Lords Chamber

Wednesday 12th March 2025

(began 7 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: Similar treatment for equivalent UK businesses to EU proposals to exempt 80 per cent of eligible EU companies from new carbon border taxes Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First oral First oral question, First oral question, Lord.
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Appropriate responses from university authorities to the Community Security Trust report: 'Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022-2024', published on 9 December 2024 Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-

integrity for the U.K.'s efforts through the emission trading scheme, we must mitigate the effect of carbon leakage, which means we must have a carbon border adjustment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mechanism. Second oral question, Baroness Deech.
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:21
15:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lords right that encampments have been enormously intimidating and he is also right that they have attracted external activists onto campuses. Often in a very intimidating tree away. Universities have already been Universities have already been working hard in order to ensure that the situation in 2023/2024, when there were a number of pro- Palestinian encampments. At one point there were around 40 active encampments. That is already improving and some universities have taken legal action, in order to secure possession orders, in illegal cases.

Those cases that were helpful for other universities contemplating are in the middle of possession proceedings against similar students encampments. And so far this academic year, 2024/2025, protesters have not been able to establish any kind of encampment, lasting more than a few hours. So universities do appear to have been learning from last year's experience, both in terms of being able to de-escalate incidents, where possible and where necessary taking formal action to prevent and disruption to core activities. Can the Minister SEO whether all universities have designated places of worship for Jewish students and what security arrangements are they expected to put in place to ensure expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can worship in safety.

 I'm not in a position to say whether or not all universities do. Although as I've previously identified we are providing support to the University Jewish chaplaincy to support student welfare on university campuses. I do however think it is a very fair question and one that I hope vice chancellors will reflect on.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:36
15:36
15:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Plans for the UK Prime Minister to meet the incoming Prime Minister of Canada
-

Viscount Stansgate.
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:49
None Portrait Private Notice Question: Mitigating the impact of US steel and aluminium tariffs on the UK manufacturing sector
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. Private
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
None Portrait Business of the House
-

My Lords, we now counter some instruments previously debated in grand committee. Industrial Training

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025. Baroness Smith. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to, As many as are of that be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Transitional Provision) Regulations 2035, Baroness Merron. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Third reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. My Lords, as noble Lords will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this is a bill that affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have been engaging constructively with all involved government throughout the passage of this bill and there was consent has not yet been provided, we are hopeful of securing legislative consent from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for isthmus relating to consent to resolving the second house, and we hope to be able second house, and we hope to be able to have more to say in the other place.

For which we will of course keep noble Lords updated. I beg to keep noble Lords updated. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a 1/3 time.
16:06
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the question is this Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the bill do now pass. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will preserve the UK's status as a global leader and product regulation. It creates A- product regulation. It creates A- level playing field between the High Street and online marketplaces. Supporting businesses and protecting consumers. And it grants unnecessary consumers. And it grants unnecessary powers to adapt to modern day safety issues and technological innovation. And safeguarding businesses and consumers from emerging risks. My lord, this bill is not the same one that entered this House.

We have listened carefully to the concerns of all peers. And has proactively made changes in relation to consultation as the use of effective procedure and Henry VIII powers. We have also provided further clarity on definitions in the bill. Furthermore, the government has published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non- statutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence-based. My Lords, it is fair to say this bill has given rise to some interesting debates, passionately and expertly argued by noble Lords across the House.

Particularly, I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, he supported this debate has been invaluable. And Lord Sharpe for his forthright scrutiny of the bill, with his customary charm and good humour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his extension of this bill, and Lord Foster, and Baroness Brinton, have been crucial in getting the bill to where it is today. The noble Lord, where it is today. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his engagement on this bill, particularly on the issue of standard essential patents. And I am glad I have been able to provide am glad I have been able to provide reassurance to him. My lord, I would like to thank the constitution like to thank the constitution committee and the delegate of powers and regulatory reform committee past and regulatory reform committee past and present for the reporting of this goal, as well as a thorough drilling they gave me and the Minister in October last year.

My Lords, I would like to extend my gratitude to the bill team at the officials supporting the passing of this bill as well as parliamentary and my private office staff who are instrumental in the smooth running of this House. My Lords, as we send this bill to the other place, I believe we have done so, having fulfilled our role, is that with rising chamber, with -- As the scrutinising chamber, with diligence and care.
16:09
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would also like to thank my noble friend, Lord Hunt, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Frost, Baroness Lawlor, Lord Jackson and Lord Lansley for all the contributions. And for raising very important issues throughout the discussions on this bill. But can I also thank the noble Lord Leong, and the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the openers, collaborative approach, and also for the humour. It was very much appreciated. On these benches, we take pride in having pushed not only the government but even the Liberal Democrats, my lord, yes, even the Liberal Democrats, to acknowledge the importance of acknowledge the importance of protecting the plight.

Even though they were resistant, they accepted its value, and we ensure it will remain untouched. My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has noted, the government did make some concessions to this bill which were very welcome such as an introduction for a requirement for consultation which is a very welcome step. However, as highlighted by both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reform committee, and the constitution committee, this bill does remain a skeleton bill. We do believe it grants an excessive amount of power to the executive with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny.

Whether through the affirmative procedure, or, as was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the super affirmative procedure, we will still advocate for greater parliamentary oversight. The question of dynamic alignment with the EU was also one that remains unanswered, yet ever more topical. When my noble friend Lord Frost raised the issue, the government could not rule out a fact that the bill could not lead to dynamic alignment with the EU, but my notes come in conclusion, we still don't think this is a good bill, but it is much improved.

It not only allows with alignment with the EU but also risks overregulation and we suspect the lawyers will be busy for awhile thus to put it would be churlish to finish on that note, so, once again thank the Lord is opposite for their incredible work on the bill, can I also thank their officials who often go unremarked on these matters, and finally, can I also thank our research team led by Henry Minson and in particular, the indefatigable Hussain for their enthusiastic help.

enthusiastic help.
16:11
16:13
16:14
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I would just like to also thank the Minister and indeed his officials for their considerable time, patience, responsiveness as we have raised issues during the course of the bill, but I wonder if I might very briefly just note 3 things. First, I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the other place will look at clause 1. Because this should be a bill about product safety, but it does not mention safety, it does not say that products should be safe, even though it repeals and replaces section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which does do that.

So, I hope that they might still now look at the purpose that close one says one of the purposes should be that products should be safe, such that risks associated with their use are minimised or mitigated that would be much more clear for those reading the bill. I also thank the Minister twice. Once for keeping all options on the table. He mentioned the ongoing review of standard essential patterns. Keeping options on the table, including limitations on the use of injunctive relief, and alternatives to the use of injunctions, and as he has said, when consultations concluded, ministers will seek an early legislative opportunity to implement standard essential patent reforms, that is very welcome.

As his -- As that is very welcome. As his -- As is his commitment to report and continue the review of product liability, especially, in respect of online marketplaces, which of course, this bill touches on course, this bill touches on Is concluded, ministers will look to legislate in parallel with the implementation of the European Union's product liability to activate in Northern Ireland, hopefully by the end of 2026. So, I do extend my one thanks to him and that will be very much to the benefit of consumers which is what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly I thank all noble Lords have contributed and I thank my noble friend for his friendly noble friend for his friendly advice. We have taken this bill from the stage where it is today. It will the stage where it is today. It will now vote in the other place. I'm sure that a lot is right. There will be further deliberation on the bill itself. Hopefully we can get it to a
16:17
16:18
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
is true. It was a political decision of the government to make it so now and not include the other priority issues from the manifesto. The Government is seeking to give the impression that dealing only with Hereditary Peers is somehow sacrosanct or ordained from on high. sacrosanct or ordained from on high. In the Moses Room right now, looking at tablets brought down from Sinai to see if there was 1/11 commandment thou shall not know any other thou shall not know any other provisions in the bill.

Governments provisions in the bill. Governments often widen the scope, indeed today, in the other place, the government of tabled amendments of 262 and 263 which will amend the long titled Employment Rights Bill. They can do so for this one also if they are so minded. However, with these amendments I'm seeking to explore the possibility of retiring peers who have attended few of our sittings. Let me make it crystal clear that I reject the idea of a full-time house of political professionals.

The great strength of this revising chamber is that we have a very wide range of expertise to call on. Most noble Lords do not sit here all the time divining on issues which are not their speciality, but participate in our debates and select committees on issues on which they are expert. I recall the debate on an amendment during the precision reading bill, the noble Lord, the Lord Krebs was a debating point with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, something about recombinant DNA, whatever that is.

The rest of us sat here watching a very civilised ping-pong match. The only two in the chamber who knew what they were talking about. He said neither he or his officials in
16:20
None Portrait Amendment:19 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-

the box and knew anything about it either. They came in and explained either. They came in and explained it to them. That is one tiny example of the superb strengths of this House. That is the House of Lords in action. And for the record, both of action. And for the record, both of those noble Lord have attendances and the last Parliament well above and the last Parliament well above 30% and 40%. I turn once again to the Excel spreadsheets produced for the library, which was the attendance record for all the peers in the last Parliament.

Maybe some names missing, technical errors. These figures are not the full picture. Since the attendance data is based on contributions in the chamber. It does not include participation in other committee meetings. The library tell me this is because of the way in which different types of data are stored, and the House of Lords internal systems. The challenges in extracting datasets, which can be confident is accurate for all members, from across the full duration of the Parliament. Unlike chamber contributions which can be assured as robust.

We are actively looking at ways of incorporate committee attendance into this attendance and hope to resolve this in future releases, we want to present as, hence a picture as possible. Do the attendance figures accounts all the days which Ministers are working away from the Lord in their departments, or abroad. Nor do they include the 25 days per annum when 23 members of this House are away serving the Council of Europe, noted Parliamentary Assembly and the OECD. With those caveats, nevertheless, the figures are accurate enough for us to debate the concept of retiring peers below certain thresholds.

And they do give us a very good picture of attendance. If we retired whom attended fewer than 20% sitting days from the last Parliament. That would be hundred and 54 peers. What does 20% mean an actual sitting days? Over the last 10 years, I have a number crunch these micelles. The last 10 years of a number of that index has averaged 148.1 per annum. That ranged from 15 days in the... Sorry 2019 session. 350 in the 2017 and 2021, 2019 session.

An annual averages are more accurate than doing a session or average. Peers who attended 20% of the time attended for about just 30 days out of 148. Peers who attended 15% of the time attended 22 days, 148. And of those who attended 10% of the If noble Lords access of the spreadsheet, they can come to their own conclusions on whether or not the occasions at which some of those 154 peers spoke or participated merits continuance in this House. I have seen a few names who have made the worthwhile speeches.

The recognition is that the vast majority of those 154 peers have not contributed much to the work of this House. Those were attended less than 15% would number hundred 58. 70 peers who turned up for a maximum of 15 days per annum. In my opinion I cannot see any contribution that was so essential or vital that we should maintain their presence in this House, for their rare words of wisdom. Indeed I can recall only three of them taking any speech.

None of them have served on any of our committees. It is not one of my amendments. We opted for removal of those who attended 5% or fewer, then that would just be 39 peers. When a friend the Viscount Hailsham has suggested 12 peers. In my opinion this would look a bit silly if we want that low. However I agree with his other amendments. Of course we must examine those on a leave of absence, but not for too long. Or on royal duties, like the Duke of Norfolk or the new Lord Chamberlain and others.

These figures are out by about eight because of judicial appointments and some deaths since the library compiled the figures last year. Noble Lords can see the ballpark figures if that American term is still acceptable. Noble Lords may say what does it matter if you do not turn up? They are not getting any allowance and not costing anything. I agree with that view, but we are here today because of the Government says there are far too many peers and the government solution is to get rid of 88 hereditaries.

Many of whom attend. Indeed there are only 14 hereditaries who have attended fewer than 20% sittings. I do not have a firm view, but I do think noble Lords may consider 20% and 15% thresholds be possibly on the high side. A bridge too far to begin with. If noble Lords look at the names of the 70 who will be retired for attendance of fewer than 15% and I think we may have some consensus and that figure. With the necessary exemption suggested by Viscount Hailsham.

This gets really interesting, if one combines an age cut-off and an attendance cut-off. The Excel spreadsheet gives some interesting figures. I will not waste time by running through the extremes at either end. A retirement age of 90 and attendance of just 1% would retire 89 peers. At the other extreme, retirement at 80 and a 20% cut off would retire a 420 peers of which I think would be a tad excessive. The more sensible criteria might be a retirement age of 85 and an attendance of 10%.

That would retire 304 peers by 2029. A retirement age of 85 and 5% would retire 213 peers. I suggest that that figure is on the edge of a possible solution, reducing our numbers to those who turn up, take part and are not perceived from outside as too old to do the job. A couple of final points on attendance, My Lords. I think it has to be retrospective and based on attendance in the last Parliament. I know it's highly contentious but if we reduce the 10% threshold for about 15 days in the future then we would have some colleagues counting their attendance and rushing into attend for the few days at the end of the year, just to get over the threshold.

We would also need some special appeal mechanism. The committee, to which peers could appeal if they felt they had been wrongly excluded. I would say more about that in the course of a member 26. So, I appreciate this is contentious. It goes against the presidents we have had for centuries. I go back to my starting point of the retirement of those who turn up very infrequently is infinitely referable to throwing out all hereditaries, over 70 of whom it cannot regularly and participate fully in the work of this House.

In the future we would need complete and accurate figures for attendance in the chamber, Grand Committee, all our committees, Ministers and shadow cabinet Ministers working away from this building and those peers on foreign delegations. I look forward to the unanimous work of my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friends and I beg to move. After clause 1, insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. High rise very briefly to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

High rise very briefly to speak to the four amendments of the doubt in my name. Namely a member 22 to 25. The first three of which lead to amending the lead amendment moved by amending the lead amendment moved by my noble friend full stop for reasons that I shall come to shortly. I very strongly disagree
16:28
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
with the proposal in amendment 19. Moved by my noble friend. 1st to express some cautious agreement with my noble friends, as regards to future policy. Noble friend, Lord Blencathra has urged for enquiring a future minimum degree of engagement, as a condition of membership to this House. There is a My Lords clearly a case for that. My own amendments are amendments 25, suggesting a participation record of 10%. However My Lords, I would be a bit cautious about setting to higher requirements.

Firstly because occasional interventions, from those who are not regular attenders can be very valuable. Sometimes on esoteric subjects, though not exclusively so. Moreover My Lords and more generally there is a danger that too demanding a requirement could encourage interventions for the purpose of meeting your criteria from those who are not at the moment regular participators. We all know at the moment that speeches in major debates are time limited and very often that time variable is very short.

The question that arises is do we want to make a more restrictive timetable, I think not. That could well be a consequence of increasing a participation requirement. There are also, my noble friends touched on this, there doesn't need to be a degree of flexibility, with regards to minimums. Members may very well have very good reasons for not very good reasons for not participating. Leaves of accidents, overseas commitments and family problems and so. -- Leaves of absence.

My amendments are designed to address these problems. When I actively and positively disagree with my noble friends is with his amendment 19 and his relating was 20 and 21. Your Lordships will have noticed that those amendments relate to the 2019, to 2024 session. That is retrospective in character. What are my noble friend is suggesting is that if a member fails to satisfy the stated participation level, in the past Parliament, he must retire. I am against retrospective requirements, or sanctions.

My noble friend's proposal is just that. It imposes a penalty, which is entirely retrospective in character, in respect of a failure to meet a requirement, which did not exist, and the relevant time. I My Lords regard that as a thoroughly objectionable proposition. And I very much hope that this House, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee will not go down that I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment added in my name. Like the other amendments in this group it addresses attendance. By members
16:31
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
it addresses attendance. By members of the Lords reform act 2014, which has an attendance of one sitting day every session of Parliament, this ensures members attend a minimum of ensures members attend a minimum of 10% of sitting days in each session. Similar to some of these amendments that have already been mentioned. As I have said previously, I am of the view that the broad and largely amateur membership of your Lordships house is one of its enduring strengths. The fact that those who sit are, for the most part, not professional legislators is important to ensuring the diversity of experience views are heard from a wide range of backgrounds.

My notes, I believe that was the consensus view of the House when we debated an elected house on Monday. That said, minimum attendance is entirely reasonable and this amendment puts that 10% of the sitting days in any one session. Such a modest attendance will ensure members committed to service in the House and are able to keep suitably abreast of developments in Westminster. It will not, however, require members to attend so often as to preclude them from continuing to maintain their outside interests and will equally not require them to make unnecessarily numerous interventions, slowing down the business of the House as members seek to pad their records of contribution.

My Lords, this is in nobody's interest. I note the amendment is similar to the one proposed so excellently and with so proposed so excellently and with so much excel detail, in amendment 21, but his would require 10% of sitting days within anyone Parliament. Whereas amendment 64 requires it in any one session. Which will ensure a greater regularity and spread of attendance and on that basis, I recommend it to the House.
16:33
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I have amendment 37 in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this group. In contrast to my noble friend I think that, yes, we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that, yes, we have members of extreme expertise in here but we do not want just to hear from them. When that particular expertise is engaged. We want their broader is engaged. We want their broader contribution. Their wider understanding of life. We want them understanding of life. We want them to bring that expertise into our to bring that expertise into our wider debates. And we should expect people who are part of this House to turn up on a reasonable percentage of times.

I think certainly 10%. As I think probably I learned from my noble friends, Lord Strathclyde, peers whose habit it is to blow in, blow off and blow out, are really no use to this House whatsoever. The other characteristics of my amendment compared with others to leave a lot of flexibility to the House of Lords. In saying what the level should be and how it should be determined. And I think that is rather better express in amendment 32, which will come to in a while, 32, which will come to in a while,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and of which I have info -- Which I thoroughly support. I rise to speak to amendment 64, which I think in this group is the which I think in this group is the one I am most attracted by. I have gotten my right hand a copy of the gotten my right hand a copy of the writ of summons that we each receive when we come here. And I'm just when we come here. And I'm just going to read an extract. We, strictly adjoining, Comanche won the faith and allegiance by which you
16:35
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
faith and allegiance by which you are burden to us, considering the difficulty of the set of affairs impending, waiting all excuses, you will be personally present at our faucet Parliament with us and with the prelates, nobles and peers of our Sikh kingdom, to treat and if your counsel. -- Give your counsel. I do believe the writ of summons is a very serious document, and that is why I believe section 1, section 2 actually, of the formats, which allows for any day of participation is not frankly consistent.

With the writ of summons. And I was doing my own spreadsheet before hand, and my letters came from the journal office, they are slightly different. But in looking at that, I felt that by raising that one day, as I said in November, says -- And as I said in November, says -- And as I said in November, 10% of they sat in a session, you would lose between 50 and a hundred of our number, who I felt did not live up to what is in our writ of summons.

And I felt that is proportionate. But 10% was a number, clearly allotted other percentages as well. 10% was a number which, selfishly, suits the crossbench. Because we have a large number of people in our benches who are low-frequency, high-impact members. I needn't name them because you will be able to think of several. They are people who are at the very top of their professions and are able to come here and give devastatingly good speeches but they are not able to make more than 10% of the time here.

They go onto our committees and they do a lot of work for our house that is valuable. And that is why I feel that 10% is the right number. And the pleasing thing about the noble Earl, Lord Evans amendment is that attendance is measured as it is here today, the very methods we use to measure attendance are there. The methods we use if you want to appeal a wrong marking out, as it were, are there and work well. And I have confirmed with the clerk of the Parliaments that these methods could be applied to this type of amendment.

Therefore, in my eyes, noble Earl, Lord Deben, has scored a hit.
16:37
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
As supposed in amendment 47 by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this matter all to be dealt with in a proactive way, as inferred from that amendment, individual peers should make their own commitments in the first place. Therefore, the beginning of every session of Parliament, each House of Lords member would sign a declaration of intent to attend more than a proportion of sitting days during that session. Nevertheless, the key question honestly remains. What should be this minimum number of days? And here once more, and we are very grateful to him, because it is very much our thinking, why noble friend, Lord Blencathra, comes to the rescue.

He has just done so by And the concise of conjecture towards magmatic uncertainty. For, as he points out, if between 2019 and 2024 the had been a 20% attendance, we would have lost 154 peers, through 50% attendance, we would have lost 118, through that of 10% attendance, 70 peers would have been asked to leave. Yet having got thus far, mathematics, slightly escapes conjecture, because given that between 2019 and 2024 there was no minimum percentage attendance requirement, and also, these years would not suddenly come to penalised peers retrospectively, that of course leaves us guessing at the number of peers, who were the knowledge they would be expelled if they did not meet that requirement, would in fact have failed the attendance test.

Honesty, these notes and failures would not have been the same and certainly much less than those between 2019-24, is already quoted when peers knew there was no minimum attendance requirement as high as 10%, which they had to consider at all. Within this grouping, included within this grouping, Amendment 64 by the noble Earl, Lord Deben, my noble friend, and which the noble Lord, locally, has just referred, the minimum attendance requirement House of Lords sitting is depleted. Your Lordships may agree, two reasons this amendment works efficiently, strike a good balance.

As other speakers have just said. When it is taken in conjunction with amendment By my noble friend, Lord Lucas. Firstly, since following amendment 64, members they know that if they do not adjust their diaries to unearned quantity of 10% attendance, they will be asked to leave. Whilst secondly, following amendment 37, the necessary advanced commitments to dates the beginning of parliamentary sessions are more than likely to be made in a responsible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. And therefore, to well exceed the statutory minimum of 10% in any case. My Lords, I would like to offer a different opinion. Perhaps a dissenting voice. I think my noble friend, Lord Blencathra's amendment is a terrible amendment. It is about amendment to a bad bill. What is not said is why, when he looked and when he put on this amendment, for exam he put on this amendment, for exam or five years. What was the purpose of that? One Parliament? Why not 10 of that? One Parliament? Why not 10 years, why not 15 years? Such as Sam noble Lords would like the session to be for someone ago back further? In my case, the noble Lord could have gone back 50 years.

I don't know what my attendance record would look like over that period, surely I suspect, but never mind. I think it is a mistake to have this principle. Because of this principle was carried forward, we are going to find ourselves, in effect, encouraging because my noble friend is a former Chief Whip lobby fodder where everybody's hero the time, getting the vote, getting their name on nothing, and they won't actually be participating in your Lordships house, they will just be here for
16:42
16:42
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This group and the next, both deal with the question of how we make sure peers do their job for which they have been summoned by the monarch. In the situation when we know, and Lord Blencathra has given us the statistics, not everybody does. And we are equally all of the My Lords, I think this is an area that if you were to, whether there is a dissidence, just as there is in a retirement age, as to what people outside were thinking what people inside would think, all the discussion 's so far is how it affects us, rather than how we are seen.

I think if you were to have a conversation with most people and say I am a member of the House of Lords, active member. As they say, how often do you go? And you say, it is very own risk I have got to go 10% of the time for supper by say, what does that mean? I would say it means that when the House is sitting, I don't have to go once a fortnight, but roughly that. As I say, what time do you start? And I said, well, probably coming in about 3:30, 4 o'clock.

What time would you finish? If it was a busy day, I might stay till the dinner hour. My Lords, this is not an owner a requirement. Suppose it is 20%. That is once a fortnight, roughly speaking for a couple of hours, possibly. At that, to most people outside, would not be seen as a huge outside, would not be seen as a huge leone of this requirement. I also think that in our writ of summons, and as members of a deliberate assembly, it frankly isn't good enough just to turn up once or twice a year to discuss an issue on which you are an expert.

