Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D.
Before starting on the debate on each Motion before the House, I thought it would be helpful to set the debate in context and provide an update on discussions and progress since we last debated the Bill. During our 41 hours of debate in Committee and on Report, it was clear that, when dealing with this first immediate step of Lords reform, the House was keen to make progress more quickly on the issues of retirement and participation. Indeed, I think I am correct in saying that there were more amendments and more hours of debate on these issues that were not in the Bill than the issues that were in the Bill.
As Leader of the House, I listened carefully and committed to establishing a cross-party Select Committee to establish these issues and report back to government. That Retirement and Participation Committee is now firmly established and is actively considering how to implement our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement. I understand that the committee has received a considerable amount of interest and input from noble Lords across the House, as was intended.
If noble Lords are worried about progress on this issue, then fear not. As I have discovered, the House has been able to take steps on this issue in the past. In 1669, Members who failed to attend were fined £40 a day. That is just over £7,500 in today’s money. In 1820, a fine of £100 a day—nearly £8,500 in today’s money—was levied for non-attendance at Queen Caroline’s trial. In 1679, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to take non- attending Peers into custody and bring them to Westminster.
Noble Lords
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Despite such support from around the House, I did not recommend those precedents to the committee. In all seriousness, this is an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, take action and show that we can lead reforms rather than resist them. We look forward to receiving the committee’s findings in the coming months.
Turning to the Bill, there were four substantive amendments passed by this House and reviewed by the other place. I was pleased that they agreed with the amendments on the powers of attorney to allow for dignified retirement in certain specific circumstances. I welcome the work that took place across the House to deliver this small but important reform. These amendments demonstrate how we as a House can come together to bring about change. The Procedure and Privileges Committee has already considered and agreed the draft Standing Orders, which will be presented to the House for approval so that they can take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
A further amendment stated that all Lords Ministers should be paid a ministerial salary and prohibited future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of this House. The Government rejected this amendment as it was not relevant to the Bill. Although it raised an important principle, it did not deliver the change needed. The Government nevertheless believe that it is right that Ministers be paid for the job they are doing. For some years, the practice of appointing Ministers without a salary, particularly to the Lords, has grown, reaching a peak in 2023 of 13 unpaid Lords Ministers out of 30. Being a Lords Minister is a tough job, as well as being an absolute privilege. Lords Ministers have the responsibility of their individual portfolios, but they also fulfil their duty to this House by answering questions, managing legislation and speaking in debates on any and all issues affecting their department.
Lords Ministers’ work is impressive. I know that past Leaders of the House have also raised the issue of unpaid Ministers when they have been in government. I am pleased to report to the House that this Government introduced the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill last week in the House of Commons to increase the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid under law from 109 to 120, reflecting the average size of government since 2010. The cap on the number of Commons Ministers will not be changed and remains at 95, thus ensuring a minimum of 25 paid Ministers in this House. Of course, the allocation of ministerial salaries is ultimately at the discretion of the Prime Minister. This is a significantly better position for this House, recognising the important work of our Ministers. Given the support for that amendment on Report, I hope that that Bill will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. As a result, I ask that tonight we reject this amendment as being unnecessary.
Further amendments from this House provided for all the existing hereditary Peers to remain, as a matter of right, and to continue to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. Those amendments would allow existing hereditary Peers to remain for decades to come. The amendment on this issue, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was extensively debated in the other place. However, the level of support for these amendments, including from the Official Opposition, was notably limited in both debates and in the vote. Only 77 MPs voted to keep these amendments in the Bill, and this was decisively rejected by a margin of 259.
The Government are, and always have been, committed to removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as was stated in our manifesto. This has never been about the contribution of individuals; it is about the underlying principle, agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago, that no one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title. Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary Peers remain while meaningful reform has stagnated. We have a duty to find a way forward.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I much admired the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I must say that I did not agree with him. He spoke with his wonderful customary elegance and idiosyncrasy, but I did not agree with him when he criticised the nature of the deal that has been done. This House should thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this together and getting on with it. Nevertheless, it is a sad moment, and anyone with a sense of history would have to feel that.
