government

The House of Lords – a modern anachronism?

The UK is unique in having a largely appointed second chamber. How can it help you to influence the policy agenda?

We’re often told that the UK is the trailblazer of parliamentary democracy – a model which has been emulated the world over, and which provides for stable government. Whether or not that is the case, there is one quirk of the UK model which hasn’t proved to be quite such a popular export, and that is the role of an appointed House of Lords within our bi-cameral system.

While our model of a largely appointed second chamber might be highly unusual (and almost unique when you factor in the remaining hereditary element of the House of Lords), it is an important part of our parliamentary system, and one that anyone seeking to influence the policy process would be foolish to overlook.

In this post, I look at the role that the House of Lords plays in the policy process and offer some tips on how to make best use of the second chamber as part of your influencing strategy.

The shape of the House of Lords

The House of Lords is one of the largest upper houses of parliament anywhere in the world and is famously second only in size to the Chinese National People’s Congress.

In 2015, there were more than 800 active members of the House of Lords (yet only enough seats for 400!). While historically most Peers were hereditary, today the vast majority are life peers, appointed to the House by successive Prime Ministers and other party leaders. Other peers are a mix of bishops and hereditary peers (whose number has been dramatically reduced in recent rounds of reform).

On the Government benches, there are House of Lords ministers representing Departments of State, and many members take a party whip. However, unlike its democratic counterpart, the House of Lords has many crossbench peers – members of the House of Lords who are not politically aligned. Cross bench peers tend to be subject-matter experts, appointed to the House of Lords because of their special interests or contribution to national life.

Controversies

In any discussion about the House of Lords, it is impossible to ignore the highly controversial nature of the existence of a largely appointed second chamber in a modern democracy. Quite apart from the big question-mark over the lack of direct (or even indirect) election to the second chamber, the UK system is also unique in having representatives of the established church playing a role in the legislative process. Add to that the continued presence of an (albeit much reduced) hereditary element, and the role that the Prime Minister (and other party leaders) play in appointing members of the House of Lords (leading to accusations of cronyism), and it’s easy to see why many people might consider the House of Lords to have had its day.

Reform of the House of Lords

The House of Lords has been under almost constant reform. Aside from the big constitutional changes brought about by the Parliament Acts, there have been a constant stream of smaller, but equally significant, reforms over the years.

Its shape has been significantly amended in the last 100 years. The Life Peerages Act of 1958 precipitated the transition from a largely hereditary chamber to an appointed one, and the 1999 House of Lords Act removed all but 92 of the remaining hereditary peers.

Most recently, under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government of 2010, proposals were drawn up which would have capped the size of the House of Lords and introduce direct elections for 80 per cent of the members of the Lords. Those proposals were swiftly dropped by the Coalition Government in the face of opposition from the Conservative Party. But the question of Lords reform remains high on the constitutional reform to-do list.

However, the purpose of this post is not to rehearse the arguments for and against reform of the House of Lords, but to focus on the role that it plays in the policy process, and therefore its importance for anyone seeking to influence the development of government policy.

The role that the House of Lords plays

Until the passing of the 1911 Parliament Act, the House of Lords held enormous power, and was able to veto any legislation that had been passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. The 1911 Act was one of the most important changes to the (notoriously unwritten) British Constitution and marked the transition of the House of Lords from equal partner in the parliamentary system to a chamber of review and reflection. Today, the House of Lords can only, at best, delay legislation sent to it from the House of Commons, and even then in relatively limited circumstances and only for up to a year. Its powers have been significantly curtailed over the last century.

Today, it is a chamber that seeks to hold government to account, and which seeks to influence government policy. It can no longer simply block legislation but can give the government of the day pause for thought if there is significant opposition from Peers. Perhaps the best example of that was the Labour administration withdrawing its plans to introduce mandatory identification cards in the face of opposition from the House of Lords in 2006.

The Salisbury Convention means that traditionally the House of Lords does not seek to block or delay legislation that was included in the manifesto of the government of the day, given that such legislation has a direct mandate from the electorate. By convention, the Lords are also not able to block or delay any bill relating to finance or taxation.

The soft power of the House of Lords

So rather than relying on the hard power of parliamentary process, the House of Lords often seeks to use soft power. Through close inspection, review, and challenge, it seeks to help shape and influence the development of policy, and the decisions that the government takes.

In many ways, members of the House of Lords play quite a similar role to those of us outside of the parliamentary system who are looking for ways to influence the policy process.

