House of Lords Reform

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on securing this debate and on his interesting, entertaining and, I think it is fair to say, at times angry speech, quite a lot of which I agreed with, because I would sweep away the House of Lords and replace it with an almost entirely elected Chamber.

I accept the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said in an intervention, the issue is not exactly top of the charts for our constituents. I have only one constituent who writes to me about it and other issues, such as the changes to the Act of Settlement.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is an extremely assiduous constituency MP and I suspect he spends most of his weekends knocking on people’s doors to get their views. Is he able to recall the last time a constituent on the doorstep badgered him on the subject of House of Lords reform? I am really struggling to remember the last time a constituent troubled me on that matter.

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. I cannot recall anyone on the doorstep raising this particular issue, even when it was being debated day in, day out in this Chamber. The fact that it is not on the public’s agenda suggests that it will not be on the Government’s agenda—and, of course, it is not. The fact that the public do not care a great deal gives the Government an opportunity to kick it into touch.

Had I been here in the late 1990s when Tony Blair was tinkering with the House of Lords and sweeping away most of the hereditary peers, I would probably have been opposed to that, as a typical traditional Conservative. It would appear to me that they were doing no great harm, and if we are to be ruled by an unelected body, I would rather it be an unelected House of Lords than an unelected European Commission.

The reality, however, is that we cannot go on as we are. Changes, both significant and minor, have been made to our constitution over the centuries and we have tended to muddle along and accept them. On the whole, I think that the system has evolved into one which, with all its faults, gives us a better existence and life. We are well governed and have a functioning, honest judicial system and the like, so I think we have a lot to be thankful for with regard to the way in which things have evolved over the centuries.

Personally, I would go for a 90% elected upper House—or senate, as I would want to call it. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire addressed the issue of bishops, archbishops and so on. My remaining 10%, the unelected Members, would be faith leaders. Mostly, they would be Christian leaders, since we are a Christian nation, but they would include representatives of the Church of Scotland.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As a practising Christian, I must say that I am not comfortable with defining any nation as a Christian nation, or indeed as a Jewish or an Islamic nation. Is it not more correct these days to say that we are a group of nations historically ruled by people who in their words purported to follow Christianity, but whose actions were very far from the true teachings of Christ?

[Martin Vickers]

It is certainly true that there are now fewer practising Christians throughout the UK than there were in the past. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, however, our heritage is of a Christian nature and the eternal virtues taught by the Christian Church are the basis of our society.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that, in the last census, some 31% of the population said that they had no religion and that they do not feel that they would be represented be people of faith. I am a vice-chair of the all-party humanist group. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that humanists should also be represented?

[Martin Vickers]

Humanism has always seemed to me to be the absence of faith. We could debate the hon. Gentleman’s rather philosophical point endlessly, and I would be very happy to do so some time.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to a unicameral system. It would be a mistake to move to a system with only one Chamber. However, I would point out that, with devolution, Scotland is almost a unicameral Assembly; I will leave that matter to Scottish National party Members.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Although the Scottish Parliament has one Chamber, it has a very strong committee system. It is not an Assembly, but a Parliament in which the Government sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

In essence, however, it is fair to say that Scotland is becoming almost a unicameral nation.

It is often said that we benefit from the expertise of experts, many of whom are ex-experts. Many people at the other end of the corridor have a great deal of expertise and a lot to offer society, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be Members of the legislature. Over the years, Governments have found ways of including all sorts of people they wanted to bring into the process of governance—by establishing royal commissions, boards of inquiries and committees for this, that and the other—and it would be perfectly possible to get eminent lawyers, scientists and doctors into a group that provided the expertise that those of us in this Chamber certainly need.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of experts. If the public think about the upper House, they often think of it as a Chamber full of experts. Many of them are experts, but the trouble is that there is nothing more “ex” than an ex-expert. That point supports the argument he is advancing. To avoid the ex-expert phenomenon, should we put a limit on the number of years for which peers serve?

