09/06/2016 House of Lords

can watch reported coverage of all of today's business in the Lords

after the Daily Politics tonight. Let us get together with our

colleagues in another place to try to ensure that secondary

legislation, which should ndver include Henry the VIII clauses is

properly examined in both Housed and capable of amendment in both. My

Lords, together with other noble Lords I would like to deplore your

lordship's attention to the declining quality of legisl`tion

presented to us. I raise thhs, not only because it's something that we

can do something about, as the Noble Lord, Lord Lang suggested, hndeed

have to do something about, also because as standards declind there

is more opportunity to ignore or even break the rules. Rules that

have been devised over time to protect the public good. I thank him

for moving this debate and for her sensible proposals. Like my Noble

Friend, Baroness Andrews my concern arises from my current membdrship of

the secondary legislate scrttiny committee. Both these committees

have witnessed the decline of which I speak. So, when scrutinishng

secondary legislation, quitd rightly, we not only look at what it

says, but why it is required, how it's explained and what its impact

will be. Is it fit for purpose? As my noble friend Baroness Smhth said.

More and more the committee has to draw your Lordship's attenthon to

the inadequacies in all of these aspects. We recently drew your

lordship ships attention to an order to the standards in relation to

livestock. They were to be withdrawn. When we looked at the

consultation it said exactlx the opposite. When we pointed this out,

DEFRA withdrew the order. Does the Government consider this a defe are

the House doing it works. One in five of statutory instruments

reported to the House in thhs session have been on the grounds of

inadequate explanation. Indded, the SI relating to tax credits which

precipitated the report frol Lord Strathclyde went back to thd

Treasury twice because of ddficient cyst in the explanatory memorandum.

Deficient cyst as to the explanations as to why it w`s

necessary to use secondary legislation to introduce thhs new

and significant matter. Why is this not picked up in the other place? As

has been pointed out in manx reports, not least in the rdsponses

to the Strathclyde Review, there are so many other pressures on lembers

of parliament they have little time to look at secondary legisl`tion.

Indeed, only selected parts of primary legislation are scrttinised

partly because virtually evdry major Bill is timetabled. Not, I don't

think, an invention of the Blair government, as Lord Strathclyde

suggested. Lord Strathclyde complained about the number of

Government defeats. Does he not agree with me that these defeats are

not only because of disagredment on policy, but also because thd

legislation is incomplete? Ht's not properly prepared and not thought

through as most speakers in this debate have suggested. So what can

be done? As others have said there is a Cabinet Office guide to making

legislation and what instruction should be given to parliamentary

counsel. Are these instructhons being carried out? There is an

understanding of a need for green papers and white papers, dr`ft

bills, a proposed schedule of secondary legislation. Is the

problem lack of staff? Have the people with the expertise and skills

and experience in preparing legislation gone? Is it a rdsult of

budget cuts in the civil service? Now, one way of making up for this

loss is to do what lots of other people are doing, turn to artificial

intelligence. My noble friend Baroness Smith mentioned in a, in

the debate on the Queen's Speech I drew your lordships attention to

this possibility. It created a lot of interest in the social mddia I

made the point that the Govdrnment's science and technology facilities

council has a five-year could collaboration with Watson at IBM.

They are at the forefront in development of artificial

intelligence. I pointed out that we already have machines that can read

and prepare and analyse clatses and loan agreements and contracts for

sale. With this experience, and the excellence of these two

organisations, surely it is possible to digitalise and code the Cabinet

Office instructions, to makd at least sure that every element of

policy explanation and constltation are present. Having developdd this

technology, my Lords, it cotld be offered to sale follow virttally

every other legislator in the world. Now I hope ministers don't think for

one moment that this suggestion is the start of the slippery slope of

ministers being replaced biro bots, not at all. LAUGHTER.

But that is just one way of dealing with the problem. Perhaps the

Government have got other ideas We have to get the preparation and the

procedure right because if we don't the low standards will provhde an

opportunity for poor or bad legislation which will undermine our

culture of strong, fair-minded and responsible government, govdrnment

scrutinised by parliament to make it fair-minded. It will undermhne those

rules to protect the public good and then we will autumn be the losers.

I thought it right to make ` brief intervention in this debate. I

emphasise what I'm going to say is my personal view. I think most of

what I have to say at least will be shared by other members of the

committee. I want to deal whth the matter that arose after October 26th

last year when you rejected the tax credits. There is room for lore than

one respectable view as to whether that is the breach of the convention

that existed. There is cert`inly a serious body of opinion that does

take that view which, frankly, is one which I share. My Lords, the

question, what we now do about that? Lord Strathclyde has reportdd. His

report has not been univers`lly acclaimed, but widely appreciated

for the detail into which hd went. A number of... None the less he raised

issues that the Government will be considered. Before we decidd upon -

before the Government decidds upon bringing in new legislation we

should have an attempt at ldast at reestablishing the convention which

some of us at least believe existed before October last year. I hope

that process can be done. That would lead the acquiescence of all the

major political groupings in the House and the opposition le`d by

Baroness Smith and the Liberal Democrats under Lord Wallacd. The

Liberal Democrats are not p`rty to the existing convention or what was

the existing convention and are therefore not necessarily p`rties to

it. They would have to be p`rty to the new one if that is what is

decided upon. So indeed will the cross benches. How that can be

achieved, I'm not so sure bdcause of course the cross benches take the

view they are not united on anything.

That is a matter they would have to decide.

He will have to decide what assurances he can give to hhs

colleagues if that is to proceed. The Right reverend bishops have to

take part in all of this. They were party to the proceedings in 121

when his late Majesty King John was persuaded to sign the Magna Carta.

My Lords, if it is not posshble to reach a new and widely agredd.. I

don't want to take up too mtch of his time but since he mentioned the

Lib Dems and the cross benches, they were represented, they voted

unanimously for its conclushons and they supported its conclusions on

the floor of this House so they are committed. I am glad to hear that.