In politics many of the issues that we have to debate I once that we rather would not debate, because we are not experts, but they are the most important. And some of them, we would rather not debate, because they are really difficult and we are not an expert. Take assisted dying. I am sure many others, in an ideal world, at one level, would rather other people took a decision on that because it is so difficult. We are summoned by the monarch to give counsel or a range of things, and I think if there was any suggestion, particularly if it is hearing legislation, at a minimum level that is acceptable, that really isn't in my mind acceptable.

Even though, I know that has been the pattern in the past. My Lords, I also have a question about whether legislation is the right place to put such an amendment. Both in terms of the amendments in this group, and the next. Because apart from anything else, it goes in here, it goes to the other place. Suppose our colleagues in the Commons says, hang on a second? Those people at the other end seem to think 10% is enough? That is ridiculous.

Let's change it, let's put in 50%. That sounds a bit more reasonable to me. And then we are going to have a ping-pong what is a reasonable level of attendance here. My Lords, it seems to me that we do need to give further thought to this issue. I am not being flippant about it, but I do not think that a legislative vehicle is the way to do it. And I do think that the amendments in the name of Lord Cromwell which we are debating in the next group should be expanded in scope, so that we do set a literary a formal process in which we do come back with a raft, which encourage people to play a bigger part in the work of your worship's house.

-- In the work of your Lordships house, but I don't think a narrow arrangement such as the amendment we have got today is a way
16:46
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
We should thank Lord Blencathra for introducing this amendment. It is a subject worth discussing. And since this bill is designed to fling out a cohort of your Lordships' House, on the whole do turn up and do play a part. Some of them are already senior and important roles in the House. I think it is worth discussing for a few moments, those who hardly come at all and finding out whether there should be some kind of attendance threshold. Now the amendment that we are dealing with, does do with attendance.

My label noble friend Lord he she mentioned participation. I think participation is very important. It is a very different issue to attendance. We will be coming to participation in the course of today's deliberations. I think that what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull said about the crossbenches, the noble Earl, old of Devon is very important. We do not want to discourage or reduce the ability of those peers who do have something to say for a whole variety of reasons, less often and most of us.

That is why the threshold should be realistic but relatively low. I think that what my noble friends, Lord Blencathra was saying was if it had been set at about 10% we would lose about hundred peers, from the past records. I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Hailsham that we shouldn't do anything that is retrospective. I don't actually think there is a problem of suddenly a whole bunch of peers would turn up, because they wanted to be above the threshold.

Because I think the peers who really do not come, at all, hardly at all have already decided that they don't want to play a part in your Lordship's House, but they don't want to retire, or they don't want to take a leave of absence. So I think this is a useful amendment and E useful debates and
16:49
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
discussion and set at 10% I don't discussion and set at 10% I don't I also would support my noble friends, Lord Blencathra for having brought forward this topic and I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just said. When I looked at my noble friends three amendments I was inclined to think that amendment 20 struck the right balance. I think it struck the right balance. I think it is important to retain the concept of the House of Lords as a part-time house but I also believe that to remain sufficiently involved in what is going on, so as to be able to make a contribution to debates on matters, in which noble Lords possess expertise and knowledge participation level of 10% may be on participation level of 10% may be on the low side.

But as long as your Lordships' House remains its present sitting hours I think that 15% is a reasonable minimum participation level. I think it would be difficult to maintain a full-time job outside the House and a 15% participation level if the House were to adopt similar sitting hours to the House of Commons. I think however that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is right to provide this amendment 25, to provide for the possibility that the House may result to exempt the noble Lord from compulsory retirement.

If it concludes it was a good clause for that noble Lords a non- attendance. I entirely agree with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. About low attendance by impact members. They also support amendment 37 in the name of my noble friends, Lord Lucas. This amendment also provides the House to resolve to provide exceptions into compulsory retirement. Interestingly it allows the possibility of first of itching fixing and later changing the arrangement and standing orders, which will provide more flexibility, Lord, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider this matter, because the Labour Party manifesto also committed to introducing a new participation requirement at the same time as excluding the accepted Hereditary Peers.

Those who believe the House is too large may also support the introduction of a minimum participation and I would expect that the retirement of a number of inactive peers would make it easier for the government to find a better way forward. Which would cause less disruption to the ability of the House to discharge its functions, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a way that serves the country well. I find myself questioning the premise on which this amendment premise on which this amendment address and indeed on which the bill, which it is amending rest. Namely that there are too many of us here. It is repeated very often but
16:52
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
here. It is repeated very often but it is rarely interrogated, it is rarely properly analysed. The case against my noble friends, Lord Blencathra's amendment has been eloquently made by others, I'm not going to repeat the point that others are made. My noble friend, Viscount Astor makes it extremely important point about the perverse incentives. Viscount Hailsham makes a point about retrospective nature of this. Who can disagree with a compelling case made by the noble Lord, The Earl of Kinnoull, about the low frequency, but high impact members.

But we wouldn't be having this debate, at all, if it weren't for this general assumption that we need to free up space. And I have to say, before I came here, I took that as such a huge, second figures, legislative chamber, after the legislative assembly. Too many players for what. Do we have difficulty finding a seat in the chamber, I don't think so, there is plenty of space. Do we have difficulty picking a restaurant in the peers dining room. Do we not have our written questions accepted? Are we populating in such numbers are that the ushers are unable to cope with us? I don't think so.

If we are, there were a lot of people we do not have a problem with other people that do not turn up very often. They are by definition other people that are contributing least of the problem and claiming a loose -- least from it. The Magna Carta, the-ciliary progenitor and ancestor of this. At no stage did anyone feel the need to insert a minimum attendance requirement. It was assumed that it could be left to the patriotism and judgement of the Bishops and barons to decide when something was sufficiently important to merit turning up.

Have we completely jumped that idea of trusting the people's own discretion and judgement. Again, if it really were a question of numbers. If we really did feel that we were massively overloaded, then why is it that almost every day we keep on admitting more members here. If Ministers really think that the problem is that this is too large, we seem to be gaining half a dozen people a week. I sometimes feel, Gilbert and Sullivan, where everyone gets a peerage.

I sometimes wonder whether that is the endgame. Naturally this country will become an oligarchy, where the real power is vested in the hands of the last remaining 500 people who still have the right to vote for the other place. And everyone else will have the right to sit here. As long as I don't turn up it is still not a problem. So come back to say I really do dispute the premise. I know that Ministers share my view, because of course they are not because of course they are not proposing to have a cut-off, based on attendance, or indeed a cut based on age, because they look beyond their manifesto and they've decided to do the right thing, rather than be bound by the dots and commas of what their manifesto says.

I hope they will extend that logic to the only democratically elected element of your logic chamber, namely our hereditary colleagues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to be able to follow the remarks made by my noble follow the remarks made by my noble friend, Lord Hannan. We do have a friend, Lord Hannan. We do have a couple of numbers, who are constantly being compared to the
16:55
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
constantly being compared to the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party to stop it is a silly jibe but it does do is damage. It makes us seem stuffed by the goose. When did we last see 800 peers in this chamber, or 700 peers, or 600 peers? And yet the impression out there is that there are far too many of us who are here only because we are stuffed geese. I think there is a wide spread, universal agreement that our numbers should come down.

That is why I am very happy to join with the noble Lord, the Earl of Devon in his amendment. Which will help achieve that objective. The noble Lord, Viscount Trenchard talked about the past. The values of a part-time house, do we want a full-time house? No I don't think we do. Neither do we want the no time house. A peerage isn't a zero hours contract. It is strange to me that the government set out their deckchairs, in their manifesto.

So far, so very clear about a number of different measures that would help bring down the numbers. For some reason, they now seem to consent, then I seem content to sit on the principles and watch the boats sail by. It really is baffling why they do not do what they said they would do and why they and their cannons simply at other hereditaries. Rather than the members that don't participate. You may be forgiven again that some of the Labour Party's interest is not so much as reform, but clinical class warfare.

I constantly banged on about the fundamental principle that explores the relationship between individual peers and our institution. Which is that we are here to serve this House. This House does not exist to serve us. The institution must come first, not the individual. And it is not simply a numbers game. More fundamentally, it seems to me, it is about the need to refresh this House. To ensure that its experience is and its advice are up to date and this House remains relevant.

Sometimes you do need refreshment to blow away cobwebs. If numbers matter, the Labour manifesto said that they do, then I suggest that the amendments that we are discussing today would help. And on a slightly wider context, we all know that the government has hinted at this bill. Why do it the hard way. The bitter way. Why strip away the desire to compromise? Why poison the well? Why not show a little willingness. Allow a little wiggle room on this bill.

Is it really just to be seen as the use of naked power. We have of course had different points of view expressed, even on this amendment. For my part, I believe that a quick and honourable deal could be reached on this bill and indeed on a wider reform package, in line with Labour's manifesto and I believe the deal could be done, this afternoon, between the party leaders, over a cup of tea and even before that cup of tea has a chance to go cold.

It is, I think, important for the credibility of this bill, this government and indeed this House that the Government should try and be seen to be trying to come to a broader agreement, then it is done so far. I hope, my lord, that the Government will open its door and reach out for agreement. So much more dignified, productive than simply being seen to reach out for our hereditary throats.
17:00
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
You have got to forgive me to echo what I heard Lord Grocott say to us yesterday. I have listened to some amazing speeches. But their delivery will be in the future not with this bill. This bill is so small and its effects on our hereditaries is absolutely terminal. The debates and the arguments we are having, I am not a profit, not a profit son. I would like to have a healthy check. None of the amendments you put in this bill, they are for the future.

I would be very surprised that the Leader of the House is going to accept any of those amendments. There really is nothing to do with this particular little bill. She would be right to resist them. She has done it already, we have luxuriated ourselves about the future and giving amazing speeches. Some of them are pretty difficult to hear. Others are just so unbelievably hurtful. Others, I don't know, others should be backed. My lord, why are we doing it? You are going to tell me because of the Labour Party's manifesto indicated the reform.

They have decided, at the first step, to deal with something that has been going on, without being done in 25 years. Then they will face the rest of the amendments and the rest of the questions. If this is a positive remark in which you are depositing our views for the future. Be very careful. Be very careful it doesn't get at them. Some of my friends and dear Lord, I respect all of you who have spoken. I'm afraid I cannot make sense at all of any of these amendments getting into this bill.

It won't. If it does, I will be the 1st to it does, I will be the 1st to
17:02
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the Right Reverend Prelate to made some compelling points. I wanted to pick up on the three points and make a suggestion. First of all, in terms of this chamber being overcrowded and everyone being under pressure, I agree with Lord Hannan. Coming from the other place, the leader of the no, only to well, in a division, it can be up to 600 MPs voting. Even on a really, really busy division here, it's never more than about 470 or so and when I was in MPI often found difficulty finding a place in the library, in the tearoom.

You don't have that problem here. The idea this House is overcrowded is absolutely a nonstarter. It's not the case. I absolutely agree with what the noble Earl Lord Kamall mentioned in terms of those members here who turn up, from time to time, but really, but make a huge impact. When they do turn up the House is captivated by what they say. It would be a shame to lose them. I roll around 20%. Would it not be better if the House looked at baby section 85 of the Local Government Act, which states if the counsellor fails to attend for a period of six months, without due course, they can be qualified.

Without -- would not cover those who do not turn up? Or will that not make them turn up? But could the Minister, when she winds up the debate, or the Minister once at the debate, and one of the reasons why the noble Lord and Put this down, it's a shame and he did make it clear enough, there are members of this House who hardly ever turn up, Life Peers who may have a lot to offer but don't take the role seriously.

Whereas among the hereditaries, I am told by the library that if we applied the 20% rule, only two hereditaries would be covered with that, all of the others attend more than 20% and none attend less than 10% so actually the attendance record is really quite excellent and really impressive. Could the Minister comment on that point? Finally, as the noble Lord Lord Dobbs pointed out, we are going to be debating this in committee. I would have thought for more than four days.

We may have made progress but a lot of different subjects have been covered. We are going to have a long time maybe at report and third reading. Surely there is a compromise that can be found? The government already knows it is going to get rid of elections, elections I think everybody can see, it's very sad that this remain will have no more Hereditary Peers but we have considered that will happen. If it's about numbers then surely a deal can be done.

Out of her hereditaries are think there are over 40 or so who are left. Many of those have said they are going to retire anyway. Some of the Life Peers on our side have said that they would retire. Before we get too far we have found that figure of 40. So surely we can have a compromise here and it would save everyone the heat amount of time, effort and money. -- A huge amount.
17:06
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
It a privilege to speak out, after my noble Lord, attendance has been a long-standing issue through British history and I thought my noble friend Lord Hannan spoke extremely well about the motivations of parliamentarians. But previous monarchs have looked at this issue very closely. Both King James and Queen Elizabeth, brought in roll called and finds because they struggled so much to get parliamentarians to attend. -- Roll calls and fines. Many parliaments around the world have attendance criteria.

In Belgium salaries are docked if you don't attend enough. And in Oregon if you only get 10 spare days, if you miss your tenants paydays you're not allowed to stand for election. -- 10 spare days. This is an issue many parliamentarians very. The first Lord Bethell is never spoke in Parliament at all. I regarded it as an honour. That is a shame and not at all tolerated in our modern times. The British public expect parliamentarians to play an active role, and they are absolutely right.

I think there are two things I would say on that in particular. Firstly, noble Lord Lord made the point about the infrequent and that is right. I have enormously valued the participation of some peers of enormous expertise but other commitments. But there is a collaboration element to being part of what is a collective House. Scrutinising legislation, which is our principal endeavour, is something that requires an enormous amount of cooperation between peers, and that requires a relationship that needs a little bit of familiarity.

And if you don't have people turning up at all, you can't build those bonds of trust and collaboration. You can't do your job properly. For that reason, I stand to support very strongly the spirit of the amendments from my noble friend will blink at, Lord Lucas, Cannell.
17:08
17:09
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm glad that we are debating this question of attendance separately from the question of participation because they are materially different things. I must say, I share the scepticism of the nomad Right Reverend about the willingness of the government accept amendments to this bill and indeed his solitary warning about being careful of what we say and remembering taken down in the official record. But I do have to say the reason that these other issues are being raised is because we all care deeply about the future of this House and the tragedy, one of the great tragedies of this bill is that some of the people who care most deeply will not be here in order to give their opinions on the further stages of reform or the governments adherence to the rest of its manifesto, once this bill is passed.

I know he will understand why they are getting their arguments in in early. As the noble Earl the convener of the crossbenches reminded us our presence here is not thanks to democratic mandate or any of our own achievement but in answer to a call. We sit here in response to a writ of summons from our sovereign who has commanded us, waving all excuses, to be the Parliament holding here at Westminster to treat and give our council on certain arduous and urgent affairs and I agree with noble Lords who have said, we are invited and treated to give our opinions on arduous affairs even if they are out with our own areas of expertise.

It is up to each of us to decide how we answer that call and it's clear that noble Lords across the House do so in different ways. But we have some insights in how they do so, thanks to the spreadsheet of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, enter the data dashboards that have been provided by the House of lords library. That shows you the last Parliament to lodge house sat for 701 days. An average noble Lords attended and just under half, 46% of the days that they were eligible to attend.

Of the 966 people who were eligible to attend, at least some of the last department, 28 members did not attend at all. More than 100 members, 116, attended on less than 10% of the threshold that many noble Lords have spoken of the days that they were eligible to be here. Further interrogation of these data by the library reveals some interesting points. During our last day in committee we were debating the ideal age of peers. The data from the last Parliament showed that the younger peers are more likely to attend than older ones.

Noble Lords aged 59 and under have attended on more than half of our sitting days in the last Parliament, noble Lords aged 60 or above were absent from most. While noble Lords in the '80s were with us on 45% of sitting days, and those in their 90s managed 31%, those in their 30s were here on 55% of sitting days and the sole noble Lord in her 20s, noble Baroness Lady Smith of Llanfaes, here 78% of the time, despite travelling from further afield.

Perhaps most pertinently, average attendance rates were highest for our hereditary colleagues, at 49%. For Life Peers it was 47%. For the Lord Spiritual it was 14%, though we know the Right Reverend Prelate's have many other duties. Our remaining laws were here under 12% of sitting days they could have been. -- Law Lords. The statistics should not be taken at face value. Some may say it is better to have 12% of one of one We benefit from having busy people who are active in many areas of civic life and to bring that experience to bear in our deliberations as they see fit.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra and Lord Hylton said they contribute with great expertise on either Derek topics. There are many good reasons for noble Lords being absent. Many are still active in business and charities. Some service chancellors and vice chancellors as ambassadors or high commissioners. Others serve in the no less noble roles of husbands, wives, grandparents and carers. Some are suffering the illnesses and ailments that afflict us all, and speak very movingly about it when they do. Most of those people would I think be able to meet the modest requirements of the noble and learned Lord Devon's Amendment 64, physically if combined with some of the leniency expressed by noble friend Lord Lucas in his amendment 37.

As my noble friend Lord Hannan reminded us, and important point is often forgotten when we look at attendance. If noble Lords choose not to be here, or cannot be here, they cost the taxpayer nothing. They don't cancel out the votes of noble Lords who have chosen to express their view in a division. I share my noble friend Lord Astor's concern about stuffing your Lordship's House with lobby fodder. The people who are not here don't take proceed in the chamber or force us to queue longer for savages at lunchtime although it is rarely a problem.

What harm do they do -- our savages. I'm glad my noble friend Lord Bethell picked up the point of history to point out that those who ignore the writ of summons in the early Parliament found themselves find. Perhaps we should return to find. Perhaps we should return to that. I think we should be wary of handing out those noble Lords who choose to exercise the privilege, sparingly, I often when covering DCMS matters think of the noble Lord Lord Lloyd Webber who retired from your budget house before I arrived here.

He remains a busy and successful man in business, and the arts, in charity but found himself criticised for being a composer first and a politician second. So he left. How valuable it would have been if during the pandemic, Lord Lloyd Webber, that great in Pesaro had been able to challenge me and other ministers about how we were working to protect cultural organisations and theatres in the face of COVID. Instead Lord Lloyd Webber was only able to speak in Parliament when summoned as a witness before a Select Committee in another place.

The truth is he never left us. All through those wild days that man existence, he kept his A far greater problem than the irregular attendance of those who work hard as accepted hereditaries work hard as accepted hereditaries than those who hardly take part. I hope we all know who they are. They grace us with their presence briefly, sitting just outside the gallery, they pop in for the first question of the day and then they're gone.

If they linger here, it's only to sit briefly and take their private phone calls or bring business associates here to be impressed by the surroundings. They feel Lord Dobbs's test. Today's Guardian has a piece on the chamber. They managed to claim have £1 million between them. Many of the people named in it have had service in both houses. Some have played a role by basking written question. -- Questions. There is somebody whom I won't name who has bad health, who is named in today's Guardian.

Did nothing at all in the last Parliament and claimed more than £27,000 for doing it. There may well be good reason for this. I take that as one example to illustrate what I think we all know is an awkward and inconvenient truth of a phenomenon that can be seen sadly or no benches in this House. Off we are seeking to reduce the size of Your Lordships' House and to improve public standing, I would suggest that is a good place to start.

-- If we are seeking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I fear I have been so challenged by my leader to try and get Andrew Lloyd Webber's lyrics in
17:18
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
get Andrew Lloyd Webber's lyrics in my speech so no one is going to cry for me today. Before I start, I would like to wish the noble Lord Lord Wallace very happy birthday. I'm sure he can think of no better way to spend his birthday then to be here today with your Lordships. My Lords, one of my favourite parts of being a member of Your Lordships' House, as I joined in 2022, is that every week I learn something.

The calibre of debate is exceptional. And when I am asked by my friends who don't necessarily follow our debates as much as they should, although I believe my mother now watches everyone, I suggest that at least once a month I have the privilege of listening of my own -- listening to my own version of the listening to my own version of the reflector. -- the Reith Lecture. It is a privilege to be part of this house and I welcome very much that part of the debate.

I never want to -- I want to thank all noble to have contributed. The debate has been insightful. I'm aware that the next group of amendments looks at different ways of dividing them and devising the framework -- devising the framework. From debates we've had in the past and the ones we had today, it is clear there is broad agreement members should attend. Although, is Lord Newby highlighted, that looks very different internally than externally in terms of the quality and demands that we may make on each other.

Can I also thank the on each other. Can I also thank the noble Lord Gran Catherine -- Glenn Catherine -- Blencathra. As noble Lords will be a were, there are existing measures to remove peers who failed to attend the house once during the session. This goes further in relation to requiring participation. Although this bill is not fit to make such a change, this debate has been very helpful in examining the ways in which it can be achieved.

There is rightly a public expectation, and having listened to the debate today and expectation of your Lordships, of how members should contribute. That is why we are developing a new requirement, a process which could include looking at the intendant's include looking at the intendant's -- attendance. We will be looking to define what this participation will look like. I think there are genuine arguments about quality of participation as Lord Parkinson highlighted. The range of amendments tabled on this topic demonstrate that although we are not at that point yet, we are focused on finding some agreement.

As the noble Lord Blencathra stated, not even he has a firm view. The amendments were debating... As we will see when we come to debate participation, attendance is not the only way in which contribution can be measured. It is a simple requirement, to attend the house for a certain amount of time, as proposed in these amendments tabled by the noble Lords. A reasonable measure of participation. Or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken? I will refrain from pre-empting the later debate on this point.

This will be an important point. This will be an important matter to consider so we can clarify what is expected of members of this House. Before we consider the means by which we introduce a new participation recurrent, I would suggest we think that about the previous attendance records of current membership, as the noble Lord has suggested in his amendments, but about a long-term solution that is fair to members going forward. Our priority is to going forward. Our priority is to ensure clarity on what the expected level of participation is.

Whether it be attendance or some other specific contribution. We must ensure this is adhered to in the future. I would also like to thank the noble viscount for the series of amendments he has undertaken for enhanced attendance requirements. Has made a number of suggestions on the matter of participation, such as if a member is on leave of absence, any work on this area will need to include reasonable exceptions, such as those identified by the noble viscount. There is also a question about the implementation and enhanced attendance requirement.

Should it become forensically set out in legislation or should the detail be left in this house to decide subsequently and set out in our standing orders as proposed by Lord Lucas? I would also like to briefly address the amendments tabled by Lord Blencathra. Specifically, I address these This would potentially delay indefinitely should both amendments be successful. The government cannot be successful. The government cannot support this change to the commencement of this bill. The arrangements currently set out in the Manifesto seek to balance the manifesto commitment, the promise of immediate reform will not undermining the business of the House.

They follow the approach set in the 1999 act. It is clear the house once to discuss this issue and we welcome the suggestions that have been put forward as part of that. There is positive intention behind entering their clear expectations of members. I therefore respectfully request the noble Lords withdraw their amendments. their amendments.
17:25
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
There might be some consensus. If I could briefly go through some comments. I take the point from my noble friend the Viscount Hailsham. Others me that point as well. I think it would be possibly better. He also made the point that there is a danger if we do change the threshold, it would pause -- for Spears to come and just to speak. And The Earl of Kinnoull supported that.

It's not something that occurred to me. It was suggested we should attend more frequently than some noble Lords do. I think my noble friend The Earl of Dundee also said he supported the 10% agreement. I say to my noble friend who said there is a danger it would encourage people to turn up. What about those brilliant young men and women who do -- who could not afford to do 15 days. 15 days is not too high for executives.

If they are doing 18 hours a day, I'm sure they can manage to turn up here for 15 days. I should say first of all, most importantly, happy birthday to the noble Lord Lord Wallace of so tell. -- Of Saltaire. He was highly supportive of a minimum threshold level. He said that we wouldn't leave future legislation. Look at amendment 32 coming up later because their icy in order to avoid future legislation, we can take a special delegate of power and make any amendments the house decides on in the future in further acts.

