PAC

An institution that is a democratic outrage, asleep on the job and is ripe for being scrapped.

That has been the belief bubbling away among many of the most ardent Brexiteers as they came to blows with the House of Lords over a series of defeats they inflicted on the Government’s EU withdrawal legislation.

In the year since the General Election the Government has been defeated 32 times in the Lords, with around half of these on the EU Withdrawal Bill. That is fewer than the 38 defeats inflicted in the Lords on the Conservative majority Government in 2016/17 and the 60 defeats David Cameron’s Government faced the year after the 2015 election.  Going back before that, only 4 of the 13 years of the Labour Governments following the 1997 election saw fewer defeats in the Lords than there have been seen over the past year. The caveat is that there have been far fewer Bills brought before Parliament over the past year than in previous sessions.

What then is the concern of those such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and The Spectator, bastions of the right in British politics and which have traditionally been all in favour of an unelected House?

Their argument was that Peers were attempting to thwart the ‘will of the people’ expressed through the referendum which they had no right to do, especially as they are unelected body. This glossed over the fact that the changes made by the Peers can only be allowed if the elected House of Commons also votes for them. The argument is diminished further when some of those, including leading newspapers, who have been attacking Peers for supposedly undermining the will of the people, have also made scathing criticisms of democratically elected MPs for seeking to make changes to this and other legislation linked to Brexit.

Others argue that the their Lordships should enjoy the perks of membership of the upper house as a way of bowing out of public life gracefully rather than seeking to rock the boat, an image reinforced by the Government Chief Whip in the Lords recently having to warn Peers about falling asleep in the chamber.

The Lords is simply doing its job which is to act as a revising chamber. Unlike the Commons, in the Lords the Government does not control the timetable for debating bills. This means that every amendment to a Bill is debated, unlike the Commons in which many amendments that are tabled are never considered and debate on those that are is restricted through timetabling.

Take the EU Withdrawal Bill as an example. The House of Lords had 11 sessions at Committee Stage to consider the detail of the Bill, compared to 8 in the Commons. Likewise, at Report Stage, the Lords spent 6 sessions considering the Bill in further detail compared to just 2 in the House of Commons. Peers have previously told us that the reason for this is that they need to clear up the messy state of legislation once it has passed through the Commons, much of which MPs will have had little time to consider.

Probably much to the chagrin of the whips, party managers have much less control over how Peers vote in the Commons. Few Peers are seeking further preferment. After all, there is no further you can really go other than being appointed as a Minister and these are usually more junior positions which many Peers might regard as a demotion, particularly if they have enjoyed a more senior status in the past.  The Lords is full of some fairly big beasts; is anyone really going to try to tell Lords Heseltine or Kinnock what to do? It is not surprising then that Peers are more independent minded and more likely to vote against their own side, let alone the 212 Cross Bench and independent Peers who have no loyalty to the Government or Opposition.

It is indeed ironic that many of those who attacked Peers over their changes to the EU Withdrawal Bill are the same as those who have in the past defended the Lords and resisted reform. It highlights the danger of blinkered dogmatism leading to knee jerk reactions when others seek to take a more objective view.

The former Conservative heavyweight politician, Michael Portillo, recently said of Michael Gove that: “He is a Minister who, singlehandedly in this Government, shows some gumption, some initiative, some wish to do something.”

Gove has certainly made an impact as Environment Secretary, arguably more than any other holder of this normally low profile office. Be it the banning of ivory sales, cracking down on plastic waste, the bottle deposit scheme, championing animal rights or the Environment Strategy; Gove has seemingly gone from Brexit exile on the backbenches to environment crusader in little under a year. He is even gaining plaudits from green groups who would never have imagined that they would be singing his praises.

Is Portillo’s view based on on him being so active or is this impression because other cabinet ministers are failing to make any impact?

It is not just at Defra that Gove has made an impact.

As Education Secretary he oversaw wide-ranging reforms on the curriculum, the academies programme, examinations, vouchers and teacher recruitment; to name but a few. He certainly made enemies, not least among the teacher unions, but no-one could deny that he was not being bold in his ambition to raise standards.