There will need to be a new procedure now. It was a number of

years ago now. Therefore, I think it needs to be re-established following

the events of October last xear The new convention will need to set out

the understanding that only in the most exceptional circumstances would

your lordship's want to votd against a statutory instrument and H think I

would wish to add to that that a motion for a significant delay would

be very similar to a motion to negate a statutory instrument and I

dare say the convention would need to recognise that point. I would

like to make one other more current observation and that relates to the

supporting documentation whhch has already been referred to two. I do

have to say that at least 10% of the ex-banditry memoranda is very often

inadequate and unsatisfactory and has to be rewritten or reproduced

and we often have to ask for that. I regret that is the case but I hope

you will understand that is an important part of the work we do. I

would like to exempt my noble friend Lord Freud. He has recently gone to

great lengths to persuade hhs department to support this

legislation. I believe my colleagues on the select committee appreciate

that likewise. There is somdthing of what you might call a jobbing

legislator. Nine years on the backbenches, a couple of ye`rs as a

whip, so while I cannot clahm the constitutional expertise of noble

Lords, I am back on the backbenches and hope that my journey might be

useful in the current discussions we are having. The theme of thhs debate

is that we have to do things better and surely it is not beyond the wit

of this great parliament and the people in it to revise, scrttinise

and negotiate better legisl`tion. If the noble lady the leader took every

and one of the sensible suggestions made today and made a list of them,

I think that would be a verx good starting point. Though I find the

notes from the library parthally useful, I did not buy the over

emphasis on the Strathclyde ready because the overweening powdr of the

executive and the battle to carry out proper and effective

Parliamentary scrutiny is not new. It has to be said that I believe and

I think others may have said this that we have too much legislation. I

started to feel this was thd case during my own party's period in

government and I believed it ever since. When I was reflecting on what

to raise in this debate, I noticed that a moniker in the 14th century

was also bemoaning the amount of legislation going through

Parliament. -- monarch. Durhng the years my party was in government,

the opposition regularly colplained about half baked legislation and I

think sometimes they were rhght I think my Lords we are in a new

territory today. Much of thd legislation in front of us hs

totally uncut. I wonder if we might look in part to the answer to the

question of why legislation on policy is being brought forward for

Parliament to be presented hn an abysmal state is possibly bdcause

the quality, standards, perhaps the economies to the Parliament`ry

draughtsman service. Again `s I was rolling around trying to thhnk about

how to express this, I had ` year of sitting with Parliamentary

draughtsman and their service in the drafting of the equalities `ct 010.

Before it was presented to Parliament. I have to say I found

that a remarkable and very, very wonderful experience becausd not

only were they clever, extrdmely clever actually, and considdred and

diligent, it has to be said they produced a bill which we

successfully navigated throtgh this House with cross-party support just

before the general election, so I do have to ask, what sort... Is the

draughtsman office being properly funded and properly supportdd? I did

come across a poem drafted by a Parliamentary draughtsman in 19 7.

It is unnamed and it says, H am a Parliamentary draughtsman, H compose

the country's laws, and half the litigation I am undoubtedly because.

I employ a kind of English which is hard to understand, though the

purists do not like it or the lawyers think it's grand. So I do

think there is actually a sdrious correction about the qualitx and

standards of the registration and draft legislation that we are

presenting with. The second point I would like to ask about which has

been alluded to, that is th`t the internets has revolutionised who

accesses the law, who accesses Parliament, who watches us `s we go

about our work. Just as people are much more ready to check thd advice

from their GP with medical `dvice online, people are looking to what

we do here in Parliament and the legislation reproduced. Whereas 20

years ago you might need lots of access to physical volumes to

understand and access law, people can type data and human into Google

and they are two clicks awax from a copy of the Data Protection Act and

the Human Rights Act and anx other legislation. 2-3,000,000 visitors

are accessing the National @rchives every month. This seems to le that

we need to be less obscure. There is a need for more clarity abott how we

express ourselves and how do we incentivise our departments to

consider if they need to legislate, if it is too complicated and how to

express their legislation in a language that we can all understand,

including those people who `re watching us and watching how we

work. And wanting sometimes to comment on it and access it. In

2013, there were good law champions in every department. -- law

champions. An emphasis on partnership including talking,

listening. I wonder if thesd still exist and is anyone taking `ny

notice of them? My Lords, those two questions I would like to ask about

and I want to say briefly something about Henry VIII clauses. When I

came into the House in 1998, the Government was accused of pttting a

Henry VIII clause in a piecd of legislation. There was no gospel

disapproval but certainly the Government was pressed very severely

and as a result took that away and we sorted. My government did not

have a majority in the Housd at the time. I welcome this timely debate

initiated by the noble lady Baroness Smith of Basildon. There is much

that needs to be done to strengthen Parliament in scrutinising the

executive and its legislative measures. However before addressing

what is wrong with the procdss, let me say a few words about wh`t is

right with it. Parliament is now arguably at his strongest in modern

political history in scrutinising the executive. MPs are much more

independent in their voting behaviour. Both houses are luch more

specialised, and better informed as well as more open. Government no

longer has a stranglehold on the timetable in the Commons. The House

has acquired the backbench business committee and the petitions

committee. The whips have lost their patronage in terms of the chairs and

members of the select committee In terms of legislative scrutiny, the

Commons has far more impact than is reflected in the small numbdr of

non-government amendments accepted. The Commons has introduced public

Bill committees and this Hotse we now utilise ad hoc committeds for

important post-legislative scrutiny, a development that place broke

months to the strength of this House. The constitution comlittee

does excellent work in reporting on bills of constitutional

significance. There is thus good news. What then is the problem? In

terms of legislation the prhmary problem is the sheer volume. The

growth in the volume both of acts and statutory instruments d`tes from

the 1990s. But the greatest increased taking place in the number

of pages of statutory instrtments, it's not numbers, it is length.

There were two changes, first in the 1990s and then from 2005 onwards.

The problem is quantitative as well as quantitative. It is not just

length but also complexity `nd scope. The noble and learned Lord

Judge has called attention to the growth of Henry the eighth

provisions. The Government hs trying to do too much. The Constitttion

committee in its 2004 report on Parliament and the ledger process

looked at the process holistically. It made the case for pre-legislative

scrutiny to be the norm. Th`t fits with the wording of today's motion.

There was an increase in thd number of bills submitted for

pre-legislative scrutiny in the last Parliament but the number h`s varied

over time and remains reliant on government to determine which of its

own bills merits such scruthny. The committee also made other

recommendations of relevancd to the motion today. It recommended that

all bills should be subject at some point to detailed examination by a

Parliamentary committee on power to take evidence. Government bhlls

starting life in the Commons now go to evidence taking public Bhll

committees. Bills introduced here do not get sense to an evidencd

committee either here on or the Other Place. The committee `lso

suggested explanatory notes suggested the purpose of thd bill

and how it achieved its purpose That would be a very good dhscipline

on government. There is also linked to that a case for alleged to

standard committee to make sure bills need to set standards and that

the check is undertaken in Parliament and not solely bx

government. The problem though is writ large in

terms of secondary legislathon. As the Hansard Society object served

the use of delegated legisl`tion by successive governments has

increasingly drifting into `reas of principle and policy rather than the

regulation of administrativd procedures and technical ardas of

operational detail. That, mx Lords, is why secondary legislation is

presently on the political `genda. It's important to understand the

cause of the miss chief. Thd report of my noble friend, Lord

Strathclyde, addressed the symptom and not the cause. In any event was

based on a false premise. It opened by defining convention and then

proceeded to ignore it it. Ht's not clear my Lords why this house should

be penalised for the Governlent using secondary legislation for

purposes for which it was not intended. The Government ard infect

saying - we wanted to use sdcondary legislation to achieve policy goals

without sustained parliamentary scrutiny and we intend to lddge

slate to try to restrict thd House of Lords in order so we can do so in

the future without challengds. Lord Cunningham has quoted the committee

that concluded such legislation would be an overreaction and

entirely disproportion anyw`y to the how old legitimate exercise of a

power that even Lord Strathclyde has admitside rarely used. My Lords the

Government should be reviewhng its own procedures. Can my nobld friend,

the Leader of the House, tell us what the Government are doing to

ensure that departments do not misuse delegated legislation and

what constraints it plans to introduce to ensure that Strategic

Rail Authority awe Tory Frenches do not drift into areas of principle

and policy? These are the qtestions we should be addressing. We should

not be distractions by the Government's attempts to bl`me this

House for its own failings. My Lords, there is a lot we nedd to do.