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde supported 10% as well. My noble friend Viscount Trenchard said 50%. My Viscount Trenchard said 50%. My noble friend Lord Hannan made a brilliant speech as usual. I agree entirely with him. Having 850 peers on the books is not a real problem. It is not a problem if only 450 turn up regularly and others don't come. Are not claiming any money, they are not a cost to the system. The reason it's a problem is because the government says it's a problem.

The government wants rid of peers. The suggestion -- the solution is to get suggestion -- the solution is to get The noble Lord said The noble Lord said at The noble Lord said at the The noble Lord said at the start The noble Lord said at the start it is perfectly legitimate to amend any bill. The government don't have to draft it narrowly. My noble friend supported and went on to say that he liked the idea of sacking those who don't turn up for six months, an idea to be explored, I suggest.

My noble friend Lord Bethell said Parliament tears need to be appreciated -- peers. It is right that peers turn up. My noble friend Lord Parkinson, are very grateful he found the Excel spreadsheets are useful and made a brilliant speech, but I'm not sure what percentage he would recommend to the House. If I missed that, then I'm sure I will be corrected later on. Very careful sitting on the fence there which is a very keen political skill.

I like the warm welcome for the threshold. She was sensible in saying that. Of course, she says it's not for this will. Again, I turn to amendment 32, which might solve this problem. I'm pleased to put down these amendments in my name. I think my amendments have provoked better amendments from some noble peers and the excel spreadsheets are giving us all something of substance to talk about and argue about. Without those spreadsheets, we would be talking in vague generality. I conclusion is this.

Once again, my noble friends seem to have tabled amendments which the house seems to favour so that is the 10% requirement procession for the future. That might be the way to go forward. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that your Lordships pleasure the amendment be by leave withdrawn? the amendment be by leave withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 26, not move. I rise to speak to amendment 26. I got carried away with enthusiasm. Amendment 26, if one thought my last amendment was slightly controversial, it's nothing in comparison to this one because I and the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, can again side the lead of the, neither of us from the government but again we are here to help him. We'll help you implemented the Labour Party manifesto promised that we will introduce a new participation requirement.

Part of what I propose here is simple and straightforward. Another part would be very difficult and highly contentious. The first question is, why is this necessary? We all know that there are a tiny number of peers who, shall we say, clock in and then disappear without any participation. Even if there's only one member or up to 10 it brings the House into disrepute. There's more than enough abuse in the media about hard-working peers getting £361 per day tax-free allowed that we must root out the small number who turn up and do nothing.

The easy bit is collecting nothing. The easy bit is collecting the statistics, as in subsection 3, as we know particularly what was spoken in the chamber and how often, as the lobby said, statistics are being collected for a Select Committees also. We know who has asked oral and written questions, how many, we may not record those who attend and work in other committees at the moment which do not count for attendance, that work is vital to the functioning of this House.

It can be time-consuming but we can easily collect the names and statistics there also. We know who served our international delegations such as the Council of Europe, NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and that's 23 peers in this House. And as an aside, let me say that the half allowance we get for that work is nonsensical. The hours and threats noble Lords Lord Dodds and Lancaster and I face were far longer and tougher than anything we do in this place.

I can say with all certainty that those of us who serve in those three organisations are going to go through some very hard days as we wrestle with the new security threats. All our meetings start at 8:30 AM and end at 2030 p.m. And we get £15 per hour for attendance. That was an aside. Back to my meant meant. My concluding item is to include any other work which the committee would consider to be participation on the work of the House.

The only area in which I differ from the noble Lord Lord Cromwell is I was, I would not get her fingers on this. We can set this up ourselves without government help and I call on that procedure to do and I call on that procedure to do it all set up a new procedure to work out the metrics. A new committee would be best. One which would keep this under constant review and act as an appeal body for those years who objected to retirement on grounds of attendance below any threshold and participation below any new threshold also.

And that is with a contentious part will be. It's easy to collect the statistics but how will we decide what minimum level of participation should entitle want to continue to membership of this House. This is where I'm looking for to hearing what the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, particularly on subsection 3, and the minimum participation. In the metrics deserted. Neither of us can say what it can be. If appeared nothing, save up and down a few written questions would that suffice and if so how many? Would one speech per annum in that chamber or two in the Grand Committee qualify? Would we treat participation as equal or would we say some more important and one would have to attend to a three letter committees.

However one defined important. Then there is the vexed question of effectiveness. As soon I was elected, my predecessor said, you must distinguish between activity and achievement. Many MPs run around being active achieve little. Suppose we have appear who was asked only one written questions the whole year. But it revealed some terrible scandal or government change policy. Although became high up in the private numbers ballot and his her private spill became law and changed the lives of thousands, for the better one hopes.

I appreciate the more I talk about the difficulties of eight minimum participation level, the more your Lordships will conclude that it's too difficult and we should leave well alone. But that is not our normal modus operandi. The Lord is tackled issues that governments and departments shy away from. Look at the Select Committee reports. I cannot believe committee of all sides of this House will be unable to drop the metrics which the noble Lord Lord Cromwell proposes. If they say after serious deliberation it cannot be done that is the end of the matter.

If the great and the good of this House can't find a solution to set the minimum participation level then no one else can. We do need to incorporate the exceptions as proposed by noble friend the Viscount Hailsham, I look forward to my noble friend the Lord Parkinson naming names if he has anyone in mind. I conclude as I began to believe we have a very small number of peers failing to participate at all or very infrequently and that is bringing the House into disrepute.

Fixing it I believe is not the and the capabilities of noble Lords and I beg to move. -- Not beyond the capabilities.
17:37
17:38
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

for not participating. My Lords, I have amendment number 63 in my name in this group. But if 63 in my name in this group. But if we are able to help the front inch with musical lyrics, surely it's there to circus, oh what a show. I should declare my interest in the so-called hereditary Peer. I would like to make two general points before I turned to the detail of my amendment. The first is that as earlier speeches have made clear, right across this House, it is accepted that the hereditary principle is no longer suitable and that the suspension of elections should become permanent.

The bill achieves that.. The piece of actuation that has taken on unparalleled position in debates on this bill. My second point during Mondays discussions on noble Lords stated either on their feet and not very sedentary mutterings that all amendments to the bill are irrelevant because this is a single objective bill. While I understand that view, and I certainly share the intense frustration with the speed of the debate, some of the and grouping, and some of the rather gratuitous rudeness to the leader of the, particularly on the first day, nevertheless understand that amendments have been put down and have been put down and marshalled in the usual way.

Most are probing amendments and while they may seek to go beyond the very tight circumference of the current text of this bill, I'm not sure they can simply be dismissed as relevant. Such amendments have arisen because there is a widely expressed concern that once the expulsion of the hereditary system, all further reform will again grind to a halt and the House sink quietly back into a pattern of prime ministerial patronage and ever-growing size, neither of which enhance its reputation or credibility.

My amendment does not seek to obstruct the purpose of this bill but it does invite the government to take some practical steps to enable the further reform to which their manifesto commits them. Amendment 63 like some others addresses the issue of participation but not by prescribing in advance and in the detail of exactly what such reform should comprise. But by seeking simply to put in place a process and timeline to progress it. Something that speaker after speaker has been calling for over the days of this debate.

It is thus complimentary to the single purpose of this bill and could be added to it without obstructing that purpose anyway. The focus of this amendment is participation for the following reasons. First, it is a members participation and contributions, be the aged 91 or 21. That most affect both the quality and the reputation of this House. To touch briefly on the related point of age limits, while I understand that convincing argument that imposing it is a matter of public perception, a wide-ranging dates were suggested in the debate on Monday and examples given of competent individuals who would be lost at each relation.

I'm not against an age limit but what the debate on Monday actually highlighted was the inability of whips to require members to retire when, and there's no point tiptoeing around this, participation in the work of the House has become too challenging for them. Maybe that's the problem that needs to be addressed. Second, a participation requirement is a commitment that needs to transform from a manifesto state into an implementable set of actions. And finally, and I apologise for introducing a personal note, it does rather sting to be dismissed en bloc but leave behind some peers and my Lords there is no shortage who do not attend, hope you do attend and claim their allowances and don't participate.

The amendment has three key features. First, it requires within six months of this bill becoming an actor, that cross- party group set up to consult and then define participation and establish suitable metrics to measure it. I have been told that defining participation is too difficult. It is not. And that too difficult mantra has been given as an excuse for far too long. No doubt there will be a range of views contributed to the group as other amendments in this group illustrate.

An account should be taken of previous work in this area. This amendment embraces both of those factors. We already collect most of the necessary data but previous governments have I'm afraid to say simply lacks the firmness of purpose to act on it. This brings me to the second feature. It enables the setting up of processes required to implement the participation requirement as the basis for continued membership. Not all aspects of the outcome will please everyone completely but we need to move beyond the wringing of hands and the gnashing of gums in order to resolve the participation gap in a practical way.

Some time ago, we had the accident Burns Report with recommendations that members across this House supported but these have not been implemented. Other speakers on Monday started a long list of failures to implement change. My Lords, we need to better than that. That is why the third and final feature of this amendment is to require the government to bring forward measures to ensure that the findings are implemented. While this amendment is written anticipates that government gets a grip on this, this House itself if it has the power to do so, take responsibly to set up a group, ensure its work is done and then carry it forward to a fermentation.

That is certainly worthy of consideration for top so long as it does not become yet another consultation that in the best traditions of yes Minister's Humphrey delays and dissolves what actually needs to be done stop in conclusion, this amendment does not and underline this, seek in anyway to thwart the single-minded purpose of this bill. It does not prescribe how participation should be defined, quantified or implemented but it is put in place a process and a timeframe of 20 months for reform based on participation once the bill is passed.

For a government that is serious about reform of this house, it's an opportunity to address the size, effectiveness, cost and reputation of this House, all things that most numbers agree are not currently what they should be. I therefore hope that the noble Lady the Minister will seize on this amendment, both as a means to move forward with this bill and to demonstrate in practical terms the governments absolute commitment to resolving the participation issue. Not in a general aspirational sense or something that no phrase heard earlier in the debate, we are working on.

But with a structure and timetable so that House can both understand and benefit from long overdue change. I look forward to
17:45
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I've sat like a number of people with words that might prolong the debate. Having listened to Lord to be in that first group saying we should be very careful to ensure that we try and see ourselves ensure that we try and see ourselves in the way that we are viewed from outside -- and the way we are viewed from outside. We should focus on a simple fact. This is that this is a five clause bill.

Everyone knows that no organisation is happier than when it is talking about itself and we are demonstrating this, I think testing it to destruction, during the debate on this bill so far. A simple five clause bill would not normally have an attendance like this on the second day of Committee. So far, so far we have discussed up to today 10 groups of amendments. There are 32 groups left to discuss. That's assuming there is no further D grouping.

We are doing five groups per day per session. You can do the maths, other members can do the maths better than I can. We shall be committing this until committee day after committee day after committee D -- we shall be debating this. In relation to other matters this house should be considering of the -- on the floor of the house, to spend another six, seven or eight days or more on this bill repeating arguments that have been heard on numerous occasions and as the Right Reverend Prelate pointed out 90% of which we now are not directly related to the bill and will in any event come forward at a later time.

We really do need to do better today if we want to be seen as relevant and persuasive in the eyes of the public. To do better debating just five groups of amendments and bearing in mind I have spent five minutes and 42 seconds and do not intend to speak again, I do hope that we will have a good sense to get through this committee stage at a dramatically speedier rate then we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have managed so far. Can I just reply to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just reply to the noble Lord Lord Grocott? That was a wholly
17:49
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
unnecessary speech. The noble Lord said its five clause bill and therefore it doesn't need very much discussion. I can remember and I expect the noble Lord can as well of the bill from some years ago which was for clauses long -- four clauses. The house was full every night. It's an important constitutional issue. The difference between me and him is that he thinks this bill is about getting rid of hereditary peers. I think it's about creating a wholly appointed house that we have never had before and the appointments are in the hands of the Prime Minister.

That is why so many of the amendments being taken today and in previous days are so important. There is no attempt to try and filibuster this debate. The noble Lord cannot point any individual who has spoken for a very long. It is hardly surprising that so many of us want to get involved in the speech. I'm sorry we're not going to hear from the noble Lord again from the rest of the Labour Party. That is the decision. Either they are so horrified by what the noble Lords, the government is putting forward, they don't want to listen to it any more.

I, for one, I'm very happy to sit here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm now generally confused by this bill because it seems to me that the purpose, if it seems to me that the purpose, if it seems to me that the purpose, if it has any purpose of this place, is to look at bad legislation, but proposals and seek to improve it. And every time we try and do that in
17:50
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
And every time we try and do that in this bill, we are accused of filibustering. So if the government are simply not prepared to listen to anything we are saying or take into account any of our amendments, we are all wasting our time, and I'm equally confused...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He said the government accused

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He said the government accused him of filibustering, I think he'll have heard from every minister that they have welcomed the discussions. We have not accused anybody on these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benches of filibustering. I've not said this bench has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've not said this bench has been accused of filibustering but we have been accused when we have been probing some of these strange proposals. Equally confused as to whether this bill is about reducing the numbers of this house or whether it's about getting rid of the hereditary peers. We have heard that they contribute far more than some Life Peers who don't attend this house. So is it about getting rid of the hereditary peers or is it about reducing numbers? It seems to me it's not about both.

But this specific clause, I have a real problem with it. It seems to me we can argue until the cows come home about what participation actually means. We've already conflated in some of the speeches we've heard attendance and participation. I fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. In my early days in this house, I was in the chamber when we listen to the electric exchange between Lord Krebs and the noble Lord Lord Winston, and I didn't understand what they were talking about, and my noble friend didn't understand, he confesses, what they were talking about.

I think those in the boxes did not understood -- did not understand a word of what they were talking word of what they were talking about. They had to stay over time to work out what they were seeing as well. It was on such a different level that only are full with have intervened at that point. -- Only are full would have intervened at that point. -- only a fool would have intervened. That's what makes me think that actually having a participation as one of the clauses, speaking in the chamber, are we really going to judge people by how often they speak in the chamber?, without naming names, we all know that amongst our number, are people who pop up at every occasion and speak.

I read to judge the validity speak. I read to judge the validity of their existence by the fact that they bounce up and ask a question on every particular topic? -- are we to judge. I heard what my noble friend Lord Bethell said about his forebears and the MP for Wareham in the 19th century who made one statement in the House of Commons and that was on a particularly hot evening. He enquired for the speaker if it might be possible to open the window just a bit.

He was not recorded as every -- ever had said anything before or since. It's a question of what people say, rather than how often they say it. The same goes for... The other thing is the quality of people speeches. I know that not everybody has a background in public speaking or has served in the other place or has the natural fluency and eloquence you that the gods vested on my noble friend Lord Hannan. But really, increasingly in the comments and increasingly here we have speaker after speaker getting up and reading out a preprepared statement.

That is not a debate. That just means they want to publicise what they have decided or worse, what they have been handed by a foundation, Rowntree foundation very often, I have to say, or indeed some PR outlet. I've sat in this chamber when I fired a speaker read out what was clearly provided to them by some lobbying group, and it was quite clear they hadn't really read what they were reading out. We need to improve the quality of debate in this chamber, not judge people on how often they pop up and ask the question.

Serving on committees of the house, well, there are not enough committees to serve on. I members going to be penalised on. I members going to be penalised because they don't? Asking Oral Questions. Yes, perfectly good, but you don't always get in on a session. You have to jump up and down and you are very lucky if you're hit rate is high. Tabling written questions. Let's not look at the quantity of written questions. Let's look at some of the answers.

Let's try to get an answer. I've noticed over the years that the answers, they are masterful in their evasiveness. They don't even attempt to answer the question. If the question is too difficult, they say it's a disproportionate cost. They cost hundreds and hundreds of pounds to the public to provide a non- answer. We can do it remotely, we can lie in bed and table hundreds and hundreds of written questions and lo and behold we will be judged to be doing terribly well in terms of participation.

I rather think not. It talks about any other activity which the committee considers to be participation in the work of the House. But with does that mean? -- but what does that mean? This is a terrible, terrible amendment. We should concentrate far more on the quality of what we are debating here, on how we debate it, on the quality of the speeches that are made here, on the levels of debate and engagement, but rarely to seek to prescribe and to identify how each and every one of us, all individuals here for completely different reasons, how we should all behave in some hideous template way to be decided by a committee.

I believe this is not the way to improve what goes on in this place.
17:57
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
What goes into the law does not happen in fear. When a bill gets into Parliament, it's already set in concrete. The anchor is on the ground. You've got to influence the thinking behind it with the civil service. Certain, I and many others spend some time on that issue. The next thing is that statutory instruments are the real things that affect how it works and how it operates. So you need to talk to the civil servants behind it before those regulations appear because we cannot amend them, we cannot do anything.

There was another one where they said we had to come back with regulations in another year. Seems revolutionary because it is almost seen as beyond our powers. It's always been a big problem here. Now, the problem is how do you measure the participation in the all-party groups, the discussions behind it. It happened with the identity cards. Huge amount of work behind the scenes at that. The age verification stuff and the British standard that. There is something which they totally ignored. It is now our national standard.

All the stuff we do which might be on the floor of the house because it is too late by the time it gets to the floor of the House. Anything is you have to get to the people who are writing the stuff before it gets here and that makes participation in other groups which you don't have recorded -- and that means participation of the groups which you don't have recorded left out. How on earth do you measure that? Maybe you would say the only thing that counts is talking on this for.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually, I think for many people, it's the last thing that counts. I remind the house that I intend to retire in the spring and would need a great deal of persuading not to do so. I did not speak to the previous amendment. I had speaking notes but I chose not to make a
18:00
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
notes but I chose not to make a speech because I did not need to. I do use notes. I use notes in order to regulate how long I speak and actually, in my notes, I have cut out several paragraphs because it wasn't necessary to use them. This is largely a presentation issue and is largely a presentation issue and I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannan but I would very strongly counsel against making any changes, especially strategy ones because to do so, could have reverse effects.

However, we are all grateful to the Guardian further research, for pointing out that some peers have been claiming large amounts of allowances whilst making little or no contribution to the work of Your It's not just activity in the chamber that should count as participation. And the noble Earl Lord Errol made that point. However it is what the public is encouraged to think. In some peers are not actually serving in the chamber but are invaluable in Select Committees. But it is more than that.

A lot of worthwhile Parliamentary activity is not easily measured. For instance currently I am promoted by my proposals for prison reform but it currently involves radical activity in the chamber. I'm also engaged in a serious problem to do with the police and the heavy haulage industry. To do this I have travelled from my home to Redditch, Birmingham, Dorking, and I nearly had to go to Ipswich. I was delighted to plan to stay overnight in Ipswich, what happened is the abnormal movement got cancelled but I was still faced with the cost of the hotel and couldn't get the cost of the hotel from the heavy haulage company because of the risk of falling foul of the paid advocacy rules.

I did all this activity at my own expense and save for one day was not able to claim analysis. -- Allowances. This is not unusual. The noble Lords engaged in other activity that would not be deductible as participation. And I agree with noble Lord Lord Cromwell in his point that there could be some mechanism for measuring this activity, possibly we might be required to say how much we have claimed in allowances and what we have done. But we have already experimented with the participation test during COVID.

Noble Lords will recall that we only paid ourselves allowances when we made a contribution. On one occasion, we were debating an order that concerned vehicle testing and inspection. I thought that I was the house's only subject matter expert. Imagine my surprise when I found that not only was the noble Lord Lord Rennard the countries top so follow just, he also had expertise on vehicle maintenance and inspection. Leg pulling apart, we do need to be careful to avoid creating perverse incentives to participate when unnecessary.

Finally, some peers do have quite no contribution rates but nevertheless, I have found their private counsel to be invaluable and the noble Earl Lord invaluable and the noble Earl Lord -- Lord Kinnoull talked about high- impact contributions and we only have to think about the noble Lord Lord Owen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many dimensions in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many dimensions in which my disagreement can be -- in which participation can be measured. which participation can be measured. We do not know the quality of the
18:04
Lord Desai Portrait Lord Desai (Crossbench)
-
-
We do not know the quality of the participation. And also the quantity. And these are solemnly related. I was a statistician or my life, not a good one, but there are techniques to combine these dimensions in one single measurement. And I would urge the government and the people in charge to use this technique which is called principal component analysis. That will give you a more or less objective way of measuring different peoples performance across a number of dimensions.

This has been done many, many times and it is reliable. And there is no doubt about it. Obviously quality is difficult to measure. But quantity can be measured and I would urge the decision-makers to use this to be able to sort out who is in, who is out. And I think that would be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given the comments of the noble Lords Grocott and Swire I'm going to keep my comments short. And although keep my comments short. And although I'm reading from a piece of paper I'm reading from my scribbles, not from a full text. I hope that's all from a full text. I hope that's all right. I co-signed, noble Lord Lord right. I co-signed, noble Lord Lord Blencathra's amendment, number 26. I don't think he needed any real don't think he needed any real encouragement.

But I think it was a very sensible one. I also think in fact the noble Lord Lord Cromwell's fact the noble Lord Lord Cromwell's amendment 60 has real value and if he brought that to the House I would properly, hippie ticket of the vote I would properly support it. -- If he ticketed vote. I hate amendment
18:06
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
28 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It might as well say in brackets, kick might as well say in brackets, kick the greens out. Yeah, yeah. I'm the greens out. Yeah, yeah. I'm going to make a suggestion that went going to make a suggestion that went around all these debates, all these hours, and repetitions, we could hours, and repetitions, we could have just made all the hereditary is Life Peers. We could have just done that.

That would have removed all of that. That would have removed all of this. And I understand there is an issue about actually kicking them out. But personally I think we will miss them. And making more Life Peers would have to shut them up. And we would be free to go and have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an early supper. $$CAPITALISE... Are not blessed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

$$CAPITALISE... Are not blessed with the eloquence that Lord Swire with the eloquence that Lord Swire feels he has. But I think he's missed the point of my amendment and missed the point of my amendment and I think as a House we are trying to do all the detail now on the floor of the House, that is impossible. What my amendment tries to establish is that is after this Bill system put in place to define these issues to which all of us can contribute usefully and sensibly, or foolishly as peevish, and that is the way to take this forward, not to try and take this forward, not to try and put it into this bill in detail.

We need to put a system for the government to show a bit of ankle here and show us that they are really going to do this by putting this amendment into the bill, not trying to work out the minutiae of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

percentages. That is pointless. May I address my amendment at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I address my amendment at first. If I might address amendment 40. I find myself very much in
18:08
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
40. I find myself very much in agreement with Lord Cromwell which is a travesty of history. My particular route forward would be amendment 32, I think it leaves the initiative much more with this House. I would say if the noble Lord, St Matthew recorded some excellent advice about getting to grips with your adversary as soon as as the best way of dealing with something. I think it is properly rather more likely that 4.5 years we will see the second coming of our Lord and we will see a second bill on the House of Lords.

So to have something like amendment 32 will be a great advantage. I think the thing that unites us all is that the termination to improve the way this House serves the public. And there are many aspects in which we can work on this. The amendments we have in front of Sarr restricted by the nature of the bill but I absolutely think that this is the right moment to bring them forward to discuss them. In my years in the House I can remember one occasion when a stored question made a difference to government policy.

Which was when the government was asked what their plans were to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Alamein, this will 1992. The answer was that is no such plan, it is the Germans turn to celebrate anniversaries this year. With the houseful of veterans this to a rapid reversal of policy. I really think we should be much more critical about whether what we're doing actually has a function. I believe we should commission outside research, which should be self- critical, we should be trying to self improve, we should find ways of doing better.

