← Back to Parliament Matters episode page

This transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript please first check against the audio version. Timestamps are provided for ease of reference.

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D’Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. And we are devoting this admittedly longer than usual special episode to the race for the Lord Speakership, the presiding officer of the House of Lords.

Unlike their Commons opposite number, the Lords Speaker doesn't get to shout "Order. Order", but they are still an important player in the world of Westminster.

Ruth Fox: And on behalf of the Hansard Society, I chaired the official hustings for the election between the Conservative Peer, Lord Forsyth, and the Crossbench Peer Baroness Bull, which took place last week in the House of Lords Robing Room, the place where the King, normally dons his robes before the State Opening. And here, exclusively for Parliament [00:01:00] Matters listeners, is what happened.

Welcome everyone to the Hustings for the election of the Lord Speaker, organised and hosted by the Hansard Society, at the invitation of the Procedure Committee of the House. We were invited to organise the hustings for the first time in 2011 for the election of the Lord Speaker, and subsequent elections. And it's an honor to do so again.

I see many familiar faces in the audience in so far as I can see in the semi-dark. But for those of you who may not know me, I'm Ruth Fox, I'm the Director of the Hansard Society.

In terms of how we're going to organise things today. the candidates are going to make an opening statement of no more than five minutes, and we will then proceed to your questions. Following a coin toss a few minutes ago. Lord Forsyth is going to speak [00:02:00] first. We've received dozens and dozens of questions. So I'm afraid some of you are going to be disappointed tonight. But there were some very clear themes, which we've grouped together to bring about what I hope will be a coherent discussion, and also to avoid duplication.

As well as those of you here in the Robing Room there are Peers watching the live feed in the over spill room and also online. Now, a consequence of having, in effect three audiences is that, you know, we have to manage the audio in terms of the recording so we ensure that everything is picked up for the purposes of the recording. So the plan is that I will put the primary question that we've selected from those that you have submitted, and then the candidates will be invited to respond. There will be opportunities for them to respond to each other. And time allowing towards the end, if there are is enough time, we [00:03:00] will also put some supplementary questions from you. We've got two roving microphones. We'll see how we go for time and how things are with the, with the recording. If you're invited to speak I'll give you instructions at that point about how we will deal with that in terms of the microphones. I've not set formal time limits for the responses from the candidates. We want this to be a dialogue and to be as informal as possible.

But I have got a card saying 30 seconds, so that if they are droning on, I will, I will use it. I have asked them to be mindful of the time so we can get through as many questions as possible and then at the end, each candidate will have a few minutes to, to sum up. So with that, can I invite Lord Forsyth to go to the lectern to make his opening remarks.

Lord Forsyth: Good evening. Can I begin by thanking the Hansard [00:04:00] Society for sponsoring this event and the doorkeepers and staff for organising it. I should also like to thank my proposer, David Blunkett and seconder, Elizabeth Butler Sloss for supporting me and also my worthy opponent, Deborah Bull, for the positive way in which she's conducting our campaign.

Now after 40 years in Parliament, 26 of them in the House of Lords and a decade as a minister in government, my commitment to strengthening this House and supporting those who serve in it is undiminished. I offer experience, independence of mind - just ask my Whips - and a proven record of delivery as chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, current chair of the Financial Services Regulation Committee, and a former chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee.

I've shown how constructive, well-informed, evidence-based scrutiny earns respect across [00:05:00] Westminster. And colleagues who have worked with me know that I approach every role fairly and without favour. I understand that in Parliament the ability to get things done depends on being able to make a clear, persuasive case and to build support for it.

If elected, I will be a strong and visible advocate for members. Accountability will be my guiding principle. As Chair of the Commission, I will build on the progress which has been made by our outstanding Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, in holding the administration to account, and I will ensure that supporting members becomes its central mission.

I agree with the key recommendations of the external management review, which was completed five years ago. That as in the Commons, the Clerk of the Parliaments should be directly accountable to the Commission. The [00:06:00] effectiveness and reputation of this House requires a firm, constructive and business-like relationship with the Speaker and members of the House of Commons.

And I will strengthen and work to strengthen that partnership, recognising that we serve the same Parliament and the same public. As Speaker Lenthal reminded the Crown, and I'm sure you all know this, "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me". The authority of Parliament and its presiding officers ultimately rests on the consent of its members.

Now rather, more than half a billion pounds has been spent on Restoration and Renewal without a brick being laid. With no settled plan. Procrastination turns out to be extremely expensive. Spectacular sums of money are involved and the experience with the door and the new security [00:07:00] fence and the aborted process of tender for the Victoria Tower - the fence itself is an affront to Parliament - all underline the need for professional expertise, transparency, and genuine engagement with members. This demands firm and decisive leadership. And as the Commons continues to struggle to scrutinise legislation effectively, increasing pressure will fall on the members of this House.

And I believe that members will need improved practical support as a result. Why, for example, are select members doing say a 12 hour day away from the House or those participating in NATO, OSCE and Council of Europe meetings, restricted to a half day allowance? It's also a running scandal on which I've campaigned for longer than I can remember that some Ministers in this House still remain unpaid.

We are no longer a House which can depend on their estates or their [00:08:00] private incomes in order to do their job. And I regret that we are increasingly becoming a regulated House. Self-regulation is part of the essential DNA of the House of Lords. Our self-regulation depends on the conduct of members. An effective induction for new members and respect for our conventions by all members is essential if we are to preserve that.

My priorities are quite clear. Strengthen accountability and member oversight. Improve support for members, especially those living outside London - I declare an interest. To protect members' security whilst respecting our heritage and the unique nature of this building. Improving the communication of the outstanding work of the House and engaging and inspiring the next generation. And preserving our self-regulation independence.

As I said, I offer experience, [00:09:00] financial expertise, communication skills, and collaborative leadership. Together we can make this House more effective, influential, and respected. And be, in no doubt a vote for me is a vote for a reforming Speaker. Thank you very much.

Baroness Bull: Thank you to everyone for being here today, and I echo the thanks of Lord Forsyth to all those people who have made it happen. I also want to thank members who've taken the time to speak with me over recent weeks. Those conversations have reminded me of the breadth of expertise and knowledge that lies within this remarkable House, and I am proud to be a part of it.

The role of Lord Speaker has many facets. Some are immediately visible and others, equally [00:10:00] important, lie behind the scenes. And it strikes me that my career is perhaps not dissimilar. Members may know me on the one hand as an ex dancer and on the other from my work in the chamber or sitting on the woolsack.

The "ballerina to Baroness" line proves a little hard to resist. So before I speak to the role of Lord Speaker, it might help members if I briefly set out what I did in the decades between the two. I had 12 years as creative director on the executive team at the Royal Opera House, 10 at King's College London, in a vice principal role. I was a governor of the BBC, and I've been a board member on national arms length funding bodies. Now, anyone familiar with academia or if you have a long enough memory to remember that TV documentary about the Royal Opera House, well, you will know that that makes me something of a veteran in dealing with powerful personalities and organisational politics.

These [00:11:00] are complex institutions in which I've led teams, managed budgets and delivered commercial targets. I've chaired cross-organisation and multi-faculty committees. I've steered change projects, and I've led on public engagement. These roles have also involved me in once in a century estates projects, the BBC's move to Salford, the pedestrianisation of the Strand outside Kings, and of course, the complete redevelopment of another of Barry's London landmarks, the Royal Opera House.

The Lords is unique, but the parallels are clear. National institutions with global reach, operating in the glare of public scrutiny, each balancing the need to modernise with respect for tradition. And this is the experience that I would bring to the role of Lord Speaker. Over the coming years, the House faces a set of generational challenges - size and composition, ways of working, our use of new technologies, [00:12:00] and of course Restoration and Renewal - difficult choices that must be guided by our core purpose, an effective upper chamber, whose constitutional role in good governance and good law is understood and respected.

Over the past weeks, I've heard that we cannot achieve this without breadth of experience and diversity of views among our members. We can't achieve this when working conditions prevent participation, we can't achieve it without effective self-regulation and rigorous adherence to our conventions, robust governance, purposeful advocacy, and a strong working partnership with the Commons. These are the sine qua non of an effective upper house and as Lord Speaker and as Chair of the Commission, my priority will be to ensure these underpinning foundations are in place. I'll work with the Clerk of the Parliaments to ensure governance is robust, to improve project delivery, and to give members certainty that [00:13:00] services and systems will meet their needs.

