Death of a Member: Lord Lipsey
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, yesterday, 1 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Police: Facial Recognition Technology
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to regulate the procurement and use of facial recognition technology by the police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, facial recognition is a valuable tool that helps the police identify offenders and protect the public. While its use is governed by existing laws, the Government are considering whether further legal clarity is needed in order to maintain public trust and confidence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend. Since the groundbreaking Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in which noble Lords opposite may take some pride, it has been decided that in this country police power is principally a matter for Parliament and statute, not for incremental development by the courts and common law. Can it therefore be right that successive Governments have allowed the procurement of this most intrusive technology from any company or Government in the world, and its deployment to be a matter of discretion for the 43 police forces in England and Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a range of legislation that provides protections for the public at large, including data protection legislation and equality and human rights law, along with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice Live Facial Recognition, the Information Commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. If that is not enough for my noble friend, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently said that she wants to see a clear legal framework in place for facial recognition. We aim to set out plans very shortly, but it is an important tool and it does help identify perpetrators of crime.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, this is an important tool, but the reality is that recently, there have been reports in the press about two women who were stopped by the police for shoplifting, through the use of facial recognition technology. There is an issue here about the algorithms used in facial recognition technology, and inequality and accessibility, particularly in relation to black and ethnic minority people, who are more likely to be misjudged as a result of this technology.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There has been some discussion of the algorithms and their use. There were discussions with South Wales Police in particular, who were dealing with that issue. Those discussions resulted in the National Physical Laboratory testing the algorithm used by South Wales Police, and it found no statistically significant difference in performance on either gender or race. However, it is for those very reasons that the Home Secretary wants to examine the legal framework and, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned, to make sure that there is clarity and oversight, and that the plethora of organisations I mentioned at the start of this Question examine this in a way that makes for effective oversight and clarity for police forces.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, our concerns should extend beyond just facial recognition technology to the wide range of technologies coming down the track, some of which are very intrusive. Many are already being used by police forces in other countries. Will the Government consider appointing an independent regulator to establish clear guardrails around this new technology, so that any of the AI technology that the police want to use will be proportionate and necessary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I understand that people want to ensure that there is a legal framework for interpreting not just facial recognition but other such things. As I have mentioned, a plethora of organisations are looking at different aspects of regulation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to look at that and to give clearer guidance on the use of what I still maintain is an effective tool. If this helps stop crime and identifies potential individuals through intelligence-led policing, then it is a good thing.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but he did not actually answer the part about procurement of facial recognition technology and so on. For the most part, the many accountability organisations that he listed do not actually examine procurement, and if they do it is only in the context of compliance with procurement requirements and not necessarily with, for example, considerations of national security.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I tried to answer my noble friend’s initial Question as best as I could. Procurement is another issue we are looking at. In the Government’s forward look to policing, we are considering what areas of work we can bring in centrally in terms of the guidance and support for the 43 police forces currently operating. Again, without pre-empting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s review, one possibility is giving greater guidance on procurement and issues such as facial recognition technology and other forms of preventive activity by police forces.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, a US Government study suggests that facial recognition algorithms are far less accurate in identifying African-American and Asian faces than Caucasian faces, and that African and Asian women are 10 to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than Caucasian ones. The study identified 99 developers, including Intel, Microsoft, Toshiba and the Chinese firms Tencent and DiDi Chuxing, as potential problems in this area of procurement. What research are the UK Government going to commission on this, and how are these firms to be treated for the purposes of procurement by police forces in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend touches on important issues and again, I refer to the point I made earlier to the noble Baroness. A survey of the existing use of facial recognition technology estimated that there was no discrepancy between gender and race. My noble friend shows slight dissatisfaction with that potential outcome, and I say to him that those are the very factors we want to look at in the guidance my right honourable friend is considering bringing forward. Self-evidently, if we are going to use facial recognition technology, it needs to be accurate, regulated, proportionate, intelligence-led and organised in a way that does not discriminate against sex, race or any other characteristic.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, noble Lords have had the opportunity twice in the last month to be briefed by the Met Police on facial recognition. On both occasions, including when Minister Johnson from the other end was present, it was clear, as the Met admitted, that it does not have clear oversight, which the Minister also admitted in an earlier answer. When are the Government going to provide some clear regulations? In what other area of public-facing policing do the police make up their own rules?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is interesting that the noble Baroness mentions that she has been to a meeting with Minister Johnson and the Metropolitan Police. That is part of a regular series of stakeholder engagement meetings being undertaken by the Policing Minister with the police, current regulators, civil society groups and others. The purpose of those discussions is to gauge the sort of opinion that the noble Baroness has brought forward now, so that we can, as I have said, look at the police using facial recognition technology in a framework set by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness may be impatient, but the issue has been identified by the Home Office and actioned by the Home Secretary, and we will bring forward proposals in due course to try to resolve the various tensions put to me in the Chamber this afternoon.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, next to North Korea, the UK rates as one of the countries with the greatest surveillance presence—which, I might add, is no bad thing in my book. We heard from the Government that they are exploring whether legislation on facial recognition technology is necessary. What steps are they taking to address the great deal of public concern that clearly exists about this issue? How might this tie in with the Government’s position on ID cards?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for a range of surveillance methods. CCTV, for example, is one of the greatest crime prevention tools brought in in the last 30 years. It shows what happened at an event, not what might have been perceived to have happened, so it is very valuable. With DNA, CCTV and, potentially, facial recognition technology, progress is made through public confidence; and the Peelian principle of the police having the trust of the community is paramount. Going back to question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that is why we have consulted to get a range of views on this issue before potentially bringing forward better regulation to meet the very issue my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has raised.
As to ID cards, when I was last a Home Office Minister, in 2009-10, we had ID cards; in fact, I had ID card number 3, I think. It proved to be useless because the Government he supported abolished ID cards in around 2011. If he wishes to bring them back, that is a debate we can have, and I look forward to engaging with him on it in due course. But it was not me who abolished them.
Peers’ Entrance Security Door
Lord Robathan
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment he has made of the costs of the recent works on the security door to Peers’ Entrance.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that the Peers’ Entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this. The commission agreed an exception to release the costs of the work at Peers’ Entrance, particularly as much of the cost relates to building and infrastructure works. The total cost has been £9.6 million. The cost to remedy defects will not be borne by the House and will be met by Parliament’s contractors.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I do not hold the Senior Deputy Speaker responsible for this scandal, but it is a scandalous waste of public money. Who gave the security advice on the useless door and the ridiculous and ineffective fence? I was on the Joint Committee on security for some five years. We never discussed that at all. Who was responsible and who is accountable, by name, for the huge increase of nearly 50% in spending on the door? It is now nearly £10 million for a door that does not work. Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this is a very serious matter. As I have said before, the backdrop to this is that the Murphy review, as validated by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, found that the West Front and this part of the Palace had considerable vulnerabilities. The director of security and the director of strategic estates, who were responsible for the programme with two outside contractors, report to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House, who are the accounting officers.
The Lord Speaker has written to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, to request that he, given his experience of 10 years as Comptroller and Auditor-General of the National Audit Office, looks into the Peers’ Entrance works to examine the programme specifications and the cost. I will place a copy of the Lord Speaker’s letter in the Library so that noble Lords can have a look.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Is the Senior Deputy Speaker able to tell the House how much the estimate was for the development in the first place? He has told us how much it finally cost, but can he tell us how much the estimate was originally?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, again I have to preface this with what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. I am not directly responsible for all this. My understanding is that the cost originally was £6.1 million. There were changes because of planned patterns of work and technical issues. One of the particular problems was that gas mains below ground, which originally passed through the entrance structure, had to be diverted. There were some other security capabilities and the cost of significant structural and ground works. There were additional costs, but my understanding is that the first sum was £6.1 million.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker has identified the total cost in relation to the Peers’ Entrance. I would like to identify that both Houses are currently recruiting a new chief commercial officer, which will cost £1 million in this Parliament. Under current circumstances, that is utterly unacceptable. Returning to the question of the Peers’ Entrance, the Senior Deputy Speaker told us the total cost, but the staff manning that door, calculated on the Written Answer he provided to me, are costing £2,500 per week. That cost has to be borne by someone. Can he identify by whom and when?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I will need to take some of that away so that I get the precise answer. To deal with the noble Lord’s first question, one of the areas I think we have not been good at—by we, I mean the administration, candidly—is project delivery capability. One of the reasons it was decided that the commercial directorate is now a joint department, as the Leader of the House sought the House’s agreement on, is that we must improve project delivery capability. That is what we are looking at with the appointment of the commercial director. They are large sums of money but, in the end, this is what the commercial rates are. I am afraid I am still of the generation that thinks £100 is a lot of money, but that is the situation.
On the issue of the number of people involved in the manual use of the door while it is being repaired and made usable, I am assured that they are within the existing complement of members of staff. I am mindful that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has asked me those questions. I will return to him with answers and put a copy in the Library so that there is transparency.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, we have spent a lot of money on the entrance and another lot of money on the fencing, but we still have the bag searches being done inside that secure area, in a centre where a lot of people gather. When is somebody going to address the security problem of the bag searches in our midst?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, that is part of the future programme. I am afraid that, as we have seen with the door and the fence, proposals are coming for more security operations in this part of the Palace, and one of the areas that is going to be addressed is the point that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker has faced several questions on this, but quite a number of them come back to the question of who makes decisions in this place. What are the lines of accountability? Is there a line of accountability through the Clerk of the Parliaments and, in this case, the clerk of the other place, as accounting officers, or is it through Members? Would it be possible for him to succinctly explain how this works and how decisions are made, and who therefore checks on these matters? There is a real danger that things will fall between matters for the administration and matters for Members—who is saying that Members want this?—and all those things.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Lord makes a very valid point; this is something that has troubled me for some time. On the particular matter of the Peers’ Entrance, the project business case has undergone a process of standard professional scrutiny. The clerks of both Houses ultimately scrutinised and approved those costs following advice from the investment committee, which is chaired by the two finance directors of both Houses. As a result of what has happened, going forwards the Finance Committee in this House, which has received up-to-date reports on major programmes, will be asked to supplement its work with enhanced scrutiny of both costs and performance on a quarterly basis. I would say, however, as I am very close to my colleague, that the Clerk of the Parliaments is the accounting officer and legal officer, and in the end the responsibility is directly in his hands.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, last week when we were discussing this issue I made a silly mistake. I suggested that the wretched front entrance had cost as much as Grenfell Tower. I am sorry; I completely misread the briefing that I was given. I do not feel comfortable leaving such a silly comparison like that uncorrected on the record, so I hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker and the whole House will accept my apology for such a silly error on such a serious issue.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I think the House takes that in the spirit and the manner in which the noble Lord made those remarks. Both, in their way, are serious. Obviously, the tragedy of what happened in Grenfell Tower remains with us always, but clearly the security imperative of protecting everyone in this Palace is also paramount. We need to ensure that it is value for money and that the wretched thing then works.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, previously I said, slightly tongue in cheek, that going for the best is often a problem in terms of protection. There is a real risk of going for more and more to protect us, but in the final analysis we cannot totally protect everyone. We talk about looking at where goods will be held, but that is going to cost another £10 million to £15 million. We have to be really careful; do we really need these things? I am afraid there is an element of risk that we all have to take, and that is part of life.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Lord makes a powerful point. Clearly, there is always an important balance between access and security; they are key considerations as we as parliamentarians, and others who work here, need to do our work. We need to reflect on this area, and, particularly regarding the Peers’ Entrance, on the balance between security, access and users who seek to use the entrance.
India: Minorities
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of India about the position of minorities in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, India is a multifaith, multi-ethnic and multilingual democracy, and it remains among the most diverse societies in the world. It is home to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and several other religions. India should be proud of this diversity. The UK maintains a broad, deep and respectful partnership with India, which includes dialogue on human rights and minority issues. The British high commission in New Delhi, along with our wider network across India, monitors the human rights situation and engages with government and civil society stakeholders. Where concerns arise, we raise them directly with Indian counterparts.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. As she said, India is one of the great democracies of the world, and it is even more sad that the present Government are so repressive of a range of minorities, so that even academics, if they speak up against the Government, find themselves oppressed. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the adivasi community, whose traditional tribal lands are now heavily militarised. For example, in the Bastar region of the state of Chhattisgarh, there are armed encampments all along the main roads and, for every nine civilians, there is one armed guard, leading inevitably to human rights abuses and the imprisonment of innocent protesters. What steps are the Government taking to make representations to the Indian Government about the adivasi community in particular?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for bringing our attention to this. It is an important issue and he is right to raise it. We have our network across India and will raise issues such as those that he mentions. We keep a close eye on human rights in India. Human rights are of course universal and, whatever the nature of our relationship with any Government, we are not afraid to raise issues as and when we need to.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Government of India to ratify key international human rights treaties and withdraw reservations that dilute existing commitments to align their domestic laws with international norms, particularly on caste-based and religious discrimination?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We raise these issues with the Indian Government, as my noble friend would expect us to. Clearly, it is for India to make its own choices, and it has been many decades, thankfully, since we were in a position to do otherwise, but we continue to have the appropriate conversations that she would wish us to have because, as I said in my earlier answer, some things, such as human rights, are universal, and that is how this Government approach these issues.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, were assurances on freedom of religion or belief sought from the Government of India ahead of the recently agreed trade deal? The UK’s independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will scrutinise the free trade agreement and report on whether the measures within it are consistent with UK protections for animals, plant life and life, animal welfare, and the environment, but what, if any, scrutiny is carried out on the welfare of Christians and other persecuted minorities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I said, we raise the issues that the noble Lord is concerned about directly with the Government of India. Animal welfare, plants and phytosanitary issues all relate to trade, our ability to trade fairly and being fair to our producers here in the UK. They are part of a trade negotiation that is in many ways quite separate to the conversations that we would have anyway, regardless of where we stand in our relationship when it comes to trade.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this should not be separate, because the noble Baroness, while in opposition, was in the same Division Lobby as me on a Labour Motion that said that every trade agreement going forward should have human rights chapters as part of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, said at the Dispatch Box that the India agreement will not have human rights chapters. If we are to have discussions with our Indian friends about human rights, labour laws and the standards of supply chains, where will we see human rights reflected in our trading arrangements if not in a free trade agreement?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that—how shall I put this?—the nature of our relationship with the Government of India changes in accordance with the nature of our position in relation to these conversations. It is a judgment: are these things best progressed in the way that we would all like if we take a hard line as part of a trade agreement, or are they best progressed in other ways? It is all about getting the right outcome for our relationship and for human rights. It is a constant judgment. At the moment, we are dealing with the trade negotiation in a separate track to our conversations about human rights. It is slightly different when it comes to labour rights and the treatment of workers and other such issues. However, it is fair for the noble Lord to raise this, and it was fair for us to use, when in opposition, methods to raise our concerns that we may not feel we want to use in government.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said in her earlier answers, it is vital that His Majesty’s Government leverage their influence to try to ease tensions arising between communities. However, the Government have a more fundamental duty to make sure that those tensions are not imported into the United Kingdom. A Home Office report, commissioned by the Home Secretary, pointed out that Hindu nationalism was one of the most serious threats to domestic security. What is the Minister doing to prevent foreign nationalism becoming an internal threat?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is a matter of great concern and the Government are, as the noble Earl said, looking at this incredibly carefully, not just in relation to Hindu nationalism but other forms as well. We are concerned about this; we talk to colleagues in the Home Office, my noble friend the Faith Minister and other colleagues in the local government department as well. This is not something that we wish to see enacted on our streets, or indeed on social media, in the UK. We are vigilant and we will take steps as and when we need to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of Indian laws on freedom of religion or belief, and how to engage with the Indian Government on the misuse of those laws to target religious minorities, especially Christians and Muslims?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would also add the Dalit community to that list. This is obviously a concern. There is no room for conversion laws—that is not something that we want to see, and it is a concern in terms of human rights. As I have said when other issues of concern have been raised, we will continue to raise these as appropriate, usually in private with the Government of India.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lord, it is right that we criticise the treatment of minorities in India, where a historic mosque was demolished to build a Hindu temple, where the Home Minister describes Muslims as “termites” and where a young British Sikh has been detained and tortured for years. But does the Minister agree that our condemnation would carry far more weight if we were seen to treat non-Abrahamic communities fairly in this country? The Casey report of 2016 gave numerous examples of hate crime against Christians, Jews and Muslims, but no mention of non- Abrahamic faiths. We now talk of additional protection and funding against antisemitism and Islamophobia, again ignoring the suffering of non-Abrahamic faiths. I must declare an interest: I speak as a Sikh, believing in the equal treatment of people of all faiths and beliefs.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we should—and do—believe in the equal treatment of all people of all faiths and beliefs. This is fundamental to who we are. We have laws that support this, and the vast majority of people in this country support that too. Where we fall short or where there are problems in our communities or at high-profile events, there are steps that could and should be taken, and this Government support that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too want to express disappointment, as did my noble friend Lord Purvis, at the lack of human rights chapters in the trade agreement with India. If we look at the Amnesty International report from 2024, we see that huge concerns were expressed about the detention of journalists, about the bulldozer justice that is meted out to minority faiths and about issues in the Punjab and Kashmir. If we cannot challenge the Indian Government but are just going to raise issues with them, what are we going to get back from them, other than just having words with them? Have the Government dropped the ball with this trade agreement, in which they should have included human rights chapters?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear the challenge, and it is a judgment, is it not? You are trying to get a trade agreement with the Government of India. Is that best served by including measures on human rights? Would that jeopardise your trade agreement? Should that then happen? Or will you see the reaction that you would like in terms of human rights by standing firm? I just do not know which would be the right way to go, but at the moment we are dealing with a trade agreement and we are also having conversations about human rights. I think that, from where we are at the moment, that is the right thing to do. It is treating the Government of India with respect and allowing us to have those conversations, which I would say are often more fruitfully had in private than in other ways that we could go about this.
NHS, Armed Forces and Civil Service Staff: Public Meetings
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Butler of Brockwell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what instructions they have given to the staff of the National Health Service, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service about speaking at public meetings of their professions.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, a core principle of government in this country is that Ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making. Therefore, it is right that we are the principal representatives of the Government in the public sphere. As the Civil Service management code, released in 2016, makes clear, civil servants must clear in advance material for publication, broadcast or other public discussion which draws on official information or experience. As they have done for several years, the Government continue to approve public activity by civil servants on a case-by-case basis, and civil servants, such as Permanent Secretaries, continue to be accountable to parliamentary Select Committees in the usual way.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, if senior public servants cannot address their staff or answer their questions without first having cleared with Ministers everything they are going to say, they risk losing their public personal authority and becoming not leaders but puppets.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think I need to reassure your Lordships’ House, but especially the noble Lord, that there is no guidance that would prohibit leaders within the Civil Service engaging with or talking to their staff in any fora. The only guidance that exists about what would need to be gridded at No. 10—the noble Lord will be very aware of the gridding process, given that he introduced it while he was Cabinet Secretary—covers anything that pertains to the media, nothing that pertains to engaging with your staff.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, while senior military officers, for example, are Crown servants, and it is not appropriate for them to dissent from or challenge government policy in public, nevertheless, if they are constrained to being little more than oral press releases, they will lose all credibility? Surely, it is in any Government’s interest that they be allowed to address publicly the professional challenges they face in an honest and open manner.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
At that point, I should declare my status as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, before I get myself in trouble. Obviously, I would always want to hear from the senior service and the First Sea Lord. I think it is really clear that there is no such restriction. This is about how we do the gridding process. As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, the Chief of the General Staff made an on-the-record speech to the RUSI conference, which was broadcast live by Sky on 17 June, with an open Q&A. This is about making sure that there is a clear process for government communications, as opposed to restricting government speech.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very important not to believe everything we read in the newspapers, particularly at the moment? Will she confirm that what the Government are doing is giving guidance to members of the Armed Forces, the Civil Service and the NHS about when and how they can speak in public and make clear on whose behalf they are speaking? Is that not sensible?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. We are living in an age of disinformation and there is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that there are clear communication channels, especially when we talk about issues pertaining to policy that has been made by politicians. I also think it is incredibly important when we are trying to return to a politics of service and re-establish the use of the Nolan principles, which is why they have been added to the Ministerial Code, that it is politicians who are held accountable for policy decisions and challenged by the media.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I was present at the recent conference to which the Minister refers. The Chief of the General Staff did indeed give a welcome and full address and took questions, but another representative of the MoD made it explicitly clear that he was unable to speak publicly and we were all asked to honour that undertaking and not repeat his remarks publicly. Going back to the Minister’s observation about the need for a grid, there is a marked difference between a grid and censorship. There is a concern that the Government are slightly straying over the line and, frankly, treating some of our senior public officials like Pavlov’s poodles.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I joined your Lordships’ House, I ran an organisation called Index on Censorship. We should be very careful about the use of that word and how it applies here, versus the political dissidents I used to represent. The noble Baroness talks about something that everybody in this Chamber has participated in—a Chatham House rules discussion. On the point she raised about the RUSI Land Warfare Conference, it was completely appropriate that the head of the British Army led the discussion. She will also be aware that this is a cyclical news story that appears regularly. After all, in 2020 the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was accused of gagging his head of the Navy.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, politics and government are necessarily an informed dialogue between Ministers and civil servants and between senior civil servants and outside experts. We need to maintain the ability of expert policymakers to have that dialogue. If it is felt that senior civil servants cannot honestly discuss with outsiders—I declare an interest as someone who used to work at Chatham House and do such things—decent policy-making will deteriorate. Can the Government make it absolutely clear that senior civil servants have to engage with outside professions with which their policy-making responsibilities interact?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whoever they may be, is key. Noble Lords will be aware that one of my responsibilities in your Lordships’ House is to discuss the Infected Blood Inquiry. There is a responsibility on our civil servants to engage every day both with those in the infected community and with the charities that represent them. That is true of every part of government business and it is vital that civil servants are available to do so, which is why this Government have not changed any such policy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, under changes to the Civil Service Code brought in when the late Lord Heywood of Whitehall was head of the Civil Service, officials are forbidden to speak with journalists without the express agreement of Ministers. It is also the case, quite rightly, that policy officials should speak in public only with the express agreement of Ministers. However, does the Minister agree that, for officials with implementation functions, such as project management and digital procurement, the gagging order is unnecessary? They are already wrongly seen as second-class citizens in the Whitehall pecking order: blue collar compared with white-collar policy officials. Their work has little or no political content and we will not recruit the best if we infantilise them.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there is no such gagging order. This is about the grid system and making sure that, if someone wishes to participate in an event where media will be present, a request goes through the head of comms in that government department. That is available to all officials, regardless of their status. This is about making sure that we have a clear communications channel, which every Government since 1997 have used in the operation of No. 10.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I was the general secretary of the Civil Service trade union, which was affiliated to the TUC, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was head of the Civil Service. In my experience, there are times when it is difficult to speak about what is going on among civil servants, but the great thing at the time was to have a dialogue going on with the noble Lord about how these issues could be addressed publicly and within the trade union. It is a question of common sense, dialogue and knowing where the red lines are. I believe that is still the case.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There is very little I can add to my noble friend, except to say that I believe her statement is absolutely true about where we currently stand.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I had a long and much reshuffled career in a variety of Governments, going right back to the early 1970s. In my last post, under the Cameron Government, I was introduced to the Grid, which had been developed in the 21st century. I found it utterly ridiculous and quite inimical to the proper governing of the country. Nowadays, there is an army of young men and women in No.10 who are led to believe that they have complete control over Ministers and civil servants as they endeavour, in their various ways, to defend their policies and explain to the general public what they are about. At the moment, the staff count at No.10 has reached about 300, of whom quite a number believe themselves to be experts in PR, although, as we have seen at the moment, they are doing a fairly dreadful job. Are the Government prepared to re-examine this way of doing things in a modern democracy and contemplate going back to more genuine Cabinet government, with more responsibility for Ministers and senior civil servants in how they explain the Government’s actions to the wider world?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I start by wishing the noble Lord a happy birthday. Also, I cannot believe that any civil servant or special adviser would ever have any success in controlling the noble Lord. There is nothing unusual about efforts to make sure that government communications have a clear line. Noble Lords will remember Joe Haines and Bernard Ingham; we have always made efforts to have clear communications and we have always had PR professionals. The Grid has been around for a long time; it was introduced before I even got the vote.
Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 2 April and 15 May be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 1 July.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 23, Schedule 3, Clauses 24 to 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 57, Schedule 6, Clauses 58 to 87, Schedule 7, Clauses 88 to 128, Schedule 8, Clauses 129 to 132, Schedule 9, Clauses 133 to 146, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 147 to 149, Schedule 12, Clauses 150 to 157, Title.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have another busy day ahead of us, with several Divisions planned. We have also seen increased moving around the Chamber when Divisions are called, with Members jumping up straightaway. I remind colleagues that once the question has been put, the voting system needs to be activated before the vote can take place. So would noble Lords please wait until they have been advised by the noble Lord on the Woolsack that voting is open, and he or she has sat down, before proceeding to the Lobbies?
After three minutes, the question will be put. Both sides need to say loudly, “Content” or “Not-Content” for the vote to continue. I ask noble Lords to remember that the microphones are on during Divisions—they pick up noble Lords’ conversations.
When noble Lords arrive in the voting Lobby, they should please place their pass firmly on the card reader and make sure that their vote is recorded. There is a “ping” and a visual confirmation on the screen that they have voted. The act of just walking through the Lobby is no longer casting a vote—it must be recorded by the reader. Votes can be close, so they should try not to be the noble Lord who lost the vote for their side because although they walked through the Lobby, they never actually voted.
Noble Lords should please leave the Lobbies quickly after voting and not stand behind Tellers, talking and making it hard for other noble Lords to walk through the Lobbies. We preserve these simple courtesies and procedures to improve the House for everyone—Members, clerks, doorkeepers and other staff alike—and to look better for the public who watch our proceedings.
Finally, if noble Lords have any concerns about their pass not having been activated or if it has recently been renewed, please call in to the Table Office before voting starts and the clerks present will ensure that their pass is working properly. Whatever noble Lords do, they should please not approach the Clerk at the Table during the Division, as they have an important job to do in ensuring that the Division takes place properly.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (30 Jun 2025)
18:12 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 243 - Amendment 2 agreed.
19:26 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 263 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia
“(A1) In section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exclusion of hereditary peers), at end insert “, except for the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain as members of the House of Lords with the right to sit and vote.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, the adjective “historic” is bandied about far too often in politics, covering all sorts of things that are unlikely to detain historians of the future. Football matches, TV shows and any number of announcements in the other place are routinely described as historic when they simply are not. The other day I saw a hamburger described as historic.
Today, however, our debate about the abolition of the hereditary element of our House after its 800 years of service is indeed historic and will be studied by historians in years to come. We should so conduct ourselves, therefore, that, as Andrew Marvell wrote of Charles I at his execution, future historians will say that we
“nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene”.
Yet it strikes me that His Majesty’s Government are indeed about to do something very mean-spirited in including the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain in this legislation, because these two noble Lords undertake totally different roles on behalf of the Crown and state from any other of the hereditary Peers, roles that greatly benefit from their being Members of this House. Excising these two hereditary Peers from the Bill would be an easy and costless way both to show gratitude to them for their hard work in unpaid roles—the quintessence of noblesse oblige—but also, crucially, to allow them to stay in close touch with the Members of your Lordships’ House whom they serve so efficiently.
We all know the history. The office of Lord Great Chamberlain dates back to the Norman Conquest, when William the Conqueror appointed Robert Malet to superintend the improvements of Westminster Palace. He did it on time and under budget, as I am sure will also be the case in the restoration and renewal project. The office was made hereditary by Henry I in 1133, which is more than three-quarters of a century before the barons—statues of whom we see above us here—forced King John to sign Magna Carta.
For some reason, Lords Great Chamberlain had the right in law to demand the clothes worn by the monarch at his or her Coronation. However, James I had just arrived from chilly Edinburgh and did not want to part with them, so he paid £200 in lieu. Similarly, Queen Anne paid £300 to keep her “bottom drawer intact”.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I have very much enjoyed the last contribution. I am sure we all did. We are all encouraged to declare if we are hereditary Peers, so I do so. The irrelevance of this was brought home to me at breakfast today, when one of my life Peer colleagues said to me that they did not even realise I was a hereditary after all these years.