When it comes to this particular subject, to looking at what our expectations are in participation, I very much understand what the noble Lord Lord Errol and my noble friend Lord Attlee were saying. There are many ways in which this happens. I think ways in which this happens. I think the form that I have in two, A, in my amendment, asking people to sign a declaration to as it were say on their honour that they are participating fully to the Business of the House may be a good way forward and what the noble Lord suggests as a way of measuring that is certainly something to explore.

You could also explore following the advice of Elon Musk, and each week writing a postcard to the leader of our groups to not name five achievements. I think that would put some of us on the spot. But I think also that we should in thinking what a worthwhile work this House does focus on committees and all the various forms. That is where I have seen most value delivered and I think we should in terms of what my noble friend Lord Bolton says about fitting our membership to our function, that is very much how we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should we, the direction we should be trying to go in. Said by practically everybody,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said by practically everybody, our participation statistics are
18:12
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
our participation statistics are misleading. Simply the numbers themselves, and your interventions by NEPA, without enough reference to the contents, to the parliamentary usefulness and quality of those interventions. At the same time adjudication is should have received take into account how a peer may have contributed in the usual ways through speeches, written questions, voting and so on. However, your Lordships may agree with what I think has emerged very clearly from this debate, is that rather than only going by participation numbers, a far clearer picture would emerge through assessments by cross-party commission, set up for this purpose, and as proposed just now so eloquently explained by the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Cromwell in amendment 63. I would also support the adoption

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would also support the adoption of a participation requirement, as provided for in amendment 26. However, I think standing orders However, I think standing orders should be torn up, set a minimum participation level, they should participation level, they should take out of some overlords who seldom speak exert a considerable degree of influence whereas others may exert rather less influence. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Perhaps my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had this in mind when he tabled his amendment 28 which I look forward to hearing him speak to.

It is important that the committee appointed to consider an and approved revisions should consider this. Support amendment 40 and the name of Lord Lucas which seeks to do the same thing. And also provide the House to provide an exemption from compulsory retirement in cases where there are good reasons why noble Lord they have failed to live up to the declaration of intent that he or she signed at the start of each session of Parliament. Perhaps the declaration of intent could be combined with the Code of Conduct, so as not to lengthen the time required for oath taking which is already rather time-consuming.

Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Cromwell is just another way of ensuring that noble Lords must achieve a minimum participation level to justify retaining their seats in your Lordship's House. At 6 to establish across party commission to make recommendations which ultimately after 18 months requires the Secretary of State to introduce a bill to put the minimum participation level on a statutory footing. This House both advantages and disadvantages. In that it would be difficult and would require further legislation to make any changes to participation levels.

The amendment is also siloed any provision for exceptions for compulsory retirement being possible, in cases where the House considers a noble Lord should be spared eviction. spared eviction.
18:15
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Before the birthday boy, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, begins to wind up, I rise to speak briefly to my amendment 28 in this group which seeks to provide for a maximum participation threshold as well as a minimum. I do so with the humility and self-awareness of one was speaking on both the front and I think there is an important flipside to the debate we are having and there are some examples of what happened in the other place. A few years ago, there was a mention of a number of websites and journalistic tools which attract the participation levels of members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

That encouraged some to game the system by making lots of short speeches or interrupting others with great frequency, preferring quantity over quality. I think there is value in restraint. I was struck by what Lord Desai said about what we can learn from academic three. This was American scientist -- sociologist talked about humble enquiry. He said those in public life should ask themselves three questions before making a speech. Doesn't need to be said? If so, does it need to be said by me? And if so, doesn't need to be said by me now? And I should say, I was put onto the work by this professor by one of her more taciturn and thoughtful colleagues here in your Lordships house.

If we looked at the top 10 and the bottom 10% of speakers, it would show interesting division. I asked the library to crunch some numbers for me before the last session. It's not as interesting reading as the famous spreadsheets. It certainly revealed some interesting points. I'm sure we can get some of the names that appear in the top 10%. I won't name names other than to confirm to the noble Lady Baroness Jones that the Green party is the group from which we hear most frequently.

I personally find the other 32% of days to be of great sadness. I know that all of us who miss our late noble friend Lord Cormac will be impressed to hear that he still made it into the top 5% of speakers, even though he was sadly taken from us before the end of that session. By contrast, 106 noble Lords only spoke on 1% of the days that they could have done and if one glances down that this, one sees many examples of what the noble Lord canoe has described as low frequency, high impact -- what the noble Lord Earl canoe has described as high frequency, low-impact speakers.

-- Earl Kinnoul. I agree with what my noble friend said about the dangers of debate that is just repeating verbatim the briefings were given from lobby groups. I agree with what the other noble Lord said about the many valuable ways in which we can influence the way in which we are governed in this country. With that, I shall take my own advice and shut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up. What a wide-ranging discussion we have had on these amendments. I think there is a degree of consensus which we should build on. I think that the amendment shows us the way that the amendment shows us the way we should go. I very much hope that at committee and report stage, we will have discussions of the floor which will build on that limited
18:20
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
which will build on that limited consensus about where do we go from here. I hope the government will consider accepting a limited number of amendments which will show us the direction in which we go further as well as making some clear statements about how we would see further developments in the question of attendance, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Newby that some of this can be done through standing orders and agreement of the house. It doesn't require legislation.

That is also part of the way we can go forward. I suggest that we all actually know pretty well what we mean by a minimum level of attendance and participation. We could name quietly but we won't some of the people who fail with regards to that. I recall some years ago being invited to an office in the city of London to be the CEO of a rather major operation -- to show a CEO of rather major operation how to make a maiden speech.

He didn't understand the house and felt he ought to make one. That is clearly below the level of attendance commitment. This is a Parliament, which we are supposed to -- in which we are supposed to parley with one another, to exchange ideas. I have learned a lot through taking part in bill committees. I remember the procurement bill in the last session. From this, I learnt a great deal and from other participants. We are here to examine in detail the proposals the government makes and to discuss difficult issues which the government sometimes doesn't really want to grapple with.

But that requires a minimum level of attendance and interaction between us, and that is part of what we are here for. Having said that, I hope we will now be able to get through several more amendments at a much more rapid speed. And I hope the government will think about what it needs to give us in order to make greater speed through the report stage. We should never forget that how this house is seen from the outside is something which we all need to be conscious of.

The size of our house knows -- and those who do come in for just 20 minutes is an embarrassment and is picked up by the media. The honours and obligations need to be balanced. I think the later amendment which we will come to, which will suggest we should be moving towards separating honours and obligations to attend and participate. But these are all questions for the longer term. And dividing what this bill could achieve and what we commit ourselves to discussing in the future as part of what we need to discuss between committee stage and report stage.

Having said that, I hope that we will withdraw these amendments but bear in mind that we are being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

offered a very useful way forward. Well, my Lords, I'm grateful to all those who have spoken. Sorry, I am forgetting I'm not a minister any more. That's what the noble Baroness actually says. It is generally actually says. It is generally conformed to the good nature of the conformed to the good nature of the debate we've been having and I'm grateful to the frontbench opposite and others that that has been the and others that that has been the case. If I may say so, I was disappointed by the intervention by disappointed by the intervention by the noble Lord Lord Grocott which change the atmosphere for a time.

The noble Lord and I were good comrades, if you will recall, in the Brexit years, when he and I were one of the very few people in the house who actually thought that we should do with the British people had voted for. And there were times then, when
18:25
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
the house did not want to hear from us again on the subject. I like to us again on the subject. I like to remind him that we are facing a situation when many colleagues are threatened with leaving the house and it doesn't help that they are told they shouldn't be heard from again. The noble Lord has never been again. The noble Lord has never been known to repeat arguments he has put known to repeat arguments he has put before.

Bless him but I'd like to say, come on, Bruce, let's put our smiles on a good. It's been a good debate. It is perfectly reasonable for the House of Lords to understand the direction the government is going in. Is perfectly legitimate going in. Is perfectly legitimate the House of Lords is faced with a bill and express opinion about this. It was put before us in the Labour Manifesto. So, of course, we should look at it.

I hear these debates going on. I do feel come on the one hand, this widespread feeling in our house that there is a strong case in equity and also in the interest of the whole house to find some way towards a transition that allows many of the best of us that are threatened with expulsion to remain. I also believe there is an equally widespread feeling across the house that we should not continue to protect those who never come here. Were working to the right people who do commit.

Now, the question on participation really is one, how do we define it? This debate has illustrated that. Obviously, the government obviously must have had a view on this when they put it in the Manifesto. There are many ways in which we can measure participation and these have been brought up in the debate. I could cite those who serve as government and opposition spokesman, deputy speakers or conveners of crossbench peers, they are vital to the operation and functioning of Your Lordships' House.

Hereditary peers currently make up 27% of opposition frontbench, 21% of deputy speakers and 100% of the conveners of your Lordships crossbenchers. I say these things because I believe that noble Lords who are already with us, all of us, not just hereditary peers, but all of us, should be judged if we are to be judged at all on our participation and not -- and contribution to Your Lordships' House and not our identities are characteristics. Now, I acknowledge that this has come out in the debate and how difficult it is to define potentially participation.

There are many ways that noble Lords to contribute to the house. My noble friend Lord Blencathra keeps bringing up so many of them. Noble Lords can take part in international work, as he pointed out. They make the decision, propose amendments to bills, ask oral and written questions, contribute in committees, participate in debates, they can serve as ministerial opposition spokesman and they can make use of their expertise, several noble Lords have spoken in the debate, and contribute in a myriad of ways to the work of this house and the progress of our nation behind the progress of our nation behind the scenes.

The noble Earl and my noble friend spoke to those point eloquently. There is one pier who was recently attacked in the media for not speaking enough who has been an active and hugely valued member of committees for decades. My noble friend Lord Lucas focus on a broad definition of committee work in his Amendment 40, and this has extended to all questions. The participation it could be because deeper and wider than this. My noble friend Lord Blencathra suggested a political -- practical suggestion -- practical solution.

This can be done through standing orders and the committee of the house. I will now come to Lord Cromwell's amendment in a minute. The maximum we can do in this house and this is no disrespect to the noble Baroness, I would have said it in my own government. The minimum -- the moment we live it to secretaries the moment we live it to secretaries of state, the happier I would be. I think that would be good. The noble Lord Lord Cromwell, and his Amendment 63, tried very hard, he hasn't sought to pre-empt the definition of participation or the level at which it would be required.

A proposed structure to implement decisions that would be made. Given the broad range of views that we have discussed today and our need to reach consensus whilst avoiding any unintended consequences, I would consider the content of the noble Lord 's suggestion to be a sensible Lord 's suggestion to be a sensible I agree with the noble Lord Lord Newby and the noble Lord Lord Blencathra insofar as we could. I was amused of course by my noble friend Lord Parkinson's amendment 28 and I forgive him for going to the backbenches just as I was about to bring the debate there) he made a very witty and amusing speech but actually as he so often does, in the middle of his amusing wit, he illustrated the rather important point that the maximum level may be something that some people would wish to look at.

The noble Earl Lord Kinnoull earlier made the point that some overlords will consider themselves to be generalists or have expertise in broad policy areas -- some noble Lords. Others may have vital important experience but in a niche feel or industry that is only discussed in the House every now and again. But I agree with what was said by a noble friend the Viscount Hailsham, do we want to insist on the latter contributing to debates that they have no knowledge of, or no wish to speak in, while risking losing their specialist expertise when we need it most by putting down arbitrary limits.

I think the this has been an interesting debate and there will be ones coming later, underlines the fact it's really not good enough to say again and again that we don't need to consider these things now. The House is being changed now and we don't know where the House is being taken yet. And I think it is legitimate to ask as we discussed the Bill and before we pass the bill why these people, why these dedicated members who even those who want to expel the praise fulsomely for their work in this house, and why not those who rarely participate in the work of your Lordship's House? How ironic it would be if the House were to exclude the hard-working, only for money to say later when some of them are gone, and no one then informed the coalition of the willing to do all the things that are excluded colleagues were doing, why did we not consider all the implications for the House before we sent some of the best amongst us on their way? So I do believe, people have said if we need to reach an agreement, I know the noble Baroness has a similar view to mind that we should reach discussions and seek to reach an agreement on the way forward.

That is an intention I'm certain on both sides. That's a wider subject than this debate but since it was raised in the debate I answer that point. I agree fundamentally on the subject, with the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we should have discussions on these issues, this issue, and others related, not in the bill before we come to the report so we can have some constructive arrangements at report. And perhaps amend the bill in areas which are not wildly beyond its scope.

not wildly beyond its scope.
18:34
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
And I thank all noble Lords for the amendments and also for the very thoughtful and good faith contributions that have marked this debate. This group of amendments share a great deal of commonality with the last grouping, all of which in their essence seek to expand the purpose of the bill to introduce a participation requirement, attendance being just one aspect of participation. My Lords, this debate demonstrates that there is a very considerable measure of agreement.

There is a considerable measure of agreement that there should be an obligation of members of your Lordship's House to participate in our proceedings. There's a very considerable measure of agreement that we should reach and arrive at the settled metrics to assess the adequacy of participation. And there is also considerable agreement that absent for a good legitimate reason a failure to meet those recognised standards should be deemed incompatible with continued membership of your Lordship's House. There, however, the considerable agreement, if not consensus ends.

Because as the amendments and the debate today has demonstrated, there is as yet no measure of agreement as to what the requisite participation levels should be. What the metrics will be. As all your Lordships no, participation in this House can take many different forms. But specifying which should be the metrics applied to requisite participation is a complicated and nuanced matter. Participation and specifying responsibilities, so as to capture genuine and active work in the house, in a way that can be measured in practice, will require further discussion and further thought.

For instance, is a simple requirement to attend the House for a certain amount of time suggested in the amendments we considered the previous group, a reasonable measure of participation or should we be more specific about the type of activities that need to be undertaken, I suggest that in the amendments we are now considering. If more specific city is required, what should count? Tabling amendments are a fundamental part of the work of this house, as is the valuable work made through Select Committees.

Whether anyone vote counts as participation or a single written questions should have the same weight as an afternoon tearing, for example a Select Committee, are all nuanced questions. They are all issues that need to be considered. And there is on top of the identification of the metrics and additional potent question about how we implement those metrics. Should the requirements set out comprehensively in legislation? Or should details be left to this House to decide and set out in standing orders as suggested in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords and And Lord Lucas? It throws up numerous problems, in the previous group Lord Newby touched upon why legislation might be thought on one had to be a preferable vehicle for the certainty and solidity it gives but it creates all sort of unintended that noble Lord set out.

In the government's view these questions served to underline that utility in its intent for the current bill to remain focused on this single issue of hereditary peerage is and leaving the important, and I stress important, question of participation levels to be the subject of further consultation and discussion with all your Lordships, not least to see if the general consensus can be found. It is the governments hope that we can work together across this House to define what this new participation requirement would look like.

And as I have said, although we are grateful for the discussion today, and we are grateful for your Lordships focus on this issue in this group amendments, the very range of the amendments, the very range and scope of the debate we have had, demonstrates that we are not a point at which consensus has been reached and further work, further discussion is required. Turning to the particular amendments can I thank the noble Lord Lord Parkinson for his amendment, it seeks to impose a maximum participation threshold.

ISU on listening to the noble Lord's contribution it appears to be the case that the amendments it seeks to ensure that minimum participation levels do not have an adverse impact on the operation of this House or incentivise participation for participation 's sake. The government agrees that care will need to be taken when we come to discuss what participation levels look like. It's one factor that will go into the port as we try and calibrate what requisite participation would look like, through discussion or indeed potentially through the noble Lord Lord Desai is 's algorithm.

Can I turn to Lord Cromwell's amendments next. Which seeks to impose an probation on the government to establish the cross-party Lords Commission that within six months will set out recommendations requiring the government within a the six months to adopt those recommendations in a draft bills. Can I begin by thanking the noble Lord for his engagement already on this matter. The thought that he has given to it and the spirit in which it's adopted. The noble Lord in his speech said that the purpose of his amendment to get the government to show little ankle as to where it was.

I'm anticipating that was metaphorical, not literal, and I hope I can assure him and this House that the government is committed once we are through this bill to moving forward, hopefully through consensus, to push to the next level of reform at which participation will be key. But I hope the noble Lord would also understand that we can't support his amendment, even as we work together allegedly on that issue and that is for two reasons. Firstly, the government doesn't believe it is necessary or necessarily helpful to prescribe on a statutory basis of the mechanism by which proposal for participation requirement is identified.

The second reason which again I hope the noble Lord will understand is the final aspect of the amendment which would require the government to publish a draft Bill implemented the recommendations of the bill. We are committed to finding solutions that have the support of this House. But binding the government to the recommendations of the commission that is not yet established is not in our view and appropriate way to proceed. If I turn briefly to amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra, amendment seeks to secure the participation requirement and allow for removal of members who have not met a reasonable level of participation.

The amendment would seek to appoint a committee to approve the relevant standing changes. I would like to thank the noble Lord for his amendment. And as I have said in response to the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, the government is committed to working collaboratively on the issue. May I also thank the noble Viscount Lord Houchen for the series amendments he has tabled to shape, to further shape the proposals for the dissipation requirements. He's made a number of very sensible suggestions that must form part of any further discussions about participation.

They will need to take account of if I may say the sensible points raised by the noble Lord. These are all, if I make a, significant and nuanced questions. Across the range of the amendments. That will need to, to which thought will need to be given, carefully and collaboratively. And the government will welcome that discussion. And indeed, as many of my Lords will know, I noble friend the leader of the House has already engaged on many discussions, I think over 60, with your Lordships, trying to fashion and to begin and develop their discussions about how we move forward after this bill.

So channelling the spirit of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate, I would respectfully request that the noble Lords withdraw their amendments. Once again, we have had
18:45
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once again, we have had fascinating debates which the government may not wish us to discuss and take an hour to do so discuss and take an hour to do so but I think noble Lords full-size of the House welcome the chance to raise this important point. As I said at the beginning, lucky to not there are a tiny number of peers who come into this place and there only here for a few minutes each day then they disappear. That's quite a different matter from those PSU come here and participate at some level in discussion, and no really like the noble Lord 's amendment 63, if we don't tackle this now we never will.

Both are amendments call for the special committee to be set up which will come to metrics and decide on a level of participation, and Lord Strathclyde was right to say this is an important constitutional matter and it is right to discuss it. Lord Swire made I'm not here to judge those who don't speak often or on the quality of their speech. We are here to determine that those who don't participate don't deserve to be here. The noble Earl made very good point also.

He is absolutely right. The criteria we have set out in both amendments will affect all peers. First of all, I'm relieved he didn't... Lord Cromwell has suggested we will look at all activity. Lord Desai... I don't understand algorithms myself but maybe he will serve on committee if one is set up. Baroness Jones, let me reassure the noble Lady, especially sitting on the conservative side of my colleague, we would never dream of kicking her out of this place. And she was absolutely right that hereditary peers...

Lord Lucas made an excellent amendment and said we are all engaged here and trying to improve the house. Asking peers for a commitment to the future has merit. But there are still those who come here, o'clock in and do nothing. I'm not suggesting measuring the quality of speeches because if peers are making because if peers are making speeches, then per se, they are participating in the quality of the speeches is not something being measured by this committee. My noble friend Lord Trenchard, he again supports participation level.

Legislation, I say to him, is not necessary if we accept amendment 32. necessary if we accept amendment 32. Lord Parkinson, I have fallen foul of his exaltation for speaking far too much. He quoted incident from the Commons were as a junior whip, we had agreement with the opposition on a Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We agreed on two minutes speeches. We were getting on fine until our friend Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, he came up and said, Mr Speaker, QC, he came up and said, Mr Speaker, everything could possibly said on this bill could be said but not by those qualified to say so.

He spoke for 20 minutes. The Labour chief whip said, that it, the deal is. And I spent another two hours. Lord Wallace whom again I congratulate on his birthday, should support for the amendment with a minimum level of participation. We did not collaborate on that. Those are my words as well. My noble friend said it is legitimate to discuss these issues which were in the manifesto. We have to do something about this problem, those who do not participate.

Peers communicate, peers contribute in myriad ways in peers contribute in myriad ways in the committee which Lord Cromwell is suggesting setting up would take these myriad ways into consideration. Now coming to the noble and learned Lord who said agreement on doing something and having a metric and removing those who fall under that level is important and we should do something about it. But we are not setting it up here and we are, all we are asking for is a committee to decide on the detail.

The noble and learned Lord was justified in not doing anything because he said there were too many nuances. Of course there is nuances. There is dozens of things to be taken into account and that is for the noble Lord Lord Cromwell's amendment. If we set up committee, they will do the consultation, they will spend a year or two years figuring out the details. I finally say to the noble Lord, he reminded me of that wonderful Yes Minister attitude.

We will consult the Cabinet office and then publish a couple of white papers, a green paper first and then a white paper and I'm sure the Minister will be able to deliver on the promise, eventually. I conclude, I think there is a mood in the house to take this participation problem seriously and most noble Lords favour the and most noble Lords favour the amendment of Lord Cromwell. He stressed that some noble Lords are fussing about the details but that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can be done by the committee he suggests. Without you, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. The noble Lord is premature. When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord is premature. When there are amendments to amend an amendment, it must be dealt with
18:51
18:52
18:53
None Portrait Amendment:29 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-

expect and we are looking to introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthen requirement as well as strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. The term members can be removed. The term disgraced is a bit vague and if we get into the business of removing get into the business of removing peers who have personally disgraced themselves, then we will lose quite themselves, then we will lose quite a few depending on how we judge this objective Lord, disgraced.

I think it is safer to stick with those who have brought the house into have brought the house into disrepute and have committed a crime, which has resulted in a prison sentence. My suggestion here is that a prison sentence which treasures, triggers expulsion -- prison sentence which triggers expulsion. I hope noble Lords will expulsion. I hope noble Lords will agree that however it is properly legally phase, the term should be reduced to six months rather than 12. There are also a number of related issues the house needs to tackle.

Suppose appear is convicted of drunk driving and gets a three month prison sentence and a 12 month driving ban. And a drunk driver is a potential killer, in my view, it should also be suspended from the house for the same period as the driving ban. Now, we have a problem where we have some peers who have served time in prison but are still here because we did not have the exposure powers when they were convicted. One defrauded the house of £120,000.

I believe we need to take legislative power to deal with those disgraced peers. My final point is this. No matter how heinous the crime might be, right up to the level you get when applying for a visa for the United States, you have ever waged nuclear war against the United States and even if the pair were instantly expelled, and could never enter the house again, the title Lord still remains. In those rare cases, I suggest that title must be removed. A peerage could only be removed by an act of Parliament.

The most recent example of that was the titles deprivation act of 1917. It was used to removed peerages from enemies of the UK during the First World War. Specifically, section 1 introduce powers to remove a peerage from anyone who had during the present war borne arms against his Majesty or his allies or had adhered to his majesties enemies. Any period suspected of assisting the enemy could be investigated by a committee of privy Council who then would later report to both houses of Parliament for 40 days.

Of this period lapsed, the report will be taken as final and presented to the monarch. The pair would then be struck off and would have received a written summons. The act took away four times. Three of them, the Duke of Cumberland, Albini and Brunswick a high-ranking German and were serving in the Austrian army. It is important to have an act of Parliament replicating that, implementing the same procedure with members of both houses deciding whether or not to proceed.

These issues are not in the bill. I'm not asking that it should be but I thought I would raise that little issue. At something I believe should be addressed by Parliament in the future to remove disgraced peers. I beg to move.
18:56
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:59
18:59
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
I'm not able to claim that same level of expertise. In speaking to these amendments, I fully understand what lies behind them. The desire to ensure that those who serve in this legislator exhibit the standards of -- the standards and character that the public would surely demand of them. These amendments are perhaps too narrowly focused. Of course, we already have a means of dealing by way with by way of the Conduct Committee -- by way of the Conduct Committee with expulsion or suspension.