And as Co-chair of the R&R Board, I'll navigate the complexities to steer the House, to take the timely decisions, which are so vital. I've listened to members over recent weeks. I hear your frustrations and your concerns about sitting hours, about our relationship with the Commons, about projects that have gone awry.

Where action is within my remit, I will act. Where it's not I will support members. I will guide them and signpost them towards the place where they can find resolution. None of this can be achieved through sheer force of will or by acting alone. Steering through change requires collaborative leadership, relationship building, and the empathy to understand how change impacts people. Steady and calm, firm when required, scrupulously, impartial, transparent, and fair. Since joining this [00:14:00] House, I've immersed myself in its work and in its procedures: in the Chamber and on Committees, in advocacy and outreach, on Inter-Parliamentary bodies like the PPA. And as a Deputy Speaker, I've gained a deep understanding of the House and respect for the expertise of its members.

I've built good relationships with Peers of all parties, with the leaders, administration members and staff, and with colleagues in the Commons. And I've demonstrated my values through action in the Chamber and beyond. I am proud of what I achieved as a dancer, and let's be honest, it didn't do the great Betty Boothroyd any harm to have trod the boards, but it's not the sum total of who I am and what I can do.

I offer this House significant professional experience from the world beyond Westminster, and a deep commitment to our core purpose and value. I believe this combination would serve the House well in the years that lie ahead. It would be an immense privilege [00:15:00] to take on that responsibility, building on the achievements of Lord McFall and his predecessors to support and represent this House as its next Lord Speaker. Thank you.

Ruth Fox: Thank you both. I think we can say that both candidates will be very good as chairs at keeping to time. So, I'm going to start with a question from Lord Patel who I think, neatly summarised one of the, the key key distinctive features of this campaign. And it's in two parts. So one part for Lord Forsyth, the other for Baroness Bull.

So, Lord Forsyth, some say you are too political for the role. How would you counter that? In the same vein, Baroness Ball, some say you do not have sufficient political experience for the role to deal [00:16:00] with the political issues. How would you deal with that?

So I'll go first to Baroness Bull because Lord Forsyth spoke first.

Baroness Bull: Well, my first suggestion would be a job share, but, um, but failing that.... failing that, I have immersed myself in this House since I arrived. So I do understand the politics of how it works. Of course, I don't bring the deep political and party political experience that Lord Forsyth brings and which I very much respect, but I do understand how to work here. I think I've demonstrated by my work on the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly that I can work with other politicians to raise issues onto the agenda and to get them into, into the debate. I take the example of cultural exchange, artists touring and youth mobility, which is now something that is being seriously thought about and talked about, but is something that I have consistently placed on the agenda and worked with colleagues, to raise that.

I think there is a value to this role being impartial. Of course it is not a [00:17:00] political role. It needs to gain the trust of the whole House. It needs to broker between different parts of the House. As a crossbencher we make those judgements on a daily basis. So I think, uh, that would be the, the, what I would bring. Would, would my judgment be clouded by past political affiliations? Of course not. Would I be alive to politics and happy to work across the political domains? Yes, of course I would.

Lord Forsyth: Okay, political, if you mean party political, I don't think that's a problem. Anyone who is aware of me in the House will see that I've been pretty independent in my approach to things.

If you think that I might be too partisan and political, just talk to any member of a committee which I've chaired. We've produced reports which have been highly critical. I mean, we, we did one on social care, for example, when I was doing economic affairs, which had almost unanimous support from the House, but [00:18:00] unfortunately not from the government and it's still lying on the shelf. So no, I don't think, I don't think think that's a particular problem. But if you mean having political skills, yes, I've got political skills in abundance, and my goodness, they're going to be needed. This House is under threat. This House. I mean, what is going to happen if Reform win a large number of seats at the next election? How are we going to handle that? That will require political skills. It will also require relationships in the political domain across party. So, actually it's one of the reasons I'm putting myself forward, is that I do believe that I have those political skills and the experience.

Look at the fence that's been put up in front of this House. Look at it. What does that say to a public that are sceptical about the merits of the House of Lords? Is it welcome? Look at the way people arrive at this building. We have a big job [00:19:00] to do in getting across the fantastic work which this House does, and that's a political job. And I'm very proud to have these skills and to be able to offer the opportunity to try and do something about that. Because I believe this House is under attack and I believe it is the central, most important part of our constitution at the present time.

Ruth Fox: Picking up that theme then, there's a couple of questions about the challenges facing the House in the, the future. So, going to what you, you said, Lord Forsyth about the possibility in regard to Reform. Lord Kakar asked a question about how would the candidates defend the interests of the House of Lords in circumstances where the government after the next general election were formed by a party with no representation in the House. So perhaps you might speak first on that.

Lord Forsyth: Well, we've done it before. [00:20:00] We did it when Churchill lost the election after the war. Attlee came in as Prime Minister. One of the most effective Prime Ministers we've had. He delivered a radical agenda of nationalisation, a complete transformation, and the House of Lords didn't stop him.

It's where, of course, the conventions in respect of manifesto commitments, which we, I hope, continue to observe, had their roots. So this House is not a platform for political parties to air their policy. This House should be about offering advice to the House of Commons to think again on particular issues.

And the Usual Channels should work in the normal way, which is that we listen to each other's arguments, they, if the votes are carried, they go down to the House of Commons. And in my day, [00:21:00] when I was a Minister, the rule was if you had amendments from the House of the Lords, you didn't say, "I think these are ridiculous", even if you thought they were, you said, "we will consider these carefully", and you did. And some of them you accepted, others you did not, and the House responded accordingly. I'd like to get us back to that position.

But as Speaker, of course, your power is limited. But in terms of good governance, that was a a way.

So if, if there is a Reform government, which is what is behind the question,, then this House will need to do as we always do, which is to respect the democratic will of the people and to respond in a positive and engaging way to the policies which they have been elected to implement.

Baroness Bull: The role of the Lord Speaker, of course, has no say in the makeup of the House, and as Lord Forsyth says, it needs to deal with whatever the [00:22:00] electorate decides. So I think protecting and arguing for the constitutional role of the Lords at that time will become even more important. We will need to keep defending what we're here for, and what we do, and how we do that in partnership with the Commons.

It is very poorly understood at the moment. It is very poorly represented within the media by people who frankly should know better. And I, obviously, Hansard, represents it perfectly. I think we need to do much more to promote and explain the value of the Lords. We do brilliant work with young people, but we need to look at which other sectors of the community we need to be engaging with, and particularly people who are on the cusp of political participation. So looking to an older age group and really promoting and arguing for what we do. We will deal with whatever government is elected. That is our purpose. We will continue to fulfill our role of scrutinising the [00:23:00] laws that come through and ensuring that they are fair and effective.

Ruth Fox: Okay. You, you spoke there about young people. And we've had an interesting question from Lord Krebs on this theme. One of the roles of the Lord Speaker is to be the public face of the House of Lords. Please, could you each say how you think you would be perceived by a teenager in a comprehensive school? Baroness Bull first.

Baroness Bull: Well, um, strangely, over the last week, I was in three different educational settings.

Uh, one did in, did definitely include teenagers in comprehensive schools, and in fact, one included them in, in, in an independent school too. I also worked with the, the parliamentary studies module here in the Lord. So I was working with the university students. I mean, so the question is rather personal, isn't it? How would I be perceived? I mean, I can tell you how I was perceived. I was perceived as being open and transparent, of being willing to [00:24:00] engage with the difficult questions and willing to spend time explaining what the role of the Lords is. I mean, I do think more broadly it's one of the roles in which the Lord Speaker does have the capacity to make decisions about what they do.

I spoke earlier about, about the, the restraints and the limits of the role. One of the areas where they can make a difference is in this question of public engagement. And we see how Lord Speakers have done that. Lord McFall has introduced a new podcast corners and we have the Speakers lectures. My focus would be on people of tertiary education age, so people on the cusp of participation, but also working through civil society groups too, because I think our reach into schools has been fantastic and I absolutely applaud it. But I would want to look at what are we trying to achieve through engagement? How well are we achieving it through the mechanisms we have? What should we stop? What should we build? And what should we adapt?[00:25:00]

Lord Forsyth: I'd be less concerned about their perception of me than their perception of the House of Lords. The perception of the House of Lords out there is terrible. And certainly, going into schools, I think some people, Deborah being a case in point, spend time going to schools and talking about the House of Lords and generally speaking, the audience are astonished. The level of ignorance is extraordinary.