As the House has heard from me at each stage of the Bill, I am hesitant to speak again. Members will be comforted to know that I am not here next week, so this will be my last opportunity to contribute, assuming we pass the Bill this week.
I have great respect for and friendship with my Cross-Bench colleague the Lord Great Chamberlain, and have told him in advance what I propose to say: I am not clear why ceremonial duties should come with the ex officio right to legislate by sitting and voting in the House of Lords. Rather, I would point to his string of contributions and successful vote last evening as a better measure of his commitment and worth to the House. That is the same metric I would apply to any of our so-called hereditaries, regardless of their availability to perform royal or ceremonial duties. I only wish we were applying that metric to the life Peers.
To save time later, I add that I have the same, albeit milder, view of special pleading for other automatic ex officio appointments, such as the Lord Chancellor, as set out in Amendment 10 in group 9. They should be selected rather than have just the legal right to expect that they will come here.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, what an honour to follow on from my noble friend Lord Roberts, to whose amendment I have added my name. There is little I could possibly add to the noble Lord’s excellent remarks, so I will not waste your Lordships’ time in repeating the same arguments in a rather less erudite fashion. However, I emphasise that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are two essential components of the framework within which this country is governed. It will be a bad day for our Government if the holders of these offices are no longer able to carry out their duties freely and without impediment.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly address Amendment 1 and will ask a couple of specific questions related to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.
First, in closing, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House please confirm what discussions she might have had to confirm that their ceremonial roles will remain wholly unchanged following the passage of the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, stated, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their remarkable service during the recent succession of King Charles III.
Secondly, has anyone either proposing or opposing this amendment actually consulted with the present holders of these two high offices of state? I spoke this morning with the Earl Marshal; he was happy for me to confirm to the House that he insists upon his continued service in the role of Earl Marshal but does not think that a seat in this House should be reserved for his hereditary self. Perhaps it could be made available to someone of a more diverse background, he suggested. For hereditaries, our time, unfortunately, is up. We should perhaps accept that and go gracefully, albeit a bit reluctantly.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I did so because although it seems like a small point, it is part of a bigger point.
I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is mistaken in thinking that the Lord Great Chamberlain is here because of his ceremonial duties; it is quite the other way around. The ceremonial duties have emerged over time from the fundamental duties of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who—this is a very practical point about this amendment—has a great many practical duties.
Those duties include: the organisation of great occasions within Westminster Hall; joint responsibility for the control of Westminster Hall and the crypt chapel; the organisation when important Heads of State visit, such as President Macron next week; the sole responsibility for the monarch’s Robing Room, staircase, anteroom and the Royal Gallery; the ballot for the State Opening, which requires a certain amount of tact in its management; and correspondence with individuals and organisations relating to the Palace of Westminster. Those are all practical things. We need to ask ourselves whether, if the Lord Great Chamberlain were to be removed from this place, they would be so well accomplished. If they would not be so well accomplished, what other possible advantage could there be in removing them?
It is true that the Earl Marshal’s role is much more purely ceremonial; I will come back to that in a moment.
It should be obvious that the performance of these tasks is best fulfilled by a full Member of your Lordships’ House. The Lord Great Chamberlain needs to know the people here: our hopes and fears, our conventions, rules and traditions, and, of course, our quirks. It is very nice and encouraging that the present Lord Great Chamberlain is often visible in this Chamber, observing the habits of the tribe of which he is a member. I do not see how it could be done better any other way. If he cannot sit here, it is inevitable that his personal knowledge of the place will decline and, of course, his successor will have no such personal knowledge.
I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the restoration and renewal project. It is a very complicated project, and it is important that the Lord Great Chamberlain is able to do his job in representing the interests of the monarch on these matters. In doing so, he needs to understand what we all think, so that he can say something which reflects reality. His fundamental role is to maintain the crucial and historic link between the monarchy and Parliament. I think we can trust him when he represents the monarch’s interests here, because he is one of us; we can feel, if you like, that we have a friend at court. So what good comes of fraying that link?
On the role of the Earl Marshal, most of the points made about our connection with the monarchy apply to him as well. But I just want to mention something else, because this is not the first time that the Earls Marshal has been removed from this House, and it is quite interesting what actually happened—it tells us something. As is well known, the Dukes of Norfolk are hereditarily almost always Roman Catholics, and as such, they continued to hold their place under tolerant monarchs in the past. But Parliament was not so tolerant, and from 1672 until 1824, the Dukes of Norfolk were excluded from this House but continued to be Earls Marshal. This created considerable inconvenience in which they had to create deputy Earls Marshal to do the necessary work here, and they got around it in the rather traditional way of the aristocracy, particularly in those days, by appointing their Protestant cousins to the post.
In 1824, a Bill was brought in to change that and allow the Catholic Norfolks to come back into this House. It was a rather important Bill in the history of this country, because it was the forerunner of the Catholic emancipation Act, which, thanks to the ancestor of the noble Duke who is sitting beside me—who rather surprisingly took a very modernising view and said he would resign if it did not get through—Catholic emancipation came in, and so did a whole series of emancipations in the 19th century, which changed the franchise, the qualifications for university and for all sorts of public roles, and so on. So it is rather important.
I was slightly sorry to hear the noble Earl, Lord Devon, quoting the current Earl Marshal saying that more diversity should be encouraged, because, actually, the Norfolks brought great diversity in the 19th century. They were the Catholic voice in this House at a time when it was virtually not allowed. Is it not rather strange that, in this 21st century, when we talk about the importance of diversity and inclusion, we are now trying to kick out the Roman Catholic Norfolks from this Parliament and narrow in some sense the work that we are doing?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, are we going to hear all day the cry of “Front Bench”? In this House, the tradition is that those on the Back Benches are permitted, as fellow Peers, to contribute to our debates. Also, if I may say so, I have never heard the proposition that someone who is a hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I very much hope, if that is the principle that is being pushed, that when we come to debate the principle of a democratic House, those who are life Peers will declare their interest—responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is not a profitable way to go. As was said by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms very wisely earlier, we should conduct our debates with amity, respect for each other and a degree of tolerance.
History matters; it matters greatly. It was no accident that, in 1999, the then Labour Government decided, outside the discussions that we were having about the elected Peers, to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary offices in our Chamber. It was a wise decision then, and I think it would have been wise to replicate it now. We have heard the long history of these great offices and, more importantly, their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and to who we are as a people. As was said by my noble friend, it is one of the things that we do amazingly well, which attracts huge income from tourism and, far more deeply, deep respect and interest in our country.
This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts: the Commons, the Lords and the Crown. The Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that. They are a part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early medieval times. They are every bit as important today, and they must be able to fulfil their duties at State Openings of Parliament and all the other events and places where they serve us, our House and our country.
When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory after the demise of the late Queen and the accession and Coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I well remember, as we all do, the active, practical and dedicated part that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making those events possible and so memorable. I record my personal thanks as then Leader of the House to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, the Marquess of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio here by a separate provision of the 1999 Act; they are Members of the House. They have often, over the years, brought great insight here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. When I went home late last night, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was in his place, having made a full, practical and helpful contribution to the House.
Those of a longer memory will well recall the 17th Duke of Norfolk, referred to by my noble friend, who won the Military Cross under fire in 1944. As a career major general and director of service intelligence, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of military affairs. With an Earl Marshal responsible for our State Openings of Parliament and a Lord Great Chamberlain in control of much of our estate—the Robing Room, the Royal Gallery, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft—and their relevance to restoration projects, these officers of state will need unfettered access to the Chamber and the resource and office space needed to fulfil their roles on our behalf. I agree that they should never have to queue for access or beg for a pass.
As others have argued, given that the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain have such an intrinsic role in our House and its ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full Members of our House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, that their ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our Members and staff. It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now.
The unnecessary removal of these ex officio Members, separate from the 90 elected Peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this, and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future. We should all be open to hearing what she has to say.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for an erudite and entertaining speech. His amendment is similar to one that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee. I think the cries of “Front Bench”, which we do not hear too often, were made in eagerness to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord True. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. He came to see me about this matter, and I am grateful for that discussion, which was very helpful. Looking at the comments that have been made, I can satisfy noble Lords on some points, but there is one particular point on which I cannot, which I will come to.
This is something that has arisen many times during the passage of this Bill. I completely recognise the important roles played by noble Lords in those offices and the historic link between the monarch and the second Chamber. However, the point remains that in order to fulfil their functions and responsibilities they do not need to speak in the Chamber or to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is right that it would be appalling to suggest that they would have to queue up at the Pass Office or seek permission every time they come in. I can give him the categorical assurance that that will not happen, now or in the future. The commission has agreed that both office holders have access rights on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to perform their duties as they do now and engage with Members as they do now. That includes the ability to sit on the steps of the Throne, to listen to debates, to access catering and to access the Library. That level of access will ensure that they can engage with Members. In no way should their responsibilities or their abilities to do that be fettered in any way. I can discuss with the House authorities the possibility of office space—there is no office space at the moment—in the House, if required.
I know that some noble Lords have voiced doubts and questioned whether both postholders, now or in the future, would have to come back to the commission each and every time. I reassure the House that that will not be the case. The commission has confirmed the position for current and future postholders, so they would not have to come back. There should not be any impediment to their fulfilling their responsibilities. I assured the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that I would make that commitment from the Dispatch Box and, as he requested, I am happy to do that.
To correct something that was said, the postholders will not be excluded from the House. They will be excluded from participating in the proceedings of the House but they will not be excluded from coming into the House, so I do not think that this amendment is necessary. There is certainly no criticism of the roles they play.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised three points. I can satisfy him on two of them, but on one, I cannot. He asked what discussions have taken place. I have had at least one discussion with both postholders and probably more than that. He asked whether they have been consulted. Yes, they have, and there has been wider consultation. The point I cannot satisfy him on is the one raised by the Earl Marshal about more diversity. These are both hereditary roles, and they will continue to be hereditary roles. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain rotates through three hereditary positions so, in terms of diversity and inclusion, they will always have to be men at the moment. I know the noble Earl has particular interests and perhaps one day we can make some progress on that, but at present I cannot satisfy him on the diversity role because, as hereditary Peers, they will always be male.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The point that I think the Earl Marshal was making was that the seat in the House that he might occupy would perhaps be open to more diverse occupants, not his role as Earl Marshal.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a valid point. The Earl Marshal has been very clear that he is perfectly content with this.
I do not think this amendment is necessary. I assure the House that those postholders are essential. We will not in any way hamper or impede their ability to carry out their functions or their roles. The noble Lord, Lord True, made the point that we are grateful to them for doing that. They engage with Members of the House as well. I hope that, having heard the explanation and the assurances that I have been able to give, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I want to add a more general point about issues that will come up in later debates. It is not entirely relevant to this amendment but, because so many of these issues are interconnected, I think it will be helpful to set the context to assist the House. Noble Lords are aware that, prior to the commencement of the Bill and throughout its passage, I have had more than 50 meetings, some as one-to-ones, others with much larger groups. I listened very carefully in those engagements and throughout Committee. Much of our discussions and debates have been on issues, such as this one, that were in the manifesto but are not in the Bill. I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the Government are serious about their intention for further reforms.
I have been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues that have been mentioned many times and on which we have amendments later: retirement and participation. It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward. We all value that this House is self-governing and I am keen that we take some ownership as a House in moving forward on other issues. I am sure we will discuss this issue further on other amendments.
I feel, having reflected on discussions and advice, that we need a formal, recognised process that is supported by the House. I have considered the mechanisms that we could use, and I have concluded that the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated Select Committee to look at those specific matters on which noble Lords have indicated that they are keen to make progress. I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that is the way forward that I think may work the best.
Obviously, I will discuss this further with the usual channels before putting any such proposal to the House, but I hope that the House could set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent, and by this time next year it would be able to consider the committee’s findings. I am keen to see how quickly we can move on other issues as well without legislation, or prior to legislation, with a committee that could make those recommendations to the House. I say that at this stage to be of assistance to the House so that, when we get to those issues, the House has had time to consider them. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord—not least for raising Andrew Marvell, perhaps one of my favourite poets—and ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, the proposal is to set up a Select Committee to consider the issues that have been discussed with her. Those issues include offering life peerages to hereditary Peers. Is that something that the Select Committee would consider?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not imagine that that would be discussed by this Select Committee, which will look at the two specific issues that have been raised. We will debate the matter that the noble Lord refers to later on the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, what authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? In other words, would its conclusions, if passed by the House, be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect it will be: a very good and highly-qualified talking shop that will not, in the end, lead to anything because the Government will easily be able to ignore it completely?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I really hope that would not be the case. One of the reasons why I said we wanted to see what could be done more quickly is that some things may be able to be done by the House itself. If the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation then it is easier to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. So I am keen to have the House express a view—which noble Lords have asked for many times—and the Government will listen, but there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that is the case, we can proceed. Where legislation is required, I will take that advice from the committee because we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we are determined to press ahead on these two issues.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. It is a great step forward. As the noble Baroness knows, I have been particularly concerned about the question of retirement age. I must declare an interest, by the way.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
No, I used to be director of Age Concern Scotland, so I have a particular interest in this. Could my noble friend confirm that this Select Committee would be able to consider all aspects of a retirement age—for example, whether it should be different for current Members and new Members, and whether it should be on the edge of a particular birthday or at the end of the Parliament in which the birthday takes place? All these issues can be considered and recommendations made to this House, and the decision could be made by this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would say to my noble friend that we all have an interest in the retirement age because we all hope to approach one at some point in our lives. He is right. I am not going to set any preconditions on that. The manifesto at the last election said that someone would retire at the end of the Parliament after their 80th birthday. I have said repeatedly that I think a cut-off would create problems for the House when lots of Members reach that age at the same time and retire. If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider them. I am not going to put any parameters on what can be discussed within those two areas. I wanted to give the House the opportunity, when we come to discuss these issues, to consider what I have said and see whether noble Lords think it is helpful when we get to those amendments.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the new committee consider the whole question of the relative powers of both Houses? There is no point in talking about changing the membership unless you decide what they are going to do.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
No, my Lords, that would not be in the remit. It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sorry to intervene further but there are a number of other issues in the various amendments that we are going to consider. Would it not be logical for the Select Committee to think about those issues as well, in particular some of the things that were referred to in the Labour manifesto at the last election?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am keen to make progress on these issues in what I call bite-sized chunks. I have always referred to these two issues as being stage 2. They are the two issues that have been raised most often in Committee and again now on Report. There seems to be a consensus around the House that they are specific issues that the House wants to deal with. I have chosen them because they have been mentioned so often by noble Lords.
Lord Swire (Con)
If the noble Baroness is trying to present the Select Committee as being in part an answer to some of the long-term questions about the future of this House, would she be open to considering outsiders joining it who may have an interest in the future of our bicameral legislature? I point out that, according to current polling, the Reform Party is likely to get 271 seats at the next election, against Labour’s 178. Should parties like that not be included in looking at the long-term future governance of this country?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord did not mention the number of seats his own party is projected to get, but I think it is a little irrelevant. Members of this House are best placed to understand its requirements. One thing that has emerged from the debate many times during the passage of the Bill is that Members would like greater input on this. I am not proposing to provide answers; I am asking questions of the committee. How does a committee of Members of this House, who know the day-to-day running of this House, think these things could best be achieved?
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was very specific about the issues she wants the Select Committee to focus on, but, as she knows, one of the major issues that has been discussed for decades in this House is the size of the House. It was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, and we have seen very clearly the ratchet effect that changes of government can have on the size of the House. If it is not to be considered in the Select Committee, how are we going to make progress on that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a question of stages, and these are certainly issues we should make progress on. The more issues we discuss, the less likely we are to move forwards, as we have found so many times before. I am proposing a Select Committee on these two issues, but that will not stop us having further committees or looking more at such issues. I take great interest in the size of the House, and we need to address it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, is it not really a matter for the Select Committee to determine what issues it wants to consider?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would say no, because the danger is that the issues get wider and wider, and no decision is taken. Looking at these things in bite-size chunks in order to reach a conclusion and make recommendations is helpful to the House. I am not opposed to looking at other issues as well, but if this committee focuses on two specific issues, we can, I hope, make progress. I hope we can make progress quite quickly, too, because I think that is what the House is really looking for.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
I welcome the assurances given by the Minister and will not seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers(1) Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (exception from section 1) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (2) substitute—“(2) No more than 87 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1.” (3) For subsection (4) substitute—“(4) Any vacancy resulting from the death, retirement, resignation or expulsion of an excepted person under subsection (2) after the day on which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 comes into force is not to be filled by further exception.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers. This would prevent any new hereditary peers from joining the House, while allowing those who are presently serving in the House to remain. It follows the proposals of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, many sensible ways of improving this Bill were discussed in Committee, but perhaps the most sensible was one which has been discussed many times before. Amendment 2, which I am delighted to say is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie, among many others, seeks to abolish the by-elections through which hereditary Peers may join your Lordships’ House, while allowing those who have come here by that route or who still sit here through the ballot which followed the House of Lords Act 1999 to continue to do so until, like the rest of us, they choose to retire or leave by some other means. The amendment would ensure that, although we all come here by varied routes and for different reasons, we are all treated equally in our moment of departure.
This amendment was debated rather late in the evening in Committee and given slightly short shrift. I can quite understand the frustration of many, particularly on the Benches opposite, who have spent far longer than I have debating this matter, but I felt it was important to bring back on Report, not least because so many of us have not had that opportunity. It also seemed to me that the sudden opposition to it by those who have previously supported this solution was based on a few false assumptions.
The first assumption or claim is that these by-elections were never intended to be around for so long. In a sense, that is correct, but only because they were intended to ensure that further reform of your Lordships’ House would follow. The preservation of a small number of hereditary Peers, maintained through by-elections, came about as a result of a compromise agreed before Second Reading of what is now the House of Lords Act 1999. Then, as now, a Labour Government had been elected with a large majority in another place on a manifesto proposing reform of your Lordships’ House. Then, as now, there was some scepticism about whether they intended to carry out both stages of that reform with equal alacrity, or whether they sought simply to remove a large number of parliamentarians from Benches other than their own.
The Lord Chancellor at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that he was not offended by such scepticism. That is why he accepted the comprise proposed by the Convener of the Cross Benches, Lord Weatherill, to keep a small number of hereditary Peers here by way of surety. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, explained at Second Reading,
“a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The noble and learned Lord gave that guarantee from that Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords will note that stage two did not take place. The Labour Government carried on in power for more than a decade, but the only further reform they enacted was the removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack and the abolition of the Law Lords. In doing so, incidentally, they allowed those judges who had come here under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 to continue to do so for as long as they wished. That is why we in your Lordships’ House still benefit from the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond.
Towards the end of his time in office, Gordon Brown proposed in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to end the by-elections. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, predicted, Mr Brown could not tolerate 10% of the hereditary peerage remaining for so long. But the Bill did not contain measures for stage two reforms, so Parliament rejected that part of it shortly before Dissolution in 2010. What we have before us today is a proposal not only to abolish the by-elections, but to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from this House at the end of the current Session, without fulfilling the guarantee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, gave. The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships, when he gave it in 1999, that it
“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
Whatever else we may think of the Bill before us, we have the opportunity to defend that honour today.
The second claim or assumption is that the by-elections are somehow eccentric, alien or embarrassing to your Lordships’ House. In fact, they are not an unusual feature. Following the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, elections were held among Scottish and then Irish Peers to elect representatives of their number to sit in Parliament. When the Irish Free State was established in 1922, the Irish elections were discontinued but those who were already in the House were allowed to stay and continue their work. The Scottish elections continued until 1963, when the Peerage Act permitted all Scottish Peers, male and female, to take their place among the Barons. So apart from a 36-year gap between 1963 and 1999, there have been elected Members of your Lordships’ House for the last 318 years.
Like many other elements of our organic constitution, the by-elections of recent years have been easy to pillory, but so too are by-elections to other legislative chambers. Noble Lords may recall the Haltemprice and Howden by-election of 2008, which attracted 26 candidates, none of them from Labour or the Liberal Democrat parties; or the contest in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 1981, which attracted just two, the winner being a convicted criminal on hunger strike who died 26 days after his election, provoking a change in the law.
The present leader of the House of Commons was first elected in a by-election with a turnout of 18.2%. The present Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Europe were elected at by-elections on a 25% turnout. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, came to Parliament in a by-election where just 19.9% of the electorate turned out to vote. I am not sure that stands in such stark contrast to the by-election which brought his brother to the Labour Benches of your Lordships’ House.
It is easy to pillory by-elections, but we should not denigrate those who win them under the rules we have collectively devised. Just as no one would question the legitimacy of those members of the Cabinet who came to Parliament in those lacklustre contests, nor does it follow that seeking to end the by-elections to your Lordships’ House should be accompanied by the expulsion of those who have won them.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is my noble friend in a position to give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that, if this amendment were to carry, it would be part of a wider package of reform, some of which is indicated in the amendments and has been touched on by the noble Baroness? Those of us who have doubts about this amendment would be much happier about supporting it if we thought that it was part of a wider package to which the Tory Front Bench is party.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think my noble friend’s question is directed more to the Government, who have the opportunity to say what they will do on stage 2 reforms. But I will come to my noble friend’s question in a moment, because it is important. In fact, it reflects a conversation that I had with a wise colleague from the Cross Benches who, when I told him I was intending to move this amendment, said, “I hope we will see some humility from those who have previously resisted it”. I hope the fact that I stand here at the opposition Dispatch Box to move this amendment is an expression of that humility.
I remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord True, along with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, as soon as the Government were elected, that the by-elections be discontinued in recognition of the Government’s manifesto commitment and in anticipation of the debates on this Bill. But I can be humbler yet. I say to the Government and to noble Lords in every corner of the House: on this, we give in. We will not hold the present Government to the guarantee, binding in honour, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We yield to the mandate that they won at the ballot box and will take them at their word that further reform will follow. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about the establishment of a Select Committee to look into some—not all—of the rest of the Government’s manifesto. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is in his place. Ohers will remember the royal commission—rather weightier than a Select Committee—that was set up by a previous Labour Government to seek a way forward on stage 2 reforms then. I wish the Select Committee far greater success on this occasion. We will reserve our scepticism and hope to be proved wrong.
But, in return, we urge your Lordships to show the same clemency and generosity afforded to the Law Lords and the Irish representative Peers in days past to our friends and colleagues who sit here by accident of birth and who work just as hard as the rest of us in the service of the country that they love. I beg to move.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I added my name in support of this amendment, which has been so admirably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I agree that the opportunity to adopt this solution should have been seized earlier. Those who tried but failed are right to be frustrated, and the Conservatives deserve the criticism they are getting. But these are not good enough reasons for us to fail to seize this opportunity now.
To begin with, a large number of us never had the chance to vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said. As for those who did, it is true that some of them are supporting today what they opposed a few years ago. It is also true that others are opposing today what they supported only a few years ago. Consistency does not serve many well. Everyone is better served by returning to first principles and judging this issue on its merits. This amendment was a good idea when the Bill on which it is modelled was last given a Second Reading in December 2021, and it remains a good idea today.
To put things in some numerical perspective, since December 2021, 13 new hereditary Peers have come to this House through the route of Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. If the proponents of those proposals in 2021 had had their way then, as I wish they had—I was not here—we would have 74 former hereditaries today, instead of 87. The difference is just 13.
It is certainly the case that the party that gained the most from the excepted hereditary route to this House was the Conservative Party, and there is no doubt that the biggest loser was the Labour Party. This is not fair because it has resulted in a political imbalance in favour of the Conservatives. However, as the numbers that I have just mentioned show, this is an imbalance that can be corrected. Indeed, this correction is already under way: 49 new Labour Peers were created since January 2024, with 45 since the election. Importantly, this political imbalance did not become a constitutional imbalance. In spite of the number of Conservative Peers, the House remained very effective at scrutinising legislation and holding the previous Conservative Governments to account.
Since 1911, significant changes to the make-up of this House, and to its legislative conventions defining our role relative to the other place, have generally travelled with the chief Opposition on board. We break this habit at our peril. We have often considered the hypothetical scenario of a Prime Minister coming in and appointing large numbers of new Peers to control this House—Lloyd George was not the only one to be so tempted. What stands between us and this scenario is the fact that we are not an elective dictatorship. We are a representative democracy with a complex system of checks and balances that has made it very difficult for a Prime Minister, even with a large majority in the other place, to effect a power grab. Each of the three main political parties with experience of government has historically acted as a check and balance. No party leader has ever achieved full control of his or her party. Indeed, a few of them were humiliated by their party—ask Jeremy Corbyn or Liz Truss.
But what if the next Prime Minister is not the leader of one of these political parties with experience of government? What if he is the leader of a movement that he set up and controls? That the scenario that has to be in our minds for the next election. Reform’s manifesto in 2024 said:
“Replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber. Structure to be debated”.
I doubt that elections will be his priority. He will want an upper House that he controls in the way that he controls his party. He will seek to achieve this objective through a mixture of removals, appointments and, perhaps, some elections. If this scenario came to pass, we would have to accept the principle that the party that won the election needs a sufficient number of Peers to govern. But we would also be perfectly entitled—indeed, constitutionally mandated—to insist that there should not be removal of Peers en masse unless there is agreement with the main Opposition on the basis of a clear, fair, principled and transparent approach.
On a different note, one hereditary Peer told me that he was not going to vote because he did not think it right for him to do so. I respectfully urge him and anyone in a similar position to reconsider. The idea that we should not vote on constitutional rules affecting the composition of the House because we belong to the affected category of Peers is wrong and would create a bad precedent. Should Peers over 80 abstain on amendments seeking to impose an age limit of 80? Should Peers who might be excluded by a participation threshold abstain on those amendments? Of course not. In all these situations, Peers should vote on the basis of principle rather than personal interest. If our conscience tells us that our personal interest prevents us from fairly assessing the principle, then we should abstain, but if we are genuinely convinced that the principle is right, it is our duty to vote in a way that upholds that principle.
I went back to the Second Reading speeches. It is clear that many of your Lordships expected that, by now, there would be some compromise on the question of the transitional arrangements for the 87 hereditary Peers. Those who expressed such an expectation included many who were fully supportive of the Bill and deeply critical of the attitude of the main Opposition. The key principle is that the resolution of this issue must be clear, fair and transparent. To say, “Vote for this now and we will see later” is none of those things. We are already being asked to pass the Bill and leave for later fundamental questions about the reform of the House foreshadowed in the Labour manifesto, although I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House earlier.
We cannot be asked to pass this legislation while remaining blind to the transitional arrangements for the 87 Peers. It would not be a good outcome for this House and its credibility if some of the 87 reappeared on a basis that is neither clear nor transparent and does not reflect any prior consensus. The question of what happens to them must be resolved in this House and before this House. This could have been achieved with a firm assurance on the basis of cross-party agreement. We have received no such assurance. It is now our duty to fix this problem by voting for this amendment.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Like him, I have added my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, set out very clearly, and with his customary brilliant oratory, the arguments for the amendment and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them. As he explained, your Lordships often refer to the issue we are discussing in this amendment by the shorthand of “the Grocott Bill”. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, persevered with his Bill for many years. I have to tell your Lordships that I go back even further than the first Grocott Bill.
In 2010, Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned, introduced a similar Bill. It passed its stages in your Lordships’ House and when it came to the House of Commons, I, as a little junior Back-Bencher, adopted it as a Private Member’s Bill. I tried to introduce it there, but as is so often the way with these matters, it did not proceed. Your Lordships might recall that at that time, the measures in the Bill were not Conservative Party policy and might wonder what a loyal Conservative such as me was doing supporting the Steel Bill.
I have always been loyal to my party, but I was vehemently opposed to the Liberal Democrat constitutional reforms adopted by the coalition Government. On those matters, I was a rebel, and it is just as well that those of us who were rebels at that time succeeded; otherwise, your Lordships’ House would probably not exist at all, or it would be a faint shadow of what it is today and a mere mirror image of the House of Commons. So I was glad to be a rebel. I tried to make progress with what was then called the Steel Bill and was referred to as the principle of “withering on the vine”. I always thought that that was a rather sad way to speak about the demise of the hereditary peerage, but it is not quite as sad as that which we are facing today.