[Martin Vickers]

I certainly agree that, if we are to continue with an appointed or predominantly appointed House, a time limit would be desirable.

The point about such experts is that they tend to be London-centred experts. The reality is that an expert—a doctor, a scientist or whatever—is far more likely to be appointed to the upper House if they are from Kensington than if they are from Cleethorpes. There are exceptions. A few weeks ago, I was privileged to attend the swearing in as a Member of the upper House of the leader of North Lincolnshire Council, which covers part of my constituency. Not only has Baroness Redfern, as she now is, served the community through elected office, but she has roots deep in the Isle of Axholme, the part of North Lincolnshire from which she comes. However, peers such as the noble Lady are few and far between. It is a very metropolitan gathering.

It is often said that if there were two elected Houses, there would be power grabs by one House over the other. One mistake in the Bill that was introduced three or four years ago was that it said that the powers of the upper House would stay pretty much the same. That is fine, but it should be laid down in statute if we are to move in the direction that I am suggesting. Other countries seem to manage with two elected Chambers that rub along reasonably well, without constant power grabs by one or the other. It is important that the lower House should retain the power over financial matters. Any conflicts between the Houses should not be passed over to the judiciary. That is why the situation should be laid down clearly in any statute.

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whether there is an appointed House or an elected House, there should be time limits. If I recall correctly, the Bill that was brought forward by the then Deputy Prime Minister in the last Parliament proposed terms of 15 years. Perhaps that was too long, but it would give people, although many of them may be party people, the independence that is necessary in an upper House.

[Bob Stewart]

I seem to remember that under the proposed legislation that was introduced in the last Parliament the elected Members of the House of Lords would have been elected by huge electorates of 3 million or 4 million people. Inevitably, people elected under such a system would say, “I had 2 million people voting for me and you had a poxy 66,000. Whose mandate is more important?” That was one of the problems that I had with the proposed legislation in the last Parliament.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree. I was not happy with that part of the proposals.

I am an advocate of first past the post when it comes to elections to this House, but I acknowledge that some form of proportional representation would be more appropriate for an elected upper House. Having said that, we must accept that people do not identify with massive areas or regions, such as those to which my hon. Friend refers. They tend to identify with their town or village and their county, as well as with their country. We need to devise a system that recognises those innate loyalties.

In closing, I urge the Government not just to tinker. I suspect that we will have more tinkering with the Strathclyde proposals, which I am not particularly enthusiastic about. The Government should go for it. I would rather have a Conservative Government reforming the House of Lords, because Conservatives recognise the value of evolution within the constitution and do not want to go for a big bang change. We have an opportunity to think carefully about this matter over the next year or two and to put forward serious proposals. We must recognise that an appointed House—an unelected Assembly—is not acceptable in the 21st century. It is time to think seriously about the way forward. I urge the Minister to acknowledge that it should be a Conservative Government who put forward the proposals. I very much hope to hear some dramatic proposals at the end of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak on behalf of the SNP in this Backbench Business debate on the House of Lords. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) secured the debate, although I am rather glad that he spoke some time ago, so that everyone could forget how brilliant his speech was by the time it came round to mine.

As has been mentioned, this issue is not something that gets people exercised. However, I would suggest that, in Scotland, membership of the SNP is not insubstantial. There are quite a few members of the SNP, and at the SNP conference in Aberdeen, at which there were 3,500 delegates, there was a huge cheer when it was suggested that the House of Lords should be abolished. This is something that gets members of the SNP excited. It is something that genuinely gets mentioned on the doorsteps when we knock on doors. It is perhaps not the first thing that comes up—absolutely not—but parliamentary and constitutional reform come up a lot on the doorsteps in Scotland.