And that level of, in ignorance, it starts at seven and it goes up to 70 outside there. So we have a big communications job to do. Now, if each of you decide to go off and spend a day of visiting schools and talking about, or universities or colleges, because I think these are just as important, talking about the work of this House, you'll be expected to do that - they'll pay your travel expenses, but they won't pay you an allowance, a daily allowance. And to my mind, that is as much part of being [00:26:00] working for this House as it is turning up, in order to vote in the division lobbies. So I think it's vitally important. I also think, I mean, a number of people have said to me, what do you think about morning sittings?

And I say, not on Mondays because people have got to come... This is relevant to this question.... have got to come from outside. So you're talking about Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I'm not against morning sittings, but what's going to happen to those children who come and visit the House and go into the chamber and feel the inspiration of being there if we have my morning sittings?

So I say, you tell me what you're going to do about that because I regard that as a vital part of our activity. And I think, um, if you are asking me as Lord Speaker, am I going to spend a lot of time going around the country visiting schools? No, I'm not. There are huge problems of governance and administration and accountability in this place, which need to be put right. Of course, I'll do some, but I will encourage others in the House to do more [00:27:00] because that matters and it matters greatly. And it's not just the children we need to educate. It's the so-called "grown ups" who run our newspapers and media services who have no idea, who constantly portray us in our robes and constantly pick out, uh, peccadillos in the House. There's a huge communication job to to be done there, and that is one of the reasons I feel really strongly about how this House is underrated and misunderstood and constantly lapooned by, as Deborah says, people who should know better.

Baroness Bull: I just, just to add one point that, uh, that I should have made, that experience of working with the students is really valuable because you hear back from them. And it is astonishing how much you can learn from what young people are concerned about. Often they are very engaged with politics, um, and they will tell you what they think.

So there is a, there's a [00:28:00] reciprocal benefit of being out there and if people aren't doing it, um, and you can do it online by the way, in which case you can be in the chamber and, and have your full allowance, I do encourage people to do that. Thank you, Ruth.

Ruth Fox: So, we've diagnosed a, a problem here, that's long been known, but what, what are the ideas that you have to address it?

Baroness Meyer asked a question about, you know, what ideas have you got to engage the public, especially younger voters with the work of the House? How would you go about improving media coverage, outreach, encouraging more people to visit Parliament? We know there's a problem, but what might you bring in terms of ideas to the position?

Lord Forsyth: Well, uh, I don't know what other people's experience has been of getting coverage for select committee reports, but mine has been in the main, the coverage is obtained by the Chairman and members of the Committee and their relationships with the [00:29:00] press and the media. And I think we need to be better than that. I think we need to have, uh, we've got very good press officers, but we need to have real, genuine, outside experience advising us and helping us to get across our, our, our achievements.

And we need to be much more proud of the work we've done. Um, I don't want to sound boastful or arrogant, but if I look back on, say the last 10 years on the select committee reports, which I've done, or if I look at, for example, the select committee report, which was done by the Defence and International Affairs Committee, in January, before August when the American withdrawal from Afghanistan happened. Read that report. It says, we are unprepared for the withdrawal of the Americans. We require immediate action. It was ignored by the Government, and we know what a tragedy followed as a result of that. If I look [00:30:00] at the reports that we produced on HS2 under Clive Hollick's excellent chairmanship and, and, and mine, we warned that the estimates and costs were completely out of control. That it would cost far more, that the extension beyond Birmingham had not been properly costed or considered. And we predicted, in the end it will result in the thing overrunning grossly over budget and being cancelled, which was a disaster. There are many reports. The great thing about this House is the reports are evidence-based and they're all-party. They are agreed on a unanimous basis, and they're usually right.

So we, we produce the reports, we're pleased if there's a column in the FT. . We don't actually then use these reports to engage, and we don't go back and look at them and remind people of what we said.

And I think we just need to be far more assertive about the work that we do. We don't explain to people that we sit for longer hours than the House of [00:31:00] Commons. I mean, I've watched the House of Commons disappearing at four o'clock in the afternoon on a regular basis recently, whilst we've been sitting very long hours dealing with legislation which has not even been considered by them. The public out there don't know that. We need to be more assertive about our achievements and about the quality of people we've got. And I believe, if we do that, people will begin to understand that this is an absolutely crucial part of our constitution and in holding the executive of whichever party is in power to account.

Baroness Bull: So I think Lady Meyer's question was about imaginative, creative, new ways to engage people with, with the work of the House. This has been the core of what I've done. I have spent my professional life taking esoteric, specialist institutions and explaining them to a wider public, be that the dancer's body on [00:32:00] BBC television, be that my series on, on, on laws that are still on the statute book for Radio Four.

That's what I do, is I, I've gone behind the scenes, unpicked specialist institutions and made them, made them explicable, to wider audiences. How do you do that? You do that partly by meeting people where they are. So, everybody in this country cares about their livelihoods. They care about their lives. They care about things locally. They care about their schools. They care about the, the services they get. We, all of us, have connections into communities that we can reach in different ways. So thinking imaginatively about how we use our membership to reach into networks and share what we're doing.

We also have an incredible collection. We have the artworks on the walls. We have various artifacts. There is a very good collections advisory group, which is thinking about how the collections can be used as a way to unlock [00:33:00] conversations about democracy and about the House. So it's not just coming to admire what's on our walls. Perhaps taking some of those objects and those paintings either in real or or virtual form, and using them to provoke conversations about laws, about how laws are made, how laws impact people, and of course the role of the House of Lords in making those laws. So I think there are nuanced and imaginative ways to connect with new communities. There are also, of course, the assertive ways that we've heard about. We need to be on the front foot. I am so proud when I hear chairs of committees on the radio in the morning, on the Today programme, talking about what, what they've done. Or we hear a cross party group of Peers and we know that that, we know that means one of our, our select committees. So yes, we need to do that.

But I would agree that we need to take a professional look at how we are communicating, because more communication does not equal more effective communication. So we need to think [00:34:00] what is the message we're ...communication needs to be disciplined. What's the message we're trying to get across? Who do we want it to, to land with? What's the best method for it to land? And then how do we rigorously keep getting those messages out? So I think there is a broad range of things that we need to do, because there's a broad range of things we do here, but I would bring a significant amount of experience of opening up specialist, sometimes esoteric institutions to a wider public in ways that they can engage with the work.

Ruth Fox: Okay. Let's turn to some of the, the procedural nitty gritty now. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we had the most questions about sitting times and the working hours of the House, so to you both a question from Baroness Carberry: what scope do you see for reform of the working hours of the House?[00:35:00]

Lord Forsyth: Well, it's a matter for the House.. I, I've already touched on this. I don't want to take more time. IIt's a matter of the House. If you're going to sit in, in the mornings, you need to think about how the children will be able to visit. You also need to think about the way in which that will affect people who have got outside interests in their ability to participate in the House.

And that is, that's the situation for the House. We've discussed it many times. Last time it failed because there wasn't an answer to the children visiting point. Some people say that it's the solution to the problem which we have, which is ludicrous, the House sitting till one, two in the morning. I mean, this is, this is not sensible, particularly if I may say so to this audience where you have a, an elderly audience.

David Blunkett put it rather well in a speech he made a few days ago. And I [00:36:00] was reflecting on that. And I have in my study, a picture which was, uh, those of us who didn't make the main picture, the, the other picture in the House of Commons. And I look at that picture, I was looking at it the other day and most, and many of the people who were my colleagues are now dead. And a lot of them died at quite a young age. And we used to sit regularly, I used to sit till, people here will remember, I used to sit till four o'clock in the morning and have to be at my desk at eight o'clock as a minister. Crazy. Yeah. The way to get round that is not to sit in the mornings. The way to get round that is to make sure that the Usual Channels are operating properly and that people in this House are behaving sensibly about using the freedoms that we have to table amendments, to degroup amendments and other things, and doing so in a responsible manner.

Now, it's probably going to lose me votes, but I do say to those people who do that, you need to think about how long you'll get away with it. Because the reason the House of Commons is not doing its job, [00:37:00] in my view, is because the House of Commons that I remember and loved no longer exists, because all bills are now timetabled. People's ability to table amendments is limited and therein lies an opportunity for us, to work with the House of Commons. Because there are many colleagues of all parties in the House of Commons who, if they understood, and the Lord Speakers done brilliant work, I've helped hiim with this, in bringing in MPs to explain to them our procedures and how their campaigns, by liaising and engaging with people in the House of Lords, they could advance them because of the freedoms that we have in our procedures to get matters properly aired and discussed.