We can all understand why noble Lords on the Government Benches wish to stand by the principle in their election manifesto. They are right to do so: the principle that there should be no more hereditary Peers created is a good principle and nobody is disagreeing with it. But this amendment is not about principle; it is about practicality. We are all here—except the hereditary Peers, of course—because somebody in a position of authority made a subjective judgment that our past experience and our future potential made each of us a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House. When I glance at the Bishops’ Benches, I wonder whether my theory on that is correct, and then I think to myself, yes, it is—even more so; it is just that the subjective judgment in their case was perhaps made by a higher authority than was the case for the rest of us.
We were all invited to become life Peers because, as I said, our past experience and future potential made each of us appear to someone making a subjective judgment to be a suitable person to become a Member of your Lordships’ House and to contribute in some way to the government of our nations. Every one of your Lordships is here by virtue of a subjective judgment.
I am asking your Lordships to make a subjective judgment today. Those among us who were first admitted to your Lordships’ House by virtue of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers have, over the years—for some, over the decades—by virtue of the contributions they have made to the government of our country and the work of this noble House, earned their places here. They might have come here in the first instance because of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers but, now, look around and your Lordships will know that they deserve their places because of their own achievements. They have served this House, various Governments and Oppositions and the Cross Benches in roles in which they have worked hard and achieved much.
My argument in favour of this amendment is that, as individuals, they have earned their places here just as noble Lords who are life Peers have earned theirs. Consider for a moment what each of your Lordships individually has done in the past to merit your position as a Peer, then consider our colleagues who face expulsion and ask yourselves, “Is he really less worthy than I am?”. I ask noble Lords to examine their consciences and to consider this as a matter not of principle but of practicality. We have in our midst some excellent parliamentarians. It would diminish your Lordships’ House to lose them. It would be sad to see their experience, dedication and talents lost—not gradually, as they leave the House one by one, but in one fell swoop, diminishing this House immediately and irretrievably.
I implore your Lordships to make a subjective judgment, just as a subjective judgment was made about each of you, and support this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to express some concerns about this amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who in the end have advanced a very good argument, the concerns are threefold.
First, if we accepted this amendment, we would entrench numbers. If we want to get this House down to around 600, entrenching the numbers at around 830 would make the task more difficult. Secondly and differently, we have to ask what the perception of the public will be; they will say that this is a self-serving amendment, in that we are looking after our friends, and that in the absence of any other measures we are not serious about proper reform. That takes me to my final point. I will support this amendment, but on the basis that my party is committed to serious, robust reform and will play a full part in any negotiations that take place so that we have a properly reformed House with participation requirements, a fit and proper test, an enhanced HOLAC, maybe term peerages and a retirement age. I want to see a fundamentally reformed House and will support this amendment on the basis that there will be substantial support from my Benches for that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the issue before the House is not the merits of the hereditary Peers or the contribution they make, about which there can be no doubt. The issue is very simple: is it really acceptable in 2025 that, for decades to come, a House of the legislature should continue to consist of a large number of people who are here purely because of who their ancestors were? For me, that is unacceptable.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.
What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.
The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not be surprised that I do not agree with this amendment, for the reasons so pithily put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There are a number of points with which I could take issue, but I will pick up a couple from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He implied that those of us who supported the “Grocott Bills”, in their various guises, were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—that the Grocott Bills were second best. They were the best that was on offer, and we saw them as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this Bill was preferable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
How can the noble Lord possibly argue that it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that, had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am explaining to the House what I thought at the time, not what anybody else might think.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been eccentric. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very eloquent in pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by-elections for the Liberal Democrats. On one notable occasion, there were seven candidates and three electors, and nobody in the Liberal Democrats knew who half the candidates were. They were truly eccentric. They brought the House into disrepute, certainly in respect of those by-elections, and they were simply not sustainable in any way.
I strongly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in pointing out that one consequence of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years—unless there was a great increase in the size of the House—a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour Benches. That seems me to be a bad thing, because the inevitable consequence would be that the Government would increase their numbers, and we would have a bloated House. Apparently, everybody agrees that the House is too big, yet this amendment, if agreed, would have that consequence for decades to come.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will make two very short points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows the respect in which I hold him, but it is a subtle piece of advocacy to say that the hereditaries sit here purely because of the family they were born into, to use the noble Lord’s phrase. Since 2005, that has not been the case; it is the family plus an election. Indeed, some of them sit here on a firmer basis than many other Members of your Lordships’ House.
Secondly, on the “too late” argument, which seems to be the primary point put by the Government Front Bench, I have never quite understood why opposing a Private Member’s Bill, with all the legislative hurdles and difficulties that such Bills have, precludes you from later supporting an amendment to a government Bill which is bound to become law.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I am finding it difficult to compute exactly what is going on today, because Friday after Friday, Bill after Bill, to a three-quarters empty House, which is characteristic on a Friday, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual Members—not exclusively from the Tory party but overwhelmingly—but from the Government. The Bills got no further.
Here we are now, with a pretty full House, all agreed that these by-elections are farcical. The amendment gets rid of them; the Bill before the House—which I strongly support—gets rid of them. That was my motive for bringing the whole process in to begin with. Believe it or not, the primary motive was to stop this absurdity which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described as the most offensive of the lot.
I did not think it would be a problem. I have been around quite a long time, but I thought, “Surely, there is no one in this House who thinks that a by-election to get into this House should be exclusively for men, both the electorate and the candidates, and it is feasible to have an electorate of three when you’ve got seven candidates”. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did not mention the last line of that, which is that all three votes went to one of the seven candidates—so there was 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote going to the winning candidate. I mean, North Korea would not dare to do that.
I am flattered, I suppose, to find that everyone suddenly seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought it in first in 2016—since when, 27 new hereditaries have come here. To those who say that we might as well do it now, I say a whole new generation has been elected since I first introduced the Bill. But I must be immodest about this—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Will the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, tell us who elected him to come to this House?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
As far as I know, although I do not know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, there were probably more than three people who thought that it was okay.
I would be dishonest to the House if I did not admit to being flattered that it seems to be universally described as the “Grocott Bill”. It is lovely to have a Bill named after you, even if it was rejected time after time. It is no longer the “Grocott Bill”. I liked the ring of that, but I very much like the ring of the new, improved Bill before the House today, so I think we ought to call the original one the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 1) Bill” and the one before the House now the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”. Why do I support the “House of Lords (Grocott No. 2) Bill”? It is because it is better, it does the job more effectively and it means that we can move on from this endless debate to discuss other aspects of reform.
However, I really despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition: a two-clause Bill. It would have cost nothing—it might have saved money—and upset no one, but time and time again it was rejected. It was filibustered—I will not mention all the Peers who opposed it. In anticipation of this debate, I checked who had spoken against it at Second Reading on its various outings. There were two culprits—I will not embarrass them now—who were worse than any others and who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before Committee. We are powerless in this place if there are people determined to wreck a Bill in that way. Perhaps they can reflect, in the quietness of their own souls, on what might have been if they had not done that, because I believe that if a Bill like this had been passed —if not mine, then certainly Lord Steel’s Bill—most of the hereditaries now would have peacefully moved on, by whatever mechanism, from membership of this House.
It has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting by sundry Members opposite, but thank heaven that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is long, long, long overdue. It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let us not cry over spilt milk; let us just get on with this and quickly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are now removing the hereditary principle. It is accepted, on this side, that we are removing the hereditary principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system that was brought in by his own party in government.
My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the “Grocott Bill”, this would not be necessary. I therefore have to ask: what is the principle that we are discussing? It appears to be that the hereditary principle should be got rid of—that has been accepted. However, I am concerned by the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working Members, who are mainly Conservatives. We heard from the Liberal Benches that they are worried about numbers. On my count, 45 new Labour Peers have been appointed since the general election. That does not strike me as being the activities of a party that is concerned about the size of the House; it strikes me as being a party that is concerned about the number of people who will go through the Lobbies in support of it. Therefore, one is left with a terrible suspicion that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happen to have come into it as hereditaries, for party-political reasons. That is a very dangerous—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I will give way in a second.
That is a very dangerous precedent to accept. How soon will it be before people arguing for this precedent argue that other groups of people can be taken out, because they are not convenient?
I am trying not to be too partisan today, so I will appeal to the Government. To put it gently, the Government are in a certain amount of difficulty on a number of issues. The one thing I learned when I was in Government was that having a good and effective Opposition is a really good thing for a Government, because it makes you avoid making the kind of mistakes that Governments make. Therefore, it is very important—especially in this House, where we simply ask the Government to think again and we have no ability to force them to do otherwise by force of argument—to have an effective Opposition.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished my point.
One-third of the Opposition Front Bench are hereditaries. They are people of enormous experience and dedication. By not accepting this amendment, the Government are damaging not only the House by creating a terrible precedent but the Opposition, as well as the number of Tory Peers that there are. That is a disgraceful thing to do.
What is the argument? I know that people on the Benches opposite have sought to argue, “Can’t you get other people to sit on your Front Bench?” I say to the Leader of the House: she should try using that argument. It is very hard, especially if they are not paid—I will come to that later—to ask people to give up the time and for them to have the expertise. You can bring in new people, but it takes a very long time to get used to the way this place operates—it has taken me a very long time.
If we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we are talking about disabling the Opposition and gerrymandering the composition of the House. That is a disgraceful thing to do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for finally giving way. He talks about the disabling of the Opposition. Would he like to explain to the House what his party did in Government from 2010 to last year in terms of the numbers they appointed? I excuse the noble Baroness, Lady May, because she took the issue of the size of this House very seriously but, alas, her predecessors and those who succeeded her did not. As a party, we have put new Members of the House in since the election to try to get ourselves a reasonable balance after the disgraceful approach of so many Conservative Prime Ministers over those years.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
There are a lot of things that we did in Government that I would not like to defend. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I understand why a number of very good and excellent appointments have been made to the Benches opposite. I understand the reason why they wish to make up the numbers. All I am saying is that to argue that the Government are not going to accept the amendment from my noble friend because they are worried about the size of the House is ridiculous when, at the same time, they are increasing the size of the House. Have a care here for the importance of Parliament, of effective opposition and of not disabling the ability of this House to carry out its constitutional duties. In the end, it will be to the disadvantage of the Government and the House.
I support my noble friend’s amendment. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for it, but I do not see any conditionality about it. I am going to support it because it is in the interests of our country, democracy and this splendid institution—the House of Lords—which all of us should hold in the highest regard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The thing I find odd about the argument just advanced, and, indeed, about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the way in which he introduced it—splendid though it was—is the implicit assumption that if his amendment were to pass here, the other place would say, “Goodness, that’s a good idea”, and accept it. Does he really think that would happen? If so, I have a Westminster Bridge to sell to him. If he does not, does he think that the process of ping-pong will be good for the image of this House?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, this is not about ping-pong but about reform, and for reform to be legitimate, it must be principled, proportionate, fair and respectful.
The hereditary Peers currently serving this House entered under a binding cross-party agreement in 1999. They did so in good faith, committing to public service, many without expectation of office or reward. Some are relatively young and gave up successful careers to serve here. To subject them now to mass eviction is not just poor constitutional practice but an act of bad faith. They are not ceremonial relics but active and dedicated parliamentarians, as many have noted. The question is not about reform and whether it should happen—we all agree on that—but about how reform should be done. Can we do it with fairness and decency, or will we allow it to proceed with injustice and haste?
This amendment would not preserve the hereditary principle, but it would allow those already here to remain until they retire. This is reform done properly and fairly. The Minister will argue that the Bill fulfils a manifesto pledge, but the pledge said nothing about mass eviction. Delivering on a pledge does not justify injustice, particularly when it breaks a binding agreement and when just 34% of the electorate voted for it.
Without this amendment, the Bill amounts to constitutional vandalism. The Bill removes a long-serving group with an age-old sense of duty and responsibility, not for what they perform but for how they arrived. This is why it feels vindictive. It also sets a dangerous precedent, as my noble friend mentioned. Today it is the hereditary Peers; tomorrow it could be the Cross-Benchers or anyone who dares to dissent. This House draws its strengths from its independence and diversity of thought. Let us not mistake destruction for progress. Let us pursue reform the British way: incrementally, inclusively and fairly.
This amendment would allow reform without injustice. It honours service, and it gives the Government the chance to act with principle, not vindictiveness. I urge all noble Lords who value fairness and decency to support this amendment. This is a U-turn worth doing.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I shall make a very brief comment on the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about the image of the House.
We know and accept that hereditary Peers are anomalous, but what about most of the rest of us? Let us be clear about this: we are here—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I—because we crawled so far up the affections of a Prime Minister that we got parking rights. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As for the idea that this is going to cause a great change in the reputation of this House, I wish that were the case. Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit at University College London has just published a new set of findings, having done some opinion polling on this very point. One point was that you could either limit the number of prime ministerial appointments to this House or get rid of the hereditaries. She said that limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments had by far the highest support among the public. Just 3% of voters chose removing the hereditary Peers without also limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments. We are not in such a bad way as is sometimes suggested.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Does the noble Lord not think it possible to do both—to limit the number of appointees through the prime ministerial structure and to reduce the size of the House in the way that is suggested in this Bill?
Lord Dobbs
I had finished my remarks but will respond to say that I would love that to be the case.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to contribute to this debate. He has not done so, so perhaps I might, as a member of the Burns committee, set up by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
We brought before this House a report from the Burns committee with a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers and deal with retirements, but it was based purely on Prime Ministers of the day—and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House—making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the Chamber. As we know, it is only my noble friend Lady May who has kept that bargain and understood why that was important for it to work. Indeed, in subsequent Burns reports that have been available to the House, it was clear that the agreement on retirement was working. We had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed. Had we stuck to that—in particular, had former Prime Ministers stuck to their side of the bargain —I do not think we would be in this position today.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I intervened in a debate when we had been going on for hours and went on to actually address the issue in this small Bill. It is not a big Bill and its aims are very clear, but I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the Bill is about. If noble Lords remember, there were many speeches about reforming and about age, and they went on and on. I remember intervening to say that those propositions would go nowhere, because the purpose of the Bill is well defined.
It was with deep regret that I sat in your Lordships’ House and listened to so many speeches, with a lot of hereditaries sitting around, addressing the future as if they were not present. That was the sort of experience I used to have in this country when we were talking about black people. I would be in a meeting where they were talking about black people, and suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people were not being asked what they thought was good for them.
We have got be clear on what the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about. First, it seeks to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Secondly, it seeks to prevent hereditary Peers joining the House. Thirdly, it would allow
“those who are presently serving in the House to remain”,
but no new hereditary Peers would be made. The problem with this amendment is what the Government would do. They have already tabled a Bill, which we have discussed, and we know where it is going.
In the Select Committee that the Leader of the House intends to set up, will thought be given to what might be done with those of our number who go out under this Bill who wish, if the opportunity is granted, to continue to serve, no longer as hereditaries but as life Peers? Would that question be worth taking up? If it is taken up then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has raised an issue which should have been raised, again and again, in those long debates.
Finally, on the question of memory and where we are going, the problem is that any society, church, community, organisation or Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile. We know where we are going with this Bill but, to prevent senility, it would be quite good to know from the Leader of the House—who told us that she would set up a Select Committee—whether there will be a mechanism to allow those who wish to continue to serve in this place to do so, rather than this Bill being the end of their time here.
We can all change titles. I came into this House in 2005 as a right reverend Primate. That caused me some trouble: why was I a “primate”—I thought primates were certain animals? I came here as a primate, and maybe a vicious one, and when I retired I became a Cross-Bencher. We can all change in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House.
I have had a fantastic time here. I love everybody here who has given us their wonderful words and thoughts. It will be a very sad day when I look around and see that those who feel that this is still a place where they can do their public service—not everybody will feel that way—cannot be changed from hereditary to life Peers. If it is to happen, there must be a way in which we say that, yes, this Bill triggered a change, and then those speeches which were made about change can be revisited in the future. We need to reflect. I hope that we will not have more and more debates, but will finish this tiny Bill very quickly.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to still the debate, but perhaps I might, as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, intervene briefly. As a previous Leader of your Lordships’ House and now as Leader of the Opposition in this House, the remarks I am going to make, I make as Leader of the Conservative Party here and with the full assent of my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition nationally.
I say, by the way, to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that this House should never be cowed from proposing a thought to the other place. Indeed, one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this Bill is that it must have no amendments. I am sure there have been occasions, but it is unusual in our parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a Bill, and certainly one of this constitutional significance, be unamended. Would the proposition that one cannot have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter apply to a future Bill to remove people over 80, as promised in the Labour manifesto? I hope not. I hope this House would vigorously raise questions on that.
I have been listening carefully to the debate that was initiated very ably by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and my noble friend Lady Laing. They put a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, acknowledged he owns and loves, but he is going to vote against it today. It is a proposition that I think many of us know in our heart is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our heart that if there were not a party whip applying, there would be a majority in this place to reach a balanced solution. That balanced solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle as a route of entry into this House, but which does not hurt existing Members or impede the workings of this House in the way my noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested.
In case there is any doubt, I put on record beyond any doubt what those who have been following the debates on the Bill from the outset will already know, which is that my party has no plan, intention or device to block the Bill indefinitely or to delay its passage by the kind of constant ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to. From the very outset, within days of the last general election, on my initiative and that of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, we recognised, regret it or not, the Labour Party’s mandate to end the entry of Peers to this place by any preferment of heredity. The convenor and I proposed—and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House graciously accepted and helped to develop—that proposal, that by-elections for hereditary Peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, and it remains so. It is done. It is not an issue in this debate, even though the word by-elections has featured a great deal. No person has entered this place by reason of election under the 1999 Act since Labour’s victory in the last general election, nor shall one ever do so again.
That is a mighty thing under the eyes of 800 years of service here by hereditary Peers. By the end of this month, a Bill will pass which will permanently end entry here on the grounds of heredity, and if the Government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by dawn on the first day of August. That is the position. Whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, we on this side are not arguing for the continuation of the hereditary principle as a route of entry here.
My noble friend’s amendment would not alter, detract from or frustrate that in any way; in fact, it would enable it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend Lady Laing argued so passionately, is not who comes here in future but who goes now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, slightly missed this point—if the Bill successfully affirms that any Government may expel summarily a group of existing Members of our legislature who for whatever reason they do not like, then any future Executive, using what will be the awesome power—unique, actually, in the world—of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, on this example, who goes, any future Government, of whatever colour, and heaven forfend it should be the example put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, could use the same arguments—
Lord True (Con)
I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. They could use the same arguments to expel any other group now among us in the future.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this is such an absurd, fanciful and imaginative suggestion. By way of evidence, can the noble Lord explain to us how 667 hereditaries being removed overnight in 1999 raised the spectre that he is trying to put before us—that it enabled subsequent Governments to act in the completely arbitrary and brutal way that he has described? It is pure fantasy.
Lord True (Con)
Well, it certainly encouraged the Labour Party, which removed the Law Lords—although allowing those who were here to stay—and are now removing the rest of our hereditary colleagues.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I did not follow the noble Lord’s argument that the ability to change the composition of the House of Lords by legislation, which has been brought forward after a manifesto was provided to the electorate, is the same as the ability of a Prime Minister at the moment to nominate and bring into the House as life Peers any number of people. The arbitrariness comes from the prerogative in terms of how people come in, but we are talking now about the composition of the House and changing it by legislation, and those two are not comparable.
Lord True (Con)
The Prime Minister has no power to exclude. Prime Ministers have the power, by royal prerogative, to recommend appointments to the monarch, but no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude. The only other House of Parliament in any way similar to ours is the Senate of Canada, and there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a Member or group of Members.
The debate ranged widely, but the decisions that we always make as people who make law must be on the face of the paper before us, the proposed Act of Parliament, and it is the Bill before us that the noble and right reverend Lord raised. In a few minutes, what each of us privately has to decide is not whether entry by heredity is over—it is—but whether we assent to the expulsion of over 80 of our comrades on all Benches. These are people we know and whose worth we know, as no one outside this House knows them. They are people we respect, as no one outside this House respects them, as we have seen them sitting on the Woolsack, on our committees and on the Front Benches, as my noble friend said, in service as Ministers over the decades. They are people we like, although that is a small thing in relation to their service and the holes that their departure will leave in our ranks.
When the Bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place and we will go this way or that. We can go and say, “Out with you all”—that is what the Bill says—“and you must go for one wrong about which you could do nothing: by whom you happen to have been conceived”. Or else we may, by quiet assent or our active move into the other Lobby, say, “Yes, we agree that we will have no more new hereditary Peers but we do not wish to hurt those who serve now or to hurt our House. We value who you are and what you have done and may yet do for this House, and we should like you to stay, sit with us and serve as our Peers”. That is the choice we will make in a few minutes.
It is not about who comes here. That is settled; it is history. No other hereditary Peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple and binary, and it is a decision that each of us in this great House of Lords—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future, and to suggest a way forward to the other place —must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love and the good that the people we are discussing do for it. We must make a decision about those people we know who have been, often for decades, are and, I submit, should continue to be our fellow Peers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash of a debate that we had previously in Committee on a similar amendment. Amendment 2 today is almost identical to the previous amendment, seeking to amend Clause 2 and return to what is commonly known as the Grocott Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, possibly alone in the House, has the benefit of consistency on this issue, in that, as I recall, he consistently supported the Grocott Bill as a way forward.
I think I understand the emotion displayed by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this issue, but he will now probably regret not taking up my offer to ensure that the Grocott Bill could have passed all its stages and got through the House as a Private Member’s Bill. I gave him my party’s guarantee that we would do that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, frowns at me, but I gave the guarantee of my party that we would support that Bill and do our best to get it through the House. So we could have done that, but the opportunity was lost, and that is a shame, but that is where we are now. We are now debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Baroness said that I frowned. The reason I frowned is that I do not really understand the argument that says, “You should have taken my offer but you didn’t, so we’re going to throw all these people out of the House of Lords”. If you thought it was okay for Parliament to continue, having got rid of the hereditary principle, why is it any different now?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there was an opportunity for this House. Had we not had the by-elections since 1999, there would have been far fewer hereditary Peers in this House then. Since my noble friend Lord Grocott introduced his Bill, there have been a number of by-elections and there are now 28 hereditary Peers who are here through those by-elections. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred in his comments to them being here by an accident of birth.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Does the noble Baroness also recognise that there are 257 of us who have also arrived here since the last time there was a vote on this and who would really like the opportunity to take the offer that was not given to us?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has tabled an amendment and is offering it at this point now, although, had he been in the House when this was debated, I doubt he would have voted differently at the time from the leader of his party, who was very much against it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will take one more intervention. I have listened with great care to noble Lords and have not intervened on anybody, and I want to respond to those who have spoken. I will take the intervention from the noble Lord because he used to be quite nice to me, but that will be the last intervention that I take. I think it is in the interests of the House for me to wind up the debate.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I hope I will continue to be nice to her. I just wanted to make the point that, although the opportunity may have been available to the House of Lords to pass the Grocott Bill in the previous Parliament, it would not have gone through because it could not possibly have got through the House of Commons.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Members of my party would have supported that Bill in the House of Commons. The noble Lord has little faith in the House of Commons, but I take his point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point in a previous debate —I know the noble Lord has been here for a number of debates on this issue—that when we send amendments to the House of Commons, how it responds to them is a matter for the House of Commons.
I was actually paying the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a compliment, praising him for his consistency—he should take them while he can.
I want to move on to a number of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, tried to depart from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of an accident of birth being the route by which hereditary Peers have moved here. He said it was accident of birth and a by-election. Even taking the amendment from his Front Bench today, I think those elections have been discredited.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looked at by-elections in the House of Commons, but I would probably liken the by-elections to this House to those from Dunny-on-the-Wold in “Blackadder”. They brought discredit to the House and Members were embarrassed by them.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said that he and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, came to me with the proposal to end the by-elections. They did but that was after the manifesto was published and after the King’s Speech. I was grateful to them; I think it was the sensible thing for the House to do, but the by-elections are just suspended, not ended. If the Bill does not become law, we would return to having the by-elections and the House would have to take a separate decision to stop them. They were just suspended—I think the noble Lord was quite keen that they should be suspended—because we do not really have the power in current legislation to end them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that we should not be seen to be looking after our friends. There are many hereditary Peers in your Lordships’ House whom I regard as friends; they might not regard me in the same way at the moment, but I have regarded them as friends for a long time. That is not the issue here; it is a matter of principle, which the Labour Party set out clearly before the election. It is not a criticism of any noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. It is a criticism of the system that has been allowed to continue for so long.
I often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I shall take issue with him on a number of things. He said that Labour has brought in 45 new Peers since the general election; his party have had 21 new Peers since the election. Another statistic that I think is helpful to your Lordships’ House concerns the appointments. Like others, I exclude the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this. When we left office as the previous Labour Government in 2010, the difference between the party of government, as we had been, and the Official Opposition, which then became the Government—the Conservative Party—was fewer than 30 Members. When we came into government in 2024, the difference between the two political parties was over 100.
It is a point made very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This is not just about exits; all leaders should exercise restraint. I am on record as saying— I stand by it—that this House works at its best when the main government party and the main opposition party have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when this House does its best work.
The Opposition have 286 Peers but the noble Lord thinks that when the hereditaries leave this House—and, contrary to what a noble Baroness said, they will not be expelled immediately but at the end of this Session of Parliament—his party will not be able to field a Front Bench from the remaining Members. My party had to field an Opposition with far fewer than that—probably about 100 fewer—and I think we were a pretty effective Opposition. It is not always about numbers.
This argument that if the hereditaries leave we will then come for other groups of people is utterly ridiculous. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made that point. We are talking about legislation that was in the manifesto and trailed by the manifesto. Which other groups are we talking about: everybody with red hair or those who wear the wrong-coloured jacket? It is a nonsense. This was clearly defined. The noble Lord is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He had a long time to speak but he wants to jump up again.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is only because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she would take no further interventions. The current government manifesto commits to excluding the over-80s at some point, so we know that this Government intend to remove further Members from your Lordships’ House. The examples given in the debate were about future Governments, of neither of our parties, who might come for more of us for other reasons.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that is always in the hands of the electorate when they have the manifesto published before them. But again, on the retirement age, we have set that out as a clearly stated manifesto commitment. I have said, and have been clear, that the House should come to a decision on that as a House. We ought to be taking far more responsibility for, and ownership of, matters that affect the House. We tried to do that under the Grocott Bill but, for various reasons, the party opposite would not support it and we did not get that far.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, raised the issue of Members not speaking on different issues. I have to say to him that all Members of the House, when they are here as Members, are equal and can speak or vote on issues as they wish, and should do so within the Code of Conduct. When Members declare an interest or their interests preclude their participating, that is in the Code of Conduct; otherwise, we are in the same place.
There is a real issue here. We are talking about the principle, established 25 years ago, that the hereditary principle would not be a route into your Lordships’ House. That does not decry any individual Member who has arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I cannot see in his place at the moment, said in an earlier debate that he was surprised it had lasted so long. It was trailed in our manifesto. I said from the Dispatch Box many times, as Leader of the Opposition on the other side, that if the House failed to pass the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott was suggesting to end the by-elections, the consequence would be a Bill of this kind.
This is where we are now. It is a chance—the noble Lord, Lord True, is absolutely right. Members of your Lordships’ House have an opportunity today to make a decision. Do they accept the words of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about an accident of birth followed by a by-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, or do they think that now this has to end? We are not criticising any individual Member—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those are exactly the words I wrote; we can check Hansard later. The noble Lord’s amendment is a way to slow down the process so that all those Members remain here. I speak to my party’s manifesto commitment, which was made quite clear before the election, and urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and all who have spoken in this debate. I will not detain the House much longer; we have debated this for many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the interventions she has taken.
Frustratingly, however, today’s debate has rather missed the point. My Amendment 2, like the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is titled
“Abolition of by-elections for hereditary peers”.