As Justice Secretary, he reversed many of the unpopular policies of his predecessor, Chris Grayling, including scrapping the courts fee and overturning rules that restricted the number of books a prisoner can have. He was embarking on an ambitious prison reform programme before he was moved following last year’s election.

Gove not only displays initiative and governmental skill, but his pro-environment agenda has also served as a personal re-brand after a polarising Brexit campaign and an ill-fated attempt at the Conservative leadership. It also serves the aim of broadening Conservative appeal, especially through trying to win back younger voters. He is once again trying to prove that it is possible to vote blue and go green.

No other cabinet ministers appear to be transforming their Department’s policies in the same way. One argument for this is that both they and Parliament are paralysed by Brexit. The sheer amount of governmental and administrative effort required to separate from the EU means that Ministers cannot get much else done.

This is not stopping Gove despite Defra having responsibility for farming, fisheries and environmental standards, all of which are heavily controlled by EU regulations.

It hasn’t all been clear sailing. The revelation that UK fisheries policy would still be subject to EU law during the Brexit transition period was widely criticised by the industry. Many have argued that Gove’s mixed record on voting for green policies shows that his recent turn towards environmentalism may be more self-serving than selfless. And Gove still has to steer the long-delayed Agriculture and Fisheries Bills required for Brexit through Parliament.

However, the fact remains he is making his mark in government. Can the same be said of his Cabinet colleagues?

The Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling has only really been in the news of late for criticism; not proactive policy making. He travelled to Qatar on the same day as the biggest rise in rail fares since 2013 and was recently accused by Lord Adonis of “doing nothing” as the Peer called for his resignation over bailing out private rail companies.

In housing, the Government appears to have recognised the scale of the problem but not the solutions required. Outside of a DCLG rebrand, continual consultations and some more money for existing schemes, there has not been the kind of radical policymaking that many MPs have been calling for. There is definitely scope for the new Secretary of State, James Brokenshire, to make his mark.

Jeremy Hunt’s long stint as Health Secretary has been recently defined by trying to get the NHS through winter but he now has his chance to make a real difference through the planned change in NHS financing, depending on how radical this will be. Greg Clark’s Industrial Strategy has been criticised for providing little new investment in the economy. Against the background of this all are sluggish forecasts for economic growth and relatively little loosening of Treasury coffers by Chancellor Philip Hammond.

In a Government defined by trying to take action while negotiating and implementing Brexit, Gove has certainly shown his ability to stand out. Labour MP Ben Bradshaw once described being a Minister as “literally sink or swim.” In this regard, Gove has proved himself to be a something of a shark. After all, he is an avid watcher of Blue Planet.

The Prime Minister cannot be accused of using the recent Ministerial re-shuffle to seek to gag Brexiteers by bringing them into the government’s ‘payroll’ vote.

Given that before the June election last year there was only a slight majority within the Conservative Parliamentary Party for Remain, a breakdown of the cohort of 44 PPSs following the reshuffle shows a much more significant gap between Remainers and Brexiteers. 59% of those appointed in January were for staying and 41% for leaving. This marks only a small increase in the proportion of Brexiteers who made up 35% of PPSs prior to the reshuffle, but not enough for May to be accused of seeking to bind potential hard line Brexit rebels by making them subject to collective government discipline.

If you add to the ‘payroll’ group the 16 MPs appointed as trade envoys, the disparity is just as significant with 38% of these being Brexiteers and the majority at 63% being Remainers.

Perhaps Theresa May sees the need to keep Remainers close given their concern at what they perceive as the PM’s seeking to appease the hard-Brexiteers with her statements about not being a part of any customs union, no role for the ECJ and no compromise on freedom of movement during the transition phase.

Remainers might choose to argue that is a reflection of the calibre of the MPs within the two groups.

There is some redress for Brexiteers with 3 of those appointed straight from the backbenches to a Ministerial job being leavers and only one a stayer.