One of the things that absolutely drives me nuts is when I hear people in the media saying the unelected House of Lords passes laws. We do not pass laws except with the consent and the support of the elected House. That is the position. And the elected House [00:38:00] could benefit greatly from engaging with us.

And I don't think that the idea of having morning sittings is going to necessarily result in us not having late night sittings. That's about the Usual Channels, that's about all of us behaving responsibly. It's also about governments of all parties being sensible about the volume of legislation which they introduce to Parliament.

And it's also about the parliamentary draftsman sharpening up. When I was a minister, the parliamentary draftsmen were a fearsome bunch. They would, you know, they would, they would, kind of be very strong about the content of legislation. And I see legislation coming up - and I'm not making a point about this Government - it was as bad if not worse, under the previous Government. I see legislation coming up, which has not been properly drafted, not properly considered, and we end up having to clear up the mess. It's got to stop.[00:39:00]

Ruth Fox: Baroness Bull, if we can take you back to the reform of, of working hours of the House, but also Baroness Bousted also had a question that, that, um, Lord Forsyth touched on about grouping and de grouping of amendments and your thoughts, your views on the current arrangements for that.

Baroness Bull: Well, it's sort of two separate questions and I do want to address the question of sitting times because in my conversations over the last weeks, this has been an issue that members have raised a lot with me.

And I think two things are clear. One, there is complete lack of clarity for new members on how these things are decided. So, I would really want to work to demystify processes so that when members arrive it is clear where they go to ask questions or to find resolution on issues. As Lord Forsyth said, this is a decision for the House, and the House has history in looking at it. Last time it looked in 2023, um, there was a motion to retain the existing [00:40:00] hours, which was, uh, which, which succeeded. So we didn't move to one o'clock.

I don't think the, uh, I mean, I am the last person, you've heard me here to say that engaging young people is not important. That will not go down on my record. But I do think we can find imaginative ways to continue to engage young people if we want the House to sit, for instance, at one o'clock rather than three on a Wednesday. I do not think that should be the reason we don't re-look at sitting hours. My position will always be that change has to achieve purpose, A more effective House who can fulfill its role in passing good law and whose reputation is not tarnished.

I think it's very difficult to be an effective House when we're working in the wee small hours. It's very difficult for our membership to be completely, uh, varied and bring breadth of expertise and breadth of backgrounds if it requires us to be here, us to be here all hours of the day and night. I want to see membership bring diversity of [00:41:00] experience, background, and views. I don't want people to not be able to participate because they have caring responsibilities or they have families. We need that diversity of view in the House. Now this will be an issue on which there is diversity of view. We'll, we would not all want the House hours to change, and we certainly wouldn't want them all to change in the same way. But if members want to address this, then members should be supported to address this and to push it up through the, through the Procedures and Privileges Committee and to put the decision before the House.

The Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber is doing some really interesting work on thinking about different ways to use different spaces, in order to keep business moving so that the hours are not as long as, uh, as they are at the moment. So I would support that, but you, I would say it is not in the Lord speaker's gift to change those sitting hours. But I would help members, uh, get to the place where they can have that discussion.

On conventions and [00:42:00] self-regulation, members may know from my original statement, and I've already said it again here today, this House stands and falls on its ability to self-regulate and to observe the conventions.

And when they fall apart, we risk falling into becoming not a self-regulated House, but a House that's regulated by the whips. And I think we can see that happening already a little bit. I don't hear that is what members want, but it means that when new members come in and indeed as old members, we have to remind ourselves of the impact of not observing the conventions, of not behaving well in the chamber of degrouping for the sake of it.

And sometimes, of course, there's a good reason to degroup but we do need to exercise a self-regulation as both a collective and an individual responsibility. Because without it, the House doesn't function and it leads to the problems of longer hours, lack of effectiveness and damage to our [00:43:00] reputation.

Ruth Fox: Now I got a couple of questions that were submitted by Lord Wrigglesworth and by Viscount Astor on the question of, do you think the Lord Speaker should chair questions rather than the Government Chief Whip.

Baroness Bull?

Baroness Bull: Well, I've sort of just hinted at that, haven't I? I don't think there is any appetite in the House for the, for the, the Lord Speaker to act as Mr. Speaker and call questions. I did go back to the hustings of last time actually, and at that time we were still operating on the basis of speakers lists, and many of the, I think all of the candidates talked about speakers lists as having a benefit in that it encouraged, uh, perhaps a more, a greater diversity of questioners. It wasn't about the loudest voices. It feels to me at the moment as if we do have somebody calling questions, and I do understand that the Chief Whip is doing it to try and ensure that we go around the House. But I very much worry that new members, [00:44:00] we're not hearing the voices of new members, and, and, and I'm thinking about, for instance, and I can see them both here, questions on the creative industries. Of course, I'll be, I'll be called, of course, the Earl of Clancarty will be called. But here's the Noble Lady, Lady Caine, who has superb experience in the creative industries. I would like the House to hear from her, but it's very, very difficult with the current system. So, I think we need to create some generosity in how we operate in the Chamber. Um, I'm not for speakers lists, but I am for self-regulation. And yes, as I say, perhaps a bit of generosity of self-regulation.

Ruth Fox: Lord Forsyth?

Lord Forsyth: I agree with Deborah. I think, I think when I first came to the House, I can just about remember, we didn't have going round, uh, the House, you know, it's Labour's turn, it's a Liberal's [00:45:00] turn. We had a convention that we always gave way to the Crossbenches actually and the Bishops. Uh, and uh, uh, I'm not advocating that. And, the kind of the, the convention was if, if Bloggs got up to ask a question, but someone else got up, who, and it wasn't their party's turn, but they were an expert in their subject, everyone gave way. And I'll give you an example. Uh, actually it worked this week. Uh, but, um, a few question times ago, Ken Baker, you know, who was an outstanding Secretary of State for Education, and who has set up colleges up and down the country, he's 92 years of age, he got up to speak. But actually our front bench got up. And he got, he, he wasn't able to speak. Now in the [00:46:00] old House, everyone would've wanted to hear from Lord Baker. And if the front bench had got up, and in those days, of course we would have been very, uh, against the front bench getting up because we'd say it's back bench questions, not front bench questions. And when Lord Baker got up, if somebody else were challenging him, the House would say, "Baker, Baker, Baker". What is happening now, is that we got into this idea that you go around the House and it's a party thing. That's pretty bad news if you are an unaligned member of an unaligned group. Uh, it's also, um, uh, very bad news if you are one of the greatest experts on, I don't know, social care or whatever, and you, uh, can't get in because someone else, who doesn't even know who you are and doesn't know that you are an expert on social care, decides to stand up and push you back. And I know, I hope this doesn't [00:47:00] interpret it as a sexist remark, but I know some, uh, women have said to me, uh, that they find it very intimidating. I don't think they were talking about me, but it could possibly be. Um, so I, I do think it's absolutely wrong in principle. I think, um, Roy, as the Chief Whip is doing a great job, but I didn't think that the Chief Whip should be deciding on who's going to be called to speak because there's a clear conflict of interest, because they're holding the government to account in these questions as often as not. So in an ideal world, I'd really like us all to be respectful of each other, to not think that it's just about the turn of this party or the other party. For the front benches, um, the opposition front bench in particular, my own front bench, to perhaps show a little bit of constraint in looking who's trying to get up. And as Deborah says, um, it's not always the same people. And you know, those [00:48:00] here without sin can throw the first stone, but I certainly am a sinner in that respect.

But equally, one of the things that I think is going wrong with question time, this is where I'm gonna lose so many votes, is that people should not get up and read long questions. I mean, if you can't actually work out what the question is, you shouldn't be getting up, I hope, yeah, in my view. Of course, I understand people may be nervous, they may have notes, but reading long questions, which sometimes you think might not even have been written by the person who was asking the question, that is no good for the House.

And if we are to sell ourselves as a House of experts, well let's start behaving as if we are and not emulating the House of Commons.