I am particularly pleased that this debate follows the one on space policy, because this place—these Houses of Parliament—is in another world from the one I normally inhabit. I have spoken to people previously about why they should dislike the House of Lords. Within the SNP and among people I have spoken to, there is a visceral, immediate dislike of the House of Lords, but people should not dislike it because the Lords swan along in ermine robes; they should dislike it because of the level of power that the House of Lords has.

This is not a way to run a democracy. Nobody creating a democratic system afresh would come up with the undemocratic, unwieldy and unaccountable second Chamber that we have. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) mentioned that the UK muddles along, and that is what has happened. It has happened with parliamentary reform and, as I will mention a little later, with reform of the Standing Orders in this place as well.

This is bicameralism at its worst. Of the 192 parliaments recognised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 77 are bicameral and only the UK, Belgium, Zimbabwe and Lesotho have hereditary legislators. Belgium does not really count, though, because its hereditary legislators are related to the monarch and do not vote on anything, so the wonderful United Kingdom—proud defender of democracy; the mother of parliaments—is a member of a very select group that allows landed gentry to make law for our countries. Zimbabwe and Lesotho and us—there is nothing good about this situation.

I would like to take Members back to 1997. It is some time ago now, and things have changed a fair bit since then: I was still in primary school, Hanson were topping the charts with “MMMBop” and the Labour party was popular in Scotland. The Labour manifesto in 1997 said:

“The House of Lords must be reformed…the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.”

Despite a massive majority for the Labour party in 1997 and a clear manifesto commitment to rid our democratic system of hereditary peers, nearly 20 years on we still have 92 of them—92 Lords who are allowed to make legislation because their family owned land.

I was talking to a peer recently about hereditary peerages. The defence mentioned was that there was a hereditary peer who could trace her family back 400 years. The nature of humankind is that all our families can be traced back 400 years; otherwise, we would not be here. It is ridiculous, patronising and wrong to argue that a tithe paid to a monarch hundreds of years ago should qualify any individual to make legislation. The Conservative Government make all sorts of claims about working hard being the best way to get on in life and achieve a high-salary job, for example. There is a wilful downplaying of the inbuilt advantage accorded to those whose families owned large country estates. Many of those estates were won by force and held by oppression. There is not a meritocracy in these islands. Working hard does not necessarily get anyone anywhere; where they are born and who their family are does.

Having said that and made clear my absolute disagreement with any system that accords a higher level of importance to anyone simply because of an accident of birth, I want to make clear my absolute lack of regard for the appointments system for life peers. Cross-Bench peers tell me how rigorous the process is for appointing them. I agree that it is thorough and they have to make major commitments to how much time they are going to spend in the House of Lords. However, there is no compulsion on the Prime Minister to ensure that non-Cross-Bench peers—or even Cross-Bench peers, for that matter—are appointed in that way. There is also no limit on the size of the Chamber, and one of the best ways to receive an excellent salary for life is to donate money to either the Conservative or Labour parties and be appointed to the House of Lords.

I want to expand on what my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) have said about former parliamentarians. Since 1997, 152 former parliamentarians have been ennobled. Twenty of them were given peerages within five years of losing an election to the House of Commons. So within five years of being rejected by the electorate, they were given a seat in the other House to make legislation for the people who had rejected them. It is a ridiculous situation.

The reforms enacted in 1999—which I admit were good and took us a step along the way, but nowhere near far enough—did have an effect on the behaviour of the House of Lords, including on the turnout figures. However, they also made the House of Lords more powerful, because peers felt that they had more of a right to be there and to make decisions about legislation, but that is not the case. The House of Lords is still an unelected legislature and it should not be making laws for this country. There is no accountability. Members of the public cannot access the Lords—they do not know who they are. Peers are out of touch. There is no compulsion on them to listen to people in the general community. What they learn about the general community is often garnered from newspapers, and we all know that they are not a true reflection of society.