If we pass this amendment, those by-elections will be permanently abolished. We have already discontinued them. There will be no new people coming to your Lordships’ House because they have inherited their title and won a hereditary Peers by-election. The noble Baroness takes exception to the phrase “accident of birth”; others have used other phrases. The principle is that, if we pass this amendment, the Government’s manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords can be fulfilled, but it can be fulfilled in a way that is kinder.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I took interventions, so the noble Lord can accept one and be helpful. He is wrong in his premise. Hereditary Peers would remain as hereditary Peers because all that happens in his amendment is that the by-elections will end permanently.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
But we will have ended their right to sit and vote in the Lords and they will leave in the same way as the rest of us, including the over 80s, who at some point, following the recommendations of a Select Committee, may leave your Lordships’ House as well. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Law Lords continue to sit here until they choose to retire or leave through another means. They will leave in a way that is consistent with the way the Irish representative Peers left, after rendering great service to this country. This will be the first time that a category of Peer has been removed with no exceptions and no way back. The proposal is to do it at the end of this Session.
I am happy to continue to call this the Grocott No. 2 Bill, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, spoke. We saved a space in the list of supporters in case he could be tempted to add his name. I understand why, after many years of campaigning, he is frustrated and has chosen not to. He said that he prefers the No. 2 Bill because it does the job more effectively. The question is: what is that job?
If the job is to expel the remaining hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House as quickly as possible and to move on from the guarantee given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in 1999 without any further reminder of it—we heard not a mention of it from the Leader of the House in her winding speech —then the No. 2 Bill does that job better. However, if the job is to improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House, and to keep some of the expertise—not just on the Opposition Front Bench but those who serve as Chairmen of Committees and Deputy Speakers on the Woolsack; those who are the custodians of the conventions and kindnesses of this House—then the proposition put forward for many years by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and many other noble Lords from all corners of the House, is a better way of doing it.
I was raised to believe that it is never too late to do the right thing. If you are someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is exasperated that we have taken so long, or someone who has previously opposed it and rues that and repents now at leisure or if, like me, you are one of those 257 noble Lords who have never had the opportunity to vote for this kind of modest change that would allow us to say farewell to our colleagues in a more organic way, then I hope you will join me in the Division Lobby and support this amendment. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter; it has been too long since we last had that chance.
Lord Newby
“Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,(c) the Scottish Government,(d) the Welsh Government,(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom,(h) the general public, which may include citizens’ assemblies, and(j) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Within 16 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.(6) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on the matter mentioned in subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, excuse me while I find my notes; I am not used to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, being so reticent. Before I begin, following the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord True, I feel I must declare the interest that I am a life Peer.
I rise to move Amendment 4 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The question of whether to elect the second Chamber is one of the longest-standing unresolved issues in British politics. Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, helpfully reminds us of the wording of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911, which says that the Lords should be elected but at a more convenient time than the present. For 124 years, no convenient time has presented itself, and we on these Benches think that at long last we should put that right.
Our amendment sets out a timetable for doing so. It would require the Government, within a year of the passage of the Bill, to publish a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected Members to the House of Lords. This would contain a number of options and could, for example, include the option of retaining an element of non-party Members of your Lordships’ House.
Having produced this paper, the Government should then have an intensive period of consultation involving the groups set out in proposed new subsection (4). Importantly, and having taken account of comments made in Committee, the consultees would include members of the general public, possibly involving citizens’ assemblies. I strongly favour the use of the citizen assembly mechanism on an issue such as this; ordinary citizens should have a direct say on how they are governed, and the citizens’ assembly route has proved itself very effective in a number of countries for deliberating on contentious public policy issues. At the conclusion of the consultation period, the Government would then be required in short order to produce a report on the conclusions of the consultation and to come forward with a Bill for introducing direct representation into your Lordships’ House.
This issue was debated at great length in Committee. As the arguments have not changed since then—indeed, some of them have not changed for over a century— I will not belabour them all. In short, we believe that the Lords should be elected on the basis that, in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected House has a strong geographical imbalance in which London and the south-east are greatly overrepresented and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented, and because it would almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic and party-political diversity of the country.
I will not elaborate on all these arguments, but I would like to say something about geographic representation. It is unfortunate that we do not even know the geographic breakdown of the complete membership of your Lordships’ House, but on partial evidence collected by the Library we find that, between them, London and the south-east provide 45% of our membership, compared with 32% of the population. By contrast, the north-west, with 13% of the population of the UK, provides only 4% of Peers. All other northern regions, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales lag behind. This severe imbalance is reflected in our debates. At a time when the cohesion of the country is under threat, this is clearly unsatisfactory.
In Committee, noble Lords across the House argued that the Prime Minister had too much power over appointments, and I strongly agree. I think that if people realised quite how much power the Prime Minister already has, they would be appalled. The Prime Minister decides not only how many of his own party should be in the Lords but its balance. There are no rules. Opposition parties have to play the role of Oliver, pleading with the Prime Minister for more. Sometimes they get it; more often, they do not. Either way, this sort of horse-trading over the composition of your Lordships’ House is demeaning to our democracy and should be brought to an end.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I note what the noble Lord says about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the risk of first past the post in two Chambers. Although I agree with the principle of what he is arguing, why does his amendment say nothing about how the powers of the two Houses are to be resolved in the event of both being elected? Does he accept that one of the great failures of the Clegg Bill was the fact that Mr Clegg refused to have any debate at all about what the respective powers should be?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this is the main argument that has been used consistently by people who do not want this place elected. It is based on a false premise, which is that, if both Houses are completely or largely elected, it will lead to persistent and irresolvable conflict. If the noble Lord looks at the work that the convener has instituted, which compares second chambers around the world, he will find that there are many that are wholly or partially elected, in countries that have mature democracies, in which there is not persistent stasis because they cannot agree. There may be arguments about the relative powers of the House, but I simply do not believe that having the sorts of elections that I am talking about will lead to the complexities that many noble Lords raised and that, in many cases, are raised as a basis for opposing a principle to which they object.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that most of those countries, which I have looked at as well, have a written constitution? We do not. That is the thing that would make it incredibly difficult to resolve disputes between the two Houses. There has to be another formula for that.
Lord Newby (LD)
I am not sure the noble Lord is right about that. We do not have a written constitution now, but we have conventions that enable us to deal with difference—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is a really important point. We have conventions. We voluntarily decide not to exercise all the powers that are given to us. Why on earth would an elected second Chamber keep to those conventions?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches have argued consistently for a written constitution, which has been opposed by the rest of the political establishment. We would definitely support a written constitution, but, in the absence of a written constitution, Parliament operates in a manner based on conventions. If the rest of Parliament—the other parties—will not have a written constitution, there is no reason why a new basis of election here should lead to the tearing up of all the conventions.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord would surely agree that, if we were going to have an elected second Chamber, which I strongly support, it would require legislation. In the course of the debate regarding that legislation, we would have to put in anti-deadlock procedures.
Lord Newby (LD)
Of course, that would be debated as part of that process; I accept that.
If I could proceed, I was saying that I believe that, under our proposals, people should be elected on a regional basis, so that they could look to the common interests of a wider area than a single constituency. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in membership that we have seen in the Commons.
After the 2015 general election, I was mocked—very effectively, if I may say so—by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we did very badly in that election yet retained significant numbers here. After the last election, the Tory party finds itself in the position we found ourselves in. If we had the system that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, is proposing, a future Conservative Party in the House of Lords could be decimated in the way it has been in the Commons. What I am proposing here is a more balanced system that means that these wild swings, which you see through first past the post, do not persist. That would bring an element of stability to Parliament that would be extremely sensible.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Lord would stand for election under this system. I am thinking about how it would operate: I knock on someone’s door and they say, “I’m worried about the health service”, “I’m worried about housing”, or whatever, and I say, “Actually, that’s for the House of Commons, but I’m very good at revising legislation”. There might be a reaction on the doorstep that is even more hostile than we are used to—certainly those of us who were in the House of Commons. How does the noble Lord expect the voters to take us seriously if we are not able to say that we will absolutely fight for whatever it is? This division of powers will mean that we are second-order operators. I suspect that the noble Lord’s answer is that he would not stand for election, and that is probably true of most of the Members of this House. So what we will get is a whole load of party-list B-team people.
Lord Newby (LD)
If we had succeeded with the Clegg Bill and I had been summarily evicted from your Lordships’ House, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—
Lord Newby (LD)
Doors across Yorkshire—and Europe; I am quite ambitious, really. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than to knock on doors across Europe—
Lord Newby (LD)
Across Yorkshire, and to say to people, “I am standing for election here to fight for the things that I believe in on the economy, the health service and so on; and I am doing so because I think there should be a group of people who represent the whole of my region, not just a small proportion of it”. I believe—indeed, I know—that there is a raft of issues being dealt with at the moment at a regional rather than constituency level, for which there is no accountability. I would have been extremely confident in standing and making that argument anywhere in Yorkshire. I am only sorry that the delay in getting a democratic basis for the House of Lords means that I will be far too old to exercise that opportunity if and when it comes.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, that I have not been able to do it in a coherent manner because of the interruptions, but I was attempting to say that his suggestion of holding elections metronomically, two years after the Commons, would not work. We could have in future, as we have seen in the past decade, periods of instability or situations such as we found ourselves in in 1964 and 1974 when the Government had a slim majority and called a second election soon after the first. In these circumstances, having a second Chamber that is elected independently from events in the Commons would give a degree of stability, rather than adding to the level of instability. The noble Lord, Lord Brady, is right to want this Chamber to be elected but wrong in his recipe for how to do it. Our amendment sets out a clear process to consult and then decide upon a method of electing the House of Lords, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to want to see an elected upper House but completely wrong in the way that he wants to see it enacted. However, the reason I want to speak briefly to my Amendment 22 and, I think, also to support his Amendment 4 is that the principle is correct that we should have an elected House. The kind of process that he suggests in Amendment 4 would be valuable and important, but it is also important to make it clear that there is a very wide divergence of views, both about the appropriate powers of the two Houses and indeed the way in which they should be elected and put together. I favour geographical constituencies—not as big as the whole of Europe, which he appeared to want to represent—but that is obviously very different from party list systems and the PR system of election that the Liberal Democrats want to see.
I am delighted to speak here with my noble friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me because one of the great authorities on this issue who is always cited is of course his ancestor—his father—who famously talked about an “elective dictatorship”. My concern, having spent 27 years as a Member of the House of Commons, is precisely grounded in that worry that a Government with a significant majority in the House of Commons—unless it has completely lost control—can get its legislation through with almost no impediment. It is also free to ignore amendments sent from this House, precisely because we do not have the legitimacy that an elected House would have.
I discussed this a little while ago with the great constitutionalist, Professor Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He said to me, “I completely disagree with you. It would be quite wrong to have an elected upper House”. But his next comment made, for me, the argument as eloquently as anybody could for an elected upper House. He said, “I’ve written many times that what we have achieved in Britain is the perfect unicameral Parliament, just with two Chambers”. I am afraid that, all too often, that is how our Parliament operates. For this House to have effect, we depend entirely on a Government with a large majority in the House of Commons deciding whether they will accept or take an interest in amendments and improvements that come from the often excellent revising work done by the House of Lords.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but I do think that, in principle, it is right to move to an elected House. I completely disagree with the prescription from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for how to go about it—and I am greatly reassured to find that he disagrees so profoundly with me. This is a debate that has been going on for over a century, as he said. It will continue, but it is important that we engage with it in the spirit of accepting that it is not a given that the House of Commons operates so well as a democratic assembly that it automatically deserves unquestioned precedence. My time in the House of Commons tells me that it works very poorly in most ways. Its principal function is to select a Government and, most of the time, it then then lets the Government get on with pretty much what they want to do. More challenge in our Parliament, which comes with democracy, is the way forward.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support, with one qualification, the observations of my noble friend Lord Brady. I have always been a strong supporter of the concept of an elected second Chamber. My real reason is that I want to see a second Chamber being more than a revising Chamber; I want to see it as a determinative Chamber with powers commensurate with the House of Commons. I accept, however, that in the modern world it has to be legitimate, and the only legitimacy that this country—indeed the world—recognises is an election. Therefore, having settled on the view that I think the second Chamber should be a determinative Chamber with substantial powers, I favour an elected Chamber.
I accept that there are problems about deadlock and this and that, but I do not think that they are insuperable. They are in fact addressed in many other jurisdictions in other parts of the world. I think that we would need staggered elections and that—here I disagree with my noble friend—the method of election should be some form of proportional representation. I am very much against party lists. I think too that there should be constituencies, probably similar to the European constituencies that existed in 1979—very large county-based constituencies. The fundamental justification is that we would be able to face down the “elective dictatorship” to which my noble friend referred.
I agree that, after the chaos of yesterday in the House of Commons, one wonders whether we have an over-mighty Government, but we can have such Governments. My experience is very similar to my noble friend’s experience in the House of Commons, where I was for 30 years. I find the power of the House of Commons, when it controls its Back-Benchers, a deeply worrying fact. That is why I want to see an elected second Chamber.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend said that he was concerned about gridlock. What would he do about it?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
We need to have anti-deadlock mechanisms. That is perfectly right. I think that you could have qualified voting, but there are a variety of measures that you could put in place. My noble friend is right to say that there are problems and that they would have to be addressed, but they are not insuperable and they would be addressed in the context of any debate on the legislation setting up an elected second Chamber.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, before I begin my remarks in support of Amendment 4, I will comment on the announcement by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House earlier. I welcome the establishment of a Select Committee to look into retirement age and participation. Although, obviously, I would like to see it go much farther, it is a good first step: I accept that even small changes are progress, so I look forward to that Select Committee being formed.
I turn to Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to which I have added my name. In Committee, I tabled my own amendments on an elected House, but I am pleased that, since then, successful cross-party work has led to a single, unified amendment on an elected House being presented to the House today. I will not repeat remarks I made at Second Reading and in Committee, but I will speak to a new aspect of this amendment, in order to be helpful to the House. The new addition is the inclusion of citizens’ assemblies as a mechanism for deciding the second Chamber’s form and composition. We are at a dire time in our politics, when trust is at an all-time low. This is largely due to ordinary people not feeling that they have a voice that is listened to by decision-makers. Can we blame them? We can and must do so much better.
The British Social Attitudes survey, published by the National Centre for Social Research last month, found that 79% of those surveyed believe that the present system of governing Britain could be improved “quite a lot” or “a great deal”. I am not saying that there are not good things about this place; there are. There are many individuals here who bring expertise in their field, and that is invaluable. Our conduct through cross-party work could perhaps be learned by the other place and other Parliaments. However, its form, composition and procedures are not fit for the 21st century. It is clear that this Chamber needs reform. I believe that this work can begin only once we establish that those of us who scrutinise and draft new laws must be accountable to the people who live under those laws.
So what is a citizens’ assembly? It is a group of typically 50 to 150 randomly selected citizens, broadly representative of the population. Members are selected by a civic lottery and brought together to learn, deliberate and make recommendations on a specific policy issue. Governments around the world have used them to engage citizens in decisions on complex issues, such as constitutional reform, climate change, social care and electoral reform. I support using citizens’ assemblies as a mechanism for shaping a new elected House for two main reasons. First, trust in Parliament is at an all-time low. Secondly, I trust ordinary people to know what is best for them.
Citizens’ assemblies and similar deliberative forums are well established and used all around the world as a way of delivering informed and trusted decisions on complex issues. In Ireland, citizens’ assemblies were utilised in 2016 and 2018. The Irish Citizens’ Assembly involved 100 randomly selected citizen members who considered five important legal and policy issues. In France, the Citizens’ Convention on Climate took place in 2019-20. It was formed following the yellow vest protests and resulted in 149 policy recommendations, many of which were incorporated into national legislation. In Canada, the British Columbia citizens’ assembly took place in 2004 on electoral reform.
Here in the UK, citizens’ assemblies have been used across our nations and regions, covering a range of topics from climate change to constitutional reform. For example, in 2020, six House of Commons Select Committees commissioned Climate Assembly UK to examine how the UK should reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It was the first UK-wide citizens’ assembly on climate change and published its final report in September 2020. The process was well run, highly engaging and produced a highly impressive report that shows how seriously the participants took their responsibilities. Between October 2019 and December 2020, the Scottish Government commissioned the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland, which met regularly to deliberate on issues and challenges facing the people of Scotland. Closer to home—for me—in 2019, the National Assembly for Wales commissioned a national citizens’ assembly to examine how people in Wales can shape their future through the work of the National Assembly for Wales.
I turn back to the amendment at hand. It is not off-brand for the Labour Party to support this amendment as drafted. In fact, we have heard from senior members of the Labour Party who are supportive of citizen juries. The recent biography of the Prime Minister stated that Labour wanted to take a new approach to government by directly consulting voters on some of the most vexed questions on Britain’s future. It was suggested that citizens’ assemblies could be used to come up with positions on devolution, assisted dying and House of Lords reform, while recognising that Whitehall will not like this as it will not have control. Of course, we can pursue this option only with the political will of this Government. However, on something that they have history in supporting, why the delay? I ask them to join as supporters of this amendment and let us crack on with getting this done.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I shall say just a few words about Amendment 4, which I support wholeheartedly. It is a move in the right direction. The problem is that if this House does not have some democratic authority, it will lose the powers that it has left. In this modern day and age, we must have some democratic legitimacy, as has often been referred to, in particular on the previous amendments. To survive, we must have a democratic element. I am not here to talk about exactly what that should be. The whole point about this amendment is that it does not specify what it should look like, despite some comments from across the House that seem to presuppose what the outcome of this consultation would be. If moving in the right direction is starting to implement the promise given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, all those years ago then we might be moving in the right direction, but we have to get some democracy into this Chamber or it will not survive into the future.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench and I very much echo the noble Earl’s thoughts. I have spent 30-something years, between this House’s first incarnation, the other place and this House’s second incarnation, arguing for a democratically elected upper Chamber. I do so because I believe wholeheartedly that we need and deserve a strong Parliament, which requires two Houses, both of which can exercise complementary authority to give parliamentary activities what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described as legitimacy. This House as it is currently composed, even after we hereditaries have all gone, still lacks the legitimacy necessary for a strong Parliament.
My support for my noble friend is because this amendment offers a route map to getting consultation without prescribing the exact manner of how that democratic legitimacy can be achieved. I am not going to be tempted into a long speech on what I think: if anybody is remotely interested, they can find it in Hansard. What I will say is that the principle of a democratically elected second Chamber is essential for a legitimate Parliament. As I think I said at Second Reading, I am a parliamentarian first and foremost. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will seek the opinion of the House, and I will certainly support him.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, my support for this amendment is largely symbolic, but at least it is consistent with things that I have said and stood for in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about my Amendment 32, which we will come to late next week. Its purpose is to provide an echo of the Parliament Act 1911, that there is still a requirement for a democratic element to House of Lords reform, and to remind not just the House but the people of this country that democratic reform was a worthwhile stage 2 objective, which has been sadly missed by this Government in this Parliament, and that is the greatest missed opportunity of this entire Bill.
Of course, a wholly appointed House in itself has no democratic legitimacy, or very little. The argument I favoured and supported in 2012 under the Cameron-Clegg Bill of that year was precisely to provide the case for an elected House which included an unelected element—the great Cross Benches—which provided a good, tempering role on the whole of the House of Lords. At present, the House of Lords does an excellent job. It revises and scrutinises legislation, and it debates the great issues of the day. It does not overdo the power that it has. The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are entirely correct in saying that we are governed by conventions. The fear some of us have had, if we change the composition of the House of Lords, is: would those conventions exist and continue to provide that slight softening of the attitude of your Lordships’ House?
Of course constituencies are important, and I join my noble friend Lord Hailsham in saying that the only way of doing it—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby—is to have constituencies, perhaps based loosely on the old 80 or so European constituencies in the country, with voting in perhaps a third of them every five years to get the kind of difference that this House needs.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, when I am at a college in the Midlands this Friday morning with the Learn with the Lords programme, the first thing I will say is that the House of Lords is nothing more than a large sub-committee of the House of Commons with the power to ask it to think again. That being so, it does not matter how its composition is arrived at.
The legislation that would be required by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, must by definition reduce the powers of this House. It would have to remove the right to chuck out a Bill. We have the right but do not use it, for self-evident reasons, but what is to stop a troublesome elected second Chamber throwing out a Bill before it even revises it? That would be chaos. That would have to be put in the legislation before the new Chamber arrives. Would the Prime Minister down the other end appoint the leader of this new Chamber? Of course not. Self-evidently, that could not happen. So would there be Ministers in the second Chamber? There do not have to be; Ministers can be summoned by this Chamber from the other place to Select Committees and to explain Bills.
There are a few issues to be raised here that are not being talked about, which is why this idea is a bit more complicated than people think. I fully accept that the Chamber should be half the size of the Commons and should not have any Ministers. I have formed that view since I first came here. Noble Lords talk about the House of Commons as it is now, but I can tell them that between 1974 and 1979 we Back-Benchers had a lot more power, because the Government did not have it. The Lib-Lab pact was there. We have the problem of the current situation; we should not form ourselves on the basis that it will always be the same. There are a few more questions to be asked of the noble Lord, Lord Newby—which I do not expect him to answer—than have been asked so far today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is nothing if not consistent on this issue. We voted together on the seven options that your Lordships’ House was presented with in February 2003 following the royal commission. The noble Lord will recall that, in the Commons, none of the options got a majority and the whole thing failed.
If I am to be critical of what happened with the original proposals put forward by the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, the royal commission and the various proposals put forward since, including Mr Clegg’s Bill, the proponents of an elected House—of which I am one—need to do the work on the powers and relationship. You cannot get away with simply saying, “We should have an elected House”. I absolutely agree with this, but my noble friend is right that, to make it work, you would have to constrain the current powers of the Lords to make the relationship work effectively.
You would also have to tackle secondary legislation. You could not leave an elected second Chamber with a veto power—which we have used six or seven times in our whole history—particularly if it was elected under proportional representation. Clearly, a second Chamber elected under proportional representation is bound to claim greater legitimacy in the end than the Commons; the claim would always be that we represent the voters much more accurately than a first past the post system.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, may not realise this, but I am very sympathetic to what he seeks to do. But, for goodness’ sake, let us do the work on what the relationship between two elected Houses should be.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord agree that this House prides itself on being a Chamber that gives excellent views and expertise? In general, people of expertise tend not to stand for election. They tend to be chosen, for whatever reason. Is that not rather relevant to how this Chamber is supposed to work? Maybe we ought to have more experts in the House of Lords and fewer politicians.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend, whom I respect greatly and have worked with over many years, underestimates the calibre of many Members of Parliament. I take his point that many of the people who come forward in relation to an appointed House might not put their names forward for an elected second Chamber. But at the end of the day, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it is very hard to justify a second Chamber of Parliament that does not have electoral legitimacy. My plea is that we make sure that that legitimacy is produced in a way that does not bring us to conflict.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very torn on this. I favour a unicameral approach and a lot of the arguments against the elected second Chamber have been made very well, even though I want a more democratic way of making decisions.
There is a crisis of democracy at present that expands far beyond this debate. What really struck me in the debate on assisted dying in the other place was the number of times that MPs effectively said, “Let’s leave it up to the House of Lords to sort out”. That is a disaster, because it is anti-democratic. It worries me, as we increasingly watch a certain implosion happening at the other end, that the House of Lords is given far too much credit for being able to sort that out. The unelected House being the ones who are trusted is the profound crisis of democratic accountability in this country. That is what we should be debating. I feel very self-conscious about being in an unelected House of Lords debating the survival of an unelected House of Lords—which people stay and which people go. It is so self-regarding.
As for the notion of a House full of experts—philosopher kings and all that—I cannot imagine anything more off-putting to the British public than us patting ourselves on the back and saying that we know more than anyone else. I appreciate that is fashionable, but it should not be something we embrace. That is not to undermine the expertise that is here, but please do not try to make it a virtue in terms of democratic decision-making.
However, to go back to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, one problem with the discussion on hereditary Peers is that it is too limited. It suggests that it is revolutionary and reforming; in fact, it is just going for low-hanging fruit when we should be having a proper discussion about a democratic shake-up at both ends of this Westminster Palace. I feel that we are wasting an awful lot of time while Rome burns.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, even if it started slightly predictably. If an all-appointed House is eventually created by this Bill, many—whatever some of us think—will contemplate the logical next step in reforming the House of Lords, which is to consider a democratic mandate. We must not get away from that. I heard talk earlier of “bringing the House into disrepute” by our debating the issues we were, but I am not sure that it helps to be seen laughing at the idea of election, which we did earlier, although it might have been that we were laughing at the Liberal Democrat obsession with proportional representation—one never knows.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, explained, it has been a long-held aspiration of the Liberal Democrats and, before them, the good old Liberal Party, which really was liberal, to replace your Lordships’ House with an elected Chamber. It is there in the preamble to the 1911 Act, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde always reminds us. There have been various attempts, often supported in this Chamber, to achieve a democratic second Chamber: in the 1960s, in the 1970s and most recently by the coalition in 2011. My colleagues are not unhappy with me at the moment, but I will upset them by saying that it was a proposal which I and many others in this House assented to. As we know, it could not be prosecuted because it was frustrated procedurally in the other place by a number of Conservative MPs and the Labour Party.
There is logic and consistency in the noble Lord’s position. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Winston; he really is an expert, whatever others say. However, speaking humbly as someone who has fought seven elections in my ward and won them all, and twice fought elections to be leader of my council and won both—sorry—I hope your Lordships do not consider me to be a complete nincompoop. I do not claim to be an expert, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that some people who are elected can be good.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have spent a whole life in the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I dare say people in the Labour Party could probably say the same thing.
The desire for election therefore is not just in the Liberal Democrat party. There are people on our Benches who have spoken on it; we heard from my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. The reality is that this Bill, as presented, creates something unique in the world, outside Canada, which is an all-appointed House, stocked by the Prime Minister, now with the aspiration to be able to remove people. No other democratic nation allows the Prime Minister of the day to decide who his opponents in Parliament will be, and how many, or to stock the Chamber. We will stand alone in the world. They used to say that this House was the only house outside Lesotho which had a hereditary element coming into it. If this legislation goes through, we will not find many models without the kind of additional elements that my noble friend Lord Hailsham talked about earlier. We have to look at the shape of the House being created as the result of this Bill as presented. I welcomed what the noble Baroness the Leader of House said earlier about an opportunity; we have not discussed the shape of it in the usual channels, but we obviously will, and I welcome that. The only thing that she did not say was anything about a Bill, although we have a later debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. When he moves his amendment, I would like to hear a little bit more about whether there will be a Bill—the first I heard of it was at the Dispatch Box. The Minister told me she has been having consultations, and she has come to House and said that, but we still do not know the full shape of what is proposed. What she said earlier seemed quite narrowly confined to the issues of age and participation. The challenge by my noble friend Viscount Hailsham that we will need to look a bit more at the full nature of reform is important.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Brady, for tabling their amendments. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I am one of the minority: a West Midlands-based Peer.
My noble friend Lord Winston as always makes a pertinent and interesting point with regard to experts. He is someone I regularly reference when I talk about our House of experts. I usually say that I doubt he, like many of us, would ever have put his name forward for an election—but we are lucky to have him.
Amendments 4 and 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, are similar to his Amendments 11 and 115 in Committee. They seek to place a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to introduce a democratically elected element to the House of Lords. In bringing forward proposals, the Government would be required to consult with a number of groups—I am glad the noble Lord remembered to add the public to his list this time around.
Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, is similar to his Amendment 90D in Committee. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Government to produce a Bill which makes provisions to limit the size of the House and provide that all its Members be elected.
We had a spirited debate on similar amendments on the second day in Committee, when your Lordships made a number of insightful and intriguing points about the fundamental nature of this House and its place in our constitution. That debate and this one underscored the importance of considering the potential benefits of reform, alongside the implications for the balance of power within Parliament. Like then, I note that the debate today has demonstrated that the House has yet to settle on a particular side of this issue. This remains a fundamental issue with all the amendments.
Put simply, amendments of this kind are not for this focused Bill. This legislation is the first step in reforming the House. As stated at the beginning of Report, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Leader of the House will set out in more detail how we plan to approach the next stage of our reforms.
The longer-term aim is that the Government will consult on proposals for more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide their views on how to ensure that this alternative Chamber best serves them. Amendment 22 in particular cuts across this aspect of the Government’s manifesto commitment as it does not make any provision for consultation with the public.
