted previously the fifth report, HC 494-I, of the so-called Wright committee, published in 2002, much to the credit of that Member of the other place. The committee addressed the question of what effect legitimacy would have and said,

“the principal cause of today’s ‘widespread public disillusionment with our political system’ is the ‘virtually untrammelled control … by the Executive’ of the elected House”.

It is the fact that the other place is effectively dominated, commanded and controlled by the Executive, which now even chooses candidates for selection at constituency level and so on. That is the cause of the disillusionment with our political system. The Wright committee went on to reach two conclusions. It emphasised,

“the need ‘to ensure that the dominance of Parliament by the Executive, including the political Party machines, is reduced and not increased’”.

How would that dominance be reduced and not increased if we were to have elected Members here? Who would select those Members but the parliamentary Executive? Who would finance their campaigns? The parliamentary Executive.

For those reasons, the Wright committee reached the other conclusion that the Second Chamber—that is us—must be,

“neither rival nor replica, but genuinely complementary to the Commons”,

and, therefore, “as different as possible”. That would hardly be fulfilled if we were to now set about introducing elected Members to this House. That is the central question.

Interestingly, I started by quoting the Deputy Prime Minister as wanting to start the reform by making fundamental change here, bringing us into the 21st century. This week I came across an article in the Parliamentary Brief paper for June/July—the latest one—in which there is an article by the new Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, someone for whom I have great respect. I have half a minute left and I dedicate it to Sir George Young. Under the heading, “The House rules, OK”, he starts with this paragraph:

“For years, the real scandal in British politics has been the impotence of the House of Commons. The terms of the trade between government and parliament have shifted too far in the executive’s favour. Over recent decades, it has simply become too easy for the government to sideline parliament; to push Bills through without adequate scrutiny; and to see the House more as a rubber-stamp than a proper check on executive authority”.

If that is the real scandal in British politics today, where, in heaven’s name, is there any sense in introducing and extending the role of the political Executive into this House with disastrous consequences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I have been involved in several attempts to move the House of Lords towards a 21st-century institution of our democracy. I do not agree with those who say that nothing has happened. The outcome of the discussions between the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats that were led by Robin Cook and me was that measures for the reform of this House were introduced. That there was a compromise as a result of the clever negotiation between Lord Cranborne—now the noble Marquis, Lord Salisbury—and Tony Blair about the hereditary Peers certainly stalled the process of reform. However, that was not the end of the story, because in 2005 we had a significant Bill, which, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention, removed the Law Lords from this place. That followed the wise advice of the then senior Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who took the view that those who made the law should not sit in judgment on their own laws. We were moving. The previous Government produced a White Paper that indicated further moves.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, exaggerates when he says that no one listens to the work that is done by this House. The actuality is that, during the past five years, some 40 per cent of the amendments passed by it, against the advice of the Government at the time, have been accepted without cavil. That may not have captured the headlines in the broadsheets; it may not have been reported more widely than in “Yesterday in Parliament” en route; but we have made a big impact on legislation and have stepped in very often when the Commons was not ready to make a move because it was very largely in the hands of the Executive.

In considering today the case for the reform of the House of Lords, what should be up front is not the process, which seems to have dominated the debate to some extent, but what the objective is and where we will see an improvement in our system of governance. For that, I agree that it would be sensible to look at this House’s transition to a modern elected House, because most of us have some direct interest in the House as it is structured. However, let us also consider where we should end up.

The weakness of our parliamentary democracy is not its bicameralism; it is the fact that its principal House—there have been references to retaining its primacy in every debate that we have had—is very largely the creature of the Executive if they enjoy a substantial majority. That does not help to improve the quality of governance, which is why this House, reformed, should have a major role. There is certainly a case for considering how that could be more effectively discharged; for example, I cannot really see that we need to circumscribe the Prime Minister’s choice of Ministers by saying that they have to be either drawn from the Commons or appointed to the Lords. That gives the second Chamber a heavier bent towards the Executive than it would have if it were empowered to draw in to answer its questions all those who were responsible for Acts of government. I hope that the second Chamber, as reformed, will not contain Ministers of the Crown, but that Ministers of the Crown will be required to attend when it has a Bill for which they are responsible or to answer questions when they are departmentally responsible.

I am glad that nobody in this debate or in any other debate that I can recall has seriously suggested that we could do without a second Chamber. Reform, not abolition, is under discussion. However, the discussion also ought to take into account as a goal, and as part of the case for reform, the fact that the Commons is grossly overloaded. It has to be said, taking that consideration into account, that it is somewhat odd to be looking for a substantial reduction in the number of Members. Does this not point to a sensible delimitation of functions between the two reformed Houses? Would it not make sense to have some second-guessing, which allows opportunities for reconsideration?

Also, as we give the other place priority over money Bills and exclude this House from their consideration, should we not give the reformed upper House priority over considering the country’s international obligations such as the treaty-making process and perhaps European Union oversight? That is a growing weight of responsibility for Parliament as a whole, and if we are all second-guessing each other all the time we are diminishing the amount of time available for the vast global responsibilities in which we wish to play some part.

This House has 137 Members at the last count engaged in its subject committees, which one might regard as a very active part of its membership. That sort of number might be a target for the size of the reformed second House. It is certainly clear that we need to have a committed House in which Members are prepared to work their socks off. Many do, and that is what has allowed this House to survive as long as it has in its present form.

