Page |1

Baroness (Angela) Smith of Basildon, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords

Speech in debate on the case for incremental reform of Lords to address size
of the House
Tuesday 15th September 2015

My Lords, the number of speakers in this debate and the fact that there are
four motions before us including those in the names of YNLs Lord Pearson,
Lord Steel and MNF Lord Lea is an indication of the interest in and the
concern about the ever-growing membership of YLH. But having said that, and
as much as YLH has to address this issue, I remain disappointed that the
Government has brought forward this short debate at such short notice.

We didnt need this debate today when another debate also of considerable
importance and urgency to YLH, on English votes for English laws was already
scheduled. So is the urgency because it is a new issue of which the
Government was previously unaware? Of course not.

This is an issue that has been raised by Peers across this House for some time,
and the Government has chosen to not only ignore the concerns raised but
also to exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the Leader herself has said recently

Page |2

that she didnt think size mattered writing in The Daily Telegraph of 31
August that: its not where the debate should start.

Although in some ways I agree with her in that what really matters is how
effective we are as a revising, scrutinising chamber - that cannot be an excuse
to step back from this issue. And neither can it ever be a solution to suggest
that members should just not turn up so often. We take our responsibilities
seriously.

But her predecessors have taken much the same line. The NL Hill saying on 12
December 2013 that although the House may be sometimes be crowded on
popular occasions we should not overstate the problem; and also referring
to the size of the House previously having been larger prior to the 1999 Act
that removed most hereditary Peers. I have to say, this is extraordinarily
complacent particularly when others, from all corners of YLH have been
warning of the looming problems.

And I find it even more extraordinary when the Government is planning to

significantly reduce the number of elected representatives in the House of
Commons. How can that possibly be right?

Page |3

The House will know that on these benches, the benches of the LibDems, and
indeed elsewhere across YLH, that we believe a Constitutional Convention is
the right way forward to resolve among other things the issue of the place
of this House in our constitution.

ML, I am sure we will hear many colourful views on YLH in this debate, but I
find it hard to disagree with the opening lines of the excellent A Programme
for Progress report, produced by a number of my NFs, including the now
retired Lord Grenfell: The House of Lords needs urgent reform. The number of
peers, growing fast, is too large. Its procedures creak. Its image is rendered
antediluvian by flummery, and it falls short of what is required of an effective,
modern second chamber.

My Lords, YLH is groaning at the seams. The current Prime Minister has
appointed more peers per year than any other on record. The excellent work
of Professor Meg Russell at UCL illustrates not only that record number of
appointments, but also that these have been more intensely party political. Mr
Cameron has in fact appointed a larger proportion of Government Peers than
any other Prime Minister, with fewer cross-bench and Opposition.

Page |4

Professor Russell also notes how Mr Camerons new, and somewhat bizarre,
policy statement that appointments should reflect the most recent General
Election results will ensure that year-on-year, YLH will expand - and expand
with a greater proportion of Government Peers. That has never been what YLH
is about. It does not reflect our functions and responsibilities.

Does the Prime Minister so fear the independence and wisdom of this place
that he seeks to contain us by appointing more Government Peers, despite
them already being the largest party?

The excellence of this Houses reputation rests as much on its ability to ask the
Commons to think again and reconsider as it does on the expertise and
wisdom of Your Lordships. The Prime Ministers programme of appointments
threatens that reputation.

Indeed, the Prime Minster said recently on a trip to Singapore that it is

important to make sure the House of Lords more accurately reflects the
situation in the House of Commons. Thats been the position with prime
ministers for a very, very long time and for very good and fair reason.

Page |5

Has it? I dont recall anyone other than current PM and the previous DPM to
say that is the basis on which to appoint people to this House.

Can the NL the Leader confirm that this is truly his intention? And also, how
does she feel this squares with the view she expressed in her article for The
Telegraph? If not, why has she not taken any opportunity to dispel the myth
that this is common practice because if it were it would seriously undermine
the effectiveness and reputation of YLH?

The NL the Leader has said we need new appointments to renew the House.
Thats true, but the current number of all peers is 131 more than the average
post-1999 House with Labour in Government. And alongside those additional
numbers, this current House is also more active than ever. The Lords Library
note of December last year records that average attendance in YLH as a
proportion of membership rose from just over 50% [per cent] 10-15 years ago,
to figures in the mid-60s [per cents] most recently. This means that daily
attendance, on average, has risen from the high 300s to around 500.

The NL has the best access of all of anybody in YLH to the Prime Minister. So
can I ask: Has she discussed this with him? Does Mr Cameron recognise that if

Page |6

meaningful change is to be made, he cannot continue with the scale and

number of his appointments? Did she ask him how his desire to cut the cost
of politics squared with the record number of appointments to this House at a
time when he is pushing ahead with cutting the number of elected MPs? And
have they discussed the concept of a Constitutional Convention?

My Lords, this is an arms race that this House cannot win. We can only be the
losers. Of course there must be new peers to replenish and renew. But, this
level of appointment and the skewed nature of those appointments diminishes
this House. So we stand ready, as we have put on record to look at potential
ways forward. But, there is a caveat.

The Prime Minister has said, in a rather strange response, that this is a matter
for the House of Lords to address, as if in some way he has no responsibility
and it doesnt concern him. But of course, it does. As the facts show he must
bear responsibility for the acceleration in growth of the size of YLH. And
because he has the authority to appoint without being curtailed, other than
by the Appointments Commission on very limited criteria he can use any
changes we make here to reduce the size of the House as an invitation for
more political appointments.

Page |7

ML, we want to see change. We believe the House is too large and that the
evidence shows that this Prime Ministers approach to appointments is not
only providing the opportunity for external criticism but side-lining serious
discussion on our true purpose and our value. It is hard to believe that theres
not a political agenda here.

So before any meaningful discussions and serious decisions can proceed, we

need an assurance from the NL the Leader that the Prime Minister,

Firstly, understands and appreciates the role of this House is assisting

the Government in scrutinising legislation

That he recognises that the approach to new appointments that he has

instigated is not sustainable, and

That he will not use any measures that reduce the membership of this

House as an excuse to create additional skewed Government appointments.