Ruth Fox: Okay, so we're going to move on to some questions about the governance of the House. And we had a [00:49:00] question, um, from Lord Empey and also mirrored in a question by Baroness Goldie which is about the role of the House of Lords Commission. Um, you'll be aware of concerns expressed by some members that decisions are being taken by the Commission without the views of members being taken fully into account. Do you have a view on this, on how governance structures may be strengthened and what the primary objective of reform should be?

Lord Forsyth: Yeah. Okay. If you've got a wet weekend, just read the external management review report, which was produced five years ago. And among the recommendations were, and the analysis was that the Clerk of the Parliaments is responsible to no one, that he should be responsible to the Commission. That, that requires, and the Commission should be put on a statutory basis, which is what has happened in the House of Commons. [00:50:00] So the Commission would act more like a board of directors, holding the administration to account. Nothing has happened on that. The Commission decided that it wasn't a particularly good idea. I believe that is at the root of our problem. It means that the Clerk actually has got no protection and therefore is going to be risk averse. It means that there's no effective accountability. So I said in my 300 words that I was allowed, that I believe that that statement, that recommendation was right, and it should have been implemented. People will say, oh, well, we won't get legislative time. Could be a Private Member's Bill with agreement. It could sail through the House. The report went on to say, if you can't get the legislation, perhaps the Commission and the Clerk could operate as if that was the situation. As it happens, the Commission, in my view, is used as a kind of rubber stamp and is put in its place as, you are here to give strategic direction, [00:51:00] don't interfere.

And, you know, um, I have enormous regard for our Lord Speaker. I think he's done an absolutely brilliant job in trying circumstances. And I, and that is because the governance structure and the relationship between the Clerk and the boards is not something that you would find in any other organisation that I can think of. And it needs fundamental reform.

Baroness Bull: So we have a very complicated governance model here. I mean, I, I know a bit about complicated governance. I was part of the BBC Board that oversaw the transition to the Trust. So the noble Lord, Lord Grade is smiling there. We know about complicated governance structures.

This governance structure is perhaps even more complicated than most. And if you look at the governance framework, you will indeed, um, you will, your brain will be pickled by just how complicated it is. In my experience, complexity [00:52:00] leads to misunderstanding. It leads to wrong expectations. It leads to things happening in duplication, and it leads to things falling between the crack. Um, now I know that there are people who would like to see the, uh, EMR (external management review) implemented, or at least to see it treated as if it was implemented, but...

Lord Forsyth: Not, not all...

Baroness Bull: Sorry?

Lord Forsyth: Not all of it.

Baroness Bull: Not all of it. Sorry. I apologise. That recommendation of the EMR was, was treated as implemented, but the, the Clerk of the Parliaments is a Crown appointment and has statutory responsibility and authority here. So if something goes wrong, that's the person who's in the dock, not the Commission. So unless the law is changed, it would be unfair to place that responsibility on the Clerk of the Parliaments. I've, we have the opportunity of, of a new incoming Clerk of the Parliaments and there's been a second review, the Moar Review, which looks at the EMR and the effectiveness of how it's been implemented.

I've had multiple conversations with the incoming [00:53:00] Clerk, the Clerk of the Parliaments about this, and we both agree there is a need to clarify and simplify the existing structures, to demonstrate more clearly to members, how their needs inform overall, uh, strategic direction as well as delivery on the ground. And to ensure the Commission holds the Clerk of the Parliaments to account.

And there are many ways that that already happens. The job description for the new Clerk of the Parliaments, for instance, has an annual review of her role and the administration that wasn't there before. So there are already accountability measures. Do, do they need to be applied more rigorously? Almost certainly. The Moar Review also found systematic failures in member engagement. And this is something that I looked at, I sat in a group with Lord True, uh, maybe two years back. And it's one of the things we, we found - member engagement isn't effective. It's not, there's no clarity and, and consistency in how members are engaged. It's not [00:54:00] clear the points at which we're being asked for our opinion. It's not clear how that opinion is being dealt with. They're not coming back to us to say "yes, but" or "no, but" and so members are not engaged. Their expectations aren't clear and they're, they're left in the dark. So there is, there is work to do. The Moar Review involved our membership, Lord Sharkey, Lord Birt, Baroness Donaghy and Lord Young of Cookham, I think who I see over there. It has, it has a roadmap for improvement, but it is the start of the journey. So, I would want to get under the skin of that Review to talk to the people who did it, to understand what's happening, what we can expedite, and how this is going to solve the problems. And I would want to guide the Commission through implementation of its six recommendations.

That is not pushing this down the road. That is my approach to leadership. To understand what's happened, to respect the work of people who have spent a lot of time thinking about this. And then to implement, uh, [00:55:00] implement the recommendations and rigorously hold those people to account for delivery.

Ruth Fox: Lord Forsyth, you wanted to come back on this?

Lord Forsyth: I just want to add, uh, one point, and that is, "hands up, how many people in this room have seen the Moar Review?" Yeah, this is, this is the review done by the non-executive, the outside person. It was sent to me, uh, on Monday, which is the first time I'd seen it, and I think it was sent to Deborah as well. Um, it's actually really very good. My, my issue is the lack of transparency. The lack of engagement.

And I'll give you one example, the front door. Leaving aside, uh, what happened with the front door, we were not allowed to know how much it cost. And even at a very late stage, I went to see the Lord Speaker, I don't think I'm betraying any confidences here, and I said, Lord [00:56:00] Speaker, have they told you how much it costs? He said, no, they won't tell me.

I put down a parliamentary question about that appalling fence, that makes us look like a scrapyard or a prison, to ask how much it cost. Hands up, the reason I put down the question is because I wondered how much it would cost to take it down and put up something that was more in sympathy with the building.

I got back an answer that said, you can't know that because it would prejudice the security of the House. Now you also don't know, and I've spoken to the Sergeant at Arms or Black Rod rather, sorry, still Black Rod to say, is it okay if I reveal this. That on St. Andrews Day - those Scots who are, for those that are not Scots that was the 30th of November, which was a Sunday - an intruder got through a hole in the fence. No alarms were set off and it was 35 minutes before he was detained in the Cholmondeley Room [00:57:00] by an electrician who was working that day. So, I think, that the fact that our security and our accountability for our security does not reside with the Commission and with Black Rod is not actually resulting in our protection.

I think our inability to discuss these matters, the fellow who climbed up at the other end of the building onto the Elizabeth Tower, we are not allowed to discuss that. Now, when I was in the House of Commons, and a man called Fagan got into the Queen's bedroom, the Home Secretary offered to resign. We had a full debate about it.

So it's just not enough. There have been three reviews that I'm aware of in the last 10 years, which have talked about improving governance and nothing has changed. And we need more transparency. [00:58:00] We need to know what the costs are. We need to, um, and how many people in this room know that nearly 40 million pounds was lost on the Victoria Tower because the contract process was, uh, incorrectly carried out. That's all kept secret from us, and therefore, it's very easy to assume everything's fine. It's not fine. We need change.

Ruth Fox: Lord Forsyth has neatly preempted quite a few questions that were asked about the security, sorry, the security fence. So, um, Baroness Bull, your, your thoughts on, on those issues and, and how you essentially can achieve accountability in financial decision making.

Baroness Bull: So, there's clear concern from members about projects that go wrong, about how they damage our reputation. Um, it's something I heard over the past, over the past few weeks and it's something we will continue to hear. I don't think we should ignore progress that's been [00:59:00] made. There has been progress made, but there are still errors. I think there are errors in our House where projects are under our direct control, but there are also errors where projects are delivered by the, by the Commons.

And I've spoken with the Clerk of the Commons and indeed our Clerk of the Parliaments about where those things are going wrong and why. And it's clear that we need to do more to professionalise the relationship between the two Houses where projects are bicameral. We need clear service level agreements where, where service are delivered by a Commons department on our behalf. We don't have those. We should have those. We need the service deliverers in the Commons to be equally visible to Lords committees, Lords domestic Committees, as they are in the Commons. That isn't happening. That should happen. So, there are, there are things that can be done to strengthen project procedures because our experience, all of [01:00:00] us in the outside world, is that flaws in a project are always evident in the way they're set up. And this is true with something like Peers Entrance. There wasn't sufficient consultation with members. So the decision that not to work during the day was taken late. It pushed the costs up. All of these things need to be baked into professionalised working relationships, uh, between this House and the Commons, where projects are, are a matter of shared delivery.