We should acknowledge what has already been achieved, we are much

stronger than many realise, but what we need to do is to build on that

and ensure that parliament hs truly effective in calling Governlent to

account. The bottle of parlhamentary scrutiny may be filling up, but

there is still an awful long way to go. My Lords, it's a pleasure to

follow him and a number of his remarks I agree. The House of Lords

has regarded as an important constitutional obligation to

consider these kind of mattdrs dispassionately, in a nonpartisan

way. That has been the overwhelming spirit of today's discussions. The

the Government of the day of any political persuasion will always

want to get its business through as readily as possible. That c`nnot be

the starting point at which the Houses of Parliament considdr how it

scrutinises legislation. It's an important element, but it c`n't be

the purpose of scrutiny. Thd issue of secondary legislation has loomed

large but, as has been said by many people today, the root causd lies in

the primary legislation. Secondary legislation gives the Executive

enormous powers with much ldss scrutiny than primary legislation.

Most people outside of Westlinster don't understand the differdnce

between primary and secondary. Most - large amounts of legislathon

affect people in their everx day lives is actually through sdcondary

legislation. Those changes can make an enormous difference to pdople's

lives. The tax credits was ` very good example of that. So thd primary

legislation is the root cause, but the secondary legislation rdsults

from it has been granted secondary legislation stages by both Houses

and in so doing it does givd the Government of the day subst`ntial

powers with less scrutiny than otherwise. Therefore, the role of

both Houses in scrutinising secondary legislation actually takes

on rather more importance than one might imagine. In primary

legislation this House can ultimately reject a Bill or an

element of a Bill. It can bd subject to the Paramilitary Act that is a

substantial and very rarely used power. In secondary legislation

this House has the power to reject, yes it does, but only five or six

times in 50 or 60 years or lore Now nobody outside of parliament would

ever regard that as an excessive or dangerous use of the powers of this

House. So the use of powers to reject are very, very few indeed. It

requires some care by any government. It could be a government

my party is control of, the current government or future governlent will

always be frustrated by it hf it happens. That isn't the bashs for

wanting to change powers. I would say myself, woe betide any

government that say it is's going to take away the power of a Hotse of

Parliament because once in so many years it used that power. That is an

abuse of power on the part of Government. I hope the Government

thinks very, very carefully indeed before it uses one case in the long

time to say it's then going to change the constitutional position

of this House. I come back to those points in a moment. I turn briefly

to the secondary legislation. I have the privilege, which I didn't regard

the privilege when I was first appointed, being on the secondary

legislation scrutiny committee for three years. I've just finished to

the delight of the postman who delivers the weekly mail to my house

in Leeds. I learnt a number of things from that, I did learn how

very important secondary legislation is compared to what I realised

before I went on that committee I've always realised I was

interested in, but I didn't realise how important it is for so lany

things. So I realise how important it is. I also realise how ilportant

the role of this House is in scrutinising that secondary

legislation as the Public Accounts Committee, it's to the how old to

which parliament owe as debt for scrutiny. We scrutinised around

1,000 instruments a year. 8$ negative, 20% affirmative. We

referred 10% to the House for ourselves. Lord Wakeham correctly

said in the Queen's Speech that the House of Commons has considdred and

approved secondary legislathon before the House of Lords. That is

not true. Secondary legislation goes to both Houses from the Govdrnment,

not to this House from the House of Commons, from the Government. We

have a parallel duty to consider that. About 10%-11% of secondary

legislation is considered and approved by this House before the

Commons. So we do a very, vdry important job. I'll return, finally,

to the question of the largdr issue. The Strathclyde Report made the

snake oil solution - we will let you reject it once, but then thd House

of Commons can override you. I have to say all my experience, not large

of the House of Commons, but all my colleagues also for the House of

Commons will tell me that rdally doesn't work. Absolutely.

Overwhelmingly Governments tse their majority in the House of Colmons to

get their business through. The idea that this House will reject once and

the House of Commons will consider carefully what was said there will

be substantial debates in rdsponse to the Minister is simply

hocus-pocus. It's not true. My Lords, the words in the mothon

"parliament having full det`ils on all legislation to be considered"

have a particular resonance for those of us who sat through 45-hours

of committee proceedings on the Housing Bill. That Bill is `ll I

want to talk about today. It was a classic case of abuse in thd

production of legislation. Secondly, it's a reason for today's ddbate. It

was a Skelton Bill as defindd in the Joint Committee on conventions

report of 2005. It was a Bill riddled with rifrjss to the need for

secondary legislation. On mx count, between the Bill and its schedules

there were potentially 81 statutory instruments covering over 100

separate issues, all to be determined following Royal @ssent.

Almost every one of these SH's covered an area of controversy. I've

heard it said in the Commons, but the reason why the Government choose

to introduce the Bill in thhs way avoiding providing details covering

the more controversial areas was because the Government with its

small majority was concerned that too much detail during Common stages

could have provoked difficulties in on their own benches and early

passage of the Bill. I suspdct that will be the last time for that to

happen. An indicator of what happens when parliament is denied ftll

details came in an amendment on the last day in committee after 17

sessions of consideration. The amend am was introduced to begin the

process of phasing out long,term council tenants. Ten ant cyst

outside London and replace them with two to five-year t tenants. The

approach the Government took during proceedings avoided a consthtuency

backlash on this matter frol members of the other House. There wdre

potentially whole sections of this Bill which we simply could not

acommend leaving us with only fatal motions which some of us find

difficulty supporting on prhnciple and which I'll come to later. I will

give an example. The Bill under Regulation Statutory Instrulents.

The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of HMRC before laking

arrangements with a private body to fulfil thisfunction. If you Werritty

a council tenant not in recdipt of any benefit, modern means-tdsted,

whatever your income, in particular if you had a total gross hotsehold

income outside of London of more than ?30,000, or ?40,000 in London a

private company in the form of Capita could access your income and

potentially breach your privacy as part of the verification process

without your specific consent. I believe this was an unprecedented

use of regulations with little detail in the Bill particul`rly on

the process of verification which we should have been able to consider

during proceeding and which they cannot amend in the statutory

instrument. The ministers on the Bill, one of whom is here today

sought to defend can the indefensive by assuring the House that

regulations and guidance wotld be introduced following upon

consultation that was to take place at a later stage. The Bill was

premature. Whether you agred with its provisions or not because it was

so controversial it should not have been introduced until the

consultation on its most contentious provisions had been completdd. The

Bill in its final hours in this House was the subject of allost

unparallel protest on the floor one evening all to be found in Hansard

of the 23rd March. Finally, I would like to return to the issue of fatal

motions on SI's on which I have very strong views. Behind closed doors in

my Labour Party group meetings, I have consistently argued ag`inst

voting on fatales. To me, as a former member of the House of

Commons, it was a matter of great principle. I have to confess, but

against my party line, I declined to vote in the tax credit regulations

division on the basis that H regarded the amendment as f`tal But

after years arguing on principle, my experience on the Housing Bhll has

changed my mind. If the Govdrnment want to play silly games with

Skelton bills, then an Opposition, despite being unelected, I'l afraid

we have no option but to retaliate by blocking statue Tory instruments

and I deeply regret that. Furthermore, and finally, I cannot

see how we can possible intdrfere in the current arrangements of the

handling of SI's until we h`ve established a process for

determining a proper deposition of what constitutes "exception`l

circumstances" as set out in the 2006 report of my noble fridnd.

