Role of the Lord Speaker

Lord Horam Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, coming after the “Lord Foulkes show” is a bit like coming after the Lord Mayor’s show.

This was inevitably going to be a good-natured—indeed, humorous—debate, and I am glad that it is. However, few could compare it with the debate on the recently issued White Paper. That debate was rather fractious, people were shouting and some found it difficult to intervene. Indeed, two newish Members on this side of the House were unable to make their remarks. That is an example of what we are trying to deal with—good-natured, responsible, sensible and relaxed contributions in a main debate compared with rather fractious, somewhat aggressive and, frankly, rather disappointing contributions when noble Lords respond to a Statement. However, I am always delighted with the conduct of the Leader of the House and of the Chief Whip, even when he puts me right at the end of the speakers list, as he has done from time to time.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I shall concentrate on Question Time and Statements, which I think are the nub of the issue. I noted that my noble friend Lord Attlee, in his interesting remarks, quickly ran out of arguments in relation to conduct at Question Time and Statements and had to pursue other elements of the discussion about what the power of the Lord Speaker might be. I take a very practical view of all these things. The fact is that the present arrangements do not work very well. Question Time and Statements descend too quickly into shouting matches. The words used by previous speakers—fractious, aggressive and so forth—are correct in that regard. We also have increasingly to look at the impression created on the public. I will never forget, some time ago, bringing an American friend of mine into the House to witness our proceedings from below the Bar when a previous Lord Speaker was on the Woolsack. There was a little bit of a shambles and my friend asked, “Why doesn’t that woman in the middle do something? She’s in the chair—why doesn’t she do something about it?”. I explained that she was not allowed to. He replied, “You elect her and she’s not allowed to do anything?”. The look of bafflement on his face when he said that was a treat, and rather disappointing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, it is unfair that many noble Lords are not able to intervene. The situation works against new Members in particular. He was once a new Back-Bencher and appreciates what it is like. The Whips have often told me that new Members find this place rather intimidating. If they have been highly successful in other walks of life, they do not like to lose their dignity here. They see that that can happen if they are trying to intervene and cannot do so. They are not used to that. They need to be led in a little more gently. If that were done, I suspect that we would get a better response. It is probably right that a lot of noble Lords do not partake in Question Time because they are simply intimidated by the atmosphere. Curious though older hands may consider that to be, I think that it is the case.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that it is self-regulation. It is not self-regulation. How can it be self-regulation when it is regulation by the Front Bench? That is not, by definition, self-regulation. It has to be regulation by the Lord Speaker, who is elected by the Back-Benchers and the entire House of Lords. That is self-regulation. As a former Member of the House of Commons, I find there is less self-regulation here than there was in the House of Commons. That is the truth of the matter, because we do not only get regulation by the Front Benches during Question Time; they also choose the order of speaking, as they have today. That does not happen in the House of Commons, so I think there is far too little self-regulation.

I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is worried about the “thin end of the wedge” argument, but the time it has taken to get nowhere on this issue means that we need not really worry about a further step beyond this: it will be decades before we ever get there, frankly, so it is not anything to worry about. I support the first resolution of the 2011 Leader’s Group, the so-called Goodlad report, which said that the Lord Speaker should take over the role of the Leader of the House during Question Time for a trial period of 12 months. I would add “during Statements as well”, as I think that makes sense. In my view it would improve self-regulation and fairness; there would be more order, less embarrassing chaos; and it would be more understandable to the outside world. To that end, I would like to see the Government promote a Motion in government time, with government support, by which we could test the opinion of the House today, rather than several years ago. We all know that the Leader of the House, my noble friend, is charming, modern minded and practical, and I am sure she will see the total sense in this.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Horam Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I have ever participated in a debate in the House of Lords where there has been so much consensus; it is almost embarrassing. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, just said, the momentum since our last debate on this issue has been incredible. I am really heartened by the extent to which people are prepared to consider a cap at a significantly lower level than our present size.

As we know, one suggestion is that the House of Lords should be of a similar size to, or not bigger than, the House of Commons. There is a great deal of merit in that. Others have gone further, such as my noble friend Lord Jopling. In an interesting article in the Financial Times, Lord Grenfell, who recently retired from the Labour Benches, wrote that the figure should go down to 450 or 500, for various reasons which I shall not go into now. Personally—as someone who is perhaps showing a latent masochistic or even suicidal interest in this issue—I rather favour the lower number, but whatever the number, whether 500 or 600, the whole point is that it must be significantly and observably lower than our present number. I am heartened by the extent to which there is agreement on that fundamental point.

If we can agree on that, the next issue, on which I think there is also agreement, is the proportion of the House that should constitute Cross-Benchers. One-fifth, or 20%, has been a common figure. That seems to me wholly right, because it fulfils the essential requirement that there should be no government majority under any circumstances in any conceivable carve-up of the political groups in the House. Beyond that, inevitably, there will be a carve-up of the political groups according to some formula related to the numbers in the Commons or the numbers of votes at the previous general election. That is inevitable and right, and I see no way round it.

I would not prescribe from the centre the way we get from here to there; the political groups should be left to decide. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said in his excellent speech, the groups know their own members best, and the caucus can come forward with a reduction in numbers or some other method. They understand their members—they understand the balance of age, experience, activity and so forth within that group—and I believe they can be trusted to take a decision on that basis. I would leave it to them, without a central diktat.

The other immediate question is exactly when we take that step. In my view, the most sensible idea is to do it in one fell swoop after the next general election. I appreciate that voices have been saying—this is perhaps the only real point of difference among the Benches—that the process should be more incremental. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned three out and one in. My problem with that is practical: I wonder whether it will actually achieve the reduction in numbers that we want. It will be an uncertain course; we will not be clear when the next hurdle will be arrived at. That is a practical problem. Nor will it have the same effect on public opinion—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, who has just left the Chamber.

We need to have a big number to show the public—my noble friend the Leader of the House made the point about the importance of public opinion—that we are really serious about this and that there is about to be a big reduction in the number of Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, the media strategy is important in this. To me, that is a persuasive argument for having a cull all at once, rather than the slowly, slowly approach of an incremental procedure. In the mean time, inevitably, we need a paper from an all-party group—I am so glad that various people are working on that—which will hopefully be published and set out some sort of framework.

Following that, we need rule changes, and I hope that we can avoid legislation. One thing that I have always said to aspirant Ministers when they have occasionally asked me about my experience of ministerial office is, always, under any circumstances, avoid legislation. It is a can of worms. It will always go wrong. It will absorb your civil servants. It will inevitably attract amendments that you do not want and there will be trouble in the House of Lords, so do not do it. If we can possibly avoid legislation, let us do so. If we can do this by rule change, we really should. That is extremely important.

I sense that this is our chance. If we do not take it now, in my view, we will not be fulfilling our responsibilities to both Parliament and country.