It seems that every month is a more equitable and sensible means of addressing these issues. I take but a few examples. In the past few years, at least one of your noble Lords was convicted of a serious offence in the United States of America. He was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. Would that sentence be attached by the proposed amendments? It would be necessary to extend the proposed amendments to sentences imposed not just by courts within the United Kingdom but outwith the United Kingdom.

Was than if the noble Lord was in the Russian Federation and was charged on highly dubious grounds within -- with an offence and convicted and sentenced to a number of years in prison? How would we then deal with that particular issue if we had extended these provisions to sentences imposed by courts outwith the United There is a further issue, the noble Lord convicted trial in the nighty states of America and subsequent to that conviction he was the recipient of a presidential pardon which under United States law expunged the conviction.

What mechanism then will the be to bring that noble Lord back, if in fact the initial conviction had the effect of removing him from this House. It is not entirely implausible. I mentioned what has happened with regard to the post office horizon scandal what if noble Lords had been subject of conviction in the context of that scandal and had then been the subject of the statutory pardon that was granted to all of those involved? These are complex and difficult issues and I would respectfully suggest that at present they can properly be handled by a Conduct Committee that is able to make recommendations to this House about suspension or expulsion.

But Lord Blencathra raises an interesting point about the title itself and we know the honour of knighthood can be removed and it does strike me that there may be appropriate circumstances in which the conferment of a peerage should also be subject to the same outcome depending on particular circumstances. I thank the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this has been a thoughtful debate and the amendments as we try to probe some of these
19:03
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
as we try to probe some of these issues is going that way. I think these comments are very helpful of how the House can deal with this matter. The current arrangement is under the 2014 House of Lords reform and a member of the House automatically ceases to be a member if they have convicted a serious offence and if they are given a non- suspended prison sentence for more than a year and the 2015 House of Lords expulsion suspension act in the standard orders of this House and the code of contact -- conduct deals with that clearly.

This was a breach of the code. There is a general view across the House having a strengthening, but as the noble Lord said, a number of factors are to be considered in the round. Would it be right automatically to expel a member if the Crown Court considers the offence is not sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence? Or if the House would treat it more seriously or incompatible with membership of the House and warrant automatic expulsion? Noble Lords raised issues of where someone could be prosecuted overseas.

It might be determined as malicious or political prosecutions, and there could be those overseas that was not an offence in this country as well. There is further country as well. There is further debate needed on this issue how to strengthen the rules. Another fact I will take into account is look at the rules across both houses. The noble Lord set the threshold in the amendment for lower than recall conditions for the Member of Parliament the noble Lord Hailsham sent them for higher than the recall.

Some consistency would be helpful. He mentioned the removal of peerage and I'm sure I'm not the only Lord who has had serious correspondence. If they are stripped of another honour, why have they remained a peer and if that has nothing to do with a membership of the House of Lords as they retain peerage, that is not a matter for the House, but those comments should be taken on board and it indicates we would be willing and happy to maintain an ongoing dialogue on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in particular. The We should be consulted in this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should be consulted in this, but could she give an indication of what she means by disgraced peers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what she means by disgraced peers? Once that have received criminal sentences? If there are other examples you wish us to consider I would be happy wish us to consider I would be happy to do so, but it should be a matter for the Code of Conduct to look at these issues as well and have
19:06
19:07
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 31. Not moved.
19:08
19:08
None Portrait Amendment:32 Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-

quite important and the solution to many problems imposed by noble Lords on Monday and today, we want to change things in the future but wait for an act of Parliament to do it. It never materialised. I suppose for a moment that we make an amendments and the act of Parliament contains provisions set out at retirement age or a minimum participation requirement or attendance requirement and setting the Committee in which the noble Lord Cromwell started in his amendment.

We implement that in the act and after 12 months or two years or longer and the House decided we needed to tweak it and set the retirement age, there would be private legislation changes. The justification for amendment 32 was in fact made by noble Lords on Monday night. They made it on retirement ages and the amendment on transitional arrangements and The transitional arrangements and The Earl of Devon, it proposes a simple set of transitional arrangement with two legs reducing the organisational shop enormously and allowing them to transition without paying the capability.

The second leg is a minimum of 10 years. Lord Burns said if we are going to have any limit, we do not have to choose. It could be 85 and for the following Parliament and age limit of 80 and we would have two bites. The support of my noble friend, the transitional arrangements are just as important as they have been in the whole debate and winding up that debate Lord Keen of Elie had a similar argument. What those speeches have in common is that in some future point some acts of Parliament would be required on House of Lords reform.

It is unlikely they will get new legislation and probably will be outside the scope of the usual Criminal Justice Bill and the government has got his fingers on the bill and they will not want a rerun of it as they proved national and regional balance in the second chamber and that is my solution of a special regulating power to look at any retirement ages or anything else. As your Lordships will know, all government over the last 40 years have recently extended the delegated powers bill, to include more inappropriate delegations and I submit that no government can be trusted as they end regulatory power to change these rules as suggested.

I was interested in what the noble Lord said about delegated power. Delegated powers are expanded dramatically and it is not acceptable when I report from the delegated powers Committee that 40 years every government has increased delegated powers and we need a tightly constrained delegated power which the government could not change or delay and that is why I say the regulation was copied verbatim from the wording of the House of Lords resolution and must made within 12 months. We would need to look at it first to ensure there is no accidental wrong wording of government regulation.

You may think I've been cynical that after four years as chairman of the delegated powers Committee, I can assure you there is cynicism in the appalling delegated powers government puts on the bill as revealed in our report democracy denied the urgent need to rebalance power and I can slip the Lords a few copies. Let us build in now the power to make changes in the future. It will not commit us to making changes, but will ensure the House of lords deciding on retirement ageing or participation or permit anything the Committee agreed on and they would not have to wait many years for the government to find time in the legislative programme.

If you look at the problems, the country every month and every year, I cannot see any government finding time for another bill or House of Lords changes. I believe this should be tightly drawn and will be fair game for another hundred and 16 amendments as per this bill. I was impressed by the traditional arrangement proposition and of those four noble Lords, they can agree some consensus amendment at report stage that will not push retirement.
19:14
19:14
19:14
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
perplexed at how this amendment will work in practice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an attractive way of approaching the amendments proposed approaching the amendments proposed because it moves the initial tool back to the House of Lords. They back to the House of Lords. They must initiate the change given that must initiate the change given that it has to result in a vote of both houses and the government can just houses and the government can just vote it down. In reality, this will vote it down. In reality, this will have to be something negotiated between the House of Lords and the government.

It does two things. One is it reduces a mechanism that can He said that he was committed on making further changes. My Lords, Sounding just the same. I believe it was just as real, there was a real determination to move forward, and stage II, it didn't happen. I don't believe that under the circumstances, in the world, in this government, in this country, in this economy, that any government would find time, in the next 4.5 years for another House of Lords Bill.

It just won't happen. If we use this mechanism we get the ability to change all the important things, or most of the important things we are talking about in the course of this committee stage. The Government retains control, because it requires retains control, because it requires a vote of the Commons. But the House of Lords takes the initiative and I think that is a very attractive way of dealing with a lot of what we have talked about in the last three days.

days.
19:16
19:17
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
This is an interesting amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Blencathra. If I can continue the theme of, he has certainly been a diamond of our dull grey lives at this afternoon. As a my noble friend says it provides a mechanism which retirement age, attendance, participation or criminal convictions could be translated into Statuette, through regulations. As a former long serving as chair of Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I know that my noble friend makes the suggestion with a great deal of knowledge and consideration for the workings of our House.

And, what this amendment and also does is reflect an important principle we have discussed, throughout our debates. The constitutional reform should be double consensus and that your lordships should have a say in any reforms that affect your Lordships' House. However, we must also acknowledge that the House of Lords is an unelected body and allowing it to self regulate its membership without legal force would raise a Democratic risk concerns and risk undermining trust in our institutions. Traditionally a righty so significant changes to the composition of the laws have been a matter is decided by Parliament, as a whole, not merely by your Lordships' House.

And while I understand that the spirit of this amendment. I do have some practical concerns, as well. For example a proposal to require that resolutions be translated into Statuette, without any alteration. Some house resolutions, though well-meaning can contain ambiguities or practical challenges that would need refining, before they could be translated into Statuette. By requiring strict adherence to the wedding of resolutions, there is a risk of making an effect and impractical law and creating unintended complications. So to conclude there is much to commend in the principle of this amendment, namely that your Lordships' House should have a meaningful role in shaping its own standards for the future.

However allowing the House to self regulate its membership, this way, would raise a democratic concerns that have not been a satisfactory address today. That said, my noble friend proposal rightly challenges us to consider how we can challenge our deliberations into action for reforms. Consensus to do so.
19:19
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
It has been an interesting debate and I think one of the things that struck me around this is on these issues of, we hear about participation, retirement age, attendance, criminal conviction. The House itself wants to lead on this and that never Lord Newby was saying legislation is not the way forward, the noble Lord Lucas, I think, is very suspicious of legislation, thinks it's not gonna happen. It is interesting how members are much more engaged in these issues than we have been in the past.

I am grateful for those comments. On the noble Lords amendment, I sort of feel the hand of mischief here a Little bit was not a dozen feel like a Henry VIII power. Passing and then putting it in Statuette. I think it goes against the grain of every speech I've ever heard him make on the issue that I've always agreed with., That he is putting forward, on this one. So, having said that, I do think the issue about the House making these arrangements and looking at how the House can do it.

If we can do things more quickly. There is always at that arrangement, in our manifesto for legislation. Noble Lords can find a way forward on those issues, within the noble Lords amendment, I'm sure the House would be keen to have those discussions. I'm grateful to him for raising those issues, as I do think it raises constitutional issues and any other aspect of the work is done. I don't think you would ever have agreed. I thank him for his contribution and I hope he will seek to withdraw his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just ask the noble Baroness, a couple of questions on that. couple of questions on that. Firstly, I read my noble friend's amendment that the duty on the government would be to put the government would be to put the matter to a vote, not put it to the matter to a vote, not put it to the Statuette. So the House of Commons would have a controlling vote over whether these changes happen. whether these changes happen. Secondly, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby said, is in it the understanding that current arrangements would allow us to arrangements would allow us to change standing orders, so that we excluded peers, on the basis of non-attendance or nonparticipation.

Or would that require legislative change?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We already have standing orders, able to exclude peers and able to exclude peers and attendance. That's right exists at attendance. That's right exists at the moment. The discussion is that does it sit at the right level? We could do that within our own standing orders. I'm not sure he is right on that one. On this first point he made. Because of the amendment actually says resolution amendment actually says resolution is passed by the House of Lords, subsection etc. Etc..

A Minister must, by regulations, made by statutory instrument, amend this statutory instrument, amend this act. So there are instructions for a Minister to amend this act. It would have to be a vote I'm sure. But it
19:23
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
is an instruction. Speakman am grateful to the Baroness for making that clear. An instruction for the Minister as a statutory instrument. Of course there would be a vote in Of course there would be a vote in the House of Commons anyway. I know, I want to ask about the mechanics of this. We write standing orders, the this. We write standing orders, the sandals are perfect, draft a new standing order, whatever it may be standing order, whatever it may be and the House would ask for that standing order to be the statutory instrument, which the Government instrument, which the Government would implement.

If I may say, My Lords and noble Lady, she is worried it would impose on the Government, the wording, sorry, Baroness Finn, she was worried that we could get the wrong wording on the statutory instrument. If I may say so there is a better chance that the House of Lords will get the wording of a statutory instrument right that any government lawyers, when it comes to my experience in the past. And for Lord Lucas I welcome the support and Lord Newby, I'm sorry I disagree.

I think we are capable of drafting sufficient regulations on some of the issues in my amendment. We do not need an act of Parliament. I regret the criminal convictions, that is a step too far. Hypothetically, surely we would have the power to do as I suggested, as far as the retirement age is concerned and the partition rate. That does not need massive outside consultation, that does not need an act of Parliament. I think it should be in our power, as the House of Lords to be able to determine that, if that never Lord Cromwell committee comes up with net participation and others and the Earl of Devon and Earl Kinnoull's suggestion on in retirement ages, traditional -- traditional rules,.

We should be able to say these are the rules we want. In current circumstances we would say that the government, these are the rules we want. If the noble leader of whatever said said jolly good, he or she will then go to the government and say this is what the House of Lords want to change. Can we please have an act of Parliament to make these amendments to our rules. I'm suggesting we do not need to go through that palaver. We build in a timely constraint power which may be tweaked, I'm not suggesting my wedding is perfect.

Maybe it is not. We give ourselves the power to change our rules, retirement ages and participation rates that regulation power is, as I've suggested, can go to the government, the government can put it in as an SI, the way we have worded it and then we can have the House of Commons vote on it. I suggest that is a simple solution. I think I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the only one with an amendment here is a way of Egli to withdraw my amendments. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is by leave withdrawn. I beg to move House be resumed with enemy to consider the statement, we will therefore not statement, we will therefore not return to the bill, before 2005 --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

8:05 PM. The question is that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed until at least 8:05 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content"? Of the contrary, "Not "Content"? Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I would I would be I would be grateful I would be grateful that I would be grateful that those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful that those that aren't staying would move fairly quickly and then we will move
19:27
19:27
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-
rebuilding the North Sea's energy future. Instead, the oil and gas industry and hundreds of thousands of people it employs borders on contempt. The clarification, we should remind ourselves that the 2050 and net zero target, set in Glasgow at COP26, still required 25% of energy to come from hydrocarbons. And in the North Sea, we have the cleanest, most environmentally advanced, tough as regulatory regime, in the world. This world- class industry is now under existential threat, from this government.

We should be clear, the Energy Profits Levy is now at its highest level, as a result of the decisions are made by this government. This is a hike which is an economic and will see the evaporation of all investment in the sector. As my counterpart, the other place said, last week, it may well be drill baby drill in the US. But it is a doll, baby doll in the UK. Let's look at where we are now. It has been dismantled, a windfall tax would be in place much longer until 2030.

Directly because of the choices made by Ed Miliband. As a leading US investor said to me, recently. We now consider West Africa to be a more stable investment environment for hydrocarbons, then the UK. During a period of global instability that beggars believe that our government is shutting down the oil and gas industry, at a pace which jeopardises both energy supply and our energy security. My Lords we have already seen the impact of the government punitive tax measures, investment is vanishing, workers drying up and companies are leaving the UK.

Companies at the DCA future. Even more worrying we are her motoring our highly skilled technical staff overseas. The government rated for 100% clean electricity by 2030 is driven solely by ideology. It places politics above the North Sea, whose industry, workers and community, which will be devastated by the decisions. Despite the fact that they claim the economic growth is now the number one mission, the decisions will lead to 12 billion loss in tax revenue, in addition to another 12 billion in lost capital investment.

Instead of making Aberdeen great Etienne, by ramping up reduction, the government's approach is to use a GB Energy to dabble in renewable projects, the private sector has already decided a dud correct regret make Aberdeen great again. All of this damage will only see the UK increasing its dependence on expensive imports, which also offshore missions abroad. The government's approach to an energy future simply doesn't make sense. Tickly as UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. Let us not be taken this is simply a case of virtue signalling and it will be the British people who will pay the price.

So I asked the neighbour lady the Minister, will she confirm whether the Secretary of State has consulted with those employed in the oil and gas sector? And does he understand how his policies will impact them directly because my and, with an ability the Minister expense Egli how much will be needed to support the 200,000 workers in the oil and gas industry. Given the recent Treasury support £200 million, for the 2,000 workers impacted by the closure of Grangemouth. Finally, with an ability the Minister inform the House with the deadness and interim Treasury have factored these into the spending review, later this month -- DESNZ.

There is nowhere else of this government to hide. I look forward to complaints of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We welcome this important step to the developing of framework of the developing of framework of future energy in the North Sea and the clear intention to engage in a constructive dialogue with North Sea communities and witness supply
19:31
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
communities and witness supply chains, trade unions, workers and environmental groups. We welcome the clear recognition that the North Sea is at the heart of the future of the British energy and creating clean energy, renewable jobs with jobs into the future. We need a coherent transition plan for the North Sea to support workers supply chains, supply chains and communities. We need more thinking and planning on how we transition away from oil and gas after 50 years of drilling a rapidly declining basin and ensuring a just transition for the oil and gas industry workers.

We welcome the consultation and government vision for a clean energy industry, but we believe more exhilarated action is required to ensure a truly speedy transition for workers and communities who powered this country for decades will stop can I ask the Minister about the consultation period? It is a short one. The 30th of April is the short notice one. We need to consult people. What reassessment of the urgency and support needed for a just transition is the government making considering the impact of the Supreme Court decision on new oil and gas fields stop the implications of the Supreme Court judgement must mean that this is more pressing and requires a rethink and more resources are needed before.

We have companies like BP rowing back from their commitments on the energy transition and what impact does this have on planning the transition? What is the government doing to work constructively with these companies? This is about rapidly teaching the skills and creating job opportunities for the future, during a period of exceptional social change. While this outlines improvement in clean energy industries, more concrete commitments and funding mechanisms are needed to ensure a truly just transition for existing oil and gas workforce.

Although research suggests high skills transfer ability bringing potential job creation in the clean energy sector requires never can government intervention and we call for more proactive and adequate funding for retraining and upscaling programs. There has been talk of GB Energy cuts. We believe these are counter- productive. The green economy group grew 10.3% last year and since the war in Ukraine started we have spent more importing foreign energy. This cut was simply the higher energy bills and more money for the Russian bills and more money for the Russian economy.

Policy certainty is of absolute paramount importance and I call on the government to maintain clear lines for the investment we need for the transition. Government must provide a clear, unwavering, long-term vision and must do more rather than phasing out oil and gas. This business plan and investment ensures transition and I ask the Minister what comes next after consultation closes and how will the results be published and what will the role be in future recommendations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I start by thanking both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I start by thanking both noble Lords for their contribution to this absolutely crucial debate. to this absolutely crucial debate. Can I thank noble Earl Russell for his positive comments at the beginning of his opening and I look back fondly to the time we worked together when I was the Whip for this area. We did some great work together. Going to the NAB of the issue that came out in the Commons last week, the Secretary of State launched a consultation on the steps the government is taking to look at the clean energy transition in the North Sea.

A critical point we are talking about and raising tonight. It is about working with businesses, workers and communities to strengthen the status as the energy capital of the UK and obviously reaching beyond. It is important that we talk up the opportunities that we have got going forward. At the same time, we have the backdrop of global warming to 1.5 degrees and everything around that, but could I just assure the noble Lord making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of the government as he rightly stated.

We are committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy. As part of this mission, the government remains committed to achieving the UK NDC carbon budget and net zero by 2050. We all know and I think we must acknowledge the North Sea is maturing basin. Oil and gas production has seen a decline of 72% between 1999 and 2023 and as a result the industry has lost a third and we cannot ignore the situation we are in.

We need a new plan to move forward. We cannot exist as we are. This plan is urgent as expressed last week in the statement. Obviously it is a manifesto commitment of our government not to issue new licences to explore new fields. We have been clear that oil and gas will continue to play a role for decades to come. The reality is new licences are ordered in the last decade and only made a marginal difference, to continue granting them would not help our energy security and would not be compatible with climate commitments.

Furthermore, as domestically produced oil and gas domestically produced oil and gas goes onto the market, it does not help consumers. We will work with the sector to ensure existing fields are managed appropriately for the entirety of their lifespan and I want to give a real assurance to the questions that that is very much part of the government plans. We will respond to the consultation in due course. I cannot be specific in the timeframe at this point and we recognise that this is urgent as I have already said.

Developers will be able to apply for concepts under the revised regime. The other part of the statement very much referred to the North Sea strengths and I hope that all of us can come together to be much more positive about the potential we have going forward and we know that the CCUS and carbon capture in hydrogen will play a key role in supporting decarbonisation including hard to abate sectors. It is estimated the offshore workforce including offshore wind and hydrogen and other technology could increase to between 70,000 and 138,000 by 2030.

I hope that this is addressing some concerns that have been expressed. It is vital to the deliver the best outcomes. It also shows how quick and decisive action is needed with the cessation of some industries such as in Grangemouth and we must acknowledge we have supported the National Wealth Fund and coinvestment to unlock the full potential and secure a clean energy future. I think the fact government moved so quickly to establish Great British Energy is a real indication British Energy is a real indication of our commitment to our clean power target overseeing a record-breaking renewables auction and improving the auction including how disastrous it was before with no responses at all and we need to kickstart the UK carbon capture hydrogen industry with strong investment.

The other factor that we must acknowledge and I do not think has been picked up is just how important it is to accelerate the build of new infrastructure which is essential and I have to say it is just the start. There have also been pathways set up in 2030 and confirmed a clean power system delivered more secure and could see a lower cost of electricity and bills. Building on the advice our clean power action plan will drive £40 billion over the investment year to meet our goal of clean power by 2030.

I would like to restate how fortunate we are to have the North Sea as part of the United Kingdom. The consultation and Kingdom. The consultation and responding to the noble Lord is that the North Sea workers will be central to the discussions we take forward, not only the workers but the communities, the supply chain, and all of the rest of the support that our developers and plans require. The plan of course is the scale up of clean energy industries and the plan to give the oil and gas sector the clarity they need to continue operating for decades to come, this plan is to keep working with the people that matter the most.

The North Sea businesses, workers, communities and the trade unions to take advantage of tremendous opportunities over the years ahead and I have to say that our experience is not being a negative picture from the private sector as described. We are very productive in conversations with different sectors and industry to move forward and we recognise just how important it is to support workers and we understand the step change that needs to happen around the skills agenda.

It is fundamental, but the potential and opportunity must drive everything we do going forward. I am sure noble Lords will understand I cannot comment on the Spending Review in any detail at this point and the outcome of the review will be public
19:45
19:45
19:46
19:48
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
... To debate these issues and I echo what the noble Lady and others have said about the tragedy in the North Sea. I cross the North Sea every year, to see my family in Denmark. We actually crossed in a North Sea ferry after the tragedy to show solidarity. On the issue before us this evening, does the noble Lady and not share my concern that we should perhaps have a more balanced source of energy, rather than what could a fear to be a rapid touch for -- could appear to be a rapid for clean energy.

BP is moving away from renewables are back to its more traditional oil and energy usages. There are environmental issues relating to the energy, such as how to decommission wind turbines. Citing of subsections to bring renewable energy onshore. And looking at how our competitors such as the USA, Norway and other countries are still relying on their oil and gas reserves. So should we not be looking for a more balanced view. I would also like to echo what the noble Baroness said earlier.

We had many debates during the passage of the clean energy bill, about the environmental issues. And I About the sweets for the fishermen. When we understand that 10% of the fisheries around us could be lost through clean energy. If the noble Lady could address this issue, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be most grateful. Again, thank you for raising these issues will stop it is a complex picture. But when this government is absolutely determined. government is absolutely determined. To get to grips with. And I think looking at alternative sources of energy, I mentioned hydrogen, for energy, I mentioned hydrogen, for example. We have had some very robust debates about hydrogen in this House. Its potential future this House. Its potential future use. Offshore wind. The government has taken swift action to unlock the has taken swift action to unlock the potential of onshore wind.