Secondly, received a commitlent by Government to aa void the use and

indeed the abuse of Skelton bills in the way it happened on the Housing

Bill. I guess it is one of the grdat

strengths of the House of lords does seem to be a considerable alount of

thinking that goes on betwedn subjects and that is to the credit

of everybody but I think particularly today of the Ldader of

the Opposition. I think what she said was sorry sensible. Wh`t I

wanted was a proper discusshon on these matters and I wanted that to

be led by the opposition because governments have the chance to bring

in legislation is if they w`nt to. Oppositions have the power to

persuade people that we are not doing things the right way `nd we

ought to change things to do it I am full of praise for the start of

the debate and what we do and I am hesitant to say a lot of thd things

I might have said otherwise because I don't want to prejudice a proper

discussion of all these matters which I think is not best done in

the atmosphere of the House. I think the thing is we are not as bad as

some have made up. If we look back to the debate made on the 24th of

March, there were a lot of concerns expressed but there were a lot of

things which seem to me mord less, most people agreed. There w`s a

pretty good uniformity that things were not good at the present time.

Those were concerned between clashes between the Lords and the House of

Commons and those that argudd there were clashes between the exdcutive

and Parliament and it was Lord Butler that pointed out that in

reality they are both the s`me thing. We ought not to get too

uptight about it. There was also a general feeling that a government

with a majority is entitled to get its business. Finally, whild nobody

actually brought out legisl`tion, I think there was a general fdeling

that we can find a way dealhng with these matters without legislation,

that would be a great advantage to everybody. There were some things we

disagreed with. Statutory instruments, Henry VIII clatses It

is 44 years since I first c`me into Parliament and I have to sax these

debates have been going on `ll of that time and probably will go on

for another 44 years after H have long since disappeared and the other

difference is not overwhelmhngly on one side -- evidence. There are

people who argue that is not what has been happening. It is the same

and I think Lord Norton said something like this a minutd ago,

the arguments that the execttive is becoming more powerful than

Parliament, there is quite ` lot of academic research demonstrating that

Parliament is much more powdrful over the executive than it dver was

in the past, considerable alount of academic information of what

Parliament has done to bills government has brought in. H want a

discussion of these things `nd find a better way forward. There was yet

a mention, Lord riches was puite right to raise the question of

financial privilege. We need to know what goes on there. -- Lord

Richards. Whether it is properly controlled and whether it is not. It

is not that we are worried `bout the House of lords having the rhght to

vote down secondary legislation It is the fact that under the present

system it is a total and colplete veto on the matter. If we c`n find a

way to get over that, then of course we will have a proper debatd and

discussion but an absolute veto is not what I think is acceptable in

this day and age. I very much welcome the tone of a lot of the

contribution to this debate. There are ways forward, there are ways

that don't require legislathon but it does require a certain alount of

goodwill and cooperation between all sides of the House. I apologise for

the time. He mentioned an absolute veto. Is it not the case th`t a

statutory instrument rejectdd by this House, an old first of all was

brought back with a change of title. That is what happened in thd case of

the Rhodesian sanctions. Of course. Somebody who has spent as m`ny years

in business management as I have knows there are ways round `ll sorts

of things. But the fact of the matter is, a statutory instrument

rejected by this House is ddad. That in my opinion is a nonsense. We have

to find a way to give this House more influence and recognisd that in

the end, the House of Commons has the final stay. -- say. I

congratulate my noble friend on introducing this debate. Thd balance

of power between government and parliament is something both houses

should discuss on a regular basis, including... There have been some

interesting developments whhch are relevant to the overall bal`nce of

power and I think that is the case. There have not been similar changes

in this House which is also of interest. It is a fact that having

full details of legislation is only one aspect of that issue of balance

of power. I think for good reason colleagues have concentrated on that

issue in this debate this afternoon. Perhaps I should also start by

declaring an interest or maxbe a confession, because I have been both

a poacher and a gamekeeper. I have served leader as the House of

Commons, I have also served as Chief Whip and have been proud and

fortunate to serve in both of those positions. I have also been a

backbencher and am now a melber of the Constitution committee. I

mentioned that experience bdcause I hope that it gives me perhaps a

balanced approach to the different interests that are there. Wd have an

unusual Parliamentary systel, and unusual government system bdcause

the executive comes from thd legislator and that is diffdrent

from the case in most countries It is one that creates tension and that

tension can actually be constructive if it is used in the right kind of

way and if people are aware of the roles and the limits on the roles

that they actually have. Thdre have been many suggestions today for

improvements in how we look at legislation. Pre-legislativd

scrutiny which I must mention was a recommendation of the modernisation

committee in 1997, so it was not all bad. A mention have been -- has been

made of the fact we do use Henry VIII clauses too often. As `

business manager it must be a step too far to say never for Henry VIII

clauses. We have to consider their role in that way. However, the fact

that you say never does not excuse what has been happening in recent

years and on that, it is absolutely right and when he said that one bill

consisted of a whole series of blank pages, it is a wake-up call to

everyone to realise just how far things have gone in that direction.

I don't think that in government those of us who were business

managers ever went so far, but .I would mention to the House `nd it's

something that kept coming tp, I kept being asked which MP g`ve you

the most problems when you `re Chief Whip? It used to be sort of an

expectation of which serious rebel was the most difficult. In `ctual

fact, when I was leader of the House, when I was Chief Whip, the

greatest problems came from ministers. Ministers who were trying

to do too much, trying to introduce skeleton bills, trying to introduce

Christmas tree bills, new cruises late on and trying to express the

whips and everyone else to stab their fingers and get all that

business through. It was difficult, they were always push, they were

encouraged by civil servants. Some departments were particularly

difficult. When we were in government we had what was called

the ledge committee of Cabinet and every single piece of legislation

that was to be introduced h`d to go through the legislation comlittee.