It is clear that there is an appetite for reform and that there are ongoing conversations that we will need to have, but it is also clear that we are not yet ready to have a settled position within your Lordships’ House. With that in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, withdraws his amendment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is normally the case that at this point, one says that it has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite us having debated this many times, it has been a very interesting debate because it has illuminated the central issue that a democratically elected Lords would raise. Are we to be a mere adjunct of the Commons—and, at the end of the day, a totally powerless one—or not, and are we to be part of a more effective parliamentary system in which the Government are challenged effectively?
The truth is that under the current system, the Government are challenged effectively in the Commons only when they have a rebellion in their own ranks. The Opposition cannot challenge them because, at the end of the day, they always win. We cannot challenge them, because at the end of all the ping-pong, we have no legitimacy to stand firm. I do not think anybody who has followed recent decades of British parliamentary activity would claim that the Government have been challenged effectively and that nonsenses have been called out effectively by Parliament, so I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Thurso, for making that point.
Obviously, as noble Lords have pointed out, there will be tensions between two elected Houses, but I believe that—as in many other countries which have this—it is possible to resolve them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said he opposed having the House of Lords elected under PR because it would give us more legitimacy in some senses than the Commons elected under first past the post. Of course, there is a very easy answer to that, which is to elect the House of Commons by PR as well. That would clearly be a great advantage.
The Government’s approach is an Augustinian one of “We want to reform, but not yet”. We ought to be putting a bit of pressure on them, nudging them towards the goal which they claim to espouse. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Welfare Reform
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the repetition, but for 32 years I dedicated my working life to helping people into work, not just by finding them jobs but by opening their eyes to the opportunity, purpose and dignity that meaningful employment brings. I do not rise today to lecture the Minister on the challenges that her department faces, nor do I believe that it serves this House to relay political refrains about the past 14 years, which do little to address the pressing realities we face.
We all recognise the scale of the task ahead, which is why yesterday’s events were so concerning. In response to widespread unease across Parliament, key elements of the Bill were withdrawn. The result is a significantly weakened piece of legislation that now faces serious questions about its purpose, scope and impact. Even with those changes, more than 40 Labour MPs felt compelled to vote against it. That should give us all cause for concern and cause to pause. It reflects not just concern with the process but discomfort with the overall direction.
I genuinely do not envy the Minister. Ministers were asked to defend proposals that have since been fundamentally altered. In the process, the Government have not only damaged their credibility but opened a £4.5 billion hole in their fiscal plans.
These Benches are clear: urgent welfare reform is necessary, but it must be long-term, evidence-led and considered. Reforming PIP or any other benefit should never be reduced to short-term savings driven by arbitrary fiscal targets. We were told that the Bill would reform personal independence payments, but this approach to welfare has been crude and alarmingly hasty. Both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation confirm that the revised proposals will deliver no net savings this decade. This is not just a missed opportunity but a collapse of any clear policy.
Welfare is a vital lifeline for people facing illness, disability or disadvantage. Reform must focus on strengthening this support, securing long-term financial sustainability and maintaining public confidence. This starts with asking the right questions. Is the current system sustainable? No. Are eligibility criteria fair and effective? No. Why are 3,000 people entering incapacity-related benefits each day? How do our costs compare internationally and are those differences justified? How do we strike the right balance between compassion and cost? These are not questions for headlines or quick fixes; they are serious questions about complex and long-term governance, requiring thoughtful cross-party collaboration.
This also highlights the limits of top-down approaches. Tackling entrenched unemployment, or an ever-increasing PIP bill, requires more than a new set of policies; it requires moral leadership, cultural awareness and deep community engagement. If we are to tackle the welfare challenge, policy must be person-centred, culturally intelligent and grounded in the lived experience of the communities it seeks to serve. Real fiscal gains come from reform: a smarter, outcome-focused approach that helps people to move into work. That is how we reduce the welfare bill: not by crudely cutting support but by reducing the need for it, while protecting those with serious health conditions.
I urge Ministers to take stock. Do not confuse speed with strategy. Do not mistake cuts—much needed as they are—for reform. Go back, reflect, consult widely and return to Parliament with a plan that meets the scale of the challenge, with the care and responsibility it demands.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for introducing questions on the Statement. She quite rightly talks about missed opportunities of not only the current Government but the previous Government.
Welfare provision is a broken system. We should not proceed until we hear from the Timms review. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There is no doubt that we are abandoning valuable members of our society. People within the leadership of the Labour Party who described PIP as “pocket money” should know better. We are enshrining in law that we have a system that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others—this is an early proclamation by the pigs who control government in Animal Farm; the phrase is a comment on the hypocrisy of Governments.
Let us be clear: the proposals are a leap in the dark and not even the Ministers know where they are going to land. The proposals are ill thought-out, rushed and continually amended. As days, weeks and months pass, we will see the unedifying and unintended consequences.
The access to work scheme for those with a disability needs to be urgently fixed. Could the Minister tell the House what consultations have been made with carers about this legislation?
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill sends a message to disabled children that those who have gone down the path of their disability degenerating to the extent that they can claim PIP will be over the line, but those youngsters who know they have a degenerative condition can look forward to no PIP under the Bill.
PIP is a passport to other levels of support, such as blue badges or railcards, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living their best lives. Perhaps the most passported benefit from PIP is the carer’s allowance. On these Benches, we have grave concerns about the Bill’s impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carer’s allowances. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 a year.
We recognise the benefit system is broken and needs resolving, but it needs to be co-designed with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people.
The root of the problem, sadly, is the NHS, which is where a lot of these problems start. We really need to sort out the National Health Service and social care. They are part of the problem and the solution. This so-called reform sticks a piece of sticking plaster over it, pats it on the head and says, “Now leave it to Auntie”. Sadly, Auntie has not a clue.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for the tone of her contribution. She and I may sometimes disagree on analysis and solutions, but we both recognise the system is flawed and want to find ways of making it better, and I am grateful to her for that.
Before I turn to the specifics that were raised, it is worth reiterating the principles behind our reform, because that is what the noble Baroness challenged me to do—to have a principles or evidence-based approach to reform. Our principles are quite simple: those who can work should work; if you need help into work, the Government should support you; if you cannot work, you should be supported to live with dignity.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill sets out to do two things: to reform PIP and to reform universal credit. As was announced yesterday, and I suspect most noble Lords will know by now, we will now be looking at PIP in the round, in the context of the review being led by my right honourable friend Stephen Timms. I will return to that and the question from the noble Lord in a moment.
The rest of the Bill makes crucial changes to universal credit, so our social security system can offer the right incentives and support to sick and disabled people. It introduces the first-ever sustained, above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. According to the IFS, that is the largest permanent, real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefit in decades. It ensures that those with severe, life-long health conditions, who we do not ever expect to work, will never be reassessed.
The changes in the Bill are part of a wider package of reforms, including our right to try guarantee, scrapping the work capability assessment and our massive investment in employment support for sick and disabled people.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that this cannot be done top-down. We are working with councils, regional authorities and mayors to try and build these from the bottom up by getting local “Get Britain working” plans and devolving support working in partnership. What helps you to get to work in Liverpool is not the same as in Lincoln or in parts of Cornwall. We are doing that and making sure that it works.
However, this is going to be a record amount of money: across this Parliament, a total of £3.8 billion of health and disability support. This remains an important piece of legislation, and we all seem to agree that the current system is clearly in need of reform. But the truth is that welfare reform is never easy. If I ever thought it was, I now know that it definitely never is. It is perhaps particularly hard for Labour, because a lot of my colleagues care passionately about this and it really matters. I know other colleagues do as well.
We always said that we would listen: to disabled people and their organisations, and to MPs, and no one can say we have not been listening. We have definitely listened. Having listened carefully, we have tabled amendments in the other place to remove Clause 5 from the Bill, and the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. That means that we will move straight to the wider PIP review, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and will let that conclude before we make changes to PIP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned how we got here. The reality is that we are doing the difficult work required to fix a fundamentally broken system. I know she knows how hard this is. She is right—we do not want to throw bottles at each other—but her Government invented PIP to try to solve the problems with DLA, and now PIP has the problems that we see here. Having inherited a system that is not working, we have to try to find a way to make it work properly.
We also have to do something about proper employment support. One of the many things the last Labour Government did, through measures such as the New Deal for Disabled People, was narrow the disability gap. I am sorry to say that when the coalition came in and scrapped it, the gap began to widen and has never really shifted since. We have to give good, proper investment in employment support of the kind that I know the noble Baroness has experience of.
I think one speaker asked about the fiscal consequences. Obviously, we are well aware that these changes will have a cost, but the cost will be certified by the OBR in the usual way. However, the real prize here is long-term reform. It is long-term reform that will start to shift the dial on the way we approach social security.
To answer the questions about the Timms review, it will be led by my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, and it will be co-produced with disabled people, disability charities, other experts and parliamentarians. We have already published the terms of reference. The work begins now and I hope that reassures the noble Lord about the work that it will be doing. Our aim is to get a new assessment that commands the widest support possible so that we can ensure that PIP is fit for the future in a changing world.
While the work begins on the Timms review, the Bill presses ahead with important reforms to universal credit. Crucially, it addresses the disincentives to work that have been allowed to build up. Because the previous Government froze the standard allowance repeatedly, we ended up in a situation where someone who gets the health top-up in universal credit gets more than double what a single person just getting the standard allowance gets. That traps some people in the system entirely unnecessarily by incentivising people to define themselves as incapable of work. Our permanent real-terms increase to the standard allowance will mean nearly 4 million households getting an income boost worth around £725 a year by 2029-30 for someone aged 25 or over. That is balanced by a reduction in the health top-up for new health claims from next April.
I also listen because some people expressed concerns about our original proposal of a freeze to the health top-up for existing claimants. We are committed now, in another change, to ensure that the combined value of the standard allowance and the health top-up rises at least in line with inflation for existing claimants. That will protect their income and these benefits in real terms every year for the rest of this Parliament—that is, for existing claimants. That will also apply to those who have severe lifelong conditions who we do not expect ever to be able to work, and those near the end of life. We think that strikes the right and fair balance.
I have probably answered most of the questions. To make a general point, however, we have just closed a consultation on a Green Paper. There is a lot of reform going on. We have this Bill, with all the universal credit measures still here, but with the Timms review looking at PIP, which will be engaging and co-producing it with disability organisations and other experts. There is also a big consultation out on major changes in this space. But for all of us, the country needs us to get this right. We know we need to get it right. I am one of those people in politics who thinks listening is a good thing. If you listen and you want to change your mind, you change what you are going to do. That is what we have done. I think we are doing a better job and I commend this Statement to the House.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I have power of attorney for two adults, close relatives, who are in receipt of PIP. As a carer and a mother, I have had to deal with the DWP for most of my life and most of theirs.
I just say to the noble Baroness that I was as critical of the Conservative Government’s methodology in reforming disability benefits as I am of this Government’s. If I ask her just one thing in this short period, it is this. When my noble friend opened on behalf of the Conservatives on this Statement, her experience shone through. There are ways of helping people who have lifelong disabilities to get into work, even people who have been out of work or never been in work. I have raised many of these issues with the noble Baroness; she knows my criticisms. Please, train the people in Jobcentre Plus. Use the examples that charities use—for example, to get autistic people into work—because they know how to do it. Please do it. The money will seem far less over time once those methodologies have been changed.
As a carer, I am exhausted. I am exhausted by having to try to explain to people who are really anxious about their financial futures, “Don’t worry about it, it’s all going to be sorted out—it’ll be all right”. In fact, I am genuinely worried. I am 80 next year and, like many elderly carers, I do not want to leave my relatives for whom I have responsibility with this sort of mess.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. The House has benefited, as have I personally, many times, from her expertise and the care with which she expresses what she does. I commend her on what she has done personally and express my regret that the pressure on her and so many other carers is as great as it is. She stands as a shining example. The points she makes are really important; I will pick up a couple of them.
First, I should have said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and to reassure anyone listening, that we are not making any changes to PIP until we have had the results of the Timms review. Nothing in the Bill when it comes to this House will affect people’s entitlement to PIP. I think we made that very clear yesterday. To be clear, we have tabled amendments in the Commons to remove Clause 5, which said you needed a minimum of four points. That will not happen, so I hope that will give some assurance to people.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see, as we begin to unfold our reforms to jobcentres, that we are going with the grain of exactly what she says. One of our concerns is that the system in jobcentres has become too box-ticking. We really need to release our work coaches to spend less time checking everybody in and more time focusing on the person in front of them and figuring out what they can get. What do they need? What help can they get? How do we support them? For some people, that is getting into a job, for others, it is moving closer to the labour market, and for some it is leaving the house. Our job is to support our work coaches. We are doing some incredibly interesting work with piloting and evaluation, trying different ways of supporting people and trying to go with what works— I am sorry: I am taking too long. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and we will absolutely take on her points.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I would like my noble friend to expand on why it is so important that we tackle the issue of ill and disabled people being disproportionately out of work, looking not only at universal credit and the broken system of access to work but at ingrained prejudice and broken mental health services, particularly for young people. I welcome the Statement from my noble friend.
I just want to make a comment about PIP. I have a very close relative who has been working with one of our disability charities for the whole of her working life. She says that she is very irritated—this is not about the Government—by the misunderstanding that PIP is something that prevents people returning to work. It is clear that it is a non-means-tested benefit. Disabled or ill people who work do not lose their PIP, and people who work can claim it to help them with additional costs. The narrative that PIP is keeping people out of work is one that she and her organisation profoundly disagree with.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I am really grateful to her for clarifying that. Those of us who spend a lot of time in the weeds of social security policy have to remember to be clear what we are talking about at different times. To be absolutely clear—I know that Members of this House will know—PIP is a non-means-tested, non-taxable benefit and will stay so, and it is claimable in and out of work. Roughly 17% of people who get it are in work, and we hope that more will do so in future.
My noble friend’s broader point is extremely important. To tackle the disability employment gap, we need to do a number of different things. One is to tackle the underlying conditions. For example, she mentioned mental health. We have seen growing challenges in mental health in this country, but the Government have invested very heavily—for example, with young people, in specialist mental health professionals in every school. Our youth guarantee for young people will improve access to mental health services. We are also investing heavily in the NHS to try to get waiting lists down and to support people into mental health services.
We also have to make sure that employers are able to do their bit. I am really excited and looking forward to the report that we will get soon from the former chair of John Lewis, which will look at how we can support employers, what more employers can do and what barriers there are to employers taking on sick and disabled people. We are going to tackle it on all fronts, but I am grateful to her for raising that.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a current non-executive director of NHS England. Will the Minister explain whether it the Government intend to return to face-to-face PIP claims, including a biannual review for the majority of claimants? If not, what are the reasons behind that? The Timms review continues, and none of us wants people who are genuinely disabled to lose out, but we also know that the online system has resulted in a lot of inappropriate claimants who have been successful. We need to deal with that, rather than wait for the outcome of the Timms review. In addition, will the Government review the Motability scheme, which the majority of taxpayers, particularly the lower paid, consider unnecessarily expensive, as new vehicles are normally provided every three years?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important point about face-to-face assessments. There used to be face-to-face assessments; they were stopped during Covid and restarted only slowly and at quite a low level. We have said publicly that we want to ramp those back up again, so she raises an important point. On the Motability scheme, just for clarity, nothing in the proposals in the Bill now or in earlier incarnations affects the mobility element of PIP, only the daily living allowance, but I take her broader point and I will be happy to have a look at that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister a very specific question about young people. The Statement says that almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—they are NEETs. It then says that that is one in eight of all young people. That figure is true if you count 16 to 24 year-olds, but if you take 18 to 24 year-olds, it is 14.8%, which amounts to one in seven of our young people. Indeed, over the past five years, as the Minister probably knows, the number has been rising. One of the big problems is that 29% of 16 to 24 year-olds with a disability are NEET, but only 9% of that age range without a disability are NEET. What are the Government planning to do to help young people, far too many of whom are not in education, employment or training?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, because that is a really important point. We should all be worried about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. What chance do you have in your adult life if you do not get anything at the start? He also raised an important point about why. The truth is that the evidence takes you so far.
We are bringing in a youth guarantee for all 18 to 21 year-olds to ensure that they can easily access quality training, an apprenticeship or help to find work. We will also shortly be running trailblazers around the country for 12 months and we will use them to inform the design. They will try different things, because we want to try to find out what works for different kinds of young people. We talk about young people as though they are all the same, and of course they clearly are not. Some young people who are severely disabled will never work and we will need to give them appropriate support. There may be others who are having, for example, mental or some physical health challenges and, with the appropriate support, health support, encouragement and other forms of local support, they could begin to move back towards the workplace. I am really looking forward, as the pilots start to be evaluated, to finding evidence about what works, taking that out and changing things.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have 10 minutes left. We have plenty of time to get everybody in if we are orderly about it. Let us hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
Thank you very much. I declare my interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. I want to continue in the tone of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and support the Minister on the importance of supporting people to work. She will know, because she confirmed in a Written Question to me in April, that the average waiting time for applicants on Access to Work to receive a decision is 84.6 days, and 62,000 people are waiting for their applications to be processed. I will read the Minister an email I got from an adult with cerebral palsy this week, who said:
“The government has … cut Access to Work support … without any warning. All of a sudden they don’t fund things that they did until recently. So people are losing their jobs, purpose and ultimately their sanity. They will end up back on the benefits that are being cut”.
What is the Minister doing about Access to Work now, rather than waiting for all the various reviews?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Baroness knows, given her connection to the sector, that we specifically consulted on the future of Access to Work in the Green Paper. We are now working our way through the responses, and will make decisions on that basis. The demand for Access to Work has been growing at a very high rate—the previous Government will have been aware of this. It is very challenging. We want to consult on it and then look at how we can reform the system to make sure it helps as many people as possible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that common sense finally prevailed, so that the review of PIP will be undertaken before any decisions about eligibility. I hope that that will help to allay the anxieties expressed so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and that we have all received in our inboxes. It is also welcome that the review will be co-produced with disabled people and organisations that represent them—something that was not done under Conservative Governments. Although, as the Secretary of State said, the precise methods of co-production will need to be worked out with disabled people and other stakeholders, can my noble friend assure us that co-production will mean that they have a full and genuine say throughout the policy process? Will the DWP consider extending the same approach to its ongoing review of universal credit?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for appreciating the decisions that we have taken. In terms of co-production, the Secretary of State and my colleague, the Minister for Social Security and Disability, have been very clear that this review will be led by Minister Timms and co-produced with disabled people, their representative organisations and other experts. Work has already begun on scoping. We have published the terms of reference. We are already beginning to engage and we will make sure that that is a genuine process.
We understand, if we are to have this level of reform, that we need to try to build a consensus around what a good PIP assessment process will look like. We also need to try to have popular public confidence in the system. If we are to sustain the level of investment that we have in our social security system, we need to make sure that people feel that it is being done well, appropriately and given to the right people.
On the universal credit review, which is looking at the way that universal credit operates, I can reassure my noble friend that we are doing focus groups with Changing Realities to look at specific aspects of the way the system works at the moment. I hope that that will reassure her.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious, having run the DWP for three weeks—three years, rather; in some ways, it did go by in a flash—during Covid, of how challenging this was for the Government. The principles that the Minister set out are exactly the same ones that were there when the Conservative Government were in office.
I am trying to find one of the things that came through in the press release and the Written Statement; I cannot find the regulations for the right to work, because that is building on reforms that we introduced, or were starting to introduce, and some other matters. The key issue is about the increase in mental anxiety, depression and similar. I know that the IPS has been expanded, but I would be very grateful to know what the Minister is doing with Ministers in the Health Department to focus on mental health treatment in order to help people who really would be better off in work but need that extra support to get them there.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and obviously respect her experience. I can assure her that the last week has felt like a year, so I can understand her confusion. She raises two very important points. First, the regulations will be published. We are absolutely committed to regulations guaranteeing that trying a job will never in and of itself be a reason for being reassessed for a benefit. That feels important, because we must do everything possible to help people. People must not be in a position where they get twice as much money for not being able to work and then are afraid of trying out a job because of what would happen if does not work out. She has hit on an important thing. I hope that she will be assured when she sees the regulations that they are doing what she wants.
On the question of mental health support, we are working very closely with Health Ministers. This week, we are launching our 10-year health plan, which sets out very ambitious plans. Patients will get better access to support, including, for example, self-referral for talking therapies without needing a GP appointment. There will be 85 new dedicated mental health emergency departments and, as I mentioned earlier, significant extra support in schools—our youth guarantee of helping young people to get access to mental health support. We must find ways of supporting people. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point that, whatever their barrier is, we must help them overcome it. We cannot just tell them to go and work. That simply will not work. So I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising two important points.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the concessions from the Government on welfare reform. Having been a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive with responsibility for welfare reform and disability benefits, I know that this is a difficult issue.
These concessions will cause a funding gap for the Treasury. Can the Minister say that these concessions regarding welfare reform will not be filled by below-inflation increases to social security benefits, in particular universal credit?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Any official decisions will be made in the Budget in the usual way. They are matters for the Treasury. To reassure her on the specific point, the Bill says that we are guaranteeing an above-inflation increase to the UC standard allowance in each of the next four years. That means that, if you are a single person aged 25 or over, the allowance will increase to £106 a week by 2029-30. That is unheard of. As the IFS has said, it is the first time in decades that we have increased beyond inflation the rate of universal credit. So I hope she is not only reassured but delighted.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the work capability assessment was introduced by the last Labour Government. Back in 2010, when I was Employment Minister, I and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott worked hard to improve it. I believe very strongly, having sat through many assessments, that some kind of challenge is needed in the system to make sure that those who have the potential to work are given the right incentives and push to do so. The abandonment of the work capability assessment leaves a vacuum in the system. How will the Government fill it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I probably have not explained this as well as I could have—I apologise to the noble Lord. We absolutely regard as the single biggest challenge the fact that the incentives are in the wrong place when it comes to universal credit. So we are doing two different things. First, we are separating support from your capability to work, abolishing the work capability assessment and looking at how a single assessment can be used to make the appropriate judgments, giving support on the basis of need.
Secondly, we are making absolutely sure that we do not put you in the position of there being perverse incentives, so you end up making decisions that would not be good for you in the long run. There are 200,000 disabled people who reckon that they could work now with the right support and would like to. We should start by giving the right support to those who want to work but simply are not able to. The noble Lord is right that we should be challenging everybody, making sure that they are making the right choices and supporting them, but the first thing to do is to get the incentives in the right place, or it will never work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in continuing the cuts to the health element of universal credit and denying it entirely to people under the age of 22, the Government are offering in recompense the fast-track £1 billion support plan to get people back into work. Yet in a BBC report on 27 June, a senior DWP official was quoted as saying that the Government did not have
“a properly considered or deliverable programme”.
Another DWP official was quoted as saying that not much has been done since this plan was announced in March. How many officials are working on that plan and how far has it progressed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the department is absolutely focused on this. There is not one single aspect of these changes. We are trying to turn around the entire department, from one that had a very heavy focus, understandably, on processing benefits, to one that is focusing on supporting people into work. The crucial bit, as I mentioned earlier, is helping every individual work coach to focus on how we get somebody into work and support them appropriately. To correct one thing that the noble Baroness said, she mentioned access to PIP for young people. We consulted on that—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I apologise. We consulted on support for young people in the Green Paper and will look carefully at the results.
This Government are committed to making the lives of sick and disabled people better. If people have severe conditions and are never going to be able to work, they deserve to live in dignity and we will support them. However, if they could get a job and improve their own lives and those of their families, we will support them in that too. I hope that the whole House will want to support me in doing that.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (30 Jun 2025)
21:56 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 55 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (power to confer life peerages), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend that a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 5 is in the names of my noble friend Lord Newby, me and others. In preparing for this, I was also looking at preparation for Friday’s debate on a report from our Select Committee on the Constitution, Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution. That report in effect says that the chief responsibility for maintaining constitutional behaviour in Britain rests with the Prime Minister. That is to say the Prime Minister, who is the all-powerful Executive, is also responsible for making sure that the Executive behave themselves. That, of course, is one of the underlying problems with our unwritten constitution: it relies on our Head of Government being a “good chap”, or a “good chapess” in the case of Liz Truss. The responsibility, authority and power to appoint Members of the second Chamber also lie with the guardian of the constitution and Prime Minister, more or less unchecked.
The Written Statement we had the other week—quietly put out on the Government’s behalf—suggests that future party appointments to this House should require the party nominating them to provide a short note on the qualifications for the—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, just as a matter of accuracy, I think he is talking about the citations that are already in place and were used in the last list to come forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My apologies. The Prime Minister in future would have to justify overriding the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This perhaps is some control mechanism on the Prime Minister’s power of appointment, but we have lived through a difficult period in which we have had Prime Ministers who did not particularly pay attention to constitutional conventions and did override the advice on the integrity and suitability of nominations presented by the Prime Minister.
I think the long-term answer to this is clear: we change the way in which this House is constituted. The Bill we presented when we were in the coalition in 2011 and 2012 suggested that we would do much better to have a second Chamber elected in thirds for 15-year terms. That would resolve a lot of these problems, but in the meantime, with the very slow pace of partial reform that we have on these occasions, we need a number of interim measures to limit the Prime Minister’s prerogative and to guard against the real risk that we might again have a Prime Minister who is not a good chap or chapess.
Over the last 30 or 40 years the British have constructed a number of what are called constitutional guard-rails to limit the Prime Minister’s untrammelled prerogative power. We have the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and the House of Lords Appointments Commission itself. The Labour Party’s manifesto committed to construct a new ethics and integrity commission that will also be a means, yet undefined by the Government, of checking the Prime Minister’s untrammelled authority and holding the Prime Minister to account.
We are all painfully conscious that not all Prime Ministers or presidents respect constitutional or ethical constraints. We have experience in this country, the United States has an extremely painful experience at the moment, and we might again have the experience after the next election, so this interim measure seems to many of us necessary and highly desirable. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 5 and 6. I very much support enhancing the powers of HOLAC, largely for the reasons explained by the noble Lord. Too many appointments made by previous Prime Ministers have been of people who I rather doubt were in any sense appropriate. That, I am afraid, has happened on too many occasions.
In Committee I tabled an amendment which did not find favour with my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne. It would have required HOLAC to state its reasons for not approving an individual and allowed that individual the opportunity to make representations. I did that because I was very conscious that injustices can happen, and I think natural justice requires some form of remedy. My noble friend argued very persuasively, as he always does, that this would open up the prospect of judicial review. I am bound to say that I think he was unduly pessimistic; I do not agree with him. But I took the sense of the House, and I have not repeated that part of my amendment.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Is my noble friend not aware—I speak as a former member of HOLAC—that it does indeed subject any applicant for membership of your Lordships’ House to quite stringent questioning on the extent of the commitment they are likely to make to the House and the attendance they are likely to give to the considerations which take place within the House, and that that represents one of the key factors in HOLAC’s decision-making process?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I think we are in agreement. What I am in favour of is putting this in a statutory frame. I do not doubt that it is done in a discretionary manner, but I would like it to be statutory. I think it is a very slight difference between us, and I hope we will not fall out on the matter.
My second point—I feel sure that I will not have the agreement of the Front Bench here—I make as a permanent, paid-up member of the awkward squad, and it relates to the oath. It has been a long time since I took the oath of a privy counsellor. I did not take away a copy and I am not quite sure what it said. But I have been on the internet to have a careful look. What it actually says is that, when members of the Privy Council have a clear and informed view, they should vote and speak accordingly. I actually believe that is the duty of your Lordships—all of us. It certainly seems to be the duty of members of the Privy Council.
There are many matters—I now speak personally—on which I do not have a formed or an informed opinion. I like to think that they are the same. In respect of those matters, I am quite happy to take the guidance of the Front Bench. But then I ask myself: what is one’s duty when one has a formed and informed view? I think it is quite plain; it is to vote in accordance with one’s conscience and opinion. We are not echo chambers. This is not an echo chamber. We are not part of a chorus line; we are here to express an unfettered view in accordance with our settled opinion. I would like Members of the House to take an oath to that effect before they sit in this place. So when a member of the Whips’ Office comes along and says, “We want you to vote”, you would simply say, “My dear, I simply don’t agree with you and, what is more, I have sworn an oath that I will speak in accordance with my conscience”. That would be conclusive of the matter.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 19, in my sole name, which proposes the replenishment of the Cross Benches following the departure of the hereditary Peers with 20 appointments over five years via HOLAC, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is chaired so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Currently, there are 32 hereditary Peers sitting on the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House—an increase in the years since I joined, when I believe there were 28 hereditary Cross-Benchers. No group will be greater impacted by the impending removal of the hereditary presence. Unlike other groupings within the House, the Cross Benches do not speak with a single voice, despite being so ably convened by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his illustrious predecessors, nor do we have any political or parliamentary machinery with which to lobby for replacements to ensure the relative proportion of the Cross Benches remains consistent after the passage of the Bill.