I think the issue that we probably need to discuss more than we actually do is how we actually reduce the consumption of energy. Whether it is in our businesses, or in a domestic setting. Just thinking about where the highest use of energy is. And obviously the noble Earl raised the issue of BP. Before and it is difficult for us to stand here and talk about commercial decisions made by companies on whatever scale. It wouldn't be appropriate to do so, but I just want to emphasise that although the foot is on the accelerator, in terms of developing
19:51
19:52
19:53
19:54
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
comments that have been made, but my noble friend Lord offered. I think the title of this debate is rather an oxymoron. But in the north-east energy future. From my point of view, certainly, the proposals that are coming forward by the energy secretary I doing quite the opposite. I can't treat such a vase, opposite. I can't treat such a vase, cannot run an industrialised nation, cannot be dependent on us so much alternative or renewables. We will for the foreseeable future need to rely on hydrocarbons.

One of the concerns I have is about energy security and energy self- sufficiency. I don't think that is being taking into account at all. We have a turbulence across the Middle East. We have awards going on, with Russia involved. We have the reliance of not only the UK, but Europe, on these ways of bringing in energy to our country. They don't seem to be taken account of it all. This is, frankly what is going on here, in my view is, vandalism.

We throw away 2,000 jobs at risk, but that is 2,000 jobs and that is probably at least 10,000 people without the supply chain. That is just a number that is thrown up in the air. That will be the hard effect, certainly looking around Aberdeen and those areas. Notwithstanding that, although it is not the North Sea specifically, I was attending a very interesting meeting today and it was with the quadrille, a company that worked in Wales for shale gas.

We have been having to look at alternative ways of fuelling this nation. Only to have a very good discussion, because not only is this a fracking, the big bad wolf, but now the vandalism that is taking place to actually pour concrete down perfectly serviceable wells, which may, in the future be very useful to us, in our geopolitical position and uncertainty across the world, the energy is just absolutely astonishing. I would say to the Minister, I note your comments.

I'm not sure the energy secretary Ed Miliband is trying to convince. I think a lot of this is built on ideology. It is not helpful to the British economy and we already see businesses suffering, with the policies, from this Labour government. The closure of the Ford factory for example. This is just the start. I would ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to discuss further, with our energy secretary positive ways of moving forward and really this obsession, this net zero obsession is going to destroy this economy I think quicker than most other things.

So we really do need a reality check on this, if we want this country to grow. And apparently, according to the Prime Minister, growth is the key to this agenda. I do what you are actually proposing will not produce growth.
19:57
20:00
Viscount Thurso Portrait Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
May I join a my noble friend on the May I join a my noble friend on the front bench in his broad welcome for the statement. Can I tell the Minister that the Beatrice windfarm which has been extremely successful which has been extremely successful has its operating headquarters in the port of Wick and all its service boats there. It has been a boats there. It has been a tremendous economic boom for the tremendous economic boom for the east coast of Caithness.

And I would expect that further developments, such as the West of Orkney, windfarm, which is not in the North Sea, it is actually in the Atlantic. It is the same abroad proposition. Together with the other windfarm that is in the North Sea, will have a similar, very beneficial economic impact. I firmly believe that the economic future of the UK is a very bright one, using high technology and renewable energy. Can I echo my noble friends concern regarding the balance with the environment and declare my interest as the chairman of the Caithness district fishery board.

There is a conflict, in some instances between a development and instances between a development and I am aware we are not going to stop anything, but ensure the proper processes have gone through to ensure we know what we are doing and can take proper mitigating action. We asked the Minister that question, but I'm aware that she cannot give me the answer and the consenting evidence in Scotland, but I thought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would try to get it on the record anyway. They are very positive comments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are very positive comments and I urge everyone to celebrate those successes and to talk more those successes and to talk more loudly about them and they will loudly about them and they will generate enthusiasm and excitement as is behind all of that as I said
20:02
20:02
20:03
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

20:06
None Portrait Legislation: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill – committee stage (day 3)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move the I beg to move the House I beg to move the House resolves
20:06
20:07
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
reduce the number of bishops in the House from 26 down to five and three other Right Reverend Prelate's from the Church of England and I'm the Church of England and I'm delighted to see him in his place delighted to see him in his place and he has booked his slot amongst and he has booked his slot amongst the remaining three and it is not in the bill or the Labour Party manifesto. But spending 20 or 30 manifesto. But spending 20 or 30 minutes on this will be worthwhile and I cannot see a way of raising the topic.

I expect the frontbenchers to stay away from this, but I will allow noble Lords to speak in favour of this amendment and there are some statistics for consideration. There were 700,000 attending and the average Christmas attendance is 2.3 million. We have 26 bishops and an electorate of 48.2 million people. The number of bishops per Sunday attendance is 28,000 people. The of bishops per Christmas attendance is 50,000. The daily attendance in this House was 397.

We do not have constituencies and neither do bishops, but the number of peers who attend and divided into the electorate would mean one here for everyone hundred and 21,000 electorates. We would have a bishop for every 88,000 attending. They will not take an expert statistician to find fault with conclusions from these statistics which I admit are flawed. It seems that we are overrepresented by bishops in the House and I leave it to noble Lords to offer a review for or against that view.
20:08
20:09
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)
-
-
any personal witticisms of any other present Lord Spiritual. They are important contributors to our debates, however we do have two ask the question on what basis do the Lord Spiritual sit in the House. My suggestion to the House is that we should examine the criteria and ask ourselves if those criteria are well-founded. IC no objection to hereditary Peers which is similar to the objection to the Lord Spiritual. In the case of hereditary Peers, whilst the pool of candidates of the electorate is small, there are on the Conservative benches hustings and electorate.

As far as the bishops are concerned, the way individuals become bishops is very far from transparent and there is no filter of elections and hustings. The pool of candidates is a very small one and the electorate is even smaller. The process itself is discreet and when an individual becomes a fully bishop, that person subject to gender preferences has a very good chance of becoming a member of this House. It is in short a case of the right reverend plug- ins.

Membership of this House is automatic, a self-perpetuating oligarchy and that is not a good way to constitute our legislature. Somebody must ask about the test of suitability and propriety. Most of the Committee agree that such tests are important. These debates over the last three days have shown the Committee values the role and some of us want to enhance its role, but it has no role to play in assessing the propriety or suitability of individual bishops to become members of the House.

I note the noble Baroness has amendment 19 on the order paper which addresses this matter and I know of no scrutiny, certainly not of a publicly transparent kind which addresses the question of variety or suitability of appointment, and then there is the issue of regional representation. It is an issue viewed as important by most of this Committee. The Lord Spiritual are drawn exclusively from dioceses in England, none from Scotland, none from Wales, none from Northern Ireland.

One has to ask on what basis are Lord Spiritual here? As with the hereditary, it is historic. The Bishop once represented an interest. No longer. The Lord Spiritual once reflected the pre- eminent national church. I say with regrets, no longer, and I say that as an Anglican who regulates the church. This country is a secular society and to the extent that it is not, Anglicanism is no longer pre- eminent. There are the questions of numbers, 24 bishops, two archbishops, not I acknowledge I would say proportional, but when we embark on the attempt to reduce numbers and refresh our membership and if as I suggest it is hard to discern reasons of principle to justify the presence of the Lord Spiritual in the House, then I'm afraid the occupants of the Episcopal bench become candidates for removal.

I know that this will not be the consequence of this bill, but I do hope we will be prepared to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end the issue. I am a little distressed to say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am a little distressed to say, to hear from Conservative benches the nature of this criticism of the the nature of this criticism of the bishops. It is unfortunate and I do bishops. It is unfortunate and I do understand however people get cross
20:14
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
understand however people get cross with the Bishop for all sort of reasons and I do in columns that I write and I hesitate to speak on this because these are complicated matters. I do feel for the bishops that someone must speak for them because they will not speak for because they will not speak for themselves. Our lords said it should come from me and bishops cannot say they want to keep And go on and have another pint at the bishops bar.

They have two express the humility and it means that they have to shut up on this subject. We feel cross sometimes and it is a problem in this period... I will illustrate it, I attended the parish church as a child and there was one clergy that was good and one that was bad. I do think sometimes some of the references we have to hear, we need to keep our mind on higher things. One part I agree with Lord Hailsham One part I agree with Lord Hailsham about is there is a link between the hereditary and their rights and the bishops and their rights and it is precisely for that reason I am precisely for that reason I am We should look at this subspecies, after the next election.

We also need to look at it in the light over the last 800 years. What the Church of England represents and it represents, in your Lordships' House is a settlement. And a settlement that was very hard to achieve and was constantly on the possible threat. And it caused a great division and in the past a murder and conflict. And Bishops and therefore, first of all, actually the noble viscount and Lord Hailsham is mistaken saying they are not a landowning interest any more.

They are a very big one. Bishops are used to be the Lord Chancellor, for example. I think today, it was at the Bishop of Bristol who led us in our prayers, 300 years ago, her predecessor was at the Lord Privy Seal. I wonder if while he was Bishop of Bristol, I wonder if the present Lord Privy Seal might like to swap roles with the Bishop of to swap roles with the Bishop of Bristol today. They have a long history in the power of the land, which obviously greatly declined.

It doesn't actually mean that they don't matter. In fact, in a certain way, in modern times, Bishops have become, perhaps a little bit more important in the public eye, because they attend to, because of modern communications actually. For example, to take an example, many people don't generally enjoy a thought for the day. The way that Bishops in the 20th century and archbishops became a very well known. They reached much larger audiences than in the past. In that sense I think became more religious, if you like than they had been in SA the 18th century.

Even in this House, it is possible, occasionally there are Bishop to be prophetic, in a sense that Bishops are supposed to be. I take the example of the late Bishop George Chichester who spoke in this house, very conscious and... He was not promoted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, because Winston Churchill wasn't pleased. It was a authentic Anglican response to a very important question. Then I think there is a connection, we have to always seal this, in all the links that it makes with other bits of our Constitution.

The noble Earl, the Lord Kinnoull referred to the writ of summons and he was talking about the writ of summons of peers, in general. As an interesting, I learnt this from a very excellent article by the reader of the temple, Reverend Mark Hatcher, in the ecclesiastical law journal. The writ of summons, for Bishops, they we peers are summoned, in the name of faith and allegiance, is what binds us. Our faith and allegiance to the king. Bishops are summoned in the name of their faith and love for the king.

It is interesting distinction I think. It shows at the historic closeness of the church, in this country and the whole idea of the establishment in its proper sense, to other institutions to the monarchy. And we should not forget the famous, the famous phrase that people used to use, defend our Constitution, no Bishop, no King. Very closely linked. Let's be a bit careful about how we go on this. Mr Hatcher, the reader of the temple, did a survey on Bishops. I don't know if the right reverend Prelate were victims of it.

In which he asked their opinion about various things and what they thought their role was. They said they wish to speak for people of faith, in their diocese. I do think their territorial row is very important, actually. They also said something quite surprising. They said they did not speak, in this House, for the Church of England. You might think a world that is a very odd thing. Surely that is what they are supposed to be. No, I think not. They are not supposed to be one voice and one line.

They are not a trade union that particular denomination. They are, individual Christian voices. And it is as that that I think they need to be thought about and if possible respected. In a way, you could say they are, in this House they are like crossbenchers but wearing a dog collars and long sleeves. That is the spirit of what they are, or at least what they should be. Of course a lot of this may seem very outdated and you can make that argument. We know that Tony Blair thought the same about the office of Lord Chancellor and look what a mess he made of it trying to get rid of that and all the knock-on consequences.

And I think we can see how this would happen stop in the amendment and that noble viscount, Lord Hailsham puts forward, you can see the enormous list of things that he is thinking of the have to be removed and change. You realise how many threads have to be pulled out. I would ask My Lords, to what purpose? It is another amendment, so I won't mention it, only in passing full stop I also think it important that the Bishops represent a warm House, in our Constitution, for other faiths in other denominations.

They are not sectarian. Naturally this is the modernisation, they were like this a hundred years ago. They are like that now. As widely recognised by Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Roman Catholics, of whom I am one. The other thing I would say is if you think of the conduct of this House. There we may sometimes think oh gosh these are all Guardian reading characters over there. They do in fact observe and you may think, well you may hear the speeches. Sometimes it does occur.

Sometimes I think we can say is that they are very careful of the courtesies and conventions of this House. I've never heard of it should be rude to anyone here. We try not to be rude to Bishops. I notice we do defer to them, when they get up do defer to them, when they get up for example. I would say that they do try, as collectively, to live up to the prayer, in which they lead us every day about the conduct of this House and how we try to behave in this House.

It is very good to hear that prayer and all the other prayers that have been said. So, I suppose what I am saying is that the Bishops of the spiritual equivalent of the hereditaries. They inherit something, not by blood, but they inherit their role and that role has a real meaning and it is essentially a benevolent custom which, maybe it wasn't a very benevolent when they were rich and oppressive many years ago. It has become largely benevolent, even though we all know the Church of England is going through a difficult time, and present.

I think they try to come honourably, your Lordship's House to discharge that role and that is important. It follows that if the basis on which the hereditary cities to be removed, the Bishop should go to, this grim rationalist logic about this, get rid of the hereditaries, check out the Bishop and the usual argument, the famous word that is used by people who never want to argue it, they merely wish to assert it is that it is indefensible. Nothing that has existed for a very long time is indefensible, though you may be up against it a certain way for supper needs to be argued to be approved.

Why is that the government leaving the Bishops alone? Why is it picking on the hereditaries, but not following its rationalist logic and having a crack at the Bishops, as well? It has been suggested that it is because the Bishops feel tenderly was at the Labour Party. I think that is an unworthy suggestion which we should try to put out of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minds if we possibly could. Order, if you notice the time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, if you notice the time limit is 10 minutes. If you could wind art.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wind art. I would just end by saying, if only the government could apply the
20:25
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
only the government could apply the whys and restraint they show on the matter of militias to the position that Hereditary Peers, they would drop this divisive and un- necessary bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow a Lord Maude. I very much agree with everything that he said. Within this grouping, I refer to amendment 78, grouping, I refer to amendment 78, in my name. Within a reformed House, the Lords Spiritual to continue the Lords Spiritual to continue under the existing Statuette, their current combos of 26 reduced to 20. Two points should perhaps be Two points should perhaps be emphasise. Firstly, and in general the importance of having a the importance of having a nonpolitical benches and boots and a reformed House.

Secondly, in particular the case of the retaining enough Bishops, in order for them to carry out their voting systems, in the House of Lords. These being necessary, in view of the heavy work that Bishops outside Westminster and the House of Lords. The quality of the present House is its independent mindedness over party politics. That attitude may indeed well apply to all our benches. However with crossbenchers, the Lord spiritual will have as many as two benches. Which are nonparty political, in any case.

That benefit being unique and unshared by the parliaments. That is why, and in this context, my noble friend Lord Hailsham might possibly feel loath to concur. Bishops should remain, within a reformed house, not just leading in prayer, but also to influence debates. Equally in this context, my noble friend, Lady Berridge may possibly feel able to agree that Bishops continuing to sit here, should not have to be dependent upon her, not least since the existing Statuette already enables them to be here, in their enables them to be here, in their own right.

On the bench of Bishops, numbering 20, will be 3% of a reformed house of 620, of which 600 might be temporal numbers. Yet, with the heavy church commitment, beyond Westminster, perhaps at Lord Blencathra my degree that the rota system for attending the House of Lords would become, under unreasonable and increasing pressure, if their numbers were to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduce too much below 20. I rise to speak to amendment 9 to
20:27
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 9 to be in this group, the relaxation be in this group, the relaxation that one can speak in at committee, not having been here at second reading. The evidence of the chair of the House of Lords Commissioner Baroness Deech, to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee affairs and her pre-appointment committee meeting on 3 October 2023. I quote every nomination ought to be checked, even if this is the Bishop, or Hereditary Peers.

" Public bodies brought to the noble ladies are not permitted to contribute today. The apartment of a bishop or archbishop, their suitability to use the language of nominations by the Prime Minister, or the leader of his Majesty's loyal opposition is of course a matter for the church nominations commission. But the propriety checks are a matter of the integrity of the nation's legislature and its safety. I must state that recent reports of the decisions of HOLAC in the media, of course decisions are confidential, is that it seems to be exercising that proprietary muscle.

What we do know is that there are those that buy convention would join your Lordship's House, who have not been given a peerage. I wish to make clear that this amendment will not affect church nominations voice. That is a church matter and outside the scope of the bill. The amendment would mean that the route to come to Parliament would not be issued unless HOLAC had done their proprietary checks. Checks, as far as I understand it, even the chief of the defence staff, undergo to come onto the crossbenchers.

I am of course aware that preventing a writ of summons being issued by HOLAC and non-statutory body is unusual. But I hope this amendment will serve to discuss this important principle and how it is achieved, in practice, is perhaps a matter for another day. Sadly, this is safeguarding issue relating to Bishops has come to the fore, with the recent resignation of the Bishop of Liverpool, who would become a member of the nation's legislature, without any propriety checks by HOLAC. Of course, these, Imo State, were merely allegations which have been refuted.

There remains confusion about how the church nominations commission of the Church of England was conducted and their allegations, again refuted, the pressure was put on the CNC during this process. I note HOLAC's checks are not just a criminal matter, it could have been appropriate that independent body to look at such a case, prior to the issue of a writ. Yes, this amendment would mean that there could be a diocese in Bidstrup entitled come to your Lordship's House was not accepted by HOLAC.

This, in itself makes clear the different roles, between HOLAC and the CMC and at the different roles of Parliament, which is sovereign as distinct from the Church of England. Who is safe to be in Parliament, should not be delegated to a body any other digital institution, despite any assertions of how good the CNC is. In light of the Bishop of Liverpool case and the failure, last month, but of course unknown reasons Crown nominations commission to appoint a bishop of Durham, who would have come straight into your Lordships' House macro.

Of course the CNC's had to be private. Again this highlights the problem for Parliament, why did that person withdraw? We just don't know. I hope his Majesty's government will consider this matter seriously. It was International Women's Day last Sunday. So the safety of women, including staff, in this workplace is high on my mind. I'm also reminded of the comments, to me, by staff, which led to your Lordships' House eventually deciding to remove security passes from those charged with serious criminal offences.

A female member of staff in the case said there were concerns, if they worked late at night in this building. It is not, my lords, sadly acceptable for HOLAC not to be able to check the Bishops I outlined on December the fourth it would be best, wise, for victims and the clergy to ensure the Church of England has an inquiry into a whole raft of issues but this has not happened. This might give insight into the integrity or otherwise of the process of a CNC appointment of the last Bishop of Liverpool.

It is regrettable that no such independent inquiry was undertaken and regrettable to have to raise this matter as an area where the Church of England needs to submit once again to the very least independent oversight of an independent safeguarding issue. I speak briefly to the other amendments in the groups which gives one the option of no bishops, five or 20. It has not changed since 1878, 147 years ago it is the same and I do not think it looks the same out there.

We need other bishops and the nominations to be represented. It may prevent the Cardinals from joining the legislature, but there are 6.2 million Catholics in the UK and with our wonderful issue of Catholic social teaching leading to many groups, it would not be difficult to find representatives. But what of the other denominations? For the 14 years I have been here is the saddest aspect of having 26 bishops and five retired on the crossbenches. The church in the UK is as the Church of England said a presence in every community, but look at Southwark, the Old Kent Road, and it is a wash with black Pentecostal churches often found because of the racism in the Windrush era.

You never hear of these in the House and there is no leadership of the churches here. I find it upsetting. I followed migrations of hundreds of thousands who joined the British African churches, the redeemed Christian Church of God saw 40,000 people in Church of God saw 40,000 people in the centre at the Excel and none here. The individual Christian voice is needed, but those, denominations can speak for themselves. Take some Philips on Queenstown Road that look at the website and it says it is closed.

Go past it on a Sunday and it is so busy with young and old from Ethiopian and Eritrea at the Orthodox Church in wonderful white costumes. That is the saddest thing if you look at 1878. The Ukrainian Orthodox church, the Syrian Orthodox church, they were crucified by IIS. I know the House loves the ceremony and what I have mentioned on the Pentecostals that can be quite relaxed, but the Orthodox Church has roads that make the presence bishops robes be put to shame.

It is a shame that we have not honoured those communities with representatives here. I know the Church of England responds to my 14 years of old, it is open to HOLAC to appoint such people. It is true, but it is a privilege. The monopoly of the Church of England means there are no further places in an already large House that can be justified. While I asked the government to look at this with spaces becoming vacant on the crossbenches, but I asked the Lord Spiritual to give up some of your places, give them away, give away some privilege and power.

It is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time to let others in. I don't actually believe in God,
20:35
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't actually believe in God, but just in case, I always seek to adhere to the highest ethical and moral standard especially as far as moral standard especially as far as public life is concerned. I do not propose to speak to the next group, because it is so closely related to this one. The vast majority of the House is nominally Christian. If your Lordships want to have prayers read by a bishop, and I do, we need to have about 27 bishops.

So one of them can be the duty Bishop for the week, two weeks, or however they organise it. An important point about bishops is they normally retire, but as the noble Baroness pointed out, some come back as Life Peers and they are welcome. Bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister and if there was a problem I'm sure in most cases the Prime Minister would find out and I'm not sure HOLAC is any better equipped as far HOLAC is any better equipped as far as some as some of the safeguarding proposals are concerned stop it would be for the lead to find a way to find other religious leaders to have temporary membership with the House in the same way as the Anglican bishops.

I know this point has not been made today, but just because only a few other states have a revising chamber with religious or moral input is not a good reason for us not having such input and I would council to leave the bishops well alone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Scriven adds his name to amendment 48 and 49 and is unable to amendment 48 and 49 and is unable to be here. I declare an interest as a be here. I declare an interest as a member of the Church of England and member of the Church of England and I still active with them. I am disappointed that Lord Moore suggested that abbots should be suggested that abbots should be restored to their places here. We clearly if we are discussing long-
20:37
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
clearly if we are discussing long- term reform need to address the question of bishops and also the amendment 34 in group six that the question of faith representation in the House and I have seen in my lifetime the Church of England become more welcoming to the arrangements of all sorts stop the Bishop has read this many times and I have been to a joint Jewish Christian service in the Abbey and have listened to readings of the Quran in the middle of the service and that is part of how the Church of England now tries to maintain its position as a national church representing all faiths which is worth mentioning in passing that this is not representative of other churches and faiths.

The moderator of the Church of Scotland was here. A distinguished Methodist. Baroness Newburgh was the lead rabbi and we did have a retired chief rabbi for some time on the benches of the House. There is a broader question that we must address about the role of representatives of faith in a different House if we are moving slowly and further in that direction. The bishops need to respond to that and I hope that they will contribute to that.

That is as far as we need to go when discussing the bill because it is not part of the bill, but in the broader, wider discussion, we are finding ourselves asking that question. Lord Moore did not remark the bishops of the Middle Ages, only 14 or 15 of them, and the reason why the number was fixed at 26 because the number of dioceses was moving so fast in the 19th century. Perhaps that is the number we should go back to, but I look forward to hearing from the Bishop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Sheffield. I am sorry to disappoint Lord
20:40
Lord Bishop of Sheffield Portrait The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)
-
-
Moore in the fact that the bench bishops is going to speak up on its own behalf. He may be surprised as may many opposite that in the first eight months of the current Parliament, the bishops have voted 29 times and only five times with the Labour government. The bishops are not party political. We really seek to improve and scrutinise legislation which I am grateful by the opportunity on this range of amendments to address concerns addressed by members of the House about the place and role of those of us who serve on these benches.

Though we are not whipped and do not have a partyline, the Lord Spiritual are pretty much all of one mind that Your Lordships' House would benefit from reform, not least to do with numbers and patronage. We do believe as you would expect a reformed House of Lords would include Lord Spiritual and should continue to reflect the present constitutional arrangement. I will try to speak briefly to all of the amendments in this group, taking amendment 33, 78, seeking to reduce the number of Lord Spiritual serving on these benches, and amendment 33 in the name of the Lord Blencathra would reduce it from 26 down to five, the two archbishops and three others nominated by the General Synod.

