Speech to the University of Edinburgh Business School

It is an honour and a pleasure to be here this evening at the invitation of Professor Mitchell. Moreover, I am delighted to be speaking in the city of Edinburgh in such an historic year for the Scottish Parliament – 25 years after the first meeting of the newly established assembly.

You may not be aware of this fact but one of the first pieces of legislation to be passed at Holyrood was the National Park Scotland Act 2000, establishing Scotland’s first ever national park - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs – which happens to lie in my former constituency of Dumbarton.  

England had its first national park as long ago as 1951, so you might think the establishment of similar protection for the beautiful landscapes of Scotland would be a straightforward matter. I can tell you from experience that that was not the case. I was an MP for 23 years before joining the House of Lords. I learnt during that time that, whenever change is proposed there will be opposition.

If you want change, you need to be resolute in making your case, building support, talking to all sides and constructing as wide a coalition as you can. 

Over many years, I fought to bring all the different viewpoints together and to maintain the momentum of the campaign for a national park. I organised conferences and made contacts internationally. I lobbied at all levels – locally, in Westminster and at Holyrood. My campaign took 16 years to come to fruition, but the outcome is a beautiful park safeguarded for future generations; and a tourist attraction bringing in 4 million visitors a year, as well as investment and jobs. We achieved that through bringing people together, building consensus in the community, engaging all sides with trust and respect. 

That is the theme of my talk to you this evening. Politics not as a field of conflict but as an opportunity to work together for the common good. I believe this is a task which is central to our politics and governance – restoring trust, respect and consensus to public life.

Now, I have spent almost 40 years at Westminster, in Government, in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In that time, I got involved in my share of arguments over policy. But I also learned the need to build consensus. I came to realise that politics should be a common endeavour. And in my experience that is not an impossible goal.

As a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I worked with all sides to embed the Good Friday peace agreement, overcoming numerous setbacks - including the tragedy of the Omagh bomb in 1998. This was achieved by bringing people from all communities together to focus on our common purpose, which was to restore a lasting peace to Northern Ireland.  

As Chair of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-2008, I summoned witnesses from every aspect of the crisis to share their experiences and I worked to build consensus on the cross-party committee. Every report we produced was unanimously agreed, and this was crucial to their effectiveness. If we had divided on party lines, our findings would have been shelved as political point-scoring.  

I later established the Commission on the Future of Banking. This was not a parliamentary body. Its membership included the Conservative David Davis, Liberal Democrat Vince Cable and myself as a Labour MP, but we also had the consumer organisation Which?, leading economists, financiers and regulators and even a monk, who helped us with ethical considerations. We set aside political partisanship to forge agreement on changes for the common good.  This civic initiative prompted the Government to act and led to significant legislative change – something which could not have happened if we had acted along traditional party lines or remained within our parliamentary bubble. 

In my own constituency of Dumbarton, I established a taskforce to regenerate the site of the former J&B whisky-bottling plant after it closed at the cost of nearly 400 jobs. Over a 15-year period, I engaged with local politicians of all parties, trade unions, management and investors, keeping all of them onside and getting them behind the creation of the organisation Strathleven Regeneration. As a result, the site is now a thriving centre of industry with a brewery, a TV studio, a sustainable energy facility, hundreds of houses, two and a half thousand jobs and £600 million gross value added to the local economy.

No party or individual has a monopoly on this way of working – I well remember the pride of Conservative minister Michael Heseltine as he told me in an interview for my podcast how he stood beside the Labour mayor of Liverpool to receive the freedom of the city in recognition of his contribution to its regeneration. 

Across all of these experiences, I have seen the benefits that arise when politics is approached as a common endeavour, that is to say with trust, respect and consensus.

I believe this approach could serve as a model for today’s MPs and peers to collaborate across party divides to seek out answers to the biggest policy challenges of the coming decades.

By doing so, they would not only benefit our nation, but could also help rebuild the trust in politics which has so declined in recent years. 

There is no shortage of daunting challenges for them to address. They might include:

• Tackling inequality and ensuring that the proceeds of economic growth benefit all parts of the United Kingdom
• Providing young people with the same access to housing, education opportunities, careers and pensions which were available to older generations
• Adapting our health and care systems to meet the ever-growing demands of an ageing population
• Navigating the unpredictable potential benefits and risks of Artificial Intelligence technologies
• Delivering the infrastructure we need to bring down carbon emissions without doing harm to our beautiful natural world

Earlier this year, the Institute for Government thinktank published a report on the condition of the UK state. Its assessment was summed up in a single word – precarious.