Ruth Fox: Okay. Turning to the, um, the subject of the relationship with the House of Commons, this was also a running theme of the questions. And Lord Ricketts of Shortland had a question. How would you approach the relationship with the Speaker of the House of Commons and their Commission? Do you, how would you..Sorry! Apologies. How would you approach the relationship to ensure co-operation where possible, firmness where necessary, and [01:01:00] respect for the distinct role of each House? So, Baroness Bull, do you want to start off on this one?

Baroness Bull: Well, um, we, we've almost got the, the recipe for a good relationship in the question. I think, uh, obviously a strong working partnership with the Commons is absolutely key to us, fulfilling our purpose. We, we share the process of making law and of good governance, and we need to exist, co-exist happily on the same estate. So the relationship is really key. I would have a threefold approach to this though, because nothing can ride on personal relations alone. We, we like to think it can, but it can't. So I would build my personal relationship with Mr Speaker, and I would make sure that was an honest and robust relationship, because having a good relationship means you can disagree. Without that, you can't put robust opinions and you can't have a good, strong debate about what needs to happen. So building a personal relationship with Lindsay Hoyle would be [01:02:00] absolutely key. I wouldn't be starting from ground zero. I, I know him and I've worked with him a little bit in South Africa, but I appreciate, I would be, uh, perhaps a long way behind others in, in knowing, knowing, knowing these people in depth. Alongside that, there is a very strong Lord Speaker's office here and a very strong office around Mr Speaker. And those teams work really hard in the interactions between the two Houses. Not everything is about one person going to talk to another. There are offices that deal with a lot of the interactions and provide a strong basis for the relationship. And then finally, underneath that, and I've talked about this already, robust underpinnings of the professional structures between the two Houses, so that projects don't go wrong and we're not having to complain that something overran or members' needs weren't met. All of those things need to be ironed out and made to work well, so that the relationship can ride on top of it. My experience is [01:03:00] that if, if, if, if the ship beneath is strong, then uh, you know, it, it's not going to be impacted by the bad weather, which is inevitable in people-to-people relationships.

Of course, we're going to disagree, but we will do that robustly and we will do it well.

Ruth Fox: Lord Forsyth.

Lord Forsyth: I went to see, uh, Lindsay, the Speaker of the House of Commons last week. I, I didn't actually see that as being a particular problem. I had a moan at him about the fact that he'd banned us from the Terrace and that we weren't allowed to use the car park and various other things. I think that can be sorted. I was there actually with Patrick McLaughlin when he was treated rather badly and refused entrance to our Terrace, which I think was probably the origin of, of this kind of turf war. There are real issues as Deborah has pointed out. They pay 70% of the costs of our fence. He claimed he knew nothing about that fence until it was put up. There was a proposal, can [01:04:00] you believe it, there was a proposal to put a fence along the front of the House in order to prevent boats, um, coming in, uh, with explosives on board. Which was going to cost 95 million pounds. And which would disfigure the iconic view, one of the most iconic views in the world. When it was presented, it was presented with a fence at high tide, but we also have a low tide. Can you imagine how that would've looked? Um, and also it, it goes back to security. If you wanted to attack this House, God forbid, you'd use a drone or you'd use a a, a rocket launcher, a handheld rocket launcher from the, um, besides St. Thomas' Hospital. Where is this stuff coming from? Now the Speaker told me he, he stopped it, which is great. But there is a, a joint involvement on security. I think security is one of the things where things are have gone [01:05:00] wrong. I mean, it's taken, I worked with the other, um, groups, I set up a, a group when I chaired the ACP (Association of Conservative Peers), uh, Toby Harris does Labour, um, Charles Kinoull. And we would meet regularly with the senior Deputy Speaker. And, and for about two years now, we've been arguing that the, the most vulnerable place, um, is the tube entrance, where there's that stupid little door. Yeah. Where you've gotta get out your pass and anyone watching can immediately see you are a member of the House of Lords, you're a member of the House of Commons. This morning it was disgusting. And we've been talking about it for two years. And the Head of Security, I hope I'm not betraying a confidence here, she said to me, when I complained about it, she said, well, actually, if I had my way, I'd just close the entrance. And that just sums it up, doesn't it? It just sums it up. Yes, we've got to be secure, but we also have [01:06:00] to be aware of, um, people have a job to do and they need to come here and people need to be able to visit us. So, I just, I just think, um, now one of the problems with getting this sorted is it's a joint responsibility. But then we pay part of it. So I don't think that working with the, the Speaker of the House of Commons is going to be a big problem for me. I understand how the Commons works. I understand the pressures upon him, and we need to fix this. We were promised that there would be policemen, armed policemen on the doors. That then got changed to security guards, then it got changed to security guards at certain times of the day. Well, I don't know about you, but when I leave here late at night or I arrive, uh, early morning and there's no one there, I feel vulnerable as I take out my badge and deal with that silly little door. And I cannot understand why beyond the, uh, the, the, the revolving door, [01:07:00] there are two policemen who are armed on the wrong site. What, what exactly are they protecting? And I observe them. I observe them and they're talking to each other about their overtime or the latest football things or whatever. Whereas I think I'm, I'm told "you're not an expert on security, you don't understand this", well, I think they should be outside there in the tube entrance.

I'm just getting a note saying, I'm talking too long.

Ruth Fox: Right, can we move on to, um, question of, of how you would approach these difficult and intractable issues? So, Lord Cromwell asked a question about major institutional changes like, for example, Restoration and Renewal, or ways of working or governance reform. They will, as he described it, they may provoke either impatience or resistance in different groups. So what approach would you take to leading the House through necessary change in a way that is steady, [01:08:00] constructive, and brings people with you? We know that you've identified the problems, but how would you then approach it in terms of your ways of working?

Baroness Bull.

Baroness Bull: Sure. So I guess this is something I've spent most of my career doing. I've always worked in historic institutions, but I've always been in a part of the institution that's seeking to innovate, to change, and to modernise.. So, I've got a lot of experience in how you drive change through, by taking people with you. All change requires organisational shifts. You know, somebody's going to have to move up, somebody's going to have to do something differently. Um, but there has to be a guiding principle. The change has to better achieve the organisational purpose. If it doesn't do that, it shouldn't be happening. So my approach has always been to work with people to agree the benefits of change, to try to find common ground on what [01:09:00] we're trying to do, to ensure everybody has a chance to put their view, make their complaint, uh, but that everybody understands the destination and has a shared agreement of how we're trying to get there.

You have to be transparent and honest about trade-offs. There will always be trade-offs, whether it's children not able to visit the chamber or a fence higher than we might like. There will always be trade-offs and you need to be honest and transparent about them. You need also to take time. Somebody, uh, once a wise person once said to me, you can make any change you like as fast as you like, if you don't care about taking people with you. If you want to take people with you, you need to be consensual, steady, consistent and calm. So a relentless communication is absolutely key. Communicating and recommunicating the purpose of the change, making sure that communication is two way so people can feed in, uh, what's working and what is not working.

But it seems to me that while [01:10:00] heroic leadership is always very appealing, actually real change requires collaborative leadership because we all have to get on board with this. So my approach would be to be clear, to be inclusive, um, and to try to bring people along with that change.

Lord Forsyth: Oh gosh, Restoration and Renewal. It's been going on for years. Um, we spent a fortune, as I said in my opening remarks, procrastination's very expensive. We just need to take a decision, but it's got to be an informed decision. I understand that we may actually be close in the New Year to being told what that decision should be. I don't know what the decision should be because unlike most people in this room and listening to this broadcast, none of the information about costs or anything else is being made [01:11:00] available to us. I'm told the latest proposal would cost 15 billion pounds. I believe that's secret, by the way, but several people have told me it.

Baroness Bull: Not now, not now it's not.

Lord Forsyth: Yeah. Um, why is it secret? Why is it secret? 15 billion of people's money? What do you think Reform and Nigel Farage are going to make of that in the run up to the election with politicians being unpopular and the House of Lords and everything else? So there was an earlier a question about, you know, are you too political. Dealing with this is a highly political, challenging job. Yep. We need to, uh, you know, we need to lay the ground. We need to be sure about it. We need to, are we happy you know, if the House is, uh, surrounded by scaffolding for 15 or 20 or 25 years? There are all kinds of questions that need to be asked. I don't know about you, perhaps I'm an emotional person, but when Big Ben was covered in scaffolding, we could no longer hear Big Ben, I felt bereft. We are dealing here with [01:12:00] an iconic building, and it's not just about the building, it's about the image that it casts to the rest of the world about us as a democratic country with a fully functioning Parliament. So there are huge issues to be decided here, and I don't think it's for the Speaker to decide what should be done.

