This interview with {BARONESS RUTH HUNT} is part of the {GETTING POLICY UNSTUCK} series. Ruth is the co-founder of Deeds and Words.
#20: How to work the House of Lords – Baroness Ruth Hunt
The Lords is one of the most effective influencing vehicles I’ve ever come across. And, simultaneously, fundamentally underestimated by many people. Those who are attempting to influence policy do not make most of the opportunities that are available in the House of Lords. They neglect it for the House of Commons down the corridor, which although younger and arguably cooler, doesn’t have the same temperament for improving policy and legislation.
To engage the Lords, you must understand its processes. I am always surprised that among those trying to influence policy, there is a general lack of understanding about the mechanics. The Lords is a part-time role. We sit for roughly half the week, for roughly half the year. If you want us to engage with your thing, tell us when it’s happening, what the process is, what time it starts, when it’s likely to finish. Help us help you. Know the difference between report stage and committee stage and second reading. Those trying to influence policy would do better if they helped peers utilise the processes that exist.
Some, instead of engaging with that process, send us briefings. A three-page briefing about the price of wheat might be interesting, and I might read it if you send it to me, but I also need to know what you want me to do about it. What is happening, when and where do I need to be, and what are you trying to achieve. This is the difference between servicing and lobbying. Lobbying might get me interested in the price of wheat. Coverage in the Guardian might alert me to the fact that there is something to consider about the price of wheat. Servicing supports me to do something about the price of wheat.
The oral questions in the Lords are important and can be underestimated by those attempting to influence. The vibes of the Chamber at oral questions matter, and how the Chamber feels after each ten-minute Oral Question session can influence whether other peers take an interest in the topic. If all follow up questions are following a certain policy direction, the Minister might conclude that this is the ‘will of the House.’ The key is to get a good question included and then ensure that those who are interested in your issue have good follow up questions. A good oral question might lead to a follow up meeting with the Minister and a discussion about legislation. But remember that oral questions are not a verbal version of social media. It’s rarely an opportunity to get a meme-able moment.
Be clear on what it is that you’re doing and why. For those who are looking to influence policy through legislation, be purist about that. It is an intricate and detailed process that requires a lot of balancing of different needs and takes time. On the other hand, a good article in a broadsheet about your issue may capture the attention of parliamentarians. But, they will still need to understand what amendment is being proposed by who and when if they’re going to do anything about it. Generating soundbites, and legislative scrutiny and policy development are different things. Those who want a marketing campaign should acknowledge they want a marketing campaign, and those who want to influence policy should do that.
No peer will risk saying something factually inaccurate in the house. When Terrence Higgins Trust writes to me with data, I know the data is accurate. What I will be wary about is citing facts and data that are presented as ostensibly objective when they’re not. When it comes to the Lords, dodgy stats will be demolished in about 2 minutes. The Lords don’t like slapdash commentary and spurious data, even if they agree with the thrust of your argument. Get it wrong and you will undermine everything else you say.
Aggression when shaping policy rarely pays off. If you’re in the room, then the MP or Peer wants to meet you, so build relationships and alliances. I went to a meeting with another leader of an NGO who was so aggressive, demanding the Minister give an account for their actions. You could see and feel the Minister bristle. My first thought was that I had missed the memo that I was supposed to be aggressive. Then I saw that his approach wasn’t working so I went back to collaboration. Also, if you get a meeting please have an ask. Sometimes people think the outcome is the meeting itself. It really isn’t.
Those shaping policy sometimes think they can get a result in two years. Sometimes it takes more like ten, at least. Sometimes we’re quite short-term in our way of thinking about some of these policy goals and some things just take longer than we might like. You’ve got to embrace that. Even when the policy influencing doors are firmly shut, I would still be seeking to build relationships with those who are, or will be, able to work with you later.
I don’t think winning votes is always the goal in the Lords. The House of Commons will always win so I sometimes think votes can be a bit of a gesture. It’s better to get your amendment accepted by the government without a vote and that relies on negotiation. Those outside the Lords look at how many times you’ve voted but really the metric to look at is how many times a peer has had an amendment accepted without a vote.