The issues identified by the IFG were wide-ranging and must concern anyone interested in the well-being of our nation. They raised questions over the performance of public services, the elusiveness of economic growth, strains on the civil service and the durability of the Union itself.

Meeting these challenges will require legislators to earn and keep the trust of the electorate. And yet polls tell us that trust in politicians is at its lowest for 40 years. One recent survey by Ipsos found just nine per cent of the public saying that they trust politicians to tell the truth. 

Why is trust waning? Part of it is certainly down to a welcome decline in deference and the healthy scepticism of the British people. Part of it may be linked to the increasingly combative nature of political debate and the polarisation of opinion we see on social media. Part can be traced to the complaint we hear so often that “politicians are all the same”.

But part of it must also reflect public questions over whether our systems of governance are best suited to deliver answers to the problems we face.

My position as Lord Speaker requires me to be non-political, and I do not advocate for particular policy options.

But based on my long involvement in politics at Westminster, I believe we need to address three questions: 

1.     How do we ensure long-term strategic thinking in Government and Parliament? 

2.     How do we ensure strategic capabilities in our public services? 

3.     How do we discuss, decide and practise change in complex policy areas which cannot be driven from the centre – whether that centre is Whitehall or Holyrood?  

I believe that the style of politics seen in the House of Lords is key to finding an answer to these questions.

Now, I do not wish to downplay the work that is done, in good faith and with due diligence, by legislators here in Edinburgh, in Cardiff, Stormont and indeed Westminster. 

I entirely respect the need for the robust exchanges which we see in the House of Commons. We are a free-thinking, free-speaking society with a wide diversity of opinions, and it is quite right that competing views are voiced loud and clear in the cockpit of the Commons. That is where ideas are tested under fire, setting the direction of policy in line with voters’ preferences expressed at elections.

But when it comes to polishing and improving the detail of legislation, there is another kind of politics which comes to the fore in the Lords. It is an approach which prizes expertise and seeks consensus in a spirit of respect and common endeavour.

Proposals are examined closely from every angle by peers with long experience on the frontline of their fields – whether that be health or defence or economics or the law. Their intention is not to score political points or seize headlines, but to ensure that legislation will work in practice and will not come into conflict with the UK’s national and international obligations.

I would suggest that these two approaches do not conflict with one another. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are complementary, each playing a vital role in our system of governance.

I have learnt from experience that party political conflict cannot on its own deliver good law. And that politicians cannot win the public’s trust simply by kicking lumps out of one another.

Now, those of you who study politics here at the University of Edinburgh will understand more than most the sometimes arcane rituals of Westminster. But when you think of the House of Lords, the image which almost certainly springs to your mind will be the ranks of ermine-clad peers assembling in their finery for the State Opening of Parliament.

If that is the case, let me assure you – we only wear those robes one day a year. The rest of the year witnesses a far more businesslike spectacle, which may not deliver the dramatic scenes craved by the media, but is vital to the production of good law.

The first purpose of the House of Lords is as a revising Chamber, providing detailed scrutiny of the legislation brought forward by the Government. This is a task that MPs do not have sufficient time for – and that is understandable. They are juggling demanding constituency work, campaigning for the party, and fulfilling obligations in the Commons Chamber and in committees.  

In the House of Lords we take the time to go through each bill line by line. Unlike the Commons, there is no selection of amendments - every amendment tabled is called; and there is no use of the guillotine to curtail debate. The Government does not control the use of time in the House of Lords. That means each Bill is considered in full, no matter how long it takes.  

The second key purpose of the House of Lords is in exploring cross-cutting issues in public policy. As Senior Deputy Speaker, I led a programme to re-focus the work of our cross-party Select Committees, enabling them to look across departments and across sectors – and provide insights relevant to society as a whole.  

For instance, we created an Industry and Regulators Committee to keep an eye on the activities of the watchdog bodies which oversee sectors like energy and water and communications. Independent agencies like this play an increasingly important role in regulating our society, but until the establishment of our Lords committee, there was no body in Parliament to answer the question: Who watches the watchdogs?