I mean, the Speaker might have an opinion. If I'm the Speaker, I'll almost certainly have an opinion. But it will be an opinion that's based on, all my life if there's a difficult decision to be made, the first question I ask is, what are the facts? I don't know what the facts are, that is not being shared with us. But I do know that it's gone on for far too long and that it's cost far too much in actually getting to the point where we can take a decision.

And part of that has been driven by self-interest on the part of people in the other place. But we do need to look at this, as it's not just about saving a building. And by the [01:13:00] way, all this work which needs to be done. That won't be the end of it. This is a, a historic grade one listed building. Bits will continue to fall off it long after we've gone. There will be ongoing costs. There is a division as to the best way of proceeding. But in the end, it will be for you and people in the House of Commons to decide what should happen, and I think it's the role of the Lord Speaker, to make sure that people are given the facts and the information upon which to make a sensible decision, bearing in mind what the people of this country would expect of us given the current situation we're in.

Ruth Fox: Baroness Bull just wants to come back on the R&R issue.

Baroness Bull: Well, just, just briefly on, on, on R&R I absolutely agree. This is a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is the global beacon of democracy. We have a responsibility to that, to this as a building and as a place of heritage, [01:14:00] also as a safe workplace for, well thousands of members of staff and MPs and Peers. At the minute, we are at risk of being perhaps almost on the verge of being unsafe, and that isn't fair on, on people who, who work here, including, including members. I think we shouldn't, uh, it's tempting to say nothing's happened. It's tempting to say it's all terrible. And I agree with Lord Forsyth, there have been too many mistakes along the way, but I do want to pay tribute to Lord McFall in his role as Chair of the Commission because of course the Lord Speaker also acts as Chair of the Commission. As Lord Speaker one may or may not have a view, and one has a role in encouraging members to engage with the, with the information, and to take the right decision as a House, as Chair of the Commission.

The Lord Speaker has a massive amount of work to do, and I know Lord McFall has done this most effectively in navigating the complexities, bringing different voices together. And, you know, our fingers are [01:15:00] crossed and we wait with baited breath, but we think we may be at a place where in the first quarter of next year, both Houses can take a decision, which would unlock a common set of projects, a set of projects that are common to both options, the phase one projects. So that money spent from this point onwards would be leading towards a solution for the long term. So, while I share much of the frustration and the figures and the delay and the procrastination, I do want to pay tribute to the the Lord Speaker and the members of the Commission who've been working as part of the R&R Board to move this thing forward.

Lord Forsyth: Well, can I just comment on that.

Ruth Fox: Well, briefly, because we are running out of time.

Lord Forsyth: This is a really important question. I mean, we're, we're talking here about billions of pounds of expenditure and the future of this House of Lords and the House of Commons. The, the key thing it seems to me is that none of us know [01:16:00] the facts. Uh, and if we are to be presented in the New Year with this is something we produced earlier, like Blue Peter, without being engaged with the facts, I think that is the wrong approach. I think that is completely the wrong approach. And if we are to be presented with something without actually having done some work in advance to get support in the media and elsewhere, then I think we are playing into the hands of some of our enemies. Now I have no idea whether that work has been done at all. I've, I've got no information on it. I completely agree with the job, which, um, that Lord McFall has done, a, a great job. But the fact is, I mean, I said more than half a billion, I'm told it's actually 830 million pounds has been spent so far with people changing their minds and operating, um, wanting different things. And I just, I think that has got to stop. But equally, [01:17:00] we need to have clarity and understanding of what we are committing ourselves to here and why.

Ruth Fox: Okay, thank you. Um, right, we've only got, uh, a few minutes left before closing statements. So, a final question I think, um, from Baroness Lang of Elderslie. Some organisations and political parties want to abolish the House of Lords as it is currently established and have models for different structures. If you are elected, will you advocate for change or defend the status quo? Baroness Bull.

Baroness Bull: So, I would advocate for the core purpose of the House of Lords. It's constitutional role, um, and how it fulfills it. The way in which it's constituted is the subject of much debate. We all have views on it. My personal view, having worked, since I've worked here, is that we, the primacy of the Commons is there because they are [01:18:00] an elected House. I can't see on what basis one could elect this House without challenging that primacy. But there may be ways that one could represent communities of interest, for instance, rather than geographic communities. But I think, uh, the, the important question is who is appointed to this House and the mechanisms by which they're appointed?

I think most of us would agree that the House is too large. I know there is a view, and Lord True has expressed this view very well at the, on the floor of the House, that the bigger the House, the greater the diversity. The problem is, as we all know, the bigger the House, the harder it is to actually contribute because there is no time for us all to be contributing that expertise.

So I think we absolutely need to look at mechanisms for reducing the signs of the House. We have the Burns report. We have the, the brilliantly named RAP Committee, which is going to be looking at issues of retirement and participation um, and that will do, do some [01:19:00] work on options for the House, uh, to come before us.

But I would see my role as continuing to advocate for the importance of this House in passing good law in partnership with the Commons. And I would, I would support discussions about reduction of the size of the House towards us being more effective.

Ruth Fox: Lord Forsyth.

Lord Forsyth: I actually think that the House of Lords is the only part of Parliament that's working properly at the moment. I think we're doing our job really well. Um, I think the issue of numbers, actually, although we're a House of whatever it is, 830, if you actually look at it, there are about 450 people are actively engaged. I, as Lord Speaker, you are, you know, back to Lenthal, you are what the House decides, what the Government decides, what the electorate decide, and you go by that.

And I, I think the main thing to focus in [01:20:00] on is not how we could reform or change the House of Lords, but get across what we actually do as a House of Lords, which I'm really proud of. I'm, I, you know, I feel honoured to be part of this House. Um, so I, I don't, I, I, I don't. I mean, the issue of numbers, for example, look, in politics, perception is everything. And the perception out there is that we've got too many people that we, um, get paid 371 pounds a day for just turning up and doing nothing. We need to change that. And if we change that, perhaps people will be more appreciative of what the situation is. I don't really understand the argument that says 400 people don't turn up enough, or we've got to get rid of them, and we need a smaller House. The problem is that people who do turn up. And, increasingly we have important debates on big subjects and 95 people put their names down and the result is that we get kind of two or three minutes to speak. That's unacceptable. We need to change that. That's not a House [01:21:00] of experts. That's just a House of people who are, you know, just doing soundbites. And also in our debates, it'd be great if we had enough time so that we could actually engage with each other and pick up points and be respectful of the person who's gone before. And that demands a change. But again, that's something that the Speaker can't do. He can press the Usual Channels, but in the end, it's the House to decide.

Now, I think it would be better if we had a system whereby the numbers of people, uh, in particular debates was limited, um, so that we could have longer speeches. And of course you'd have to have a ballot or something of that kind. But I don't think it's any good to expect people to spend a whole day sitting in the chamber in order to get up for three minutes to save that three minute bit and not have a proper debate.

So there's things like that that need changing and when we, when the, I've talked to the Leader about this, but if you say you want to have a participation requirement, my worry is that the 400, who don't turn up will turn [01:22:00] up and put their names down for debates or will do this and the problem will get even worse. So I think we should concentrate on what we do well and we, as Gilbert and Sullivan said, "it's not nothing in particular, it is very important, but we do it very well."

Ruth Fox: Thank you very much. So, um, time is, is moving on. I think we've got one, uh, time for just one more question before closing statements, so long as your answers are brief and to, to the point.

So I'm slightly amending Lord Evans of Rainow's question. He, he asked a, a two part question. I'm going to just offer half of it. At, at the end of your tenure, if you're elected, Lord Speaker, what do you think you would look back on as the most important thing you would have done, the greatest opportunity to bring about change that you would be proud of at the end of your tenure? What one issue would you focus on? [01:23:00]

Lord Forsyth: Uh, listen, if you go into politics and you expect to end your period being proud of anything or getting credit for anything, then you are off your head. Uh. I, I, I just want the opportunity to try to improve the governance of the House and to improve, improve people's appreciation of what a wonderful institution this is and why it needs to be preserved.

And I'm not talking about the building. I'm talking about the people and the work that we do. And if I can achieve that as your Lord, Lord, Speaker, I'll be very happy indeed, because the credit will go to the House as a whole. And I will just slip quietly into the night and spend a bit more time with my grandchildren like I promised I would do last year.