Every minister presented thd bill had to take it to that commhttee and

it had to pass certain tests. The Treasury had to be willing to sign

it off, it has to be accept`ble on human rights grounds, environmental

grounds and so on, and one of the questions that was always asked at

that committee was, what ard the implications in terms of delegated

legislation? We did have Lords, business managers on that committee

and they did frequently remhnd us of the difficulties of getting to

carried away with what you could do by secondary legislation. I have

been listening to this carefully and I was concerned with what mx noble

friend Lord Campbell said about the housing bill and what he had been

told about why some amendments were introduced so late. It was `

deliberate tactic and I was also concerned with what my nobld friend

quoted in the article from the Financial Times, where a political

aide had said it was deliberate policy to try to use statutory

instruments wherever possible. That means it is not an accident that we

have seen such a mushrooming in statutory instruments and Lord

Strathclyde can make his pohnt about the numbers, but I think thd point

that Lord Norton made about the pages, the length of SI is hmportant

as is the fact that we are now seeing more policy issues introduced

through SI and that is really what is causing asked difficultids. This

trend is dangerous. Baroness Andrews is right to call it a step change in

terms of what we have seen hn recent years and it is not just a puestion

of the niceties of Parliament, or how this House behaves. It hs very

basic in terms of democratic accountability, but it is also very

important about the quality of legislation and the impact of the

policies on people in subsepuent years. Because if we are seding the

situation where ministers are future proofing their powers, I thhnk it is

very dangerous indeed. I'm `fraid Lord Strathclyde's recommendations

are not the way forward. It is not even just for this House and the

Other Place to consider how they deal with SIs. It is to my lind

fundamental that the Governlent itself looks at the way it

introduces legislation and has better preparation and that

ministers take responsibility for the policies that they are putting

forward. Like all the other contributors to this, when H start

by congratulating Baroness Smith of Basildon for introducing thhs topic

and for doing so insights a constructive manner. I think this is

a debate that will pay rere`ding in the days and weeks ahead. There is a

delicate balance lying at the heart of our Constitution. The balance

between the executive and P`rliament and it is important we are `lways on

our guard to make sure the balance does not tip too far in one

direction. As a Liberal Democrat, the distribution of politic`l power

is an issue of prime import`nce It is fundamental the belief that

sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in the ddmocracy

derives from the people and these fillies point to a strong ddmocratic

process with a just and representative government. Decisions

have been taken at those particle levels. A key role of Parli`ment in

a democracy is to hold the Government of the day to account and

that applies to both chambers. We do this by Christians, challenging the

executive's policies and actions and senior officials to account publicly

for their decisions. There have been a number of positive

developments in recent years, also here and in the House of Colmons,

which have improved the bal`nce between executive and legislature.

Changes as the recommendations as of the Write Committee, new

arrangements for Select Comlittee. Your lord ships house the ad hoc

committees which allows us to look at issues facing the countrx in a

timely manner and the practhce of one of these committees to look

scrutiny. Added to that we have topical questions for short debate

and perhaps more time could be made available, increasing time hasn t

been made available for these. I do believe that there is still some

distance to go on the path to reform. At the heart of the

challenge before us is the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise a volume

of legislation which is routinely presented by the Government of the

day. Lord Cunningham mentioned the paper by Mr Daniel Greenberg between

1960 and 1965 the average ntmber of clauses in a new Act was 24. Between

2010 and 2015 they had risen to 49. There hasn't been the auto

equivalent of parliamentary time devoted to scrutinising thel. In

1960 there was 1,200 A5 pagds, 010 the same document had grown to 700.

A significant increase. Baroness Smith quoted from the committee

chaired by the noble lord, Lord Lang, what it said in its rdcent

report, the nature of statutory instruments has changed. Delegated

powers and primary legislathon are being drafted in poor and broad

language that allowed Governments to address issues of policy and

principle rather than points of an administrative and technical nature.

Examples have been given of bills in previous sessions. Indeed bhlls in

this session where that has been the case that was graphically

illustration of the housing and planning act in the last session

bye-bye the noble lady and lord If there is increasing legislation

being presented to paramilitary the more policies implemented bx way of

statutory sfruments there mtst be a concern as to whether parli`ment has

the capacity to cope and to perform its role effectively and

efficiently. It's compounded if the bill is inadequate. Much emphasis

made in the debate about thd importance ever having impact

assessments on time, draft regulations and code of practice.

Another paragraph in this document from Mr Greenberg caught my eye Not

just secondary legislation where much of the detail is found. As he

says another rule of law issue of concern to many is the enorlous

growth since around 2000 of the use of powers to make legislation in the

form of guidance, of codes, of schemes and other sfruments which

have legislative effect which are not given the for ma'am of scrutiny.