In practice, every one of the Lord Spiritual has full- time responsibility outside of this place a reduction to five would make it impossible for the remaining Lord Spiritual to perform their function as parliamentarians alongside their duty as primates or bishops. There are 26 Lord Spiritual, you will notice we will never all be present all at one time because of the demands of our other responsibilities preventing it. Only a minority of the Lord Spiritual can be present in this chamber on any given day and I urge noble Lords to keep this in mind in any consideration in the reduction on the number of those serving on these benches.

Amendment 78 in the name of Lord Dundee seeks to reduce the number of Lord Spiritual by a smaller amount to 20. Like Lord Blencathra's amendment, there is no obvious rationale for the number chosen. We are open to the reduction in the size of the House as a whole with consequences for the bench bishops, but we do believe a conversation about the number of ships should take its place as part of a copperhead review of that numbers of the House and we warmly welcome representations from other Christian denominations and other faith groups in this country.

Amendment 48 and 49 in the name of Viscount Hailsham would prevent new Lord Spiritual receiving bids to join the House, but would allow current bishops to remain until retirement and would not prevent someone who is a bishop becoming a life peer and the men would would prevent a bishop entering for the purpose of reading prayer. We appreciate the latter aspect of the amendment, but we note the role of the Lord Spiritual is more than mere chaplaincy. We highly value the privilege of leading the House in prayer, but we do not regard that as our only, most significant contribution.

Ultimately on these benches we oppose the amendments on the basis that they would effectively sever the constitutional link between church and state. This limited bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the established Church of England. A bigger discussion for another time. Amendment 19 B in the name of Baroness Berridge would amend the act so that the issuing of rates to Lord Spiritual would be subject to the approval and effective veto of the House of Lords appoints commission.

I understand the desire of the noble Lady for the appointments for those who become Lord Spiritual to be robust and we on these benches share that view and indeed we would be open to the director scrutiny of this House if that is what the House desires. However, there is already a stringent process for assessing propriety in the appointment of the bishops who subsequently become Lord Spiritual and I would venture to suggest that while of course not perfect the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment is at least as thorough as the other processes used to appoint members to this House.

Writ of summons to Lord Spiritual are issued by the operation of law and not the will of the prime install Leader of the Opposition so any involvement of the House of Lords Appointments Commission would need to be carefully calibrated. Noble Lords would hardly be surprised that we on this bench are not able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Right Reverend pilot has made a robust defence in this House. As I a robust defence in this House. As I was speaking, are reminding the reasons why certain laws would work. reasons why certain laws would work. It did occur to me a logical one was
20:46
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It did occur to me a logical one was a not to have them at all. To the diocese at work, without having to worry about the parliamentary sitting in Parliament. I found that sitting in Parliament. I found that this speech, by the noble Lord of I -- noble Lord Viscount a very persuasive indeed. Lord Moore between the link between the peerages and the Lord Spiritual. In the House of Lords Library briefing in 2017, they said the participation of the Bishops in Public business dates back to the funeral..

They were summoned to Parliament much of their feudal status, as are tenants. It was said that spiritual peers were the most influential members of the House. They feel more important offices of state and had a majority over the temporal peers. There is the historic, the Bishops were powers in the land, they owned land, as the Church of England still does. It is not surprising therefore that they should have a voice in Parliament. That is no longer, that argument can no longer be made.

I think, reflecting on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, he said that no Bishops, no king. I have the Church of Scotland, which hasn't had Bishops since the Reformation and I can tell you that the King is a very respected and very much loved in Scotland. The debate next week, the bill for the Lord High Commissioner Bill, which is a good illustration of the link between the monarch and the church. Which means that the church is a national church, but without us having any desire, or need to feel that we need to be in the legislature.

Not even in the Scottish parliament. Also,... With the right reverend Prelate and the Bishop of Sheffield says that we can't sort of break the link between church and state. What I think we can. There is no need for the church, or any particular church to have representation in the legislature. It still can be a national church. It still can reflect the views from the different component parts and a geographical. The noble Lord, Lord Hailsham also made a valid point that whilst it is said that the Church of England has the great advantage of having its dioceses, it brings that view from different parts of England, to your Lordships' House macro.

It is only, it is only a representation of one part of our UK. It doesn't have any representation from Scotland, from Northern Ireland, or from Wales. And in a polymer that seeks to be a Parliament of the United Kingdom and many will see a very strong belief that we should continue as the UK. It is unfortunate that there is only one part of the UK that has religious representation. I have looked at the moment that suggested, I think, in the next group, on the whole series of different denominations and faiths it could be nominated.

When it brought to mind was when the Scottish parliament was established in 1999. Indeed at the first resolution we had and voted on whether there should be a time for reflection, or prayers, time for reflection it became. One of my colleagues, Donald Murray, now sadly deceased, he proposed that there should be prayers by proportional representation. And I looked at that list, in the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra is a moment and I thought the heaven sake. Multifaith representation, who knows where that representation, who knows where that Last time the general assembly of the Church of Scotland discussed this issue, it took the view that there should be a no Bishops in a small House of Lords, nor should there be any automatic representation of any other denomination of faith.

By all means, have a Bishops, moderators, or clergy, or those that get here on their own merits, as a Life Peers. I do not think there is any need for them to be automatically appointed to your Lordships' House. For that reason, I am very supportive of the amendment, which Lord Hailsham has
20:51
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
amendment, which Lord Hailsham has My lords, I extend my sincere My lords, I extend my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Viscount Hailsham the tabling amendments 48 and 49, which I'm pleased to be supporting today. I rise in a strong support of today. I rise in a strong support of both amendments, which offer an opportunity for meaningful reform in this area. We have long advocated for an end to the automatic provision of legislative seats to Bishops. I change that these amendments would help to realise.

amendments would help to realise. Currently, 26 seats are guaranteed to Bishops of the Church of England, yet, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, no seats guaranteed and exist for the Church in Wales, the Church of Scotland, or for any other faith groups. This disparity ... It is regrettably another example of how the UK Parliament remains a disproportionately focused on England. The under Vatican City and around those countries that do not grant automatic seats as a laws makers to religious leaders.

While Propose Propose representatives Propose representatives from Propose representatives from other faiths. I do not believe this is a viable solution. The complexity of deciding which faiths, denominations, or nonreligious organisations should be represented, alongside the constantly shifting demographics of the UK make such a proposal impossible. This is why I cannot support amendment 33 and 78. These amendments do not differ significantly from the current system we have. Which are ready grant of 26 Bishops automatic seats. As such, they failed to address the issue of representation, in a meaningful way.

Polling data from a YouGov survey conducted last September reveals the depth of public sentiment on this matter. Only 22% of respondents believe that the House of Lords should continue reserving places for Church of England ships. This consensus spans the political divide, age, regions. The public supports an end to reserve places for the Lord Spiritual. Let me be clear, this is not a reflection of the valuable work done by individual Lord Spiritual. On the contrary many Bishops have made significant contributions particularly in the areas such as on prison reform, contributing to debates on overcrowding, offending treatment and their efforts to support migrants and refugees, including their vocal opposition to the Rwanda bill should be commended.

However these accomplishments should speak to the individuals involved, not the system that automatically grants them a place in the House of Lords. In a reformed second chamber, such individuals could and should be elected, on the merit of their work and dedication, not based on their religious office. Therefore I urge the House to support 48 and 49, these amendments present a clear and necessary step towards a more equitable and representative House of Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As somebody who is about to be expelled from the House of Lords, I can't help feeling a little bit can't help feeling a little bit sorry for the noble Lords, the right reverend Prelate on the spiritual reverend Prelate on the spiritual bench. At the moment they are bench. At the moment they are fashionably everybody's whipping fashionably everybody's whipping boy, and all girl. Everyone sort of hates at the Church of England at hates at the Church of England at the moment.

It is a leadership, no Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a pretty rotten way of attacking the church in this manner, at the moment when they are down. There are so many good reasons to have a spiritual side to the House of Lords. There are hardly ever more than three or four Bishops, in the House at any one time and usually there is only one. So they hardly make an enormous amount of difference at our voting. But they do make a difference to how we are seen and to the tone of our general debates and I do not think one should decry that the spiritual side of the House.

And, of course it is important as part of the established important as part of the established church. One of the reasons why I hate this bill so much is because it is a very piecemeal approach and is taking out one cohort of the House and flinging it out and not caring whether it does any good, or what will happen when it is missing. And I feel exactly the same here about the Bishops. They should be preserved until there is proper thought given to the kind of House that we want.

I know the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House will say well if you want to wave everything to be agreed, nothing will be agreed. I do not think that is necessarily the case at all. It is making sure that the worst aspects of this removal of areas is taken into account. There has been much mention of other faiths. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord... The Lord of Tiger Ness. As a member of the Church of Scotland it will be quite nice to hear, the noble Lord is a distinguished former moderator of the Church of Scotland.

I think there is obviously room for other faiths. During the time I have been eating here, there have been many occasions when representatives of other faiths... Particularly with great moral issues of the day. Whether it is to do with embryology, or abortion and no doubt soon, if the bill passes the House of Commons on assisted dying. I think the voice of the spiritual side of the House is very much to be welcomed. When I came here, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk was the senior lay member of the Roman Catholic church, who spoke regularly against it.

The current one is not wanting to take up that role, in any case he is going to be expelled as well. What I think is less well known is that over the last few years, the Roman catholic archbishops have been offered places in the House of Lords
20:57
20:58
Lord Northbrook Portrait Lord Northbrook (Conservative)
-
-
rise to support the moment in the name of Baroness Berridge about control and the appointment of Bishops. I'm afraid to say I have to use the example of the Bishop of Winchester, as an example where the previous bishop, where quality control should have an exercise for top his predecessor, Michael Scott was absolutely outstanding, and made tremendous contributions in the House. Unfortunately, Tim Dakin didn't live up to the standard of that previous bishop. There were queries even about whether he was properly ordained.

Perhaps the appointments commission might have been able to enquire into that more seriously. The Bishop managed to alienate his own clergy, he commissioned a report on alleged abuse by the channel islands clergy, part of the diocese. The Archbishop of Canterbury had to issue a apology to the Dean of Jersey for the treatment they had received. The Church of England was sadly missing in action during Cove and, by closing the churches. No real danger of getting covert in churches, the larger churches due to the lack of attendance.

I don't really recall many contributions in the House. Apart from the Archbishop of Canterbury, remotely, celebrating communities kitchen. -- Communion. I have to disagree with the Bishop of Sheffield, that the Bishops benches and not political. I'm afraid to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury got very political, during the previous governments immigration bill. And criticising it seriously. Generally the church seems to be keen on giving reparations to apologise for slavery and its role in parishes. So, overall, on the other amendments, I don't really agree with them, to say that keep 25 religious members of the House of Lords, having a multifaith Lords, having a multifaith

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this group of amendments in particular and would argue for the retention of bishops as currently constituted. I fully as currently constituted. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by Noble Lords supporting the group of amendments, and equally the intellectual arguments against the intellectual arguments against the bishops remaining here as advanced
21:01
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Conservative)
-
-
bishops remaining here as advanced by humanist UK and others. The charge sheet against the bishops, I would add that they are also politically extremely frustrating, at least to those on the side of the House between 2019 and the last general election. And often the long evening spent in the division lobbies, it seemed as if the bishops were preprogrammed to vote against anything the Conservative government was doing, just because it was the Conservative government there was doing it. I also appreciate that they should more accurately be called Lord's religious rather than Lords spiritual as there is precious little spiritual and a lot of religious in their involvement with identity politics in every fashionable left-wing cause that comes their way.

I also appreciate they are historically as seen by the billion pound target for reparations supporting the view of the recent Archbishop of Canterbury that the British more or less invented slavery and did nothing to end it. I also appreciate they are corporately cataclysmic Lee incompetent, spending endless funds on virtue signalling while parishes are crumbling around the country. Nevertheless, they do represent a continuity with our constitution, history and culture. And their presence here acknowledges that there is pate to be considered beyond the political and material and which still guides many lives.

It is right that this part of life is acknowledged to exist by the bishops living here. I would also argue that their presence here is a reminder of our religious history on whose behalf many of our laws were written, making the bishops represent a kind of canvas on which is painted much about the British constitution we hold dear and which can easily be taken for granted. My argument for the bishops is that if we are to lose the soul of his the -- House, we should at least keep the heart of it, presented by the bishops.
21:03
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
This is a very serious subject, and the fact that some may not consider it to be serious or worthy of a long debate is troubling. But I would submit it should be troubling above all to the Church of England itself. Which too many of our great distress has yielded so much of the spiritual ground in this nation that spiritual ground in this nation that it wants to be stowed. I have said more than once that this radical bill on a very very few in the history of this House to throw out existing members has far-reaching implications.

The perfectly logical view is that the removal of one group of members is closely connected to and has three percussive effects on the wider membership of the House. And as we've heard, that logical connection lies into the urgent aspiration for exclusion that we've heard in some speeches today. Amendments in both chambers concerning the Lords spiritual just one example of this re-percussive effect. And the Noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham I will give him it was a conservative speech, but a notable Tory speech, to which the Noble Lord Lord Strathcarron offered a coder.

The Lords spiritual have been here since the origins of this House, indeed like the Hereditary Peers they were in fact among the creators of our Parliament. They survived Henry VIII's exclusion of the Abbots, to which the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire preferred. And when Parliament last decided to throw them out in the bishops exclusion act in 1642, they will welcome back warmly. After 1660. And when has the British population moved to the great cities such as Manchester again as Lord Wallace referred to, it was considered expedient to create new bishops.

Not perhaps my Lords in the what many of us may consider in the parish to be the superabundant numbers of today, but there was considerable debate at that time about whether it be possible to limit the rights of bishops to receive a rate to sit in this House. -- so the government introduced the Bishop of Manchester Bill which limited the number of Lords spiritual and this House to no more than 26. Which is what we have today. There was considerable resistance at the time on the grounds that this interfered with the prerogative and more objection only, the right of any Lords Spiritual and Temporal P to attend the House.

But the reality was as people saw it that while new bishops were no longer being automatically included and the route of entry was partially closed, no one was being excluded, and the House settled on this as a reasonable compromise as this as a reasonable compromise as the bishops number expanded. This House and its wisdom has always tended to compromise on matters of composition. Since 1847, the historic limit of 26) from Pelops has been maintained. Now there may be no magic in this number.

I remember being present at discussions in rugby about 2002 at the time the Conservative Party was proposing a small ascendant of 300. It was then set by the right Reverend Prelate, they indicated that 12 might be the minimum number that would leave them with sufficient capacity to perform their important spiritual advisory duties in the House. I don't if that is still the case. But they do a lot. After all last night we saw one of the right Reverend Prelate's Bishop of Sheffield himself stepping in to assist the House by acting as a teller in the division.

And it was voting against the government, but have to tell me who voted against the opposition as well. Perhaps that's how the numbers are now squared. But we welcome their presence in all guises and at all times. And I do wonder when as I see it a cash from others would see it unfinished business is being done to the body of the House, whether it's wise to alight so fast on the next group to be excluded. Some are all of the Lords spiritual.

Any other place, amendments were fazed by the backbenchers to expel Lord Prior lips, and almost all have signed up to related proposals, although I did notice a proposal from the Labour benches to expel all the Lords spiritual in two years was withdrawn shortly before the first marshalled list was published. I hope no one in this House felt any pressure to keep quiet. Now my Noble Friend Lady Berridge tabled amendment 98 to require writ of summons and the bishops act to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

And my Noble Friend Viscount Hailsham took the same line, perhaps more vehemently but from a different angle. Whilst I understand their thinking and salute her consistent initiative propriety greatly admired in this House, I'm afraid it's amendment we cannot support. The church does have its own rigorous processes for the selection of bishops culminating in the Crown nominations commission committee has processes on conduct which no one is immune. Adding a veto, giving a veto to HOLAC with nice admission full foul of the constitutional principle put forward by the Noble Lord Lord Butler in our debates on Monday.

The 26... My Noble Friend Lord length Arthur proposes the immediate reduction, which also introduces a retirement age. I think the number will be too small even if we were to move the reasons I've given. My Noble Friend the Earl of Dundee proposes 20. And many will friend Viscount Hailsham goes a step further by seeking to expel all future bishops and archbishops of the Church of England from taking ACT. These amendments have gained support formally from at least other parties by signatures and we've heard tonight right across the chamber.

I'm glad that the Labour amendment was withdrawn, Labour backbench amendment. My body would have opposed it as I oppose the amendments of my Noble Friend Viscount Hailsham. It is true with 890 votes cast by the right Reverend Prelate's against the government which I was a member, and only 36 in favour, the highest percentages of fights against the government ever recorded from those benches in four successive sessions, you might think I have some animus in the matter. But I don't because I'm a generous soul and I was brought up an Anglican.

And I believe considerations of party advantage or disadvantage should not enter decisions about classes of peers who should sit in this House. As I said at Second Reading Committee won't be long before the bishops are the only members not appointed under the 1958 act. This bill starts down a path I fear will be hard pressed to close off wholesale removal of plots in the House, first the hereditaries, then perhaps the bishops, then if Labour honours its manifesto pledge, the over 80s too. I agree with the wise words of my Noble Friend Lord Strathclyde on the spiritual dimension.

We do not support removal of the right Reverend Prelate's. Every institution gains from a spiritual dimension. Taking them out now would simply add to instability in the House, give scant recognition to their important role inside and outside the House, including a territorial dimensions, and walk without due consideration into a debate, difficult debate on the disestablishment of the church and as my Noble Friend Lord Moore of Etchingham said, that's even the role of the monarch in that church. Heaven knows, some of us yearn to hear the Christian voice raised more clearly and witness to the nation.

And not see it dimmed further. Change such as is proposed in this amendment, these amendments to remove that voice or lesson that voice in this House would require the most careful consideration and debate. And I hope my Noble Friends will agree to withdraw.
21:12
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
This group of amendments have been put forward has raised a number of issues, and we've heard some impassioned and deeply held views on both sides of the argument. As Noble Lord true said, also debated in the other place where I think it went away division and was lost by probably over 300 and something, 320 or so votes. And I think it's important we recognise that in this House, and I think a lot of Noble Lords make the same point, we welcome people of all religious faiths or those of no religious faith as well, they all add to the diversity of this place.

There are of course I think is noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire made this point, there are questions about the future of the House and future competition of this House, as a number of Noble Lords have commented on. And our proposals have been made already for about what kind of alternative second chamber could replace the current House of Lords as a long- term ambition, and that something that would be more representative of the nations across the UK, and that would be consulted on it, including the public take sounding to how the public would feel an alternative second chamber would best suit them.

The different kinds of amendments, the Noble Lords blank -- Glenn Catherine and Lord Houchen are looking to withhold or reduce the number of members of the Lords spiritual. And the noble Lady Berridge who has considerable I think expertise, and respect across the House in the country as a whole for her views on safeguarding issues generally wanted to amend the bishops act in order to have HOLAC appointments commission be able to approve any bishops. In fact the only two groups that HOLAC do not comment on the Hereditary Peers coming from the by-elections and of course the bishops.

And I think I agree with the Noble Lord true, nice to say that from the despatch box that there is... Not sure the role for HOLAC in the bishops is appropriate. They do have their own appropriate method of being considered, approval process before they come to this House. And I think I'm grateful to the right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield for his comments on this issue. And I think he will have heard what members have said. I have to say I think his voting record in the future may confound us.

Mike Spears of the bishops as they challenge the government whoever is the government of the day, and I saw as official opposition, he was also turning off the government last night, and I suspect we will see that on other issues as well. We do welcome I think the presence of the bishops here. And I think they will have heard the comments from Noble Lords. I think someone more measured perhaps than others. Some were more supportive than others. But there is a thing a place in the House for them at the moment, though if there are wider discussions, the bishops also should be part of those wider discussions about any future composition of the House.

And I do at this stage request that amendments in the Noble Lords names
21:15
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Someone had to if I may mix my metaphors, someone had to put on the suicide vest and poke his head above the parapet by putting down those highly controversial amendments for drastic reduction in the number of bishops. It had the desired effect because in a debate of one hour 10 minutes we had some very interesting speeches and suggestions for a possible way forward. In looking at other faiths in the amendment was up we had three very powerful speeches, Viscount Hailsham had a very powerful speech that was immediately countermanded by an equally powerful speech by Lord Moore of Etchingham he made the finest case for retaining the bishops I've ever heard.

An excellent line, we must not, not just a line, we must not disturb the settlement. Third excellent speech was the Right Reverend Prelate Bishop of Reverend Prelate Bishop of Sheffield, he made a valid point Bishop of Sheffield, he made a valid .5 would make it impossible to actually work it was the I do accept that. They did say the bishops were open to discussion on possible numbers in any future settlement or change to the House of Lords. The Earl of Dundee wanted to reduce from 26 to 20, forgive me but I can't see a big difference that would make.

Baroness Berridge called for a check on the propriety of bishops I've no intention of entering into that detail. She spoke at length on adding other faiths, that is my next and and -- amendment, to add five other faiths but I accept that wasn't exactly my amendment, I did talk just match she did talk about lots of other churches and religions not being represented. That's something I was going to talk about my next amendment if I moved it. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, what on earth is he doing here at 9:15 on his birthday? He certainly can't be hearing my speech, what I should say in my next amendment a colleague complained that I missed out the Church of Scotland, it was not Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Wallace of Tankerness who complained about missing out the Church of Scotland.

He also meant the point of other faiths. Baroness Smith said, what I would say to her as if she looked at the poles, if this House or a government were to do everything the polls want every time the polls wanted there will be changing policy every six months so I don't necessarily go along with that. Lord Strathclyde accepted it the issue that needs further consideration in the round with further Lords reform. That's from my noble friend, I simply don't want to get into the details of what he said if you will forgive me.

Lord Strathcarron, well I found it difficult, I thought he was going to make a speech getting rid of all the bishops but it was a rather intriguing way to keep the bishops by criticising everything they did. But he did make the point that that makes a very valuable contribution to this House. The shadow leader gave very careful and thoughtful speech mainly arguing for the status quo and making the point that the bishops may be the only bench in this House that won't be appointed by the Prime Minister in the future.

The leader as well made of thoughtful and wise speech calling for wider discussion. I was due to propose the next amendment 34 which would reduce the number of bishops to five and add five other faiths. In view of the fact we had some extensive speeches tonight on adding other faiths I may be minded when come to it to change my mind. The moment I beg leave to move this among them. Withdraw the amendment.
21:19
21:20
21:21
21:23
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
I would just like to say that I will have to leave at 10 o'clock but I just have time to make a speech was I'm not convinced this is a good idea, although I understand my noble friend thinking. Like it or not we live in a much less deferential society. It always depresses me when I read of a senior military officer or junior ratings or NCOs in the regular army being referred to as Mr even in a military context.

Many years ago when I was just a full corporal in the reserves I was proud of the rank I held and what is indicated. But I'm not sure now that being appear is an attractive rank or honour any more. We see one Baroness who was a national treasure regularly being referred more often referred to by her game heard than her peerage Mike Dame. I have a point for the Minister and the leader perhaps to consider. So far as I'm aware there is no reliable, regularly use database of preferred styles for the Lordships.

Googling an active member would take an unsuspecting user to a highly misleading page on the House website. The result is that the uninitiated would inadvertently send irritating emails to piers such as myself, but at the same time they may still irritate other peers by being far too deferential. The worst of all worlds. Would it not be better if the House of Lords website made it clear what each peers preferred style was? The situation is actually even worse, as some potentially really good members, particularly for the party opposite may be deterred from putting themselves forward for consideration for a peerage because they would be horrified at the prospect of being addressed formally as a member of your Lordships house.