Working with members of the House of Lords

Working with members of the House of Lords is quite different to working with members of the House of Commons. Here are a few tips and tricks to help you make best use of the House of Lords as a route to influencing government policy.

Tip #1: They don’t have to worry about troublesome elections!

Compared to elected parliamentarians, members of the Lords don’t have to think about how electorally popular they might be. This means that they can be more likely to speak up and be vocal on matters of principle which are important to them compared to their elected counterparts. It’s a curious advantage of not being democratically elected.

Tip #2: There is more time for debate

Debates in the Lords tend to be longer and deeper than those in the Commons. This means that it is easier to communicate nuance and subtlety than it is in the Commons, which can be particularly helpful when the issue that you are trying to influence or communicate is complicated. There are some parallels with Commons debates in Westminster Hall in that regard.

Tip #3: It’s easier for the Lords to challenge the government

Partly because the House of Lords effectively has ‘no overall control’ as the government benches do not command a majority, it is quite common for the House of Lords to table (and support) amendments to Government legislation that would be unthinkable in the Commons. Although such amendments often go on to be overturned by the Commons, it can be a really powerful way of raising the profile of a particular issue. Sometimes, the government will listen to the voices of Peers, and accept such amendments too.

Tip #4: They don’t have staff

One important difference between members of the House of Commons compared to members of the House of Lords is that Peer frequently won’t have the staffing capacity that their elected counterparts have (both in their constituencies and in their Common’s offices). This is important to bear in mind when you’re working with Peers. It means that you’re much more likely to be dealing directly with the Peer themselves, rather than any staff. It also means that building a positive and constructive working relationship is even more important, and you will need to think carefully about what they might need in terms of support or briefings.

Tip #5: They are often subject matter experts

Appointees to the House of Lords are frequently experts in their particular field, so finding the Peers with relevant interests and knowledge should be a key part of your influencing strategy. Encouraging such experts to get involved in relevant All-Party Parliamentary Groups, for example, can be really effective.

What is your experience of working with members of the House of Lords? Have they been a valuable route to influence government policy? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

If you or your organisation are looking to do more policy influencing work, and would like some help or advice, I’d be happy to have a chat. Just drop me a line via the ‘Contact’ link above, or email me at hello@thepolicycoach.co.uk

Using the media as a policy influencing tool

We’ve all seen how the policy agenda can be forced to follow the media agenda. The media can be a powerful policy influencing tool

The media can be a powerful policy influencing tool. We’ve all seen the extent to which the political and policy narrative can be forced to follow an agenda set by the media (and vice versa, of course).

Anyone who has studied, or who is currently studying, public policy will be very aware of the power and role of the media as a policy actor in its own right. But that theory often has little to say on some of the practical ways in which you can use the media as a policy influencing tool.

Using the media in this way is not always going to be the best strategy. There are definitely times when the more quiet, behind-the-scenes tactics will be more fruitful. But on occasion, using the media can, for example, help to unblock particularly difficult issues, force the hand of policy makers, or change the narrative entirely.

In this post, I take a look at how valuable the media can be as a policy influencing tool, and offer some tips and tricks based on my experience. When writing this post, I have in mind what you can describe as the ‘traditional’ media. I’ll return to the power of social media as a policy influencing tool in a future post.

Tip 1: Work with the experts

If you are fortunate enough to work in an organisation that has media or communications capacity, get their advice and support in using the media to support your policy influencing work. Media relations and communications more widely is a highly specialist skill, and they will have a huge amount to offer to make sure that you are successful as possible.

Tip 2: Boil complex issues down to their very essence

As policy and public affairs professionals, we have an innate tendency to want to explore complex issues from all angles. This can sometimes mean that we find it difficult to distil such complexity down. However complicated the issue might be, you’re going to need to be able to describe it in just a few well-chosen words. Think of it in terms of summarising a 20 page piece of policy analysis down to a single sentence, and you will get the idea. Your media or communications colleagues will help (and challenge you!) with this. It can be a bit of an uncomfortable process on occasion. Which leads on to tip three.

Tip 3: Be clear on what needs to change

In all policy influencing work, it’s vital to be clear about what it is that needs to change. For example, what it is that you need government to do (or not to do), or who it is in the system that needs to do something differently (as discussed in a previous post). This is also true when deploying the media as an influencing tool.