The House of Lords is also massively lacking in diversity, which has been mentioned by various Members. Only 26% of peers are female, which is even worse than the figure for this place. The record in the House of Commons is deplorable, but the record in the House of Lords is much worse. In June 2015 there were more people who had been peers for more than 30 years than there were peers under the age of 50, and there were only two peers under 40 among the entire 800-odd Members of the House of Lords. That compares hugely unfavourably with elected politics in the UK. It does not constitute representative democracy.

The youngest age at which a current Member of the House of Lords received a life peerage was 32. Although I fundamentally disagree with appointments for life, it is bizarre that half of our legislature should exclude anyone who I would class as young. It is no wonder that, as a result, young people do not trust the democratic system. They look at this place and they see a bunch of old people who they cannot relate to. If we look at elected Members as a whole, we will see that we are still woefully unrepresentative.

As has been said, some peers, particularly Cross Benchers, work very hard, but that cannot be used to legitimise the existence of the second Chamber, which is incredibly expensive. Some Cross Benchers have been, and continue to be, very active in their areas of work and fields of expertise, but there is no check on that. As the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has said, people become ex-experts—their expertise goes away—very quickly.

The House of Commons has utterly failed to amend or rewrite the Parliament Acts to make any meaningful change to the House of Lords, which has not happened for the best part of 20 years. Actually, we have not made much change to the powers of the House of Lords since the Parliament Act 1911 and, subsequently, the Parliament Act 1949, which just tinkered with it. As I have said on previous occasions, I do not believe that the procedures of the House of Commons are fit for purpose. Given the opportunity, I would tear up the Standing Orders and start again, dramatically reducing the Executive privilege accorded to the Government of the day, thus requiring them to use their majority far more often.

The situation in the House of Lords is even worse. It is all done on the basis of convention. The Government got into such a pickle over tax credits because there is a convention—there is nothing in legislation—that the House of Lords does not vote on such things. On paper, the House of Lords is an incredibly powerful institution, and that is something we need to change.

The House of Lords is not a revising second Chamber. Nobody who makes the case for a revising second Chamber can hold up the House of Lords as the place that can revise legislation. It can still introduce primary legislation. It is not elected, but it can introduce legislation on behalf of the people of this country. It should not do so.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. As she knows from mine, I share her ambition to do away with an unelected second Chamber. However, can she explain her party’s support for membership of the European Union, where real power lies with the unelected European Commission? The European Parliament is really a sideshow.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I am sure will be discussed at length during European debates. Today, however, we are discussing the House of Lords, which is something that we have the power to change. Members of this place could pass a new Parliament Act. Elected Members have the ability to make mass changes to the House of Lords, and we should make big changes to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would be delighted if the House of Commons had the ability to sack the entire House of Lords. In fact, I think the Conservative Government would have been quite keen to sack the entire House of Lords earlier in the Session.

[Martin Vickers]

I just remind the hon. Lady and her colleagues that this Chamber has the power to sack the Government.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am coming to the end of my speech, so I will now wrap up. The power of the House of Lords is dramatically greater than it should be. It has the ability to appoint people who have been rejected at the ballot box. People troop into that House rubbing their hands with glee at the untaxed £45,000 a year they can now earn. The expenses system and the payments system for the House of Lords—getting £300 day, which is classed as an allowance, and is not taxed—are abominable. That should not be happening.

The composition of the House of Lords is ridiculous. It is unrepresentative, and in no circumstances should it include hereditary peers and those appointed by religious organisations, whether from the Church of England or of any other religious organisation. I do not think there is any place for religious appointments in a legislative system. Lifetime appointments to any legislature are undemocratic. There are peers sitting there who have been peers for 70 years, which is an incredible length of time. Some of them are no longer active, but they still have the right to troop into the House and vote. How good is a peer at voting if they have been a peer for 70 years? They have a length of experience behind them—fair enough—but most people want to sit with their feet up and watch TV by the time they get to such an age. Appointments for high heijins and party donors are wrong and should not be happening.

The House of Lords is beyond reform. People have tried to reform it in the past, but it is still not an elected, accountable second Chamber. We need to abolish it.