Contemporary political scientists and commentators —and, after this afternoon’s debate, I think the majority of your Lordships—consider that the expert, independent and ameliorating presence of the Cross Benches in this House is an essential element of its good legislative function. The Cross Benches provide considerable subject matter expertise not found on the more political Benches and tend to carry an apolitical casting vote that acts as a dampener to the political noise that emanates from the other place and is echoed here through the party-political Benches. We mess with that tempering role at our peril. I would ask the Minister to explain clearly in her closing speech how the Government propose to ensure that the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House will not be diminished as a result of this legislation.
Your Lordships may recall that we debated this in Committee with Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, added their names. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, apologises that he cannot be here today, but he reiterated his support when we spoke this morning. He previously noted the importance of HOLAC and the people’s Peers process as a means of admitting distinguished and apolitical expertise to your Lordships’ House. The angels of HOLAC would not gain access by any other means. Think of the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Lane- Fox, Lady Bull, Lady Watkins and the indefatigable Lady Kidron—the champion of our creative industries. Think of the tireless work of many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel, Lord Currie and Lord Adebowale. None would have been here but for HOLAC.
Amendment 19 would ensure that your Lordships’ House continues to benefit from this HOLAC appointments process, which is particularly important given the dramatic decrease in the number of HOLAC appointments in recent years. To reiterate the numbers referenced in Committee, there were 57 appointments during HOLAC’s first 10 years between 2000 and 2010. Since then, there have been only a further 19 appointments, with six since 2018.
Baroness Browning (Con)
As a former member of HOLAC, I wonder if I might intervene briefly. In the term in which I served on HOLAC, we would have liked to have introduced two or three Cross-Bench Peers a year, which had normally been the case. I am afraid that we were prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister of the day.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
That is very helpful, because I was going to propose a possible number. As I was saying: in other words, from initially making nearly six HOLAC appointments a year, we now have only one such appointment annually.
Despite having a non-partisan, highly qualified appointments commission, we are simply not making use of it. Given that this Government are determined to honour the constitutional commitments of the Blair years with the Bill’s passage and the final abolition of the hereditary peerage, should they not also honour the Blair Government’s connected commitment to HOLAC and permit the replenishment of the Cross Benches in the way proposed by Amendment 19, which would ensure a modest appointment rate of perhaps four people’s Peers per annum?
As I have previously noted, I do not think that hereditary Peers should be converted into life Peers in any significant number. Amendment 9 should not pass. This is because our particular demographic will remain well overrepresented among the remaining Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not therefore see Amendment 19 as a route for abolished hereditaries to return to these seats, albeit that they would be welcome to apply with anybody else as common citizens. Rather, we should take advantage of the removal of the hereditary presence to increase the diversity of our membership and bring a broader array of expertise and opinion to bear upon your Lordships’ legislative efforts.
As I understood it—and as mentioned earlier—one of the main reasons for retaining a rump of hereditaries back in 1999 was that it would encourage the further reform of this House, leaving it better, not worse, as a legislative body. I am concerned that the Bill, as currently drafted, removes a group of largely independent-minded Members and increases the proportion of Members that are politically motivated. Amendment 19 would reverse that and replenish the House with a group of non-partisan and technically expert Members. It also has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the loss of hereditary Peers, which must surely be a good thing.
On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to hearing from the Minister why it cannot be adopted to support the continued and essential vibrancy of our Cross Benches.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, in this grouping I support Amendment 6, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.
Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House—and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve this priority aim.
If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political numbers were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed by HOLAC would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers.
As a result, within that total of 600, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political Members each; next, the independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100.
These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and continuing our present high standard of legislative scrutiny.
However, regarding life peerages conferred on independent non-political Cross-Bench life Peers within a reformed House—and as my noble friend Lord Hailsham emphasises—in the first place it must be HOLAC and not the Prime Minister of the day who recommends these appointments to the King.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I intervened in Committee to explain why I could not support Amendments 5 and 6. I will repeat my argument briefly now. These two amendments would put the committee, HOLAC, into a position where it overruled the Prime Minister. In one case, the Prime Minister could make appointments to the House of Lords only on the advice of HOLAC:
“No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a life peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.
So HOLAC would make the recommendation. In the other case, the Prime Minister could be prevented from conferring a peerage on the recommendation of the appointments commission. Both these cases would mean that the Prime Minister was entirely constrained by this advisory committee.
My argument is that the Prime Minister’s powers should not be constrained by a non-elected committee of people, however distinguished. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to other committees that constrain the power of the Prime Minister, but they are crucially different because they are simply advisory. In this case, what is being proposed is committees that would enforce their decision on the Prime Minister. In the case of non-elected people, that is wrong. If Parliament were constraining the power of the Prime Minister, either to appoint or not to appoint, that would be acceptable. It is not acceptable that a non-elected committee, however distinguished, should do so.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Like him, I have a similar view that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should not be able to constrain the powers of the Prime Minister. Our system of appointment may not be perfect, but it does at least have some semblance of accountability, in that the person who is responsible ultimately is directly elected.
However, although I would therefore not support any amendment that gave greater powers to HOLAC, that does not mean that we should pay no attention to what a Prime Minister does, or that we should not seek clarification about what he intends. So I was intrigued by the Prime Minister’s Written Ministerial Statement of only last month—19 June—setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties in making nominations to this House, and especially by what he had to say about his and HOLAC’s roles in relation to the Cross Benches.
In his Statement, the Prime Minister reminds us that HOLAC determines the suitability as well as the propriety of any Cross-Bench Peer it nominates to him for recommendation to the King. As I think other noble Lords have said, but I will add for clarification, I personally would not want HOLAC to have a role in considering the suitability of nominations from any political leader to the political ranks. The Prime Minister also says in his Statement:
“I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Crossbench peers … These nominations will … be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/25; cols. 26-27WS.]
The Prime Minister is making it clear that, for any peerage that he nominates straight to the Cross Benches, HOLAC’s role is only to look at the propriety of such nominations, which I think is quite interesting.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who has asked some pertinent questions about a topic that also caught my eye. Since this Bill was in Committee, there have been two significant developments in terms of the Cross Benches. As my noble friend has just alluded to, there was, on 17 June, a list of four nominations to the Cross Benches. They are four very eminent people: Sir Tim Barrow, Dr Simon Case, Dame Katherine Grainger and Dame Sharon White; we look forward to welcoming them all to the House and the work that they will do. The announcement of their peerages was accompanied by short citations; I have previously paid tribute to the Government for introducing those citations, as they are very helpful. They set out the great distinctions that people have had in their careers and the expertise they will bring to your Lordships’ House. It was not made clear, however, whether these four worthy people were nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission or directly by the Prime Minister.
There was a doctrine in the 1990s, under Sir Tony Blair—he wrote a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament outlining it—that he would nominate a small number of distinguished people who, for reasons of their former career, were understandably not suitable to be partisan Peers, directly to the Cross Benches. At the time he set that out, he said it would be around 10 people per Parliament: they were known in Whitehall as the “Cross-Bench exemptions”. Are the four people nominated on 17 June Cross-Bench exemptions nominated by the Prime Minister, or were some of them nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Was my noble friend Lady Stowell correct just now that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has yet to make recommendations for the Cross-Bench Peers that it suggests, quite separately from the Prime Minister of the day?
Like my noble friend Lady Stowell, I was interested in the Written Ministerial Statement that the Prime Minister made to Parliament on 19 June, as well as in the questions that she asked about HOLAC’s role in assessing suitability. The Prime Minister said in that Statement of 19 June:
“The Commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the Sovereign”—
echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. He went on:
“In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk”.
That happened under previous Prime Ministers. The current Prime Minister, the noble Baroness and others were extremely critical of that. Is it the case, as the Prime Minister has said to Parliament, unlikely though he says it will be, that he now agrees he may need to exercise that judgment, to disagree with HOLAC and to appoint people to your Lordships’ House against its recommendations on propriety? I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, again I feel that I am slightly swimming against the tide in opposing this amendment, which seems to me rooted in the outlook that I think of as “good chappery”— I am borrowing the nomenclature of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing it. It is the idea that when you are appointed to a public body, in some presumably painful operation, your opinion glands are cauterised and you suddenly become a wise, disinterested, neutral person who is uniquely capable of raising your eyes above the partisan scrum and descrying the true national interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked, “What if the Prime Minister isn’t a good chap or a good chapess?”, the implication being that, if you are appointed to HOLAC, you must by definition have these virtues. But who appoints you to HOLAC? How is it that you suddenly, by virtue of getting there, drop all your assumptions and prejudices and become this kind of idealised platonic guardian? I have to say that it is a doctrine that has debilitated and delegitimised successive Governments, because it has widened the gap between government and governed.
I called it “good chappery”, but actually a more accurate word would be oligarchy: it is a way of taking a group of people and putting them in a privileged position. It is an oligarchy based now not on birth so much as on outlook. How many HOLAC nominees, for example, would have voted with the majority in the 2016 referendum, just to take the one thing where we actually have an exact measure of how the country at large felt about one specific issue?
The idea that we can, in making these changes to the composition of this House, in effect narrow the way of coming here, put in another filter, strain the nomination through some sort of handkerchief of good chappery, strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the times and almost certainly unacceptable to public opinion. It is also, by the way, very much at odds with the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I was one of the small number who supported it. It is one of those funny things where everyone spoke in favour of it and then everyone voted against it. It was rather like the Holocaust education centre thing: all the speeches were one way; all the votes were the other way.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Not all the speeches, no: my noble friend Lord Howard was indeed one who spoke in favour of the education centre.
It seems to me that, once we start making these changes, the pressure is going to be for widening rather than narrowing the route by which people come here. In other words, there will be more pressure for some kind of direct representation, some democratic element.
I put it to those noble Lords—I suspect the majority on both Benches—who do not want a democratic Chamber that their best tactic was just to lie low and do absolutely nothing and allow this House, in the words of the Gilbert and Sullivan song, to do nothing in particular and do it very well. Once you open the issue of the composition and function of this Chamber, you invite the public into a conversation which I can guarantee will not end with a consensus around putting more power in the hands of some appointed committee rather than an elected Government.
To go back to something that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in a previous group, there is a very strong case—now that we have decided to open the issue and change our composition by removing our remaining hereditary colleagues, in my view mistakenly—for having a royal commission and looking in a measured and judicious way at how this Chamber can be made more democratically accountable. If we do not do so in a timely and temperate spirit, it is very likely that a future Government will make changes that the majority of noble Lords gathered here would not like and they would do so in a spirit of frustration, having been defeated on some measure. They would lash out in anger and legislate in haste.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in Amendment 5, to which I have added my name. I say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that the theory of good chaps in government was a wonderful theory of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom we do not see now as much as we used to, which depends on the fact that we all actually like to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as I think he said, we have discovered that we do not always do the right thing.
I support my noble friend on the Front Bench exactly because some check and balance on probity is required. The desire for probity in public life has been there as long as people have been in public life, but the desire to codify it began with the cash for questions scandal. It has grown over the years and today we have the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Seven Principles of Public Life. If you stand for and are appointed to a public body, as I was in Scotland, you are required to indicate that you know what these are and agree to uphold them.
My noble friend’s amendment simply ensures that, where HOLAC has made a recommendation to the Prime Minister by informing him that it does not think someone has that required probity, the Prime Minister should not make the appointment. In this I rather disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, although I have the greatest respect for him. Under his argument, if a Prime Minister decides that the ultimate rogue on the planet should get a life peerage, he should get it. I disagree fundamentally with that. There should be a check and balance.
I regard this amendment as a negative rather than an affirmative instrument. The other amendments are more affirmative instruments, which I disagree with. Under this amendment, the Prime Minister puts forward a name and HOLAC looks at it—I think, generally, we can accept that they are people of good will, as good as we get in terms of neutrality in this House—says whether there is a fairly major problem and advises the Prime Minister of it. The idea that HOLAC is overridden on the person it has considered—Lord knows what they might have done; they could have fiddled their taxes or done all sorts of things—and the Prime Minister goes ahead is wrong.
This happens already. The Honours Committee receives nominations and goes through the probity. If the person it looks at is not thought, for whatever reason, to be fit, the recommendation does not go forward. This is very much in that vein. I will happily support my noble friend in his amendment because it is a simple, small buttress for probity in public life.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 5, 6 and 31. Noble Lords will probably realise that we are reprising the very excellent debate we had on 14 March about my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth’s Private Member’s Bill, which essentially sought to put HOLAC on a statutory footing.
This debate prompts us to address Tony Benn’s five questions about power, because this debate is about power and putting Members into the upper House of the UK legislature, and it is a very important issue. His five questions are: what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? In some respects, these questions are unanswerable, because the effect of the amendments is to put HOLAC on a statutory footing. I believe that would embed semi-permanently an already closed and opaque system of appointment.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, it may be worth thinking about where this power for the Prime Minister to appoint Lords came from—I am thinking of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. It derives from the fact that King John had his power to raise taxes taken away from him by the Magna Carta. He was left with the right to appoint Peers—to create Lords—to wage war and to write and sign treaties. Since then, the waging war and treaties have recently come under greater scrutiny. There are problems with that, and Parliament is certainly facing them at the moment in the treaties being written.
The one thing that no one seems to be questioning is that the Prime Minister has the right to advise the King, and constitutionally the King does not refuse the Prime Minister—because that is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Prime Minister has the ancient monarchical power to create Peers. If we think that this power is still right 800 or so years later, that is fine, but we should maybe be thinking, as our predecessors did all those centuries ago, about circumscribing this right and having more control over the unfettered power of the Prime Minister, who is also the head of the Civil Service—and the judiciary, which is now a Civil Service department, the Ministry of Justice—and the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. I do not really like him having control over everything.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have long thought that the problem with the Bill is that we all become rather high-handed in talking about the hereditary Peers, as though they are the epitome of anti-democracy in this House. To be honest, we have all been appointed; none of us was elected. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a way of feeling good about ourselves by looking down on the hereditaries, when in fact none of us has a legitimate right to be here.
That to one side, I had a lot of regard for the spirit of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, looking for a democratic way of electing a second Chamber. The spirit of that, at least, was that the demos—the people—should decide, and I regarded that well. Yet the lead amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seems to epitomise the opposite of that last amendment, because it is all about anti-democracy. It would give the ultimate power to an unelected committee answerable to no one. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, explained that very well, and there have been follow-on speeches expanding on it.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked us to imagine that the Prime Minister—or indeed president, as he said—may not be a good chap or chapess. I wondered who would decide who and what is good. Would it be HOLAC, or the noble Lord, Lord Wallace? It is possible that he and I would not agree. The whole tone was that constitutional guard-rails would be set up by those who know better, who are more ethical or more virtuous, just in case the voters voted in the wrong way and voted in a wrong ’un. We all know that this is a nod to having a go at the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and that it is about President Trump, not President Biden. It has a partisan feel to it.
When it comes to legislation, I am very worried about how many Henry VIII powers are being used at present and about the number of statutory instruments contained in Bills. I argued that when they were put forward by the Conservative Government and agreed with many people in the Labour Party in opposition about that anti-democratic trend. I am sad to see that with Labour in government, there are even more Henry VIII powers and statutory instruments. In other words, we should be worried by an anti-democratic trend that we are witnessing. If we have to have a second Chamber, the Lords, and if we are going to appoint people, at least let us retain the notion that the Prime Minister—who has a democratic mandate—should be the person who decides, rather than an unelected committee.
As a note on the virtues of unelected expert committees, I am absolutely fine with them being advisory but not in charge. This morning, in relation to a discussion on the infamous door that has cost a fortune and does not work, and on that ugly fence that is an anti-social insult and looks like a barrier between this House and the public, we heard that it was all agreed by a very worthy committee. None of us even knew it was happening, because it was unanswerable. At the end of that discussion, I still could not work out who had made the decision. It was even more opaque than a Prime Minister deciding on who gets in this House. In other words, having a committee does not make it okay.
Finally, I will speak in favour of being partisan and taking sides. I am all for the virtues of the Cross Benches, but something seems to be wrong about the notion that the Cross Benches are full of the great and the good, who are experts, and that somehow they are superior to anyone who has an opinion, a passion or a principle, because they know more than the rest of us. I appreciate that I never joined the Cross Benches—somehow I did not get invited.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am just pointing it out.
They are apparently independent, but not that independent. There is a group of us who are sort of maverick; we are called non-affiliated—God knows what it means. It is very important that we defend the right to be political, to be partisan and to say, “I’m not an expert, but I absolutely believe in this”. If we are to exist in here at all, can we at least have some purpose beyond saying how many PhDs we have or how many charities we run?
The great and the good are great and good, but the writing of laws in this country—being legislators and being political—is not just about that. I am as frustrated as anyone about the way that party politics—the whipping process and so on—can damage political independence and courage on all sides of this House. We have witnessed it tonight and we have witnessed it in the other place over the last few days. That annoys me, because I want people to believe in something. On the other hand, the danger of saying that we are a House of experts, and that we will now have an expert HOLAC group that will decide on how many more experts it will bring in, is that we are kicking politics out of what should be an absolutely political place.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long. Many years ago, under a Conservative Government, I advocated that Nigel Farage should become a Member of your Lordships’ House. If we had recognised the role that he played in taking Britain out of the EU, people would have said that he does represent the majority in this country.
At the time, he was polling quite significantly—which is more than one could say for most Cross-Benchers in this House—and he was a very significant political player, whether you agreed with him or not. Neither of the political parties was going to nominate him, so it would have taken the Cross-Benchers to make him an offer to join them. At that time he might well have done so, because he thought he had finished his political career by taking us out of the EU, and he would have had a very valuable role to play in your Lordships’ House.
Think how different things would be today. It does not follow that he could not have led Reform from your Lordships’ House, but I suspect that it would have been rather more difficult. We would have been in a very different position today if he were a Member of your Lordships’ House. When we think about how representative our House is of British public opinion, we have to bear in mind that there are serious players out there who are not represented here, and I believe that they should be.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, while we are all pondering what might have been, I will just say that I agree, to an extent, with the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Hannan. Something that worries me about HOLAC, or any kind of body like it, is that the establishment appoints itself, which risks losing diversity.
On the other hand, I think we are trying to let perfect be the enemy of good. Surely we need a body to look at the propriety of the people proposed to this Chamber. The one point that I think is essential—and on which I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—is that HOLAC should not have a veto on what the Prime Minister can do. We have to accept that we are dealing with human beings, and sometimes we may have a Prime Minister who makes erratic choices. The key thing is that they have to justify those choices, not that they are prevented from making them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, described pretty much what is like to be a Cross-Bencher: without having to take an additional oath, you just speak your mind and vote with your conscience. I will let him ponder that one.
Finally, I am not quite sure how any of this relates to the Bill, but perhaps I am being too narrow in my thinking.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly and with some trepidation as somebody who came through the HOLAC process. Although I might have become part of the establishment, I did not start as that. I definitely came from a working-class family and I definitely came from the Midlands.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others about the importance of increasing the diversity of the House because of the importance of having diverse views within the House. I worry that the combined effect of our procedures and allowances system will always mean that it is very difficult to have people who have not become a little bit like us.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I spoke extensively about HOLAC in Committee, and noble Lords will probably all be grateful that I do not intend to repeat all I said.
I know that there are many different views across this House on HOLAC, but I think we can all agree that we want a House that serves with integrity and commands public trust. HOLAC provides a non-statutory safeguard within the process for appointments to your Lordships’ House, and its recommendations are currently advisory and do not bind a Prime Minister.
Amendments 5 and 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seek to prevent life peerages being conferred when HOLAC recommends against their appointment. Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham proposes that HOLAC, in place of the Prime Minister, should propose peerages and any recipient should be fit and proper as well as committed to participating in your Lordships’ House. The effect of these amendments would place the power of nomination to this unelected Chamber in the hands of HOLAC—an unelected quango.
As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded the House, and this was reinforced by many of my noble friends this evening, HOLAC was created as an advisory committee; it was created to advise, not to dictate. To make its recommendations binding would fundamentally change its remit and transform it from being a source of counsel to being a gatekeeper for your Lordships’ House. That would be a profound constitutional shift.
The power to recommend appointments to His Majesty should rest where it does now: with the democratically elected Prime Minister, who is accountable to the people. I am glad that the present Prime Minister, who was very critical of former Prime Ministers who ignored the views of HOLAC, has now said that he might, now that he is in power, do the same. My noble friend Lord Parkinson has already quoted from the Written Ministerial Statement, but it is worth saying again:
“In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk”.
As a slight digression, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Stowell and Lord Parkinson for bringing the attention of the House to the Prime Minister’s words on the directly appointed Cross-Bench peerages that were referred to in the same Written Ministerial Statement. My noble friend Lord Parkinson reinforced the concerns and referred to the Statement from the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I remember this Statement because I had to dig it up when we were trying to work out how the Prime Minister made Cross-Bench peerages. At the time, these Cross-Bench peerages were limited to 10 per parliamentary Session or per parliamentary term.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank your Lordships. So there were to be only 10 of them per Parliament, and they were meant to be for public service; I think they were meant to allow Cabinet Secretaries to be appointed here—which is marvellous, of course—and various others. But there has been a slight change in approach, and I would be very interested in the Minister’s views, following the comments of my noble friend Lady Stowell, on this idea that there might be a two-tier Cross-Bench peerage process: those that HOLAC judges suitable versus those that the PM judges suitable. It is interesting, because this raises a new question of what the criteria for suitability are, if these appointments are supposed to be non-partisan. The more Peers the Prime Minister appoints to the Cross Bench, the more he risks potentially undermining the status of that section of the House. I think that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. As I say, I would be interested in the Minister’s views. That was a small digression, I suppose.
To refer to the amendments in the group, although I have sympathy with the two conditions proposed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, particularly the latter, in light of the Bill’s move to expel some of the most active participants of our House, I point out that the current system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC exists to advise, and the Prime Minister decides. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice, but HOLAC must remain an advisory committee, and its remit should not take the place of a Prime Minister.
Finally, Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, like his amendment in Committee, seeks to encourage HOLAC to recommend 20 new life peerages for the Cross Benches. I appreciate the sentiment of this amendment. Your Lordships’ House is set to lose a considerable amount of experience and expertise from the noble Earl’s Benches—not least his hugely respected convenor, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if the Bill passes unamended. Other amendments are still to come from various noble friends, and they seek to resolve this problem in a similar way but for the whole House. I hope that colleagues on the Cross Benches will consider lending their support to these amendments.
In conclusion, I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House on HOLAC and appointments to your Lordships’ House but, as I said in Committee, the balance we have preserves scrutiny and responsibility, and we must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, particularly when it moves away from democratic oversight.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and to those who tabled amendments. We have had a very thoughtful and helpful discussion.
I will pick up on a couple of points, because a range of views has been expressed this evening and questions asked. The point about what is your Lordships’ role in this House has come out quite clearly. There are those who said we are a House of experts, while the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was quite clear in asking what is wrong with politics and political parties, even though she does not represent a political party. It just strikes me that, yes, we have a number of experts in your Lordships’ House and we value their expertise, but we are not all experts. The reason we have a number of experts is that we listen to their advice and the information they give, but we are all here to exercise our judgment. That judgment is what we should all bring, and that is the seriousness with which we take our role.
I have considerable sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I think we are trying to get to roughly the same place, to ensure that those who are appointed to your Lordships’ House will have the confidence of this House and the public that they are here to do a role and exercise their judgment in the right way. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, goes further than that, because he is seeking to completely remove the Prime Minister or any democratic accountability from the process of giving the sovereign advice on appointments, instead giving it to a commission that has no accountability—he is nodding; that is the correct interpretation. I think that I and a number of other Members struggle with the idea that that is appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is looking to give the commission a new power to advise the sovereign on 20 new non-party-political appointments over the next five years.
Let me address some of those points. The Statement that the Prime Minister issued really clarified the role. This comes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. There is no change in the arrangements for HOLAC for appointments to the Cross Benches. For those appointments that come through the Prime Minister, whether to the Cross Benches or from the political parties, but go through the Prime Minister, HOLAC is asked to assess for propriety.
It would be totally wrong for any Prime Minister to use that route to make party-political appointments, and I have spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about this, giving an absolute assurance this Prime Minister would never do that. It would be completely inappropriate. There is no change: it is exactly as it always has been. The rules are those that other Prime Ministers should have followed—and have in most cases, I am sure—for that route through to the Cross Benches via the Prime Minister. There has been a slight change. I think that originally it was for public servants, but both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the current Prime Minister said that it was for people who have a track record of proven public service. Our recent appointments show dedicated public service. Four excellent appointments have been made to the Cross Benches. They are not necessarily public servants, but public service is important. That was a wise move by the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and by the Prime Minister to reconfirm his interpretation of that. HOLAC has a role on suitability in the appointments made by HOLAC to the Cross Benches.
Those are the appointments where HOLAC will also look at suitability, as well as propriety. The Prime Minister also mentioned in his Statement a pretty unlikely event which reminds us of the prime ministerial prerogative on this issue, something I think some noble Lords are seeking to remove. It would be a very serious and almost completely unprecedented step, but there has been one occasion when a Prime Minister has gone against HOLAC on propriety. We have set out the process that the Prime Minister should follow and been transparent about that. I think it is quite a serious step to take.
If the Prime Minister were to make an appointment against HOLAC’s advice on propriety, he would be completely transparent on the reasons why, and he would be held to account for that decision. He would be held accountable—that accountability is the issue that has been raised. He would write to the commission to explain the decision and HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee to notify Parliament that that advice had not been followed. The key there is accountability, as set out in the ministerial Statement.
Lord True (Con)
May I ask the Minister a clarifying question? I think this is important, irrespective of which party is in office. I think she has described the situation very fairly and clearly. Obviously, this prime ministerial power, which is not new, of direct appointment to the Cross Benches, raises the question of how those are assessed. I do not quite understand the internal procedures of the Cross Benches, but I know of people who sit on the non-affiliate Benches who have been put through some kind of process. The Cross-Benchers may think that they are a bit too close to one party or another. If the Prime Minister—I am not saying necessarily a Labour Prime Minister or a Conservative Prime Minister—used this procedure, would the Cross Benches be able to say, “We think that this woman or this man is too close to the Conservatives” or “too close to the Labour Party”? How would that operate? Do the Cross-Benchers have a say in who is appointed to the Cross Benches in terms of their background?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is probably more of a question for the Cross-Benchers than me, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is ready to leap to his feet.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. This is obviously an issue that has arisen and has been the source of considerable correspondence, which predates me—Lord Judge began it. It would obviously not be proper for the Cross Benches to be part of some approval process, but we have been able to lay out sufficient rail track so that, certainly for my part, I feel very comfortable that the Prime Minister is going to appoint only people suitable for the Cross Benches and have no recent record of involvement in party processes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Earl will know more about the history of non-aligned appointments. I do not think we have appointed anybody who is not aligned at all.
Interesting points have been made about accountability and suitability. Political parties must be responsible for the suitability of those whom they put forward, just as HOLAC is responsible for the suitability of its appointments. Partly because they are largely my idea, I think citations are a good thing because there is more information in the public domain about why somebody has been appointed. However, it would be a regrettable situation if a political party was then to say, “Oh, we don’t test suitability. That’s a matter for HOLAC; we don’t take responsibility for our appointments”. All political parties should take that responsibility rather than pass it on to HOLAC.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Is the Leader of the House comfortable with the fact that Reform commands 36% of popular support in the polls and has no representation whatever in this House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is a whole issue around this because the SNP has no representation in your Lordships’ House either. The noble Lord has spoken about Nigel Farage being offered a role. Given that Mr Farage’s policy is now to abolish the House of Lords, he may not have been willing to accept that role. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point well. There should be a diversity of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made the same point. There are a range of diversity issues that we should look at, including diversity of opinion. We make better decisions because of that. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said earlier—I have used this line, having heard him use it in debates here—in many ways we are a sub-committee of the House of Commons. We can only recommend suggestions and changes to the House of Commons. We bring our judgment to those decisions.