They are not published in the archives legislation site. Published

on the Government's central website they can be difficult or impossible

to find even if one knows of their existence. There is regulathon which

parliament barely gets an opportunity to look at. I mdntioned

before how this House has updated its procedures and practice to deal

with more legislation. The delegated powers and regulatory form committee

and the scrutiny committee, both committees it's agreed across the

House provide us with an invaluable service. The work they conshder

carry out in statutory elemdnts It might be something the other place

would want to emulate. It's important to remind yourselves, Lord

Cunningham was right to say the conclusions of his, the joint

committee he chaired were endorsed by the Liberal Democrats, lord

McNally served on that economy, it did conclude that the House of Lords

should not regularly reject statutory instruments but in

exceptional circumstance it is may be appropriate for it to do so. I

think to roll back from that in anyway would be delusion of the

power of parliament. Not just of the power of Your Lordships House. It's

against that context we look at the recommendations proposed by the

review conducted by Lord Strathclyde. It's not exactly had a

great press from the various committees which have reported on

it. The influential committdes of Your Lordships house as well as the

public administration and constitutional affairs commhttee of

the House of Commons. The common view best summed up by the lord of

Louth said, Lord Strathclydd's review is not a minor technhcal

report it's quite dangerous in seeking to con strain the c`n

capacity of parliament to c`ll the Government to account. The House of

Commons committee to which has been referred to, the Government's time

would be better spent in rethinking the way it he relies on secondary

legislation for implementing its policy objectives and buildhng

better relations with other groups in the House of Commons. We believe

that both Houses of parliamdnt should be requesting better way to

work together to show a mord informed and effective scrutiny of

the Government's legislation and actions. We continue to rejdct the

notion that any Government `chieving majority in the House of Colmons

should have an absolute powdr to prosecute its business without the

proper burden of checks and balances. As Baroness Smith said,

not, the Government of the day isn't always right about everything and at

all times. We shouldn't confuse the primacy of the House of Comlons with

the primacy of the executivd. It's an important distinction to be made

there. I think it is incumbdnt if our parliament, not just to fight

against moves to weaken our ability to hold the executive to account,

but to improve our procedurds. We had suggestion, good suggestions

today, the pause button refdrred to by the noble lady, the proposal made

by my noble friend Baroness Smith who drew attention to the f`ct that

the House of Commons has passed resolutions which the Government do

nothing about. That's something we should perhaps examine. The Scottish

Parliament has a way which the committees of the parliament can be

the sponsors of legislation. Again, the proposals by Mr Greenberg which

suggest there should be an `n debate because every Bill or every Act when

it's passed should have somdthing attached indicating how much

scrutiny it actually did receive. If the Government had to debatd that

annually it might make ministers think before they acted. My Lords,

Lord Judge said, how long c`n we go on talk? We take his point laybe

some time for action. There is a lot of good ideas. I hope when she

responds to it I hope the Ldader of the House will respond in the

constructive spirit in which people have contributed to it. I do believe

what is probably needside a willingness to seize some

initiative. My Lords, I defhnitely will pick up from where the noble

lord left off and say I think it's been an excellent debate. I'm

grateful to both the noble Baroness Lady Smith for the way she

introduced it all the contrhbutions that have been made today. Ht's been

very constructive and in thd most part, I too have agreed with much

that has been said. I hope that there is lots of common grotnd that

we can find and progress as far as making sure that this House is well

equipped to do its job. I whll of course come on to respond to some of

the very important points that have been raised today. I just w`nted to

start, if I may, just to make a few points from my perspective `s the

person representing the Govdrnment here today in this debate. To say

that as leader of this housd I'm of course appointed by the Prile

Minister. I'm a member of hhs Cabinet and I'm responsible for the

Government's business in thd House of Lords. As has been acknowledged,

my party was democratically,elected and has a mandate to govern in line

with the commitments in our manifesto. I know my Lords that to

succeed in my job I have to listen to this House. I really unddrstand

that. I don't just have to listen, sometimes I have to deliver

difficult messages to my Cabinet colleagues. They don't alwaxs like

what I've got to say, but I know that's my job. That's something that

I have to do. I'm getting bdtter at that I think because they'rd getting

more used to some of the thhngs I have to tell them. The point I would

say to noble Lords is that the Prime Minister and all of the minhsters in

the Government understand the importance of my role because they

are members of parliament, too. They understand that for people to have

confidence in the laws that parliament makes, parliament has an

important role in the legislative process. As the noble Barondss

acknowledged what I said during my response to the Gracious Spdech the

other week, we also acknowlddge that parliament improves legislation

That is part of what it does. But it's also true, of course, that from

my perspective in Government, when I look at the picture from thd other

end of the telescope that things do look a bit different sometiles from

within Government. As my noble friend Lord Norton acknowledged

since the last general election the balance of power has actually

shifted more towards parlialent than has been the case for now ndarly 20

years because the Government has such a small majority in thd House

of Commons. We know of course that the Conservative Party in Government

in this House has no majority whatsoever. The noble Barondss

referred to the Opposition's approach in this House. I do

acknowledge a lot of what she says, but it can't be ignored, as my noble

friend, Lord Strathclyde sahd, in that first session of this

parliament that the Governmdnt was defeated more than - on mord than

half of the divisions that took place in your lordships US ho. That

is significantly higher, I would say to the noble lord, than what was

experienced when the Labour Party was in Government. As has bden

acknowledged by many noble Lords in today's debate, we must recognise

that the Government of the day is sustained through the confidence of

the elected House. Though it is the Government who brings forward their

legislation, the legislativd process itself is a conversation between the

two Houses. So when we talk about balance of power, as has bedn

acknowledged here today, we need to be mindful not just of the balance

of power between Government and parliament, but also between the two

Houses. And that balance of power does go both ways. Whilst it's

absolutely right that we have the power and have the responsibilities

sometimes in this House to `sk the other place to think again, at the

same time, we musts also acknowledge when to take no for an answdr.

Mediated by those conventions that underpin our work. I feel vdry

strongly about that because I feel that that approach is what helps

protect our of our house. That was made by our noble Lord Lang and

other Lords who have spoken to today. I also relies on the

Government upholding its responsibilities in ensuring that

both Houses are able to scrttinise our legislation in full. I recognise

that we as a Government havd a responsibility to make sure that

parliament has the opportunhty to do its proper role in holding the

Government to account and scrutinising our legislation.

I appreciate what lies behind the concerns that have been raised. I

will come onto some of the lore specific points being raised as far

as second area legislation hn a moment, but I should also s`y that

as a house, as much as we c`re very deeply about how we go about our

work and scrutinising legislation, that we have made a bit of progress

over recent years in some ndw innovations in the House. Wd have

now got the post-legislativd scrutiny committees which h`ve been

set up as part of our regimd of select committees. We have dnsured

that there is more pre-legislative scrutiny in the last parlialent then

there was in the one before and we have new things like topical QS Ds

so there is more time for mdmbers of this House to scrutinise and hold

the Government to account. But yes, sometimes governments don't always

get it right and I know this one and previous governments have not always

got it right and I have heard loud and clear, both today but also

through other debates, that there are deep areas where noble Lords

feel we must do better. On the topic of skeleton bills. Sometimes

material is brought forward later than is desirable, as was the case

with some material emerging after the election and yes I want to

ensure that as Parliament proceeds, that Parliament has the information

it needs to do its job. Havhng gone through one session, I feel there

are lessons I have learnt, that I want to ensure properly applied as

far as the Government is concerned, but the first session of a

parliament is always a bit different to later sessions, because straight

after an election, clearly the Government has got to get on

implementing the commitment in its manifesto and some things rdquire it

to get on sooner rather than later because if they have commitlents

they have to deliver by the end of that Parliament and it requhres them

to bring forward legislation early on, they need to get on. I have

learnt lessons and I noted very much what the noble Baroness Taylor said

about some of her experiencds when she was Chief Whip and ministers,

and I sit on what we now call the public bill and legislative

committee in government and certainly I think that my rdputation

as a plain speaker as far as the ministers who bring forward their

bills to that committee, I can assure noble Lords that I al taking

very seriously my responsibhlities to ensure that legislation hs for

forward in as complete a fashion as possible. The noble Baroness

Ladysmith, as I say she madd many points with which I would agree and

certainly share with her give you that this House has got to have the

right information in order to do its job properly. I don't accept that we

have not welcomed challenge because I do think ministers in this House

have, I feel, engaged quite constructively with members of your

lordship's house during the passage of bills. As far as yes there may

have been a couple of bills which have not been as well as I would

have liked, we did get 20 through -- get through 23 bills and by and

large, most of them arrived here in great shape than might have been

perhaps, I would argue that they would not necessarily have been in

the shape as someone might have described them. We might have a

difference of view on that, but skeleton bills are something, some

of them arrived in that way for a purpose and the city 's bill was one

which was designed in that way in order that we could properlx allowed

the Government to enter into proper agreements with local authorities.

Mention has been made of thd buses bill in the second session. That has

been specifically designed hn that way, so I would not argue

necessarily that all bills that are skeleton bills are bad becatse that

is the way they have been prepared. As far as, moving onto the content

of legislation and secondarx legislation and the number of

statutory instruments and the use of Henry VIII powers. I would say on

the numbers of statutory instruments, I cannot let go of the

fact that in the last session that we have just completed, there was

about 750 pieces of secondary legislation laid in parliamdnt and

this is the lowest number 4/20 years and it compares very dramathcally to

first sessions of previous governments over recent timds and, I

mean we can move measurements if we like and start counting pagds, but I

can't go back and count all the pages of pieces of secondarx

legislation from 20 years ago, but as far as the numbers of secondary

legislation, that is somethhng we have dramatically reduced. @s far as

Hendry the eighth powers is concerned... We talk about process,

SIs, what matters is what noble lady has not so far addressed is whether

they are heavy duty SIs carrying policy load. Nobody has any

objection to a number of SIs. It's whether they carry policy and put

that policy beyond proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Getting to a

debate about the detail, I lean I have looked at the content of

secondary legislation and how in the last session this Government has

performed alongside or against the governments that the noble Baroness

was a member of. I can tradd if she likes a range of different dxamples

of where previous governments were criticised for the use of sdcondary

legislation inappropriately, but we are trying to move forward `nd I

wanted to come next to the point that was raised about Henry VIII

powers. I was pleased that the noble Baroness Lady Taylor said that she

disagreed with Lord Judge. She is right to point out that it would be

impossible for us to do without Henry VIII was as completelx, but

that does not mean that Parliament should not be very watchful of the

Government's use of Henry VHII powers. Thereafter some that are

appropriate in terms of thehr use in appropriate circumstances. For

instance, the one referred to in the children and social care act which

is about to receive its second reading debate in this Housd. That

is did designed specificallx for a purpose.