I put it to the House, not as a postscript but as a central proposition, that we have such expertise, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, that we do not wish to see it lost entirely to the governance of this country. That should not be included in a reformed, elected House—

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords—

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My time is almost up. That should not be included in this House directly, but it might be incorporated in a separate institution such as a council of state, which would not have the power to block the Government or reform legislation but would have the power to make amendments and draw in evidence from outside as well as informing the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. With the complexity of government that we have today, that expertise should not be abandoned to our processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords on the Front Bench for providing us with the opportunity for this debate. I thank them also for the firm leadership which they are giving the House. They have recognised that the electorate this year have spoken with quite a different voice from what we have normally heard, and have been endeavouring to respond as best they could to the will of the people and to try to win back support and trust in the ways that they are exploring these issues.

When reflecting on the debate, I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who is no longer in his place—there has been an element of disconnect from what is happening out there in political terms and in real life. It is important that we endeavour, as we work through this issue, to ensure that we are connected. It is worth reminding ourselves that all three parties went to the electorate with manifestos seeking either an elected or a partially elected Chamber. For the first time, the issue came up regularly before 8 million to 10 million people in the leaders’ debates, which we had never had before. I suspect that for the first time people knew more about the House of Lords and the attempt to reform it.

I ask myself what right I have as an appointed Member of this Chamber to override and ignore those facts. If we are about rebuilding trust, we have to look for the areas in which we can do it. We should listen to what people have said. It does not do us a great deal of justice or help us if we start ignoring manifesto promises. I say that as much to my own side as to colleagues on the other side.

In my opinion—I am sure that this view is not commonly held—where the Government may have gone wrong is that they lost their radical credentials marginally by not immediately moving to hold a referendum on the coalition’s programme for action. Had they done that, we would not have been having this debate today; without such a referendum, many of the debates that they will run into will also be problematic for them. I have raised this issue with my party, arguing that, if we go into a coalition, we should seek the electorate’s support in a referendum. Indeed, I shall be asking the prospective leaders of my party where they stand on this issue. We have to tackle some of the fundamental changes that have taken place in society. One of them relates to involving the wider public through referenda to a degree.

I come back to the question that the Leader raised at the beginning of the debate. The Government have an opportunity to redeem themselves. They could commit themselves to taking the Bill, after we have finished with it, back to the public, just as they said in their document that they want a referendum on other changes. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on that, as I believe that that would be the right thing to do and I suspect that he would get the right answer if he did it.

My next point is on an entirely different issue. Will the noble Lord say whether the Government will consider breaking the linkage between the honours system and appointment to this Chamber? That is a fundamental issue, which I do not think has been raised today, and it needs to be looked at. I shall come back to that point later.

I come to the general approach. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had been bolder at the beginning and had stated where the Government stand on the use of the Parliament Act, we might have had a rather different debate today. I understand that we are starting gently down the route, but I believe that we need to focus minds. I believe that the Government would have taken away a lot more useful information from this debate if we had known whether they intend to use the Parliament Act. I ask the noble Lord to clarify the Government’s position on that.

Where do I stand on this issue? I broadly fall in line with my noble friend Lord Butler. We have to deal with reality and I suspect that we will not be far off the mark of what he said might happen. I support an 80:20 per cent hybrid House. We can make that work if we want it to. I would go for 500 Members initially, possibly changing that further down the line, with the constituencies the same as for the European elections, with open lists and preferably with primaries—the Conservative Party was exploring that idea, which I hope has not been forgotten. We need new systems for selecting people to be elected to this Chamber. I hope that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, will be taken into account by my friends on the other side, as what he said was very useful. There are ways in which we can identify people of the right calibre from around the country who are prepared to stand and who could come here and give the kind of performance whose possible loss concerns so many people.

I come now to the unanswered question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who asked what difference and improvement elections would make. First, we would have an element of accountability. I would go for eight-year terms, subject to re-election for a further eight years, making 16 in total. Here I differ from what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Butler: I would go for re-election after eight years. What would also be different—this has hardly been mentioned, which is fascinating—is that tonight we have 12 women out of about 64 speakers in the Chamber. The problems that we have with the underrepresentation of women in Parliament have not been mentioned. We should have quotas and we should go for substantial increases in the number of women who would be eligible for election to the House of Lords. Similarly with ethnic minorities, we should look for substantial changes so that we end up with a different-looking Parliament entirely.

The issue of the absence of geographical spread has already been mentioned, so I will not pursue it, but perhaps we should look for a few Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland. Would they not make this Chamber better than it is at the moment? The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, clearly demonstrated how the quality of the House has changed over recent years. There is a case for it to continue to change—and for the better—in order to become more accountable and more democratic.

My noble friend Lord Rooker raised the issue of the relationship with the Commons. This is not beyond solution. I suggest to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite that they dust down the work that was done by the 2003 Joint Committee and look at the ideas on the codification of our conventions. They should move quickly on that to kill all the counterarguments that have come from many quarters. Our work and procedures would stay broadly in line with what we do at the moment, although my preference would be to look at the way in which, at the other end, they deal so inadequately with European legislation. That is something that could come to the House of Lords.

There are answers to many issues that have been raised today about quality; and there is an answer to the potential conflict between us and the Commons. Finally, I refer to the committee that will be established under the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and suggest, not without jocularity, that perhaps he should consider whether we could offer a conversion from life peerages to hereditary peerages—maybe for one or two generations and then they would disappear. In that way, either we would give substance to, increase and improve the aristocracy, or possibly provide the final nail in the coffin that will undermine it.