This problem could I suggest be alleviated by having the database that I have already referred to and encouraging its use, particularly by the lobbying industry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Within this grouping I referred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Within this grouping I referred to amendment 76 in my name. The effect of the amendment is to make a distinction between non- parliamentary peerages and parliamentary peerages. Lithgow parliamentary peerages. Lithgow patron edge along with awarding patron edge along with awarding other honours have continued to create non-parliamentary once -- create non-parliamentary once -- patronage. But no longer ones which confer parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords will top as a result and conversely, a parliamentary right to sit in the House of Lords comes decoupled from political patronage.

To that extent, amendment 76 connect to other proposed amendments within this bill regarding the future position of the House of Lords. These include firstly a revised role for HOLAC 2.1 third or 200 nonpolitical crossbenchers for a reformed house of 600 tempura peers, secondly the setting up of an electoral college -- temporal. To indirectly elect 400 political members or two thirds of a reformed house, and thirdly the
21:27
21:27
Lord Mancroft Portrait Lord Mancroft (Conservative)
-
-
I think my noble friend Lord Lucas has made, raised an interesting point. There must be a case for decoupling the gift of a peerage or a title from a membership of the legislature. Whether one thinks is a good idea or not, that is a route that this bill is taking a long line of. If the Hereditary Peers when the Hereditary Peers leave the House the reality is ceases, another step towards its ceasing to be a House of Lords.

It becomes a Senate, second chamber, whatever you want to call it will stop if you take the Lords out of the House it's not House of Lords any more. That is a route whether the government wants to go that way or not, that's the route it's going long. There is also and has been for years not just in the last few days or few years or decades, this discussion about people being awarded peerages and not really obviously wanting to be members of this House.

And they want to be called Lord and they want, like coronets and been called Lord and restaurants at tables and things, whether they like giving money to a political party or some other rather better reason I don't know, but that is the reality is that some people have been rewarded for it and don't really have an interest in being a member of this House full stop they want to be called Lord but this only don't want to sit through the report stage of the rats and mice bill at 9:30 at night, so that is a route we are going along whether we like it or not.

I think at some stage this House are going to have to think about which way that goes because that is the way we are going and there is undoubtedly going at some stage whether it's this time in the future legislation to be split between a peerage, Lords, and this House. They are going to divide they are going in different directions,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is the reality of life. I have signed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas in this group, that's not because I agree group, that's not because I agree with every aspect of his amendment, indeed I'm not sure that any amendment is necessary to achieve amendment is necessary to achieve the purpose that he and some others who have spoken actually want to who have spoken actually want to see. Indeed it could have a negative see.

Indeed it could have a negative effect of locking the absolute right of the Crown to create any form of peerage within the frame of the 1958 act, which among other things says all peerages created under it can only be barons. I support it because I have long advocated the course he seeks to enable and I sent the support that in the House. The creation of peerages that don't entitle a person to a writ to sit in the House of Lords, the nation will always want to honour those who are most distinguished among us either by the high honour of the peerage.

Yet as we have heard not everyone who might be glad or perhaps hungry or added to accept or secure an honour will wish to undertake the sometimes arduous role of playing a We all know such people. We all have known also some who walk now the narrow tightrope between honour and duty. Now I don't subscribe to the view that all who come here must smash the pain and endurance barriers in participation or attendance. And I deplore the fact that some of our number, including much respected colleagues on the other side are being measured in this way in a current media campaign against the House.

But I acknowledge that many in this House and outside do have high expectations than someone who accepts a peerage should -- and they should be active in this House. And the noble Earl reminded us of that. The wording of our summons in an earlier debate. The -- as some have argued, those who wish to play a role in Parliament that those who do not, it would the lowest argument for such a proposition reduce at least some of the inflow in headline numbers to this House, to which many attach importance.

In short, as argued by my Noble Friends, and I would argue, you could have on one side Lords created under the 1958 act with all the expectation and the writ of summons conferred by that act, and the company duty to take part. And another set of peers honoured with the same degree of barony, indeed
21:33
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
even potentially higher degree who had no wish to be in this place but had been proved deserving of such an had been proved deserving of such an honour. Now that is surely perfectly possible. I've argued this case actually to at least three Prime actually to at least three Prime Ministers. But the usual reply comes that the law is uncertain. I don't that the law is uncertain. I don't think it's that uncertain at all. But if it is, let's then rally around while we have this bill around while we have this bill before us around my Noble Friends amendment or some variation on it, come report stage and make it certain because this would be an exceedingly useful change for the body politic.

The life peerages act did not create a novel concept of a peerage for life. That had existed for centuries. It corrected two problems that had arisen in decisions by your Lordships committee for privileges. In 1922 and the Viscount Rhonda decided the case that a woman could not sit in this House, shameful judgement in retrospect. And in 1856, in the Wensleydale case, it concluded that a life peerage did not confer on a man a right to sit and vote in Parliament.

Now the Wensleydale case is absolutely germane to this argument. Because although the House held that Sir James parts life peerage did not entitle him to sit or speak in the House, he was late as many of us were now given Hereditary Peers to allow him to do so and take his role as a Law Lord, the privileged committee, Privileges Committee did not and could not extinguish his life peerage, which remained in existence the perfectly proper exercise of Queen Victoria's prerogative as the fount of honour.

The issue is whether the peers Hereditary Peers wanted to have an a life peerage. And although it was said at the time that a life peerages may have fallen into issues, some have shown it hasn't. Well into the 19th century monarchs creator peerages for life, which did not confer the right to a writ to sit in this House. Charles II created I think 10. James II, one. Liam the third at least one. George I three I think. And there were others later into the 19th century.

Now they were all women. And maybe that explains why Charles II created 10 of them. But sadly in those days because they were women, they were unable to sit. The power to create such peerages without the right to sit is therefore in my submission absolutely inherent and current in the Crown. This was also the conclusion of the Lord Speaker's Committee on the size of the House in 2017 and I believe paragraphs 25 and six of the report, and they see the Noble Lord burns indicating assent.

And whenever we listen to the letters patent introduction, we hear reference after the words in pursuance of the life peerages act 1958, another phrase. And of all other powers in that behalf us enabling. Among those other powers, it's clearly the power to create other types of peerage than a life peerage under the 1958 act. Indeed we had peers under the 1968 act until recently. I submit that the Prime Minister could advise the monarch tomorrow to create a life period that did not entitle the peer to sit in this House.

I submit that would be a useful innovation, which would be widely welcomed on all sides, with the particular modernisation or as I'm asserting, useful revival of a custom of the past. It would finally be a far more useful modernisation than what is in the bill before us. And I do commend this proposal as I commend the purpose of my Noble Friends amendment to the House. I think it is a change that is long overdue, which does not require legislation, and I commend the purpose of my Noble Friends amendment to the House.

I believe if Sir Keir Starmer was to take it up, I think it would be widely welcomed as a modern and sensible innovation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the Noble Lord Lord Lucas and the noble Earl Lord Dundee for the amendments, and also for the for the amendments, and also for the brevity in which they spoke? With brevity in which they spoke? With the greatest of respect their Lordships, the government doesn't consider the amendments to be either consider the amendments to be either necessary nor appropriate. The reason for that is this. The government believes there should be government believes there should be clarity, both within your Lordship's House and also in the public at House and also in the public at large as to what a life peerage is and importantly, what the responsibilities are for those accorded the privilege of appointment.

Granting of a life peerage as we all know brings with it responsibility for the work of your Lordship's House, scrutinising legislation, holding the government legislation, holding the government of the day to account. As my Noble Friends the Leader of the House has said, peers should be appointed not only in recognition of their skills and expertise but in anticipation of their skills being put in service to your Lordship's House. And the government believes there is obvious benefit to the reputation of Parliament that the role of Life Peers is well understood by members of the public, and it may be thought that it would be to confusion if there is another class bearing the same name but not carrying with the
21:39
Lord Hermer Portrait Lord Hermer, The Attorney-General (Labour)
-
-
same obligations. By contrast to the life peerage, the honour system life peerage, the honour system represents the monarch's recognition of past service or achievement of past service or achievement without any obligation for future service. We don't consider that service. We don't consider that there is a clamour, either within Parliament or in the public for some Parliament or in the public for some form of superannuation to the honour system. So that some would bear the system. So that some would bear the same title as Life Peers who work in this House.

And for those reasons, we would respectfully ask that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments are withdrawn. Before the Noble Lord sits down, there really are large numbers of peers who are not members of this peers who are not members of this House. So there are already two classes appear in that sense. So that part of his argument is really that part of his argument is really spurious. We've also if we cast his mind back, we spent some time mind back, we spent some time earlier this evening talking about peers who were members of this House peers who were members of this House and quite clearly do not really obey the writ of summons and don't want a the writ of summons and don't want a lot of reasons or don't choose to play a part in this House.

So both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the arguments he has put forward are completely spurious. The greatest of respect to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The greatest of respect to the Noble Lord, I made my points by references to life peerages. Obviously as you Lordships know Obviously as you Lordships know well, there is nothing contained in this bill that would affect the this bill that would affect the status of Hereditary Peers ridges, other than the right to sit and vote other than the right to sit and vote in this House. Where the logic of my Noble Lords argument to be taken, Noble Lords argument to be taken, the Noble Lords argument taken to its logical extension we would be creating 1/3 or indeed possibly the noble Earls argument, 1/4 class of peerage.

And the government simply does not consider that is either necessary, there is no public clamour for this, and certainly that the arguments in favour of it could not possibly in the government's view outweigh the Confucian that would arise in the public's mind as to what a life peer is, what their functions are, and that confusion would not serve to enhance the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reputation of your Lordship's House. I think in his response, and even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think in his response, and even more grateful to him promoting an earl, which I would love to be, but don't apologise. I'm delighted to be NL, joined the 30 seconds of Eltham I've been given, but the reality is there are masses of peers walking there are masses of peers walking around the streets, masses, quite a around the streets, masses, quite a lot, a hundred actually walking around, going into smart restaurants and not coming into the Lordship's House you are called Lord this and Lord that, and they don't have a badge and then saying I'm Hereditary Peers and another wanting a life peer.

The fact is most people in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world do not know the difference between a life peer and Hereditary Peers. Again, the argument that the noble and learned Lords puts forward is complete fantasy. Will I'm very grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will I'm very grateful for the Noble Lord for giving me my rookie mistake. We've already discussed mistake. We've already discussed during the course of the evening what I anticipate is an almost what I anticipate is an almost unanimous view from those in your Lordship's House participate regularly in this House that the regularly in this House that the unacceptable situation for those who do not, and there has been fruitful do not, and there has been fruitful discussion today, and insightful contributions from all sections of this House that reflect a determination to address that problem and to address the issue of participation.

But the very fact that there are members of your Lordship's House who do not participate but continue nevertheless to enjoy the benefits of the title is not, I would respectfully say to the Noble Lord, an argument for creating yet another class of life peerage. It's an argument for the work that hopefully will take place to address the problems we face with participation.
21:43
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
As referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Lord Speaker's Committee there was some detail and had legal advice that this would be possible, but on this narrow question surely there are another group of people who are around which the people who have retired who still keep their titles. And I no longer receive a writ of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

summons. Need to remember what the amendment seeks to address, which is to create yet a further category. to create yet a further category. Now the question there is how does this help, how does this help and this help, how does this help and who does it serve? And the government's position is that a yet government's position is that a yet further category does not help promote the image of your Lordship's promote the image of your Lordship's House in the public eye.

It leads to confusion. It does not add to utility, and there is no suggestion utility, and there is no suggestion that the honour system is somehow bereft of yet a further status that needs to be met by the creation of a further class of peer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would ask you this helps and who does it serve, and had the privilege of asking to an adviser to privilege of asking to an adviser to a former leader of my party, a former Prime Minister and I certainly saw as Noble Lords have alluded to, the not inconsiderable queue of people who offer themselves queue of people who offer themselves for service in the upper House, and have seen party leaders of all political persuasions coming under similar pressure. I think it would help them to be able to say, look there are ways of recognising your there are ways of recognising your great contribution in national life without giving you a seat in the legislature and separating the distinction of a barren, and Eltham, a Marcus whatever from a perpetual role in legislating the nation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That may be a convenient at for Prime Ministers, present and future, but it is not in the government's but it is not in the government's view a compelling reason to create a further class of Life Peers. And it is certainly not compelling enough to offset the Confucian in the to offset the Confucian in the public eye that would be created by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such an additional class. I'm sorry to persist. It's clear we are getting nowhere on this this we are getting nowhere on this this evening, but I believe this is a very constructive proposal. I'm very constructive proposal. I'm disappointed, very disappointed by the noble and learned Lords Peerages are peerage, Barney has apparently, whatever it is under whatever part of the prerogative racks of Parliament or otherwise it exists, as Lord Burns pointed out we have retired people, we have Hereditary Peers, the public are not reeling about in confusion.

I may be the noble and learned Lord is reeling about in confusion but there may be many ways and many things that are attached to the possession of the title Lords, just as if you have a knighthood you can be a cricketer or you can be a captain of industry or you can be many other things. I think that the noble and learned Lord is ingenuously trying to create a difficulties frankly non-existent and I would have thought this modernising government would have the imagination to take a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step forward. At the risk of being sent to re-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the risk of being sent to re- education camp by my noble friend my Chief Whip I actually find the noble Chief Whip I actually find the noble and learned Lords argument more persuasive, but I gave no notice to persuasive, but I gave no notice to the Minister about my issue on the Minister about my issue on styles, could the noble and learned Lord give some consideration that Lord give some consideration that carefully in due course and write to me on that point?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course I will.
21:47
21:49
21:50
21:51
21:51
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 36.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend does the House a service, a significant service by putting forward this amendment because just encapsulates the because just encapsulates the arguments around a fully appointed house at this extraordinary house at this extraordinary situation we find ourselves in where we will be headed towards a fully we will be headed towards a fully appointed house with appointments to be made by a Prime Minister, and a ratchet effectively going upwards ratchet effectively going upwards and upwards in terms of numbers when there is the occasion of a change of government.

I think my noble friend is amendment which sounds so simple and straightforward throws up any number of difficulties and I think we could spend the next two or three days of committee if such things existed talking about how this mechanism might work. I think my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right to raise the question of the balance between the parties, of the Prime Minister's ability to introduce unchecked numbers into this House, of the large number of peers that we do have.

I was very taken I think it was on Monday we were talking about the question of elections there was a hushed silence went through the House and there was some shocked faces, I felt like I was in a Bateman cartoon, a man who dared to mention of elections in the House of Lords, shock horror. Here we are, we are discussing one version of an archaic situation vs another. It's quite clear that there is no rational defence of the Prime Minister being able to appoint without any check on numbers to this House.

The whole questions of coalitions, parties that might come together and then split apart, parties that might themselves divide would cause all sorts of difficulties. I suspect that this amendment that my noble friend has put forward as a legislative handgrenades designed to illustrate the difficulties rather than necessarily putting forward a carefully worked through solution.
21:54
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
The noble Viscount won't be surprised for me to say again the only way to deal with the problem is to have an election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I quite agree with him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I quite agree with him. My noble friends amendment to ensure that no one-party has a majority in the House of Lords is a relatively new idea, in the pre-99 house of more than 1,000 noble Lords house of more than 1,000 noble Lords there was often a majority well disposed to the government of the disposed to the government of the day and I remember observing as an adviser in the Conservative government after 2015 that this was perhaps the first such Conservative government in history which didn't enjoy a majority in the House of Lords.

What we are confronting here is a relatively new phenomenon on, because it was a problem that the Labour Party faced much earlier and had to contend with under the leadership of Lord at least grandfather after 1945 and after that rose what we knew as the Salisbury Convention but shouldn't recall that at all because, actually it was Viscount Cranborne at that time and poor Viscount Addison never gets remembered. Under that convention your Lordships house agreed that it would not seek to forge the mainlines of Labour's legislation to provided drive from the manifesto for the previous election.

Sadly the then future fifth Marquess didn't tell us what to do about. The other punctuation in Labour manifestoes, but it was a convention that certainly helped the Clement Attlee government to get its business through and make all the changes it did to this country. It echoed the referendum -- referential theory developed under the third Marquess in relation to legislation brought forward by liberal governments, but it's clear that there is a lack of clarity on this convention, I remember The Lord Privy Seal arguing to the committee on the constitution when I was in Downing Street advising Lady May of Maidenhead that it was far from clear that the Salisbury Addison convention was ever intended to apply to Minority government, that wasn't an eventuality that was foreseen by the Marquess of Salisbury in the 1940s and clearly there are a lot of gaps to fill in.

There was an attempt by Lordships house, indeed a joint committee looking at the conventions and the two houses understanding of how they operated. Back in 2006 I wonder whether the noble Lady or the present government have any intention of repeating that exercise of looking to codify or clarify the convention or to point out other unforeseen circumstances such as Minority government's in another Minority government's in another place. I note in the 1997 Labour manifesto that there was a sentencing that no one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords, there was no such statement of commitment in the 2024 manifesto, I think The Lord Privy Seal has been clear from the despatch box before that it is her view that no party should seek a majority in your Lordships house.

But I think we would be grateful if she would like to expand on that when she rises in a moment. I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham who has spoken a few times briefly and enjoyably on every occasion is keen to hear from The Lord Privy Seal is to hear from The Lord Privy Seal is are we also I leave it to her.
21:58
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I was wondering what the chuntering was I didn't quite catch what the noble Lord Hailsham was talking about. I think it's an interesting proposal from Lord Lucas and in fact if you think about it I can't recall, I think the noble Lord had this right, that the last time any political party had an overall majority in this chamber, he talks about a majority, an overall majority as I understand that because the Conservative party's been the largest party for a very long time, was before the passage of the 1999 act when I think they had over 40% at that time, it was the Conservative party that had that majority prior to the hereditary peers leaving at that time.

Since removal no party has ever had more than 40% of the seats. Even if this bill is passed the government benches will still only be 28% of the seats of this House. I wasn't quite sure what he meant by the ratchet effect, he will know I have decried that I think it worked very badly under the last government where it seems that every time the government lost a view that might vote it would put more appears and even though it had a much larger group than any other party, much larger group than the opposition but still lost votes will top this thing about losing votes is often about the quality of the legislation never just about numbers and spaces whilst -- in this place.

I think the purpose behind Lord Lucas is amendment is that there has been in the media that the government, today's government is trying to remove hereditary Peers to create vacancies to bring in more Labour peers to create a majority. Can I be very clear, the noble Lord invited me to do this and be very clear, I'm on record including the Select Committee and the other place and here my view is very strongly that this House does its best work when there are roughly equal numbers between government and opposition parties.

I think I like to see House of Lords that is more deliberative, I think we got into some bad habits under the last government where it always came about we have got the numbers, we can get three. It started largely during the coalition government when I was a very large majority for the coalition and almost anything the coalition government wanted to do would get three. When you have got roughly equal numbers between both the main parties of government then I think we do our best work.

Because we are more deliberative in our approach, more engaged in how we work and not just thinking it's all about votes it is about the quality of debate on the quality of advice we can offer. The noble Lord mentions again about the Prime Minister making appointments, the Prime Minister does not make all appointments, they go through the Prime Minister and political parties nominate. The noble Lord smiles at me but he will know that under the last government the proportion of new appointments to the opposition was significantly lower than those the government took to itself.

That's why I given this figure before, at the end of the 2010 session when Labour had been in government we had 25 more years than After the same period of time, period of Conservative government, there will more than 100 more Conservative peers than Labour. That imbalance doesn't serve the House well, and I'd like to get back to having a better balance between parties. And perhaps an indication of good faith and this is despite the disparity in the parties, the last round of appointments, I know the Noble Lords did not expect, I know the Conservative opposition did not expect any new peers to be appointed, but on top of the resignation honours list still to come from the previous premise to Rishi Sunak, we suggested to the opposition thereby think six or seven new peers even given disparity in numbers, so I think that is in some good faith because I don't play the numbers game.

It doesn't serve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House well. He asked about... I do recognise the good faith

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do recognise the good faith that the government has shown so far, and I recognise and indeed we have acknowledged in our previous exchanges the different records of exchanges the different records of previous Conservative Prime Ministers in this regard. She's been very kind about my former boss, very kind about my former boss, Noble Friend Lady May. But once she gets to the roughly equal numbers of gets to the roughly equal numbers of the benches facing one another that she sees, does she see a case for putting in protection so that future Prime Ministers who may not behave with the same discretion that Sir Keir Starmer is currently behaving I'm sure with our support and encouragement, are not able to do what previous Prime Minister's have done to her dismay before? When we've talked about the need for some check on the number or the rate or the regularity with which Prime Minister's can recommend people and they go through the Prime Minister but at the time of the Prime Minister choosing and a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his choice, should there be a protection there? The Noble Lord tenants me. Wonder

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord tenants me. Wonder if he's trying to tempt me against if he's trying to tempt me against her future Cameron or Johnson premiership because that was the premiership because that was the time at which the numbers were increased, so have the same pressure from some of my own colleagues after the behaviour of previous Conservative governments. I hope Conservative governments. I hope there will be a need for it, but I do think it's something that in the future of premises were behaving in a way that was an appropriate intensive appointments, it would be appropriate, but I think it would be wrong at the moment to put that on.

I think there are other Bill talks about 20% crossbenchers, and whilst I think it's a fair number, things appropriate four crossbenchers to rally around 20% of the House, I wouldn't define that in statute because only defining one party of the statute or one group doesn't help the balance of the House. It's rather mixed them, so the governing party can't have more than 40 you have to then look at the balance between the rest of the House and not just one particular group.

I do agree with the Noble Lord on conventions. I have to say, I think the conventions are important and have stood the test of time. I would remind him, it's not just the Salisbury Convention. It's the Salisbury Addison conventions because there was a labour leader and the Conservative leader at the time agreed on conventions that have served this House well. They served us through the 1999 legislation and they will serve as well in the future, and I think we would all want to bind them because we do our best work when we look at the conventions and abide by the conventions as we did in opposition.

So I understand the sentiments behind the Noble Lord as well as having a lot of simply with him. I think the House works best in that way, but I think it's too restrictive the present and I respectfully ask that he withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the Noble Lords privacy of the conference of answer. We clearly agree on the state of parties that makes this House work best. We also agree I think who has pushed the percentages in a way that pushed the percentages in a way that perhaps they should not have done.
22:05
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

And it hasn't been the Labour Party. My concern is to produce a system which preserves the sort of balance that she and I agree we need. In the face of a future Prime Minister who face of a future Prime Minister who does not behave well of whatever colour probably our party, given the precedents. But either way, my concern is for the House more than party, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 36 be withdrawn? Amendment is believed withdrawn. Amendment is believed withdrawn. Amendment 37 Lord Lucas not moved? Amendment 37 Lord Lucas not moved? I'm not able to call amendment 38 or 49 as they are amendments to 49 as they are amendments to amendment 37. Amendment 40 Lord Lucas, not moved. Same applies with Lucas, not moved. Same applies with amendments 41 and 42. Amendment 43, amendments 41 and 42. Amendment 43, the Earl of Dundee? Not moved.

I'm not able to put amendment 40 4A because it is an amendment to the main amendment. Amendment 45 the Earl of Dundee not moved? I cannot put amendment 46. Amendment 47 not moved. Amendment 48? Not moved. Amendment 49? Not moved. Amendment 50? Not moved. Amendment 51? The Earl of Devon not moved. Amendment 52, Lord True not moved. Amendment 53 and 54 are amendments to 50 Amendment 53 and 54 are amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 52 so I cannot put those. I beg to move that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page