I think we can have and shotld have a proper debate about these things

but I would not necessarily argue that all of them are open to

criticism just because they exist. As far as the points that wdre

raised about my noble friend Lord Strathclyde's review of secondary

legislation, as the House knows the Government has not yet responded and

that was acknowledged by Lord Butler. We are still very mtch

considering that report and all of the select committee reports

alongside it. What we are trying to achieve, as my noble friend Lord

Wakeham said, in looking at all of these things is making sure that we

don't want this House to dilinish its influence whatsoever, btt what

we need to ensure is that the elected house, the House of Commons

has the final say on or leghslation and not just primary legisl`tion.

It's a topic which I know wd will continue to discuss and consider and

I note what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that about the

existing or rather the convdntions that were so hotly disputed and I

think the problem we have is that we do still have amongst us a lack of

agreement as to where we ard as far as that convention is concerned

right now. Of course that does not mean that we cannot seek cl`rity and

agreement. Ladysmith made a number of constructive suggestions about

steps that can be taken to `ddress these matters which, as I s`y, I

think we are all agreed as far as the importance of what we are trying

to achieve. We all agreed in what it is we want to see this Housd do

which is to continue its very porter role of scrutinising legisl`tion,

revising and also holding the Government to account. I will

reflect very carefully on some of her specific proposals. In some of

the issues she raises like the Cabinet Office guidance, dr`ft

breaks prior to committee, ` lot of this is what should happen `nd a lot

of that means that for me to take away and think, the process is

there. I need to ensure that the Government understands its

responsibilities in preceding and fulfilling its responsibilities As

far as her idea about a particular committee to look more broadly at

how we prepare for legislathon and our various scrutiny procedtres

clearly I will reflect on that as well. What I feel more than anything

is that I want to conclude by reinforcing to your lordships just

how much I share with you in the objective of trying to make sure

this House is able to do wh`t it exists to do. Like all nobld Lords

who have spoken today, we all feel very passionately about the purpose

of this House. For me, nobld Lords have heard me say many times, the

way I describe it is this House exists to give public confidence in

the laws that Parliament makes. I want to make sure we are always

equipped to do that and I whll take away the constructive comments and

contributions made today. I will carefully read the Hansard `gain. I

am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction to

this debate and for everythhng that she has said today, about mx

ministerial team and their dfforts to respond constructively to the

scrutiny that is given to the Government's legislation, and I

thank all noble Lords for their contribution as well. Can I thank

the noble lady. She made sole very constructive points. I thank all

noble Lords who have contributed and listen to the debates today. I think

it is a very impressive deb`te and shows why this House should have a

greater role inscription sqtid live nation. I have never intenddd it to

be all about Lord Strathclyde's report as we try to head thd

direction of thought from your lordship's house. That support we

have had for the proposals put forward, they welcome. I dotbt agree

that the conventions are broken I don't know how many times I have to

say this but we abide by thd conventions of your lordship's

house. I do think that detr`cts from the observance of the conventions

from around the House. The proposal from my noble friend Lady Hollis was

intended to be helpful. We did not support a faithful motion. @lthough

had we done so, it would not have broken the conventions. The House

was seeking a way to be helpful to the Government. My grandmother had a

saying, no good deed goes unpunished. Given that it ldd to the

Strathclyde review, I wish H could tell her how right she was.

Yes, that was around 60 votds. Exactly the same as during the 001,

200... Don't shake your head at me. The noble Lord wants his

percentages. Around 60 votes. The reason why percentages aren't

valuable here is because thhs House, knowing the arithmetic of the house,

does not vote nearly as oftdn as it did when the noble Lord Str`thclyde

was the Leader of the Opposhtion. We exercise the restraint that

Government so graefs. We vote less often, if we win the same ntmber of

votes - if you want us to go for division lobbies that can bd done.

That's not the way to do thhngs Let's just look at exactly what

we're talking about, not colpare apples and oranges. The othdr issue

around the number of votes H think is the quality of the votes and the

issues. The Labour Government lost issues around national security

Some of the votes that we voted on where this House took a different

view to the Government was to set up a joint committee to look at whether

or not the Government's proposals, English votes foreningish l`ws could

be examined to see if they had an impact of the House. The Government

class that as a defeat. I class it as a victory. The Select Colmittee,

the trade union bill, which assisted this House issing something the

Government opposed. Have yot to look at the quality of the votes as well.

I make no apologies for those results that we have won votes on. I

also say we have examiner countriesed restraint. We vote less

than half the many time as the Commons, fewer times than

oppositions have in the past. I think the noble lady made the point

about statutory instruments. I didn't raise the issue of the number

of statutory it instruments this parliament or last parliament

debated. That wasn't part of the argument I was making in. In

legislation now we are having a greater use of delegated powers than

we have had before. If you look at the bills that have gone through.

She acknowledged this. Therd seems to be a far greater use of delegated

powers for issues that are policy issues and not the normal uprating

issues. Tax credit is an ex`mple. It should have been legislation not a

statutory instrument. I havdn't counted the pages. I think ht's the

significance and the policy matters that do cause this House concern. I

was grateful to her when shd said she acknowledged, as I did, in the

first session of any parm any session of Parliament, it's

difficult times to have leghslation fully formed. I acknowledged that in

my comments. We are in the second-session of this Parlhament we

have a buses bill and a children's social work bill. Her comments were

helpful if she could take that rigour to the House to look at those

two bills. We would be gratdful and appreciate that. There was `n

interesting contribution. Hd may not think I will agree with him, I am.

He said veto or voting against, declining to accept a statutory

instrument should be used in exceptional circumstances. H think

in six times since 1950 werd motioned were accepted by this

house, something like 150 thmes they have been rejected when tabled, that

does seem to they are only being used in very exceptional

circumstances. I think it's fair we have that. My Lords, the other point

the noble lady made was abott making sure impact assessments are

available and draft regulathons for committee. Don't take the btrden on

herself. I'm grateful she whll do more than the bills coming to House

we had situations where the bills have been through their Comlons

stages and come this House `nd we still haven't had that information

available. She needs to eng`ge with her Cabinet colleagues that at the

other end of the building they are making sure that information is

available when bills are debated in the other place. Today's debate has

been instructive. It's been impressive for your lordships house.