Tip 4: Have something new to say and some new evidence

If you’re trying to get your issue in to the news agenda, then you’re going to need to have something new to say. That might be a new report, some new statistics, or a unique angle. Being clear about the policy outcomes that you are hoping to achieve will help you structure something that is fresh and unique which is much more likely to be picked up. You can also use some of your other policy influencing activities as a hook for media work – such as a forthcoming debate in Parliament, or on the back of the publication of a report by an All-Party Parliamentary Group, for instance.

Tip 5: Use case studies

As I have discussed previously, you should never underestimate the power of a good case study. This is also the case when using the media as a policy influencing tool. Case studies, particularly those that bring a human dimension to an issue, are critical for the media.

Tip 6: Integrate it with other influencing tactics

It’s a really good idea to link any media work on a policy issue with other policy influencing tactics. For example, you might want to follow up with a letter to a Minister, or think about how to connect and engage with parliamentarians. I was once trying to persuade policy decision makers to support a particular piece of work that we wanted to do, but were coming up against something of a brick wall. A well-placed piece on the front page of one of the most influential broadsheets (as much by luck as design) unsurprisingly resulted in a face to face meeting with the key decision maker which got us where we needed to be.

Tip 7: Recognise the risk

There is, of course, no way of knowing how the issue that you are raising might ultimately be framed or how any quote might be used. You will rely on the skill and expertise of your media and communications colleagues on this, but ultimately it’s beyond anyone’s direct control. This is important to recognise. I recall one example of this when we were engaged in particularly sensitive negotiations with the government which had reached a critical point. It was that moment that a newspaper that we had been talking to informally about the issue decided to run a story using an old quote from me which had the potential to cut right across those negotiations. It required some late-night contact with the Minister’s private office to calm potentially troubled waters. I can assure you that was quite a restless night!

Tip 8: Think about the outlet you’re talking to

How your issue might be framed in a piece will vary according to the world view of the outlet that you are talking to. The Spectator or The Telegraph will frame things quite differently to The Guardian or The Independent. It much the same way that framing your policy influencing agenda needs to take in to account the different perspectives of political parties, the same is true when using the media as an influencing tool. Think carefully about how to frame your message.

I would add at this point that you should also not disregard tabloids. Journalists working on tabloids are among the sharpest in the business – it takes enormous skill to be able to take difficult and complex issues and present them in a very accessible way for their readership.

Tip 9: Don’t underestimate the power of the informal chat

Informal conversations with journalists are incredibly important. Not only does it allow you to get a feel for their appetite and interest in an issue, it also gives you an insight in to the angle that they are likely to take. Importantly, it also allows you to describe some of the background and inevitable complexity to an issue.

Tip 10: Listen to the experts

For the final tip, I return to where I started this list – largely to emphasise just how important it is. Listen to your media and communications colleagues – they are the experts in how best to work with the media, and will be best placed to help guide you.

What is your experience of using the media as a policy influencing tool? If you work in media or communications, what would your advice be to those seeking to influence policy?

If you or your organisation are looking to do more policy influencing work, and would like some pro bono advice, I’d be happy to have a chat. Just drop me a line via the ‘Contact’ link above, or email me at hello@thepolicycoach.co.uk

Drowning in paper? How do you decide which consultations are worth bothering with? And how do you make a submission that will be listened to?

Responding to consultations is bread and butter for anyone involved in influencing policy. In this post, I’ll take a look at how to make sure that your voice is heard

Responding to government consultations is bread and butter for people working in policy roles. If you’re not careful, it could be all too easy to do nothing but, surrounded by piles of paper and post-it notes.

So how do you decide which consultations to respond to, and which you can ignore? And what are the best ways to go about putting a submission together?

In this post, I’ll be looking at how to approach government consultation processes, and some of the tips and tricks to make your voice heard.

What is a consultation?

This might sound like a fairly easy question to answer. But the reality is that there are lots of different types of consultations that government (and their associated arm’s length bodies) might issue from time to time. Being able to spot the difference will help you decide which ones to prioritise, and which you can safely ignore.

In 2018, the UK Government Cabinet Office published an updated set of principles to support the civil service on how to run consultation processes (which are substantially watered down from previous versions). It provides useful insight in to how such processes are planned and organised from the government’s perspective. In reality, I’m not convinced that the principles are always used by officials when planning such processes.

A duty to consult

There are some consultations that the government has a legal duty to issue – these are normally fairly technical consultations where there is a responsibility to regularly consult with stakeholders. One example of such a consultation is the annual consultation that is issued on the detail of the NHS Standard Contract which is used for any providers delivering NHS funded care. If you have technical expertise, or something specific that you want to see changed, it can be relatively easy to have some influence on these, as officials are specifically looking for input on the detail.