Baroness Bull: I mean, it's tempting to say, isn't it, that there would be a decision on R&R, [01:24:00] but I think that might have been said at the end of the last hustings, so it would probably be a, a hostage to fortune. I think there is a very important point about better understanding of this House. I am open to people not appreciating us, but I want them to do that from a point of understanding. And we are not clear, it is not clear to the broader public, what it is we do and the value we bring. So I think that, that, that would be my ambition, a better understanding of what we do and our role in the making of law and our partnership with the Commons. I do think that it might be too big an ambition.

I'm very conscious that this House works in long-term thinking, but having come back a little bit on our conventions and our self-regulation, because when I joined this House, its hallmark was respectful debate, robust scrutiny, listening to others. And it feels as if we [01:25:00] are losing a little bit of that, and that is what I would like to see us work on.

The Lord Speaker can't make that happen, but perhaps they can provide some thought leadership, some convening, some fora in which we can think and talk about how we individually and collectively return this to being a self-regulating House.

Ruth Fox: Right. We're going turn to to closing statements. So an opportunity for the candidates to just make their final pitch to their electorate, at least for this evening. And I'm going to ask Baroness Bull to speak first as Lord Forsyth spoke first in the opening statements. So, take it away.

Baroness Bull: Thank you.

So I want to close with very few words, firstly, to thank everybody for being here, for engaging, for sharing your questions. Thank you for the conversations we've had in the weeks leading up to this. Thank you for the conversations I know we're going to have [01:26:00] in the weeks after it. I want to thank Ruth Fox Fox for chairing this.

And I also want to thank Lord Forsyth for sharing this stage with me. It's been a privilege and a pleasure. I'm very grateful to have had this chance to share with you all my belief in this House, my respect for its purpose and the qualities and the skills that I would bring to the role of Lord Speaker.

I want to leave members with three thoughts. First, I understand the role. I understand its remit. I understand its potential, and I understand its boundaries. Change will not happen in this House by one person working alone. Collaborative leadership will matter, and that is the experience that I would bring.

Second, I bring significant and relevant experience from the world beyond Westminster. I believe that will be important to the House as we navigate the changes ahead.

And third, while I believe in [01:27:00] purposeful change, I promise that I will respect and be an effective custodian of this role. I will hold this institution with care.

Finally, my professional career has taken me across four different sectors, and at each transition I've been underestimated, and yet I have delivered. So I'm aware, I've spoken today at length about my experience outside politics and what I've done beyond dance. I apologise for that, but I've done it with one purpose in mind, which is to give you as members the information you need to make your choice about the next Lord Speaker.

So I want to finish by reassuring the House that forefronting myself in this way is not my natural style, and nor is it how I would fulfill the role if I were elected as Lord Speaker. My voice would be your voice. I would dedicate the next five years to promoting this House, preserving and [01:28:00] protecting its reputation and relentlessly promoting the value of its constitutional role.

Ruth Fox: Thank you. And Lord Forsyth.

Lord Forsyth: Okay. Lots of people have said to me, have you lost your mind, why are you wanting to do this job? They've said to me, you know, you are, you are so combative in the chamber and you are so good at, um, making points, um, and getting to the heart of the matter, and how will you manage to be completely non-political and won't you miss it?

Some people have said to me, I see quite a lot of Labour people are voting for you. You do realise that's 'because they want to get rid of you from the chamber. My wife has said to me, are you really going to enjoy becoming effectively a civil servant? I said, that's not, that's not the role.

Why am I doing this? Because I want [01:29:00] to give you the opportunity to vote for someone who is financially literate. I've chaired a bank, I've chaired an insurance company. I've been on the board of a five generation large family company for far too long, 18 years. And at the board meeting last week, they said, we feel we should wish you well, but we don't wish you well as well because we'd like to hang on to you. Why are you doing this?

And the answer to that question is because I believe that I have the skills that are necessary to rescue this place. Because I think we are in danger. Now, perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I see things happening. I've already mentioned the front door and I've already mentioned that fence and I've already mentioned other things, but things are not as they should be. I look at the dining room in the House of Commons and it's full of Peers because it's [01:30:00] cheaper and better.

I look at simple things like a message appears in the Princes Chamber saying you can't leave your bags there anymore. Who decided that and why? And where are people meant to take their bags? So it's from the extreme, important issues to what appear ridiculous.

I look at this place overrun with mice. I look at the costs in the dining room if you give someone lunch, and I look at the quality of food and I remember how it used to be. And there are a whole range of issues which need attention.

And I've done five years as Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, where every day somebody comes to me and says there's a problem. The ladies loos, for example, I'm told are pretty disgusting. I haven't been in there, I'm told there's no way of finding somewhere to change properly except downstairs, except there's a [01:31:00] screen. We've raised this, we mention it, but nothing ever happens.

And I'm reminded when I first got into the House of Commons back in 1983, Sir Roy Griffiths had done a report on the health service, and I've never forgotten the first sentence of that report, which said, if Florence Nightingale was wandering the corridors of the health service today with her lamp, she would almost certainly be looking for who is in charge.

And that I think is the fundamental problem about this place. Who is in charge? And what are the mechanisms by which the member's interests are influenced? I think I've got the skills and I'm mad enough to take on that challenge. And with your support, I believe we can make change for the better.

So that was Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull describing how they would conduct themselves from the woolsack as Lord Speaker if they win the race.

So Mark, what did you make of [01:32:00] that?

Mark D’Arcy: Well, it was the Lords talking to the Lords about the Lords. So it was a very internally focused discussion and there was a lot of stuff about the governance of the House, which may seem fairly uninteresting and perhaps unimportant to people outside, but which matters a lot to their Lordships because it bears directly on how well they can do their job.

And lots of internal issues there about the security door that's been put up at the Peers Entrance about the huge security fence that has sprung up in front of the car park in front of that entrance, both of which seemed to be rather resented by Peers. And I was also struck there by quite how beleaguered some of the contributions sounded.

There's a, a lot of talk of people don't really understand what the Lords does, don't really rate its product even though it's quite important stuff. Michael Forsyth in particular, I think talked a lot about that, and I think it's going to boil down to a choice of whether they want someone who presides and is a chair, or whether they're looking for someone who's a bit of a street fighter to go in and bat for the House of Lords in [01:33:00] circumstances where a lot of people want to reform it or possibly even abolish it.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. And that is a distinctive difference between the two candidates, isn't it? That Baroness Bull, I mean that was one of the questions that was asked, you know, is she political enough or is Lord Forsyth too political? So that is essentially the judgment that the House of Lords has got to make.

Voting for the new Lord Speaker takes place from the 6th to the 8th of January, and we're expecting an announcement sometime the following week, and whoever wins the race will take to the woolsack for the first time on the 2nd of February. So good luck to both of them.

Mark D’Arcy: Hope we can get them on the pod.

Ruth Fox: Quite! Well, I think, Mark, that's all we've got time for this week. Um, but perhaps we should, before we go, tell listeners what, what the festive goodies are to come over the Christmas and New Year break.

Mark D’Arcy: Look out first of all for our conversation with the historian Robert Saunders, on whether or not the job of Prime Minister has now become impossible.

Ruth Fox: And Royal Correspondent Valentine Low talks to us about his new book about the relationship between the Royals, Downing Street, and Parliament.

Mark D’Arcy: We talked to the chair of the Electoral Commission, John [01:34:00] Pullinger, about why Britain's electoral system should be seen as part of our critical national infrastructure and protected from foreign interference.

And Ellie Chowns, the Westminster leader of the Greens, talks about life as a new MP, having Zack Polanski as their leader outside Parliament, and what it's like to be soaring high in the opinion polls.

Ruth Fox: And we'll be back to our normal parliamentary podding on Friday the 16th of January.

So listeners, we hope you have a great Christmas and a good start to the new year. But if you're in the holiday spirit, perhaps you might give us a five star rating on your podcast app to help us grow the Parliament Matters audience. It helps other potential listeners find us. And if it's not a five star rating, well, don't bother!

See you in the New Year.

Mark D’Arcy: Goodbye for now.

Outro: Parliament Matters is produced by the Hansard Society and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. For more information, visit hansardsociety.org.uk/pm or find us on social media at [01:35:00] @HansardSociety.

← Back to Parliament Matters episode page