To finish the point that I was making beforehand, we do not believe that the amendment for 20 new life Peers is necessary. The number of nominations is a matter for the Prime Minister, but he will take into account the political balance of the House when making those decisions. It is essential for the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was a little cross with the Cross-Benchers, perhaps because they have not invited her to join, although they may reconsider that now. A Private Member’s Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, proposed the Cross Benches being roughly 20% of the House. That is a fair figure for the House. The noble Lord has heard me say time and again that the House works best with those kinds of figures, with roughly equal numbers of both political parties of government and when we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when we do our best work.
In some ways, I appreciated the honesty of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his amendment about removing the Prime Minister from the process and having HOLAC deal with this, but he also spoke about participation and the role that we expect Members to play. He is absolutely right that we should expect all Peers to participate in support of the core functions of this House. That means not just turning up to vote occasionally but taking the role as a Member of your Lordships’ House seriously. That is one of the qualities mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement—willingness to contribute and play an active role in the House. It matters how Peers get here, but it matters more what Peers do when they are here and how seriously they take that role. Although participation is not a matter for this Bill, I have set out—we will discuss this later—a proposal that may allow us to take that forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the independence of the Cross-Benchers. I think there is a role both for independents and for party politics in your Lordships’ House. I do not think any of us would say that we slavishly follow our party. I think sometimes we wish more did, and I am sure the Opposition Front Bench may say the same, but we do bring judgment. I just keep coming back to that point. Our judgment and integrity are important on these issues.
My final point is on the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, of a new oath for all appointments. I think I understand why he has raised that, and it is a thoughtful approach, but we do not consider it necessary. When a Peer takes the oath in this House and they sign as a Member of this House, that includes a commitment to uphold the Nolan principles of public life so, in a sense, that oath is already there. The Nolan principles are important, and I trust noble Lords to take that commitment to the Nolan principles as seriously as they would take any extra oath, so I do not think it is necessary.
I understand why the proposals have been put forward. The noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wallace, have been sincere in this, but I wonder whether it is a stretch too far. There has been only one case where a Prime Minister has overridden the propriety advice of HOLAC. I think it is wrong to do that. It is hard to envisage circumstances where it would be appropriate, but I think that ensuring absolute transparency, if it were to happen, is the appropriate way forward. I see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about to leap to his feet, so I will give way before he asks.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Before the Minister sits down—literally in this rare instance—I am grateful to her for the comments she made about the Prime Minister’s Statement and the clarification she gave. She alluded to it, but, just for clarity, is she saying that our four new Cross-Bench colleagues are Cross-Bench Peers selected by the Prime Minister rather than Cross-Bench Peers recommended by HOLAC? I think that is what she was alluding to, but it would be good to have that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Those four Cross-Benchers have come through the route of public service, and there is still obviously the expectation that HOLAC would have its appointments done separately. I think that was quite clear in the Statement. I am sorry that that was not clear to the noble Lord before.
Having answered questions again, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this debate has gone a good deal wider than our modest amendment. Perhaps we will come back to oaths, and the question of the balance in appointments of Cross-Benchers, between the great and the good and people’s Peers, is another thing that we should clearly come back to.
I was very struck at various points in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, particularly when he was discussing the difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy. Liberal democracy is where those who govern do so with a degree of checks and balances to make sure that decisions are taken with due consideration and that policy does not swing with popular opinion too rapidly from one to another.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says that we should not have unelected judges holding Governments to account, he is actually saying that the rule of law should not be a check on the tribune of the people, whoever the President or Prime Minister may be. In this amendment, we are talking about a check. We are not saying that HOLAC should make all the nominations. We are saying that, when the Prime Minister makes nominations, HOLAC should advise and the Prime Minister should accept that advice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord says this is not about all nominations but just those from the Prime Minister. However, the only other nominations other than the HOLAC-appointed ones come through the Prime Minister from the political parties, so which nominations is the noble Lord referring to?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
In that case, I must have misspoken and I apologise. The Prime Minister makes the nominations and HOLAC considers them. That seems to us to be a valuable part of the checks and balances of a liberal democracy.
This is not a new problem. Boris Johnson is not the only person who has abused the system. If one is looking for villains of the past, my party provides by far the greatest in David Lloyd George, who sold peerages. Thankfully, we have moved away from that. I wish to press this to a vote, so I ask if I may test the opinion of the House.
Viscount Hailsham
“Term limits and retirement age(1) A member of the House of Lords who has sat in the House by virtue of a life peerage for 15 years or more ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session of Parliament.(2) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 85 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I will be very brief. I will say out of an abundance of caution that I will not test the opinion of the House. However, I think there is a very strong case for introducing peerages for a limited period and a retirement period. There are two reasons for that.
First, membership of this House needs to be refreshed, otherwise you get inflationary numbers of an intolerable degree. My two proposals, of a retirement age and limited peerage duration, address that. If one is honest about this, one’s experience decays over a period of time. When I first came into the House, I knew rather a lot about criminal law. That was about 15 years ago, and I knew a great deal more when I went into the House of Commons in 1979. But one’s knowledge changes and, while I have an understanding of the general principles of criminal law, I do not pretend I have the expertise I previously did. So my first point is that one’s expertise declines.
Secondly, many of the issues one is wholly conversant with have changed. When I first came into Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence was wholly unknown and we did not have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters to try to regulate AI, social media and debate transgender in a sensible way. It is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues than my generation are to address them. That requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age and limiting the period for which peerages are created. So I beg to move but, as I said, I will not be testing the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I too see the benefits of a retirement age and therefore will speak briefly to Amendment 20 in my name, which is a variation on that theme. Whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, proposes a retirement age of 85 in Amendment 7, my Amendment 20 is somewhat simpler. It proposes the introduction, only for newly appointed life Peers, of a retirement age of 80 or of a date 10 years after the Member’s introduction to the House, whichever is later.
Amendment 20 would thereby give effect to the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80. However, it would also introduce an important allowance for those who join your Lordships’ House after the age of 70. This is an important distinction, as it would do away with an arbitrary 80 year-old age limit and ensure that those such as serving Supreme Court justices, whose period of public service has a retirement age of 75, will be able to enjoy at least a full decade of service in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of the age at which they are appointed.
Noble Lords may recall the probing amendments in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his excellent speeches introducing them, along with the famous Blencathra Excel spreadsheets calculating the impacts of various retirement ages. He noted that a retirement age of 80, if implemented immediately, would have a draconian effect on numbers in your Lordships’ House, removing up to some 327 Members. My Amendment 20 avoids that guillotine, as well as the organisational shock that would result therefrom, by imposing the age limit only on the newly appointed life Peers appointed under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
This would ensure that we do not instantly lose the valuable institutional wisdom among our more experienced Members, and it would not impact any current life Peers. Amendment 20 would thus fulfil Labour’s manifesto while tempering the age-based guillotine—at least for our existing Members—and gently introducing a retirement age that certainly seemed to find favour with the majority of those present in Committee who expressed an opinion. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to the response from the Leader of the House, particularly in light of the indication she gave earlier that there may be a Select Committee convened to consider just this topic.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 20, which was ably proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Let me remind the House again of the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto:
“Labour will … introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House”.
The next sentence says that Labour
“will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, so kindly pointed out, in Committee I attempted to help the Government by putting down a number of amendments on retirement ages, giving the House three options of retiring Peers at the age of 80, 85 or 90. A retirement age of 80 would have removed 327 Peers, which was far too draconian. I think that is why the Labour Party suddenly dropped the proposed retirement age of 80—it realised it would lose 95 of its own number. A retirement age of 90 would remove just 16 Peers and would not be worth it. A retirement age of 85 would remove about 185 Peers, and I think there was quite a bit of consensus in the House that that figure was about right. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, then made this refinement, which makes a lot of sense and is a vast improvement on my suggestions. I think he also had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Burns, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—I hope I am not doing them a disservice by misquoting them.
I have not tried the patience of the House by tabling those amendments again tonight, but I suggest that the solution to the objections we will hear from the Government at the end of this debate explaining why we cannot do this lies in my Amendment 14 in the next group, which I will elaborate on then. The Government will reject these amendments—and next week will probably reject Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on non-attendance—on the grounds that they are too complicated for primary legislation, that there are a lot of loose ends still to be tied up, that there are unforeseen consequences, that we must consult goodness knows how many people and organisations before we legislate and, of course, that there must never be any amendments to this sacred Bill, no matter how meritorious.
Apart from the last two bogus points, there is merit in the Government’s arguments. We do not have the minutiae of how a retirement scheme at about 80, with amendments and tweaks, would work. Would it be on a Peer’s birthday or at the end of the Session or the Parliament? As for consultation, I submit that there is not any single person or organisation who knows the slightest thing about the retirement of Peers compared with all the current Peers in this House. We are the people to be consulted. I accept that we do not have the minutiae of retirement provisions ready to put in the Bill or any primary legislation.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I observed in Committee that everything in life tends to have a retirement age, so I feel that it is vital to bring in Amendment 20, or something like it, as part of the modernisation of the House.
I will make only two points. The first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations that I have worked in, we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff-edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good—expelling the human capital that it has bought—without replacements right away, is an organisation that weakens itself. In our House we have people aged beyond 80 —we now know that there is a large number, thanks to the spreadsheets of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—and, were we to show them the door, that would be very weakening.
This has an elegance in it, because it does not expel anybody but sets down the premise for the future. It is the route that is peculiarly British, in that it was chosen, as we have heard, by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing many years ago, and indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age. In both of those circumstances—I have spoken to people who were around at the time—the people, in any event, chose an earlier retirement age. So we would smooth out the great problem of the cliff edge.
My second and final point is about the wrinkle that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has cleverly introduced about the 10-year minimum alternative. From the Cross-Bench perspective—and indeed, through us, from the House’s perspective—this is a very good wrinkle. The Cross Bench has to provide quite a lot of judges. We need to provide judges for Special Public Bill Committees, the Ecclesiastical Committee and other purposes, for which we are lucky to have members of the senior judiciary on the Cross Benches—I am looking at at least one here—who are very valuable to the House. The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75 so, if they can get trained up only by the time they are 77, say, we will have them for a very short period of time. So it is extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat. That is helpful for the Cross Benches and the House.
When I was at the Bar school, I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it. I have now made this point four times. The Leader was pointing out that we are all judges and that we are here for judgment. I hope that noble Lords will ponder, for the fourth time, that this might be a good point.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages, but I am afraid I do not share that view. I think of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who recently retired when he was, I think, 93—someone says he was 97; even better. He was absolutely as sharp as a tack until the time that he stood down. His contributions to this House were memorable. He was a very serious man in every way and people listened to him in this House. To think that we would put in place a system that would have got rid of Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.
If we want to reduce the numbers, I have never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know who are the people in our parties who do not come, who do not contribute and who play very little role in this House. Why not allow us to elect them out and reduce numbers that way? Then we would not have this arbitrary business of saying that, because someone has reached a retirement age of X, that is the reason why they should go.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had summed up the situation at the end of Committee very well when he said that there was a broad agreement across the House that we needed to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I reckoned without the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but, having sat through those earlier debates, I suspect that he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships’ House. If we think that we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships’ House wishes to see. In my view, one way that will not achieve that is to expect to do it all via primary legislation, for two reasons.
First, no Government will want to put before your Lordships’ House a Bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes, because they have seen what has happened this time. I would not fancy being the Leader of the House who went to the Cabinet committee to explain why another Bill dealing with all these things was a priority for the Government. The other argument, which I have made on a number of occasions, and for which I apologise to noble Lords, is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding what constitutes proper attendance and participation by Members of your Lordships’ House.
To take up some of the proposals that we have just heard, if you were to say to MPs that 85 was to be the par for retirement, you would be more likely to get them to pass something saying that it should be 70, because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears almost ridiculous to people outside your Lordships’ House. This is not to say that we do not have, and have not had, many Members over the age of 85 who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age, but there are reasons for a retirement age that go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, get new experience in and prevent an organisation living off its past. That is why retirement ages are very often introduced, and is one reason why we need a retirement age here.
If I am right in thinking that we should not be looking to the Government to produce a Bill covering all these things, how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own Standing Orders. The way to get to the point where we can change the Standing Orders is, in my view, the one that the Leader of the House has proposed.
If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House with strict terms of reference and strict timetables, and which produces proposals, we can implement them very quickly on our own. We should decide what we consider a proper level of participation and what, in our view, constitutes an adequate level of attendance, and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible retirement age.
I understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any Government to set up a committee to do something that has no statutory powers to implement its recommendations, but there is such a swell of opinion on this issue about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the Government to accommodate it that I believe we should grasp that proposal. We should put forward good people from our groups to serve on it and task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That is the way we should deal with all these issues. Therefore, I believe that we should not be looking to put amendments in this Bill that deal with one or all of them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said almost everything I was about to say in the next group, but it is no less welcome for that. I just want to pick up the point about us all voting for each other. I was here in 1999, and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you, who had never spoken to you before, and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap, to use a phrase. I really hope that we do not go back to that, but let us get on to the next group and we will talk more.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I must declare a conflict of interest in this respect, because I am not quite certain—I have rather forgotten—but I think my 85th birthday is next weekend. I have to say that I am still employed; I am still producing experimental work, which is being published; I am still teaching; I am still training post-doctoral students and younger students; and I am still talking to children’s schools. The fact is that we are discussing a biological problem, which your Lordships seem to have neglected. If we had a rule that we only had people of a certain height in this Chamber and that, let us say, less than 5 foot 10 would not be acceptable, we would actually forget the Gaussian curve of normality and the statistics.
The fact of the matter is that, if we look historically, in the last 20 or 30 years of this House of Lords there were many people in this Chamber who were actually demented in their 60s, and far more in their 70s and 80s who were actually clearly not suitable mentally to be taking judgment on legal issues and issues of social care. The fact of the matter remains that medicine is changing, and there is no doubt, if we actually get successful medicines in future, as we in the Labour Party hope—we will have to see about that, of course—that we will see ages increase and people being mentally competent for longer. I suggest that an arbitrary rule at any age is probably inappropriate biologically, and we should find a more sensible way of considering how we might encourage people to retire when they are no longer competent to be Members of this House.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I cannot resist responding to that, because I agree with it. One of the problems we have is that the Whips do not have sufficient power to tap people on the shoulder and tell them it is really time, whatever age they are, if they are infirm. From that point of view, I agree: it is a matter not of age but of capability, and I think participation is the way to go to address that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, those final comments compel me to draw your Lordships’ attention to the amendment coming up later on power of attorney, which tries to look at the problem that we have all seen of some colleagues whose mental faculties, sadly, decline at earlier ages and who need to be encouraged to retire from your Lordships’ House.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their Amendments 7 and 20, which refer to other commitments in the Labour manifesto that are not in this Bill. We were told that they are not in this Bill because of a piece of punctuation in the manifesto—a full stop, which got a lot of attention in Committee and on which I shall not dwell tonight. This touches on the anxiety of many noble Lords to understand what stage 2 might look like and when it might come, and to ensure that, if we are to remove some of our colleagues from your Lordships’ House, the House they leave behind will be improved in lots of other ways, as we have discussed repeatedly.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I should note that the term limit I propose is only for those who join the House after the age of 70.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for the clarification. On the difference in ages, neither outlined why they had selected the ages that they chose, but I note that the noble Earl remains, until August, a member of the under-50s club in your Lordships’ House and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hailsham on his 80th birthday this February.
These are matters that the House or the Select Committee will have to consider carefully in the light of the very wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We are an ageing society and hope that we will all live many years longer and be able to contribute to civic life, family life and many other things in different ways. It is inherently arbitrary. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is a great example of somebody in his mid-80s still playing a very active part in your Lordships’ House. I responded to the debate on VE Day, when we were all moved to have among us the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is very active in your Lordships’ House in his 90s and a living reminder of some of the things this country and others have been through. It is very valuable to have people of all ages in your Lordships’ House.
The other significant difference between the two amendments is that the noble Earl’s would apply only to new entrants to your Lordships’ House. Following on from debates that we have had, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say something about her attitude to participation thresholds and retirement ages? Does she envisage those applying to current Members of the House or to new entrants? She was opposed to grandfather rights for people who are here as hereditary Peers, but would she afford grandfather rights to those here over the age of 80 presently who came to your Lordships’ House with a certain understanding and who have arranged their lives, houses and so forth on the expectation that they would play a full part until they choose to retire? If the hereditary Peers are to find their basis here changed at the end of the Session, should the same apply on the basis of age?
I note what the noble Baroness said in an earlier group about the Select Committee and we are grateful for that information. She said that she would discuss it in the usual channels and I appreciate that there are details to be ironed out, but can she say a bit more about her thinking on its composition? What would the party breakdown be? How many Cross-Benchers might there be? Would there be a mixture of hereditary and life colleagues? Obviously there would be no hereditaries if it is set up after Royal Assent, but might former hereditary Members be able to play a role in its work? Who should chair it? From which party or none would they come? Would Bishops sit on it?
The noble Baroness said a little about timeframes and hoped that the Select Committee could be set up within three months of this Bill achieving Royal Assent, although she was a little less ambitious on the conclusion of its work. She said:
“It has been 25 years since the first stage of this reform, and I think the House would be somewhat intolerant if we took another 25 years to bring anything further forward”.
I know that that is a figure of speech, but would the Select Committee report in this Session? If the work was not completed in this Parliament, could the Select Committee be carried over into future Parliaments?
I appreciate that this is flurry of questions, even by my standards. However, what the noble Baroness said earlier begs a number of questions about how this Select Committee is going to be constituted, how it will work, and how it can really deliver on the points that my noble friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Earl and others have touched on in this group. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is a sense of déjà vu all over again when we discuss these issues, as we have done a number of times. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of proposing the only amendment I have ever seen that was longer than the Bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time and for the spreadsheets he produced before.
I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points the noble Lord made, including that we had dropped things, the issue of retirement, and why we are going to consult so many people when this House knows best. I am not sure he was here when I spoke earlier but I hope my comments will reassure him. He also mentioned a number of phrases that he said I had said, but I never said them. I will check in Hansard; he may be mistaking me for somebody else.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made a couple of really important points. He and I have spoken about judges and he knows I am aware of that issue. He also spoke about the issue of a cliff edge. This is partly the reason, as I have said many times before in your Lordships’ House, that we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear: those who turned 80 would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they did so. As others have pointed out in my discussions with them, one of the issues is that it is quite a significant cliff edge for the House if Members leave at the same time. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised that issue—sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying at me.
In my discussions and consultations in your Lordships’ House, it has been very clear—notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age—that there is a general consensus around the House that a retirement age is a good thing, but it was a matter of two Peers and three opinions of how that could be implemented. Tonight’s debate has raised this issue and the noble Earl himself said it should be only for new Members rather than existing Members, and if you come in at a certain age you could stay longer. These are all variations on a theme. What is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on bringing forward legislation that said, “These are the various options. Discuss them and come up with something”. I went through the pretty unedifying experience of House of Lords reform in the House of Commons; MPs trooped through the Lobbies again and again, rejected practically everything and accepted nothing—we got nowhere very fast.
The noble Lord and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I have been discussing this with other noble Lords and developing how the House could take a bit more ownership of the issues and decide what could be a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are Members of your Lordships’ House, who understand how the House works.
I am prepared to accept variations of an implemented manifesto commitment. I do not know how we implement a participation requirement. I have very strong views on how it might be done; I might not be right. Other noble Lords have made suggestions around attendance and participation. I think the noble Lord missed this point in my comments. When I mentioned a timetable for a Select Committee, I referred to moving at pace. It seems to me there is no reason why it could not be set up within three months of Royal Assent.
I said that I hoped that this time next year, the House could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner, it may be later, but I do not want to curtail any committee because it is for it to say, “This is what you’ve set us to do, these are the terms of reference you’ve given us, how long will it take us to do that?” So that is a discussion for the usual channels. It should be set up in the same way as any other committee of the House.
The noble Lord asked about hereditary Peers; he seemed to think they were leaving on Royal Assent. If he reads the Bill, he will find it is not on Royal Assent but at the end of the Session. That would be for the parties that nominate to make a decision on who they want on that committee. Noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, but if they are genuinely serious about making progress on it, I would be very interested to hear what they say.
The noble Lord says that a lot can be done by Standing Orders. Maybe some things can, but it may be that other things need legislation. This could be one of the remits of the committee. If it needs legislation, then what better way to get legislation through your Lordships’ House than if we have a settled view on what the outcome should be?
I have discussed with noble Lords across the House whether there is a way that this House can come to a view on a way forward that we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly where we are able, and where we are not, that we have the fallback of legislation where there is agreement around the House. Sometimes the House says that we have to have legislation to do this—but if there are things we can do more quickly and more expeditiously, and the House agrees with that, why not do it? That is the purpose of setting this out, and I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.
I know there are some noble Lords who think that if you come in at a certain age, it should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues and would have the usual representation. It is important that we do not let these issues just drop away and that we do not just say that there are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it.
I hope that assurance answers the noble Lord’s questions. I am sure that as time goes on, he will have many more—but those are the sorts of things we will come to as we try to set it up. If he has a better idea than a Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions, but I want Members of this House to take ownership of decisions that affect this House.
I am also mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—previously and this time—that if we send legislation to the other place with an age, it may have a different view. This is something that we can do more quickly, but if we have a settled view, I am sure the House of Commons would respect that as well.
I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the suggestion that there should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues covered by Amendment 7. With your Lordships’ consent, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
“Further reform of the composition of the House of LordsWithin two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals for further reform of the composition of the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to lay before Parliament a further bill to reform the House of Lords after the removal of hereditary peers.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Altmann, for signing the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would have done so if she had been in time.
I have stated in previous debates that although I will be immeasurably sad to leave, I do not feel able to oppose the Bill. I have always recognised that the matter was in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech, and was passed by the House of Commons unamended. But before I and others leave, I want to try to persuade His Majesty’s Ministers to go a little bit further than the Leader has already indicated.
I suspect that some of the reforms—for which there is probably quite wide support in this House—will require legislation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is being a bit pessimistic about the risk of legislation coming from this House to the House of Commons on reforming some of its aspects. If it comes having reached a consensus in this House, I think it very likely that the Leader would be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that the Government should back it in the House of Commons.
The Leader announced earlier in the debate that she was proposing to recommend that the House sets up a Select Committee, but she initially referred only to it considering retirement and participation. I suggest that there are other matters in the manifesto, and indeed other matters still, that ought to be considered by the Select Committee, such as the removal of disgraced Members, an improvement in the regional balance—a very good point—and of course the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the size of the House. I believe that there is considerable support across the House for a number of those reforms.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to my Amendment 29, which would link the exclusion of hereditary Peers to a stage-two proposal. In Amendment 29, I have set out what ought to be included in a Bill. There is merit in saying to the Government that the hereditary Peers should not be excluded from this House unless and until the Government have brought forward stage-two proposals—that is the simple purpose of my amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in theory, my Amendment 14 ought not to be in this group because it would do something quite different. I did not ask for it to be degrouped because I did not want these Benches to be accused of trying to have separate groups of amendments to pad it out.
I say to the Leader that I listened carefully—on the monitor because I could not get in here—to what she said in her opening speech. She did not mention consultation, but in Committee numerous Ministers on that Front Bench told us that retirements and attendance could not be addressed in the Bill because they needed to consult on it, they needed to get more expert advice and there were lots of loose ends to be tied up. The noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, did most of that. That is a separate matter that I just wanted to put on the record.
Those of us who were here for the whole of Committee stage knew there was widespread support for a retirement age of around 85 and some tweaks, as we have heard. There was widespread support for removing the minority of Peers who never turn up or turn up so infrequently that their contribution to the House is not essential. A couple of speeches per annum from a grandee who never serves on a committee nor does any of the other heavy lifting in this House does not, in my opinion, justify attendance. That is why I support Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, which we will deal with next week.
There is also limited support for a participation requirement, but that is much more difficult and technical and would require a lot of Peers to give thoughtful consideration as to how it would work.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that I, too, do not like our retirement age, but the Government have said that one of the justifications for the Bill is that there are too many Peers and they have got to reduce the size of the Lords. Therefore, a sensible retirement age is a far more moral and legitimate way to do it than evicting hard-working hereditaries.
On the first two points, on retirements and attendance, I believe there is a majority view in the House that we should do something about it. I believe that view is just as strong on the Labour side. I think Labour Peers want to act on it, but they accept the government line that there cannot be any amendments on this issue since that would open up the Bill to all other amendments. In Committee, the Government said they needed to consult on it, but now they have suggested that a Select Committee do that consultation and all the heavy work and then they will bring forward a new Bill in due course to implement those requirements on minimum attendance, participation requirements and possibly even tightening up the removal of disgraced Members. Today, we have seen a masterful stroke from the Leader in her opening remarks, offering this special Select Committee to look at these matters.
But, if this House and a Select Committee come up with solutions, does anyone seriously think the Government will implement them? I will give way to any noble Lord or Lady who will say that they are absolutely confident that this Government or any Government in the future will bring forward new primary legislation on changes to the composition of this House. I do not think it will ever happen. Any new primary Bill will be subject to getting all the amendments which have been tabled for this Bill. I suspect the Public Bill Office would even accept amendments—because they are quite wide-ranging—on the reintroduction of hereditary Peers, which we would debate for days on end. It is far too dangerous for any Government. With the pressure on the Government over the next few years with all the legislation proposed, I do not see it happening.
My amendment says that we need to build in a mechanism to introduce any changes this House wants to make in a tightly constrained statutory instrument. That is the guts of my Amendment 14. I say to government Peers in particular that there is nothing in my amendment which sabotages the thrust of the Bill to get rid of hereditaries, utterly wrong though I think that is. My amendment would not open up the Bill to a myriad of other amendments. It simply says that, if a resolution of this House establishes or changes the age at which Peers must retire or imposes a minimum attendance level or a participation requirement, then the Government must, within 12 months, implement that resolution by laying a draft SI first.
I envisage it working as follows. On retirement, for example, this House would set up a special committee of the great and the good and try to thrash out a retirement regime. It may take us 12 months, two years or we might never agree on it. If we came up with something, it would come before this House as a resolution. If we approved it, the Government would have to implement it within 12 months in an SI. I trust the Government not to change it.
If, hypothetically, we set a retirement age of 85 with various tweaks, no Government will change that to 80 or 90. If they do, we will simply vote it down and be right to do so. I suggest that the same procedure would apply to the other things of participation or attendance. There would be no obligation on this House to create these regimes and resolutions. We may decide, for whatever reasons, not to do some of them because it is too difficult.
I conclude by stating that the majority mood in this House is that we want to make some changes, especially on retirements and attendance. We cannot do it in this Bill for the reasons I set out, and I strongly believe that we will not get another bit of primary legislation to do it either.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we can do it through orders. But my amendment says that we may need to amend the following Acts of Parliament: this Bill itself when it is passed, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That is not my whim; it was the advice of the Public Bill Office. It may or may not be right, but I do not think that in Standing Orders we can amend an Act of Parliament; therefore, we need an SI to be able to do it.
I am old and ugly enough to be cynical about what the Government suggest here. Lords Select Committees are brilliant because they are excellent and come up with brilliant solutions. But let us be clear that there may be a danger that the report is so long, and may cover other things, that the Government will decide that they need to consult on it further or not implement it immediately. Let me take the Leader at her word; she is a thoroughly honourable and noble lady.
If the Select Committee is to be the way forward, at Third Reading I will put down a revised version of this amendment, so that when the Lords special Select Committee reports and makes recommendations on retirement, attendance or participation, the Government must introduce an SI implementing them. Nothing else—keep it that simple. If the Lords Select Committee is the answer, an SI implementing its conclusions is the solution. What could be wrong with that? That is the only way to get the reform we want through in an expeditious time.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.
Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, much of the debate on the Bill has focused on what should be in it, rather than what is in it. Amendments 8, 14 and 29 seek to bind the Government into a timed programme of further reform after this Bill has passed.