A fait-accompli?

There are then some consultations which are simply tick-box exercises which allow the government to say that they canvassed views. A tell-tale sign of one of these is a consultation which is issued to gather views on a subject that the government has already been quite vocal about the approach that it is planning to take (the consultation on proposals to make COVID vaccination a condition of deployment in health and care services in England is a good example of one of these, even though that was eventually reversed). Another tell-tale sign of one of these types of consultation is that they often have very short windows for responses (best practice is to allow respondents 12 weeks to submit responses, but in reality it is often much less. For tick box consultations it can sometimes be as short as a couple of weeks).

Seeking expert input

The third type of consultation is one where the government is genuinely interested in gathering input and expertise to help them take some policy decisions. Consultations about developing or updating guidance (where expert professional input will be essential) is an example of this kind of consultation.

This isn’t to say that this is the only type of consultation that you should bother with. Deciding which consultation process to engage with will depend a lot on how relevant the consultation might be to your priorities or interests. Sometimes, even if there is little prospect that your comments might change the government’s mind, it can be important that you are seen to respond and make your voice heard. It can help build your profile and your reputation as an important stakeholder.

The growth of consultation surveys

In recent years, there has been a noticeable growth is consultation surveys, where government issues a consultation with an associated survey to gather responses. This is, of course, designed to make it easier for the poor officials who have to collate responses and pull together summaries of the key themes. Much easier to do that by counting up the number of yes/no answers to a very specific question than to have to read lots of narrative explanation.

Consultation surveys definitely have a place. They’re particularly helpful where some of the decisions that government has to make are quite binary in nature – for example, should we do X or Y. They are less helpful when trying to deal with some complex issues which don’t lend themselves to distilling down to a narrow binary reply. However, in recent years they appear to be increasingly popular with government as a way, presumably, of reducing the administrative burden of analysing submissions. It also helps the government to guide respondents to the answers that it wants to see. This brings me on nicely to the next question.

Should you just answer the consultation questions?

In my opinion, the short answer to this is no.

Sometimes, the questions that are not asked can be more important than those that are. Structuring your response around the consultation questions will obviously make it easier for officials to collate your responses. However, there are sometimes important issues that the government has not yet considered, and that do not fit within the framework of the consultation questions being asked. On those occasions it is perfectly acceptable (and arguably important) to step outside of the question framework and to offer a narrative response. Consultations often have an email address, or mailing address, where narrative responses can be sent, even if the consultation is being run as a survey.

What makes a good response?

A good consultation response is clear, concise, and evidence-based. Although it can be tempting to write War and Peace on a topic that you are very knowledgeable or passionate about, like any communication, it’s important that you get your message across succinctly and clearly.

When it comes to evidence, quantitative and qualitative evidence are both equally important. As I said in a previous post, evidence is king when it comes to making a persuasive argument. That evidence might be evidence about cost and benefit, but could equally be case studies, examples and the voices of people who might be affected.

Maximising your impact

Responding to the formal consultation process can be an effective way to make your voice heard. To maximise your impact, there are a few other things that you can do.

As I have said in previous posts, influencing policy is all about relationships. One of the best ways you can maximise your impact in a consultation process is to get in touch directly with the officials leading the process. They will be keen to learn as much as they can to inform their advice to ministers. It’s quite common for there to be workshops run in parallel to the written consultation process, which can be a good way to find the right people to talk to.

It can also be useful to get in touch with other organisations who might be responding to the consultation too, to see whether there are any common or shared messages that you can both reinforce or help to amplify. The more responses that make a point, the more likely that point is to be heard.

Sometimes, there might be opportunities to use your response as a hook for some media work. This will work best where the issue at hand is particularly newsworthy or interesting, and where you have a strong and clear line. It can help to reinforce your wider campaign messages. Talk to your communications and media colleagues who will be best placed to advise.

Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to

Responding to consultations is one of the most commonly used tools in the influencing toolbox. If the government is genuinely in listening mode, it can be a really effective way of getting your voice heard, and positioning yourself as a key stakeholder with something constructive and valuable to add.

Pay particular attention to what questions are being asked. As the old legal adage goes, never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to. Sometimes this also applies to consultation processes – think carefully about the questions that you’re not being asked as much as those that you are.

What is your experience of responding to consultations? How do you pick which ones to prioritise? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Coming up next time: I’ll be exploring working with other organisations to achieve policy influence. Do coalitions work, or do they just water down your objectives?