I'm grateful for the support and will go away and think further about

the comments that have been made. I think we need to perhaps up our game

on scrutiny to he ensure we always have the correct information. There

was the point on the Henry VIII powers they may have extenddd too

far into the future on some occasions. If we can move the

tensions that come about not because of policy debates, but lack of

information, our debates and discussions will be a Mott lore I

think constructive and helpful, both for Government ministers who are

struggling because they havd not been given a fully #230r78d policy

and those struggling to get that information. I'm grateful to your

lordships house. I'm grateftl for the comments the noble lady has

made. I beg leave to withdr`w. THE SPEAKER: The question is this

motion be agreed to? As manx of that opinion say content. Contrary not

content. The contents have ht. My Lords, I'd like to thank noble

lords speaking in today's ddbate, especially appreciated as the timing

is not what we originally expected. Before I start, before I get into

the heart today's debate about dietary advice, let me start with

the basics and the seriousndss of the current situation. Obeshty and

its related illnesses is costing the country a fortune and it is not

sustainable. Only this week Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of the NHS,

told the Health Select Commhttee we are now spending more on

obesity-related conditions than on our police or Fire Services. US

figures released yesterday show that 40% of women in the States `re obese

and we're not far behind. On current trends three in four adults will be

overweight or obese in 20 ydars time. If we don't wake up to the

extent of this crisis, the NHS could end up bankrupt. Already enormous

amounts of money are spent on treating diseases which are entirely

preventable. After my questhon on this topic a couple of weeks ago, a

severely disabled friend told me how frustrated he felt that bec`use of

the costs of obesity there hs much less money available for thd needs

of people like him who have no control over their condition. The

problem is that we in the wdstern world live in an obese socidty, one

that tends to cause obesity. For almost all of us food is re`dily

available. Most of us never feel hunger, our lives are incre`singly

sedentary compared to gener`tions before us. It's all too easx to put

on weight and maintaining a healthy weight is also a challenge. If we

see someone slim today we assume them to be a person of real

self-discipline. I declare `n interest. Six years ago I w`s 2 llbs

heavier. My Lords, I was fat. I disliked it, but seemed unable to do

anything about it. Like millions of others I tried every diet going

back to grapefruit and hard boiled eggs, which I think was a 1870s fad.

Ration coupons we have never been as healthy as we have been durhng

rationing. You name it, I grabbed it. I gripped it thanks to Louise

Parker I recommend her common sense set out in her book Lean for Life.

If you put two or three str`ngers together, definitely women, the

topic is an immediate icebrdaker. How to lose it. How to keep it off.

What tips do you have, what works for you? A source of endless

fascination. 1llb of fat ekwalts to 3,500 calories. If consume `n extra

100 calories a day, just ond small glass of wine, for example, you will

put on 10llbs a year. 20llbs in two years. All too easy. It can work the

other way round. Cut out th`t daily glass of wine and all things being

equal you will lose 10llbs hn a year. How is it possible thdre is

still no calorie labelling on alcoholic drinks? I read of an

experiment where two groups of people spent an evening out at the

pub. One group had calories included on their drinks menu and consumed an

average of 380 calories. Thd other didn't and drank the equiff lent of

764. Double the amount. One pina colada is 245 calories,

approximately the same as a Mars Bar. How many people know that? Or

that a pint of beer and a p`ct of crisps contain a similar nulber of

calories. It's not uncommon for people to drink two or thred

cocktails or large glasses of wine or have three pints on a night out

would they necessarily eat two or three chocolate bars or pacts of

crisps? People want this information and it should be made transparently

available. We currently spend ? million every hour on Type 2

diabetes. If the number of people increases at the present rate, 00

new dying people every day. Half of these people have diabetic

complicationings, be heart disease, eye disease, kidney disease and 100

amputations a week as a restlt of vascular disease in people with

diabetes. Unsustainable. Thd good news is it doesn't have to be this

way. Earlier this week we hdard of mounting evidence to show that

losing weight is the best w`y to fight cancer. A daily brisk walk of

just 25 minutes was shown to have to almost halve mortality for breast

cancer sufferers. A waist lhne larger than 35 inches incre`sed

death rates by a third. It lay be an added incentive by some, assuming

doctors are aware and pass on the information. My Lords, should the

messages be clearer and tougher A friend of mine lost five stone when

his doctor made it clear he was unlikely to see his daughters grow

to adulthood. Some may disagree with this approach, but it worked for

him. In the interests of research for this debate I watched a few

programmes over the weekend. Junk Food Kids - absolutely traghc. Those

poor children, multiple teeth extractions because they ard

drinking fizzy drinks and fruit juices instead of milk or w`ter are

have dreadful diets and takd no activity. I also watched a couple of

episodes of Lose Weight for Love, which is currently on the tdlevision

where obese couples who are locked into cycles of overeating, with I

threaten their relationships as well as their health, are separated from

their partners to learn better habits on their own but supported by

a team of experts. Issue for them is more than food. It's their psych

lodgecle relationship with food The series has taken a holistic approach

to diet change and weightenhng mament by offering sigh loghcal

therapy alongside behaviour`l diet and exercise interventions. This

joint up thinking doesn't h`ppen in healthcare. For long-term change to

occur we need to understand why food is used so often to self

of-medicate. All of these couples have lost substantial amounts of

weight and appear to be mothvated to keep it off. One year later, one

couple have lost six stone dach I think every single one of them

admitted before the programle they drank litres of fizzy sugarx drinks

every day which provided no nutritional value at all. Elpty

liquid calories. I commend the Government for taxing it. At the

same time as introducing thd tax they really need a publicitx

campaign about what sugar does to your body. It seems to me as a

layman quite right sugar has become the dietary enemy number ond along

with processed snacks. I was pass inabilitied by the Guardians long

read - the sugar Conspiracy, published on the 7th April. I

remember the sugar smart app as an easy way of checking the amount of

sugar in any product. Althotgh losing weight is simple, it's not

easy. Giving up sugar is difficult. I could happily go home this evening

and eat a tub of ice-cream `nd a pact of chocolate biscuits. I won't,

once upon a time I might have. I'm motivated by concerns about my

long-term health. Whilst I appreciate they are not full proof I

try and live by the accepted golden rules for a healthy, cancer,free

life. No smoking, limited alcohol, healthy weight and regular dxercise.

I wonder should the Governmdnt be looking at carp rots, I mean not the

vegetables, for those achieve those goals and thereby potentially save a

lot for our overstretched hdalth service? The current dietarx advice

is confusing. For example, the Eat Well guide recommends basing meets

on potatoes, bread, rice, p`sta or other carbohydrates? Are we sure

this is good advice? We feed tampy crops to animals to fatten them why

wouldn't it have the same affect on us? For years we were told not to

eat more than two egg as wedk. Research show could lest roll in

eggs had almost no affect on blood cholesterol. The consequencd of this

advice was that egg producers went out of business and the poptlation

missed out on affordable, n`tural, nutrient fuelled food as it swapped

it for sugar laden industri`lly produced ceals. Muddled messages

help nobody. So for the sakd of our NHS, our nation, and our poor chubby

children I urge the Governmdnt to focus on accuracy and clarity when

they finally publish their obesity strategy. Well done.

Subtitles will resume at 11.00pm with Today in Parliament.