Our system allows committees to be agile in responding to events. While the coronovirus pandemic was still at its height, I proposed and established a special Covid-19 Committee to consider the implications of the disease for the future economic and social well-being of our nation. Led by Martha Lane-Fox, the committee produced a comprehensive report calling for improved resilience and preparedness for a volatile and uncertain future. 

If you look at some of the thorniest issues with which governments have grappled in recent decades, such as the HS2 rail link or the need to reform social care, you will see that Lords committees repeatedly gave advance warning of problems coming down the track.

So how does the House of Lords deliver this? 

The House of Lords has the benefit of independence. This comes from a combination of factors: most Peers have made their careers elsewhere before joining the House, and are not dependent on the Whips to build a career in Parliament. 

In addition to that, the House itself is independent of Government. There is no Government majority in the Lords. The crossbench peers - members without party affiliation - are now the third largest group in the House. Therefore ministers cannot rely on winning votes by force of numbers. They must focus instead on winning the argument.  

This creates the circumstances for bills to be amended and improved before they become law.

In a typical year, a thousand or more changes are made to Government legislation as it passes through the Lords. But the majority of these changes are not the result of Government defeats in votes, of the kind which will make headlines in the press. Instead, the vast majority – usually about 90 per cent – are tabled by ministers, in a sign that they have taken on concerns expressed by peers and revised their plans in response.  In the 2019/20 session, out of more than 700 successful amendments , only around 70 – or 10 per cent - were due to defeats in the House.

Professor Meg Russell of the UCL Constitution Unit has described the work of the Lords as a type of quality control. It could equally be described as an important check and balance on the power of the executive. 

In 2021 the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published a report entitled “Government by Diktat: a call to return power to Parliament”. It issued a stark warning about the increasing use by the executive of measures such as Henry VIII clauses or skeleton legislation, which enable ministers to alter the law without the same degree of scrutiny received by primary legislation, and in some cases without any parliamentary debate at all.  

The balance between Parliament and Government is not a new issue. But the House of Lords is playing its part in maintaining that balance.

In addition to being independent of Government, the Lords is rightly known as a House of experts. We have Members with deep experience from all walks of life and all four corners of the United Kingdom. Many of them do not have a background in politics. There are scientists, doctors, business leaders, trade unionists, social workers, campaigners for civil liberties and disability rights, environmentalists, academics and engineers. There are broadcasters, journalists, Olympians and Paralympians.  We are able to bring to bear the expertise of former Heads of the Civil Service, retired judges and chiefs of defence staff, ex-Heads of the Metropolitan Police and two retired chiefs of MI5.

Consider the Economic Affairs Committee for example - it contains one former Chancellor of the Exchequer, one former Bank of England governor, two former permanent secretaries to the Treasury and two professors of Economics.  

My point is this – the House of Lords, perhaps by historical accident more than by design, embodies the sort of politics that my career has taught me is the most constructive approach to tackling the challenges facing us – and the most likely to restore trust, respect and consensus to public life.

Now I can imagine you might be listening to me and thinking ‘that is all very well, but – really – an unelected House full of people with titles? How can we accept its legitimacy in a modern era?’  

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for more than a century, since the Liberal Government of 1910 promised to replace it with an elected second chamber.  

In 1958 the introduction of life peerages revived what had been a moribund assembly – adding individuals with extraordinary capabilities and experience to what was until then an entirely hereditary House. In 1999 the removal of over 600 hereditary peers created a House of life peers, with only 92 hereditaries remaining – and of course the current Government is now legislating to remove those remaining hereditary peers. 

But at roughly 800 members today, many people consider the House of Lords too large, and questions have been raised about the process of appointment. In 2017 the House itself agreed a report from the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, established by my predecessor Lord Fowler, which proposed a cap of 600 members. However, this has not won the necessary political support.

Attempts to introduce elected members failed both under Labour in 1968 and 2001, and under the Coalition Government in 2012.

More recently, the prospect of an elected House or Senate has again been revived by Gordon Brown’s Commission on the UK’s Future, which called for a democratic Assembly of the Nations and Regions. 

But the same questions recur each time: what exactly would be the powers of such an assembly and how would elected Senators resolve differences with the Commons?  

As things stand, the elected House of Commons will almost without exception have the final say on legislation. And many MPs are fearful of losing this primacy. Although peers regularly ask the Commons to think again on legislation, this almost never ends with impasse.