In Committee I tabled an amendment to the effect that shortly after the Bill is passed, a time-limited group within the House be formed to hammer out not just the definition but the real application in practice of a participation requirement, and my amendment received wide support across the House. I have not brought it back today because, on reflection, it is a matter that might be best addressed internally in this self-regulating House, rather than included in this Bill and sent to the Commons to alter, block or tamper with it—much as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was saying during debate on the last group, as indeed echoed by the Minister. That is why I no longer support amendments that seek to bind the Government to producing legislation about further reform, and I am encouraged by the idea of a Select Committee, which has become such a wide topic of discussion today.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I too support the idea of a Select Committee that has been proposed by the Leader of the House: I think this is a very good way forward. I therefore very much support my noble friend Lord Blencathra because, as he says, we need a way to implement the recommendations of that committee. All my experience in this House, and doubtless that of many other people too, is that the other place is extremely reluctant to embark on legislation regarding this House. I would not expect us to get the offer of another Bill for a decade or two. To give ourselves in this Bill the power to move forward seems basically sensible. If we are to have a committee, let us make it a potent committee, not an impotent one.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we can do that of our own volition. Given the difficulties that we had in having to go to primary legislation to give ourselves the right to have basic disciplinary procedures in this House, I am not aware of any evidence that we actually have the power of our own volition to change the sort of things being considered for the Select Committee. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could outline what he thinks our powers are and on what he bases that understanding, because if indeed we have them, that would be an encouraging and simplifying approach. Depending on what the Minister says, I very much hope that my noble friend, when we come to it next week, will press his amendment to a vote.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. I support in principle Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but I think he is rather timid. If he believes in substantive reform of your Lordships’ House, he should table an amendment to achieve that now. Surely he knows that, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has just suggested, there is no real chance of further reform of your Lordships’ House being seriously proposed during the current Parliament.
I do not want to irritate the Minister but, however many times I read the Labour Party manifesto, I do not believe that it suggests there will be three stages of Lords reform—as the noble Baroness has argued on several occasions. I am afraid that I do not agree that it was quite clear in the manifesto that there would be three stages. Any rational person reading the Labour Party manifesto would understand that it proposes two stages. This Bill seeks to achieve only one of six measures which the manifesto proposed as part of a single “action to modernise” your Lordships’ House. Those words I repeat from the manifesto.
If the Labour Party had clearly stated in its manifesto that there would be three stages of reform, of which the first would be the removal of all those who entered the House as hereditary Peers, and nothing else, it would have been strongly criticised across the media. It would have been seen as discriminatory to treat some members of a body of people doing the same job with the same rights in a different manner from others.
I am most surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for whom I have always had the highest regard, believes that the amendment to which she has added her name would lead to further substantive reform. If she really believes in a more democratic House, which has been the firm policy of her party for decades, her best chance of achieving it would be to work together with others to amend the Bill. I had hoped that the noble Baroness might see the value in tabling an amendment similar to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee, and Amendment 8, which I tabled, to retain 90 Peers who are elected in some sense but to “de-hereditise” them. We could thereby avoid moving to an all-appointed House. We could retain the sand in the shoe, but on a more open and democratic basis. I would suggest 20 for the Cross Benches and 70 for the principal party blocs, to be allocated based on the average number of votes cast in the last three general elections.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm which amendment in this group he is addressing?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I am addressing Amendment 8 and addressing the general debate on the group. I am about to conclude my remarks, if the noble Baroness will allow me.
It would have been a nod to PR and, in terms of numbers, it would benefit the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, but it would be less devastating to these Benches than the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. Leaving aside the complications that are presented by the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which can of course be solved—the “three elections’ average votes” formula would produce 29 Conservatives, 27 Labour, eight Liberal Democrats and three each for Reform and the Greens.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to Amendment 8, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has contributed so much to the work of this House, as have so many other noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers and whose tremendous and dedicated contributions to this House will be removed by this Bill. This amendment is deliberately not prescriptive, but seeks to ensure that this Bill will not simply represent “job done” in terms of House of Lords reform. This Bill will not improve the effectiveness and value added of this House. It will leave a net loss.
I think we all agree that we need to reduce the numbers in this House and that we would like to modernise it and improve its effectiveness and efficiency, but if this is all we do, it will not leave our House in a better place—and there is further reform. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested, expelling the seasoned and the good, rather than those who do not turn up or the underperformers, will not add value. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, talked about participation being particularly important. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that this will not be the end of the matter and that there will be further reform to improve on a net-net basis the composition and effectiveness of this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. In some ways it ran over from the previous group, I rather thought. There were some very important points raised and I do not think the House in any way—I will come back to it—should underestimate the challenge, which is in no way a challenge to any individual. It is a challenge to the realities of power and the exigencies and priorities of government that was put out by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, which are also intrinsic to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Duke.
I said earlier today that I feel that we on this side have been very emollient in this long process and that we have made many efforts to reach accord and not to obstruct this legislation. So far, there has been little in return. Continuing on that track, I have to say, in the light of what I said earlier, which I meant, speaking with the authority of the Leader, as Leader, that I cannot support, much as I understand his motives, the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hailsham that would effectively seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, which I think is better now, as it was amended by the House earlier. It is defective in the sense that it is not a full reform, but I think that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would, because of all the conditionalities in it, potentially lead to a very lengthy delay in the implementation of the legislation, and I think that may lead us into paths of conflict that might not necessarily lead to the most fruitful outcome. But I do understand exactly the point that he is making and that others have made.
As far as the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blencathra is concerned, I think the House was not only entertained but hugely illuminated by the many amendments that my noble friend brought forward in Committee. He raised an enormous number of points of thought. He has not brought back many on Report, but I think he is in a sense offering us a bridge to make some of those things possible. Again, I understand where he is coming from. It is not really for me, but for others in this House, but I doubt his aspiration that he could bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in the manner that he hinted at, because the normal expectation of the House is that that happens when the Minister says that they are prepared to have a discussion on the thing.
The methodology that my noble friend has proposed is ingenious, and the Leader of the House, who is emollient and inclusive, may well say that she is prepared to discuss this mechanism with him. If so, he could do that, but if not, my noble friend, between now and when we reach his amendment, which I think will be on the second day, may have to reflect on the way forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, once again, we have had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next piece of legislation will be than there is in the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I will do my best to help noble Lords.
First, I am grateful to the noble Duke, because he has had discussions with me on a number of occasions, and I know his commitment to reform. I will come to his amendment as well. Where I would depart from him is that he wants something brought forward within the next two years; I would like to move more quickly. His amendment does not specify any detail of what should be in the reform, as he said. It compels the Government to lay before Parliament further legislation within two years of a Bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude in his amendment and trying to be helpful. I do not think the amendment necessarily does what he intends it to do, because it depends on the length of the Parliament and when the next King’s Speech will be. He will also know that no Minister will ever commit to, or hint at, what will be in the next King’s Speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him, as I have said, is an absolute determination to deal with these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seemed very welcoming of a Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord True, seems more sceptical. I do not know what the Select Committee will say. I have heard noble Lords say, “It’ll make so much fuss out of this”, and, “It’ll take so long that you will never get another Bill to reform the House of Lords”. That is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform. I am determined that we make progress on these issues. The reason why I have proposed a Select Committee—it is up to the House if it wishes to take advantage of it—is so that there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues.
I look at these things in bite-sized chunks, because I think that is how we best make progress. Those two issues are stage 2, which I think is quite clear in the manifesto, but perhaps those of us who helped draft it were not as clear as we thought we were. I think it is quite clear. There has also been increased consensus around this House during the debate that Members want action on participation, attendance and retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on it then that will certainly make it much easier to take legislation forward, because we will have an agreed view.
The noble Lord is right; I would have those discussions with my colleagues. I would expect the House of Commons to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto. I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what is possible, and if it is possible—it may not be; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that, until a committee has legal advice, it cannot be absolutely certain—to take action more quickly without legislation or prior to legislation. I think that would apply in particular to the issue of participation. I think that would be welcomed.
That does not rule out the opportunity of legislation. However, the best way to get legislation through is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested, through very long amendments, and lots of different suggestions and options. If we have a clear view, then that will give us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focused Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I was not suggesting a long-winded series of amendments. I merely suggested a short SI to implement whatever the Lords recommend. If a Select Committee is going to recommend things around retirement and participation, can she not just use an SI to implement it rather than new legislation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience; I was going to come to that point, so bear with me. Part of my problem with his amendment—I have not quite finished dealing with the noble Duke’s amendment—although I fully agree with his direction of travel and intention, is that I am not too comfortable with removing the role of this House. I think there is real benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, in that the best people to do some of this work are Members of this House—obviously taking advice as any committee sees fit. I am keen that we should do that.
If that does not work, then there is still legislation. We still have the option and the manifesto commitment, but I think it is easier and quicker to get something through if we have a settled view from this House. If we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is nothing if not inventive. I have always admired his ingenuity, but he will know as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I apologise; I was demoting him. He was a Chief Whip, so he should know even better that a Third Reading amendment is brought back only if the Minister offers to keep something open at Third Reading. I will tell noble Lords why I cannot do that on his amendment. I will be very clear about this. We had a discussion earlier and spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord proposes, within his way of working, that we should take decisions on quite serious and important issues by SI. It is inventive and it is a way he would want to do it, but I do not think a simple resolution such as that is the appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place the opportunity to reject it as well; I do not think that is appropriate. The existing mechanisms or primary legislation would be a better way forward.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been very thoughtful throughout this debate. His amendment stipulates that the next stage of reform requires, among other things, changing the appointments process to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister and party leaders. We have already discussed that, and I think the House made its view clear on the previous vote, so I do not want to repeat the same arguments. As I have said before, we are committed to strengthening and clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the appointments process, which we discussed earlier.
The noble Viscount also talked about term limits and a size cap on the House. As I have said before, the Government’s preference is for a retirement age. That is something, along with participation, that a committee of this House could look at. His amendment does, in effect, deal with the size of the House, which is a very important issue. I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here, but I noted the comments that he made.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.
My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed comments on my Amendment 8. I must admit that I have not quite persuaded the Leader to go as far as I had hoped she might, but I have to accept—and I know that she spoke in total good faith—that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, as she just said, could be prior or leading to legislation, and I must take her words as she just stated them. I hope that all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the Bench have heard what she said—including, if I am not mistaken, the Attorney-General, which is very good.
So I thank the Leader again for her efforts to move to where I hoped she would be, with a categorical assurance that there would be a second Bill. She certainly tried and, in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Lord ChancellorIn the case of any person who holds the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain who is not currently a member of the House of Lords, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that the person be granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor is a member of the House of Lords, as was the case for over two centuries leading up to the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that so many of your Lordships have remained in the Chamber for this particular amendment. I rise to move this amendment with due deference to successive Lord Chancellors, albeit I take no position as to their past suitability. This may appear to be a slight amendment, but it serves a serious purpose. There was a time when Lord Chancellors provided an authoritative senior legally qualified voice in Cabinet, as well as undertaking duties in your Lordships’ House. Today the post has been changed significantly, and of course we have had a number of Lords Chancellor who have not been lawyers.
I tabled this amendment to explore further the possible benefits of returning to the position where the Lord Chancellor sat in your Lordships’ House. My amendment is not, as I say, seeking to look backward. We of course should look forward to the contributions that future Lord Chancellors could make, not only in Cabinet but to your Lordships’ House.
Although we may not be able to return to the position before the role of Lord Chancellor was changed under the last Labour Government, we can place the role of Lord Chancellor on the same level of status as it previously held. If, as was discussed in Committee, the office of Lord Chancellor was to be seen once again as what might be termed a “destination” appointment, rather than one held by a politician on their progress through the Cabinet, we might gain a great deal.
I suggested in Committee that the Lord Chancellor, newly restored to your Lordships’ House, could also serve as a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and thus as a guardian of our constitution. We lack that guardianship today, with responsibility for the constitution being divided between various government departments, without any clear insight as to who is responsible finally for important constitutional decisions.
The Bill is liable to set a dangerous constitutional precedent, and I wonder whether a distinguished Lord Chancellor in your Lordships’ House who was entrusted with the guardianship of our constitution and was sitting at the Cabinet table, might have offered a sage warning to the Government about the potential challenge that Bills such as this can present to our constitutional order. It is in these circumstances that I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because this is the fifth time I have spoken on this topic. The first time I spoke, when I advanced the proposition that the Lord Chancellor should come back to this House, Lord Judge—whom I think we all miss very much—inquired in that very gentle way of his whether I was making a job application on the Floor of the House of Lords. I confirmed that I was not and I declare the same non-interest in this speech today.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie has made clear, the position of Lord Chancellor occupies a distinct role in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor is still the only Cabinet Minister who takes a distinct oath to uphold the rule of law, and while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and I have had some interesting debates about what is and what is not constituted within the term “the rule of law”, it is an important—indeed, a fundamental—part of our constitution, and I think it is undeniable that in moving the Lord Chancellor away from this House and allowing the position of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Member of the House of Commons, for whom, as my noble and learned friend indicated, it might be an intermediate station stop on a ministerial career, rather than a grand terminus, I think we have lost something.
We have also changed the position of Lord Chief Justice, because while formerly the Lord Chancellor was the person who would speak up for judges, that role now falls to the Lord—or now the Lady—Chief Justice. While there have been some excellent holders of that post—the current holder is particularly excellent —it is unfortunate that we have, in part, turned that post into something of a shop steward for the judges, whereas in the past they had a member of the Cabinet around the Cabinet table, speaking up for judges, for justice and for the rule of law.
I also think, finally, that there is considerable merit in what my noble and learned friend said about the Lord Chancellor heading a small but focused department. One could even call it the Department for Constitutional Affairs: I seem to remember that name being used in the past. That department could have responsibility for the rule of law, for devolution, for civil liberties, for treaties and for human rights—the very things that keep our society the sort of society that we want it to be. These things should not change; they should not come and go with Governments. Frankly, under the last Government as well, we had too many Secretaries of State for Justice, because it was treated as a Cabinet position like any other, but the reason it is treated as a Cabinet position like any other is because that is essentially what the 2005 Act did.
I do not want to go back. We cannot go back to the status quo ante, or to a situation where the Lord Chancellor was a Cabinet Minister and a judge and occupied the Woolsack here; but we can identify that there is something about the role of the Lord Chancellor that is different from all other Cabinet Ministers. For those reasons, I have put my name to this amendment, and I support it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it may be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General also took an oath to uphold the rule of law when he took office.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The point I was trying to make is that I think—the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may correct me—that he took an oath because he wanted to. I think the only one that is based in statute is the Lord Chancellor’s. That is the point I was making.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is correct, but I think it is important to note that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General chose to because he views that as part of his role.
Amendment 10, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, seeks to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is always a Member of the House of Lords rather than of the other place. It is the same amendment tabled previously by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who, as ever, made an effective and articulate argument for the change, but, with the greatest respect, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in the previous debate on this matter, the amendment is more focused on unpicking the constitutional settlement agreed in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and recasting the role of Lord Chancellor as it currently stands than it is on the principle of the Bill before us. The noble and learned Lord made his case with his customary eloquence, but the Government are not persuaded of the constitutional or policy rationale for a return to the 2005 decision.
The 2005 Act rightly ended the mixing of the Executive and the judiciary, and this is not something that this Government wish to reverse. The amendment would, in effect, bind the hands of the Prime Minister over whom he can appoint to be Lord Chancellor, excluding Members of the other place from holding this role. This is unnecessarily restrictive. It would also have the practical effect of forcing the Prime Minister to appoint a new Lord Chancellor, either by appointing a new Peer to this place, choosing an existing Peer or triggering a by-election so as to appoint the present Lord Chancellor to your Lordships’ House.
As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said in Committee, the Constitution Committee noted that
“character, intellect and a commitment to the rule of law”
are the most important qualities of a Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor demonstrates these qualities in abundance, and the House she sits in does not hinder her from discharging her duties as Lord Chancellor. This amendment does nothing to safeguard such qualities in the role of the Lord Chancellor.
I am surprised that the Official Opposition have raised the creation of a department for constitutional affairs; they had 14 years in which to create such a department if they had chosen to do so, yet they did not. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of a department for constitutional affairs. Such machinery of government changes are of course a matter for the Prime Minister, not for this Bill. Since the creation of the Ministry of Justice in 2007, different Government departments have seen value in a single officeholder having a more holistic oversight of the justice system, by virtue of their responsibility for prisons and probation, as well as for courts and tribunals.
I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am most obliged for the Minister’s contribution. The amendment proposed is of course within the scope of the Bill. The concept of the Lord Chancellor being a Member of this House did seem to work for rather more than 200 years without any real difficulty. Indeed, the difficulties that we have faced around constitutional affairs have emerged since 2005, and as a consequence of those changes.
Nevertheless, having regard to the hour, I will not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“No majority for one party in the House of LordsAfter section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958, insert—“1A No majority for one party in the House of Lords(1) An appointment may not be made to the House of Lords if it would have the effect of taking the total number of peers from parties forming part of the Government to more than 40% of the total members of that House. (2) If at any time the number of peers from parties forming part of the Government exceeds 40% of the total members of the House of Lords, no appointments to the parties forming part of the Government may be made until that number is reduced below 40% either by resignation, new appointments or leave of absence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the unfettered power of Prime Ministers to make appointments to the House of Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when considering the future of this House, one of the most important parts is what the relative proportions of the parties should be. The Government, when in opposition, quite rightly complained about our habit of adding Conservative Peers well beyond the point that would ordinarily have been considered acceptable.
If this House is to have a long-term future, we must get away from the idea that the Prime Minister can tip us over any day he wants just by appointing a lot of new Peers. We must have a degree of solidity in our independence. During all my time here, there has been a recognition that we should have a rough balance between the Government and the Opposition, with the Cross Benches holding the balance. As a concept, that has worked well, although it has been very hard to hold to it, given the actual appointments of Peers. I very much hope that this will be an area that the noble Baroness’s committee will cover. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I appreciate that, at this late hour, there will be a keenness for everyone to go, but I want to remind the House of its history in opposing amendments such as that proposed by the noble Lord.
One has to remember that, without the right of the Prime Minister exercising the royal prerogative, we would not have had the Parliament Acts and, perhaps more importantly, we would not have had the Great Reform Act 1832. It was because of the royal prerogative and the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint Peers that we were able to move forward to our current democratic state.
I will quote from the debates that took place in this House—but of course not in this Chamber. Speaking from the Opposition Benches, the Earl of Winchilsea
“said, he suffered a pain of mind greater than he could express in thinking that he had lived to that hour to witness the downfall of his country. That night would close the first act of the fatal and bloody tragedy. It would close the existence of that House”—
the House of Lords—
“as one branch of the Legislature, for its independence, which was its brightest ornament, had fallen, and without that independence it might be considered as having ceased to exist”.—[Official Report, 4/6/1832; col. 349.]
Well, we still have the Earls of Winchilsea on the Opposition Benches forecasting total catastrophe from this move towards a more democratic House. Earl Grey, the Prime Minister—at a time when the Prime Minister was in this House—said in response that
“if the House of Commons should, after their Lordships rejecting, for a second time, a Bill sent up from that House, persist in asserting the opinion expressed by it with reference to that Bill, and that it should appear that in the event of an appeal to the country, it was not probable that another House of Commons would be chosen less zealous for Reform, then, in his mind, the emergency had arrived which would justify that exercise of the prerogative by which only a serious collision between the two Houses could be prevented”.—[Official Report, 4/6/1832; col. 362.]
I think the point persists almost 200 years later that the right of the Prime Minister to subject this House to the appointment of Peers is part of the process by which we achieve our present democratic freedoms, which I think would be a great loss to the country as a whole.
My promise, when I was appointed to this House by the leader of the Labour Party, was to vote for the abolition of this House, and I am still of that opinion—the sooner the better. Unfortunately, in making the promise I was not told exactly what should replace the House, but I am in favour of abolition and I think the power of the Prime Minister and the royal prerogative are important and certainly should not be lost, because we would end up with either a fully democratic House—which I oppose, because of its effect on the Commons—or this House, which is subject to democratic control through the Prime Minister.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing the House’s attention once again to an unavoidable consequence of this legislation. We are heading towards a fully appointed House, with all the appointments made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that political parties nominate, but the ability to decide the number and timing of appointments rests solely with the Prime Minister. It is therefore of some concern that the Prime Minister, with such powers of patronage, is attempting to remove more than 80 parliamentarian opponents through the Bill.
We will have a debate—another one—on the size of the House next week, so I will not comment specifically on numbers at this point. However, when the Lord Privy Seal spoke on this amendment in Committee, she was critical of the “We have the numbers and can get this through” approach that she felt previous Governments had taken, and encouraged the House of Lords to adopt a more deliberative approach. That is exactly the approach that we are seeking to take with this Bill and others, and we should not be criticised for doing so.
Having heard me speak in the HOLAC debate, noble Lords will be aware of my views on retaining the discretion that Prime Ministers have to appoint the Peers they wish to appoint. But my noble friend Lord Lucas is right to bring back this important issue of the balance between the parties and to seek further assurances about the responsibility of the Prime Minister to behave reasonably.
I am sure that the current Prime Minister will continue to do so, and I hope that this amendment will never be necessary, but legislation should seek to look to the future and anticipate that future Prime Ministers might not behave in such an appropriate way in terms of appointments. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position, but I look forward to hearing the Leader’s response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness with increasing incredulity. Even she had a smile on her face as she came up with some of that. I thank my noble friend for his points. In terms of history, he did not go back nearly as far as many other Members of the House have this evening, but it is always worth looking back at the Great Reform Act 1832 and what was achieved for this country by that legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I are very much of the same mind on this one, but I do not agree with his mechanism for getting there. He talked earlier about the relative proportions of the House. He is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the Cross Benches. This is probably about right. But to put into legislation a proportion for just one group of the whole House is not necessarily talking about relative proportions. I know that he understands that. I stand by previous comments that I have made. This House works at its best when both parties have roughly equal numbers. This depends very much on the normal conventions applying and the way the House operates, but that is when the House does its best work.
The noble Baroness talked about “holding the noble Baroness to that kind of view”. I remind her of the last Government’s actions on this. Even with this Bill, the Government will comprise only 28% of your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason for that is that when we left office in 2010, we had 25 more Members of the House than the Conservative Party; I used these figures earlier in the debate. At the end of the parliamentary Session before the election, before we came into office, there were over 100 more Members of the Conservative Government than of my party. That does not serve this House well.
The noble Baroness is right that I said that the House should be more deliberative. That is when the House does its best work. A couple of weeks after I became Leader of the Opposition, about 10 years ago, I was in Victoria Street having a pizza when I got word that Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Leader of the House of Commons, had issued a statement that he intended to appoint 100 Members to this House to force the Brexit legislation through. That is not in the best interests of this House. He did not do it in the end.
I stand by the House being more deliberative in its approach. Members should be more active, participate properly and not just turn up to vote when they have not been around and participating in the work of the House. There is a better way forward on this. Even if the party opposite has come to this lately, I genuinely welcome that conversion. We should operate in a more collaborative way. I agree about the relative proportions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, but I ask him respectfully to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Does the Leader intend this to be a subject for her Select Committee?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not think so, not directly. However, if the committee is looking at retirement and participation, we would want to ensure that, post any decisions that it takes and actions that this House might take on legislation, we maintain a balance around the House. It would be completely inappropriate to say, “This group is losing more than that group”, and for any party to use that as a way to gain a political advantage. Maintaining the proportions must always be in the minds of the Government and the Opposition, and I would ensure that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Removal of peers with a criminal convictionAny peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to ensure that peers who have committed a serious offence are removed from the House, using an indictable offence to provide a clear threshold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I have shortened my remarks, hoping that we could crack this by midnight, but it may be five past midnight before we finish. My Amendment 12 states simply:
“Any peer convicted of a criminal offence on indictment ceases to be a member of the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction, or the loss of appeal if the peer appeals the conviction”.
Noble Lords will say, “So what? We already have in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 a power to remove Peers if convicted of a serious offence”. However, that kicks only in if the Peer has been sentenced to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or sentenced to more than one year in prison; nor does it apply if that sentence is suspended.
However, the Labour manifesto did say that Labour would strengthen
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”.
I am looking forward to hearing exactly what that means. Surely it is talking about Peers who have committed a criminal offence, or is it suggesting that we will permanently remove Peers who have had to apologise for inappropriate or “un-woke” comments—which might also be considered disgraceful?
Where my amendment, to use the Government’s own words, strengthens
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”
is that it would remove all Peers who are convicted of an indictable offence—which are, of course, the most serious ones—irrespective of the length of prison sentence they get. Nor would I permit Peers to stay just because the sentence is suspended. In my opinion, if a Peer is found guilty of an indictable offence, he is guilty and should be removed irrespective of whether the sentence has been suspended. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this is a short but focused amendment, which rightly addresses the issue of standards and trust in our House. Ultimately, this House rests on its integrity and reputation.
As my noble friend mentioned, the Labour Party’s manifesto committed to
“ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them”,
and went on to say that they would do that by,
“strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed”.
During the debate we had on 12 November last year, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie asked the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal why the Government were delaying their manifesto commitment to strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced Members could be removed. I have to say that a good reason was not provided. The only reason provided was the oft-repeated statement that the only way reform will be achieved is to do it in pieces. Obviously, we have heard that a number of times.
Although I accept that the precise way this House works is not the common currency in the Dog and Duck, and that people do not talk about it around the country, I suspect that the one thing people everywhere around the country would expect is that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers, and that if you break the law and you are convicted, you should not continue to sit in Parliament. That is the short point at the heart of this amendment. It is already the case, of course, that if you are convicted and you have your liberty taken away from you then you lose your right to be here. To that extent, this amendment is only therefore an extension of that principle.
I accept that there were discussions across the Dispatch Box and there was a general understanding that some complexities were involved; the noble Baroness also told us that there would be “further dialogue”. As it is now just after midnight and we come to the end of the first day on Report, can the Lord Privy Seal update us on the extent of that further dialogue and what the Government’s plans are in this regard? If the Government do not have anything really focused in this area, having thought about it, it might well be that my noble friend’s amendment is the way to go.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To reassure noble Lords, the Government remain committed to strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed. Our position on this amendment has not changed, not least given that it is not a matter for the Bill.
It may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the current arrangements regarding expulsion. There are two routes of suspension. At the moment, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a Member of the House ceases to be a Member if the Lord Speaker certifies that they are convicted of a serious offence—that is, they are convicted of a criminal offence and given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year.
Where a Member receives a prison sentence but not one long enough to engage the 2014 Act, the provisions of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and Standing Orders will be engaged. Under these, a Member who has received a prison sentence of any length is deemed to have breached the Code of Conduct and may be referred to the Conduct Committee, which in turn may recommend a sanction up to and including expulsion from the House. The current statutory framework is a tightly bound one, where only Peers who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment can be subject to the sanction of suspension, either on an automatic basis or by engaging the 2015 Act and the provisions in Standing Orders.
The noble Lord’s amendment, in setting the threshold at indictment, would have the effect of bringing into scope a much wider array of offences with significantly varying degrees of seriousness and sentencing. I would question whether that is necessarily the appropriate threshold for expulsion and whether this sanction should not be reserved for the most serious of offences.
The Government are committed to ensuring that those who work in public life maintain high standards of ethics and propriety, not just in this House, but across all public servants and officeholders.
As the House will be aware, the Conduct Committee has only recently concluded its review of the Code of Conduct, which made several recommendations relating to the process following a Peer being convicted of a criminal offence. Therefore, it would be right for the House to allow these changes to bed in before considering what further changes may be needed. But we are open to the idea of pursuing this further in the Conduct Committee.
Given that the hour is late, I plan on finishing my comments there, but I am happy to continue discussions outside your Lordships’ House on this area. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I do not think the Minister answered the question of my noble friend. What do the Government have in mind when they talk about strengthening the ways of getting rid of disgraced Members? What sort of offences would those be?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am ever so sorry: I thought I had answered the question. We are working with the Conduct Committee to bed in what has just been changed and to see if further change is required after we have seen whether the most recent changes have worked.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. In view of what she has said, let us hope that the changes that the Conduct Committee has proposed are effective. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.