Before we gathered for this debate, I walked down the Royal Gallery and looked at the plaques for noble Lords and their heirs who were killed in the two World Wars. I noticed that I was reading names all of which are represented in this House and very shortly will not be: Ponsonby, on both sides of this House; Stonor—this is the family name, not the title; Vane; Wellington; Berry; Colville; Goschen; Trenchard; and, of course, Wedgwood Benn. That is a small reminder of something which is very valuable about this House, which is continuity, and from continuity comes a certain sort of wisdom.
I have a little theory about your Lordships’ House. Once you feel you lack legitimacy, or your legitimacy is in question, you behave a bit better because you are a little doubtful about whether you should be there and so are on your best behaviour. I think the House of Lords has been better since 1911, and better since 1958, than when it really was powerful, because it feels that it needs to be careful. Over those years since 1958, a very good balance was struck between the hereditaries and the life Peers. That meant that ill feeling against the House of Lords was incredibly rare in the second half of the 20th century—it was hardly an issue at all. It is rather noticeable that, since the Blair reforms of 1999, the reputation of this House has become more and more contested, and people have got crosser and crosser.
This presents a challenge to us. The danger is that, rather than recovering legitimacy in the public mind by what is happening, we are actually hollowed out in people’s minds—we have some trappings but are not the real thing and are not something else. I was walking down into the Peers’ entrance the other day and noticed no fewer than 10 of those red boxes containing Letters Patent, which seemed quite a lot. I am sure they are all most welcome additions to your Lordships’ House, but it reminded me of the responsibility. People are going to go on saying, “Why are you here? What right have you to be here?” I hope that we will have an answer.
We can learn from the hereditary Peers at least two important things. One is that we must maintain courtesy in our dealings, and the other is that concern for the public good is the big motivator. The prevailing tendency after this will be that the spirit of party becomes stronger and the public spirit becomes weaker. It is very much our duty to make sure that does not happen.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinoull, for their warm reception for the way forward. I am also grateful to the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I know; I was just thinking that he is no longer their leader. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I—and all of us—have sat through many hours of debate. Somebody in my office at one point calculated that Apollo 11 got to the moon and back quicker than we conducted our deliberations on this issue. But it has been worth it, and it is good that we had those debates.
I will pick up on a few things. I think we all would want to send our best wishes to my noble friend Lord Grocott. He was tenacious in pursuing a particular course for the House to go down: the ending of the by-elections, which caused considerable amusement when he would explain them. I think that very few, other than noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, think that an election with an electorate of three is very democratic. My noble friend Lord Grocott pursued that with charm and intelligence, and it was a shame he was not successful with the Bills he took forward. We send him our best wishes.
I cannot agree with comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the hereditary principle in this House, but his comments and his campaign on the right of succession are important; that has to be maintained. I was struck by how complicated this is when I looked at it at his behest. But I say to him that it is not seven weeks’ notice; it is actually probably 25 years’ notice. The principle of the hereditary place in this House was debated and agreed 25 years ago, but interim measures were in place and they have now come to an end.
I am grateful for the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moore. We are here to be useful to the country and to government in how we debate, but wisdom is very important in this House, and I have to say to him that wisdom is not hereditary. How we conduct ourselves, though, is something we should be aware of at all times, and I totally agree that the only reason for our being here is the public good. I have confidence in life Peers also conducting themselves in that way.
Comments were made about the Select Committee. I am a great believer in incremental change: we make a step, another step and another step forward, and we make progress in that way. But there is an opportunity for this House to decide how it wants to take change and reform forward. We can embrace that and show that we can lead on change, or we can decide that we always want to resist change. For this House to lead is a better way forward, and I hope that that committee will establish that principle.
This is historic legislation—I accept the comments made by noble Lords—and we should feel the moment of that. But we should also recognise that, with any change, there is not just a principle: Members of this House are departing. Many of them have given great service to this House and have been dedicated to their work—I would not want that to go unsaid today. They should be thanked for their work and their service, and they go with our thanks and appreciation. Whatever differences we have had over the passage of this legislation, I think the whole House can come together and agree on that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.