Written evidence from Baroness Boothroyd OM (HOL 37)

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

An effective Second Chamber? The House of Lords inquiry

.

1:1 The committee’s terms of reference focus on the need to improve the effectiveness of the House of Lords by practical measures that stand the best chance of being accepted. I commend its choice of priorities. I also share its view that we need to identify the “unarguable next steps” necessary for reform. The arguments that culminated in the coalition government’s failure to create two elected chambers have run their course for the foreseeable future.

The time has come for lasting reforms that work because they blend with our traditions and the needs of parliament as a whole.

In that spirit, I appeal to both Houses to speak with one voice when the parallel inquiries taking place by the select committee and the Lord Speaker’s committee under Lord Burns publish their reports.

1.2 This rare overlap of inquiries reflects the concern in both Houses and elsewhere at the startling increase in the size of the upper House in recent years. The scale of it has been exhaustively analysed and those responsible have been identified. The unfettered power of patronage enjoyed by successive prime ministers has exposed Parliament to unfair scorn and ridicule. Our democracy is undermined by it. The committee’s resolve to find effective ways to limit the damage caused is an important step forward. Historic Lords reform lies within our grasp provided the next steps are not too steep and Parliament asserts its rights.

1.3 Does the House of Lords work well? Can it work better? My answer is an emphatic yes to both questions. Drawing on my parliamentary service of nearly 45 years, I regard the Lords where I have sat for 15 years since I retired as Speaker of the Commons to be unrivalled in its ability to clarify and improve legislation and examine complex issues outside the normal run of party politics. Its ethos, experience and expertise enable it to examine primary and secondary legislation thoroughly and dispassionately. It complements the Commons by holding the executive to account. Its select committees enjoy an international reputation. In short, it fulfils its many functions. Parliament benefits and the public interest is served.

It’s worth noting in this context that David Cameron’s last government, which was not well disposed towards us, accepted over 1,200 Lords amendments to Government bills in one session and agreed to many more in principle - an impressive record of bicameral co-operation that is seldom recognised.

2.1 On the second question posed by the committee, I believe the House of Lords could work a lot better. Its 800-plus membership makes it almost unmanageable, hinders the business of the House and needs urgently to be reduced. How deep the cut should be is a matter for debate. I favour a reformed House of between 400 and a maximum of 450 but I would be loath to see the number of independent crossbenchers – I declare a personal interest as one of them - sharply reduced. Whatever the figure, I think it should be capped below the size of the House of Commons after the next election.  

2.2 Legislation would be needed but there is a growing consensus for incremental change where there was none before. The paradox of a democratic leader awarding unlimited peerages for political services and the giving of cash and kind to political parties is no longer tolerable.

2.3 In the current context of Brexit, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the supremacy of legislation over the antique privileges of prime ministers is a salutary reminder of Parliament’s sovereignty when the rights of every citizen are affected. If Parliament is to be truly sovereign after Brexit, the limitation of the prime minister’s unfettered use of the royal prerogative would confirm it. Legislation is not the only route to reform. Much depends on the present prime minister’s response to the need for change. Prompted if needs be by resolutions of both Houses, she should adopt a self-denying ordinance that would establish a lasting convention. Downing Street’s role as the unaccountable dispenser of privilege is no longer acceptable.

2.4 Future prime ministers would still have the right to appoint peers to sit on the government’s front bench in the Lords but all political nominations for the peerage would face in-depth, independent scrutiny by a statutory Lords Appointments Committee, regardless of their sponsorship. The commission should have the power and resources to examine the suitability, personal qualities and willingness to serve of all prospective peers as well as their probity.

2.5 That too would require legislation but I submit the case for it is overwhelming. Even our harshest critic, the Electoral Reform Society, grudgingly accepts the merits of a smaller chamber and a more rigorous system of appointments. These reforms, long overdue, would be further proof that a new age has dawned.

2.6. Other in-house changes would also improve the public’s perception but these changes have to be balanced. I do not favour a given number of years for service. Members retiring at the end of the parliament when the reach 80 would be a more widely acceptable. The retirement of peers who seldom come and contribute little would further cut the size of the Lords.

Phasing out the remaining hereditary peers would create even more headroom, beginning with the abolition of their bizarre by-elections to fill vacancies that arise from natural causes.

2.5 I leave it to others to work out the logistics of preventing any party from having an overall majority and safeguarding the role of independent peers. The reform package which I and others support has four overriding merits: the Lords would be leaner, younger and more rigorously vetted; the proposed reforms are sensible, incremental and deserve cross-party support; the supremacy of the Commons is guaranteed; and the prime minister has the option of restoring parliament’s reputation and enhancing her own by surrendering an antique power that has no place in the 21st century.

For my part, I shall not wear ermine again. The House of Lords does itself a disservice in clinging to medieval trappings. The splendour of the Queen’s presence at state openings is sufficient reminder that we are a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.

February 2017