Any proposal to alter the composition of the Upper House would have to consider very carefully the issue of whether and how the primacy of the Commons should be maintained.

I am not here to promote the details of one form of reform over another, but both Lord Fowler and I have been consistent in arguing publicly for the principles of reform.

If the House is to remain appointed, then the first principle is a reduction in numbers and a transparent appointment process. The House needs to continue its independent scrutiny of Bills and its quality control function. Over time, the House should bring its expertise to bear on standard-setting in ethics and explicitly bring in the perspectives of Nations and Regions. That is a pretty full programme.

I want to ensure that the value of the House’s work, the contribution it makes to public life, is recognised in the debates that continue about its role and function. In all of these debates I believe it is important to focus on the outcome we want, and then to create the right conditions to achieve it. 

I started by setting out the challenges facing politicians and policy-makers today. I hope I have demonstrated in the short time we have had together that the House of Lords has a valuable contribution to make to solving those challenges. That the UK’s Upper House is closer to the politics of common endeavour than many an elected Chamber can hope to be.    

My experience over many years has increasingly persuaded me that the politics of common endeavour can provide a route to resolving some of the most intractable problems of our society. These might include:

• Adult social care

This is a topic which has bedevilled successive governments, with a series of proposed initiatives running into the sand. By its very nature it is a subject which is uniquely vulnerable to the party political battle. However, it is also an issue which is well-suited to the politics of common endeavour. Where the political debate has so far failed to resolve the sector’s problems, it may be that a broad-ranging investigation, bringing together politicians of all parties with medical experts, charities, service users and delivery organisations, could have more chance of finding a way through while winning the trust of voters.

• Decentralisation 

We must address the England problem of persuading Whitehall to re-empower and re-finance English Local Authorities – not just because taking decisions closer to people makes for better decisions, but also because Whitehall simply cannot know or decide many complex social and economic issues.

The Parliaments and Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now fixtures in UK governance. However, important issues remain:

1.     What is to be the English devolution system? Is the model of Combined Authority Mayors to become the standard – or will solutions come and go with every change of Government?

2.    How are devolved national and regional decision-makers to work with local authorities who complain about loss of decisions and resources?

3.     How do public services, such as the NHS, maintain motivation and quality of management in the face of centralising Governments? 

• Whitehall and the centre of Government 

So much has changed in the way we live, and there is a constant need to ensure our public services keep pace with that. But one of our most eminent experts on public service – former cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill, now sitting in the Lords as Lord Sedwill – has said that today’s Whitehall would not look unfamiliar to Queen Victoria’s prime minister William Gladstone.

Despite the extension of devolution, our system remains more centralised than in many comparable countries. The UK Cabinet is twice the size of President Biden’s and four times the size of the Chinese Politburo Standing Committee. At the heart of government, The Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street have been described as simultaneously over-powered and under-resourced.  Another former Cabinet Secretary  - Lord Gus O’Donnell –– has warned that the Civil Service needs greater access to essential modern skills in digital, projects and finance. 

We have no shortage of work ahead – and we need to engage across civil society to win the trust of voters of all political stripes. 

As Edmund Burke said “a state without means of some change is without means of its own conservation. We must all obey the great law of change. It’s the most powerful law of nature.”  

I have been an MP for 23 years, a member of the Lords for 14 years – and an educator all my adult life. I’ve witnessed individuals demonstrate their commitment to their neighbours and society by working for the common good. 

And it fills me with hope when I see a new younger generation stepping forward to engage with the issues and concerns which will shape the life of our nation and our world long after I have left the scene. 

Young people like many in this audience, who recognise that politics is not just about personalities and soundbites. Politics is a difficult business which can take years to produce a result. It means sitting down with people with whom you disagree and finding common ground. It means seeking solutions which can command consensus.

The first duty of a politician is to serve society and make it a better place for all citizens. At this low point of trust in politics and politicians, we have an obligation to embrace change and travel in hope – not looking backwards and down, but forward and up. 

Is the House of Lords achieving that goal? Well, I was heartened by the conclusion reached by commentator Ian Dunt in his recent book How Westminster Works ... and Why it Doesn’t. He described the Lords as “simply put, one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”.

Is he right? I am eager to hear your opinions on that question and any other questions you would like to raise. I was a schoolteacher in Glasgow for many years, so I’ll end my speech now by setting you the classic exam question: The House of Lords: Discuss.