Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Lords Chamber

Wednesday 2nd July 2025

(began 13 hours, 34 minutes ago)

Share Debate

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

15:07

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I regret My Lords, I regret to My Lords, I regret to inform My Lords, I regret to inform the House of a death of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, yesterday, 1 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to family and friends. First Oral Question. First Oral Question. I'd be leave to ask the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name. Facial recognition is a valuable tool that helps the police identify tool that helps the police identify offenders and protect the public, whilst its use is governed by

15:08

Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

- -

whilst its use is governed by existing laws, the government is considering whether further clarity is needed to maintain public trust and confidence. and confidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since the groundbreaking act of 1984, for which noble Lords opposite 1984, for which noble Lords opposite might take some pride, it has been decided that in this country, police power is principally a matter for power is principally a matter for Parliament under statute, not incremental development by the courts and common rule. Can it be right, my Lords, that government right, my Lords, that government have allowed the procurement of this have allowed the procurement of this most intrusive technology and its

15:09

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

deployment to be a matter for discussion by 43 police forces, for example, in England and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say, her there is a range of legislation to provide protections for the public, including data protection, Equality & Human Rights protection, Equality & Human Rights Commission the surveillance camera Commission the surveillance camera code of practice, the professional practice and Information Commissioner and Equality & Human Rights Commission and His Majesty's Inspectorate and biometrics and Inspectorate and biometrics and surveillance Commissioner. If that surveillance Commissioner. If that is not enough, I say, the home is not enough, I say, the home Secretary has said, recently, they want to see a clear framework in want to see a clear framework in place, we aim to set out the plans shortly, it is an important tool and

15:10

Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shortly, it is an important tool and it helps to identify perpetrators. The reality is, recently, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The reality is, recently, in the press, there has been reports that press, there has been reports that two women, who were convicted for shoplifting, stopped by the police. Lifting, -- for shoplifting, down to this technology, there is a real issue as to the algorithms being used and also there is an issue regarding the inequality and accessibility, particularly in relation to black and ethnic minorities, where they are more likely to be misjudged as part of this technology.

15:10

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

There has been some discussion around the algorithms, some discussion around the use, accordingly, there were discussions with South Wales police who were dealing with that issue and those resulted in the fact that the laboratory tested the Aga them and found no statistically significant distance -- difference. It is for those reasons the Home Secretary wants to examine how this framework is in place and, for the same reasons, my honourable friend mentioned, making sure there is clarity and oversight and the plethora of organisations I mentioned at the start are examined in a way that makes effective oversight and clarity for police forces.

15:11

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, our concerns should extend yawned facial recognition technology. To the wide range of technologies, some of which are very intrusive, they are coming down the track and many have been used by police forces in other countries. Would the government consider appointing an independent regulator to establish carefully guardrails -- clear guardrails so that any of this technology that the police want to use will be made to be absolutely proportionate and necessary.

proportionate and necessary.

15:12

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I am grateful. I understand the concerns, and I understand why people want to use the framework. There are a pressure of organisations looking at different aspect, what might right honourable friend is trying to do is look at that and give a clear guidance for the use of what I still say to the House is an effective tool. If this helps stop crime, identifying potential individuals through intelligence, it is a good thing.

15:13

Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)

- -

I thank the Minister for the answer to the question, he did not answer the part of the question that referred to procurement of this technology because that long list of accountability organisations that he mentioned do not, for the most part, examined procurement, and if they do, it is only in line with plans for climates and not considerations of national security.

15:13

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I tried to answer my honourable friend's initial question, but the issue of document is another issue we are looking at, what we are trying to do within the current look to policing is look at what areas of work we can bring in centrally where we have guidance and support for 43 police forces, the operating without pre-empting my right honourable friend's review, one area that is potentially clear is to give greater guidance and procurement on issues such as facial recognition and, indeed, other forms of preventative activity by police forces.

15:14

Lord Boateng (Labour)

- -

The US government study suggests that facial recognition are far less accurate in identifying African- American and Asian faces compared to Caucasian faces. And African- American and Asian women are more likely to be misidentified than Caucasian women. That can be anything up to 10 to 100 times more likely than misidentified. They have identified 99 filaments, including Toshiba, and Chinese firms, as potential problems in this area of procurement. What research is the UK government going to commission and how are these firms to be treated for the purposes of procurement by police forces in this country? police forces in this country?

15:15

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

My noble friend touches on issues which are important, I refer back to the point I mentioned, a recent survey of existing use of facial technology estimated that there was no discrepancy between gender and no discrepancy between gender and race. My noble friend shows the satisfaction, what I will say, those are the factors we want to look at in the guidance that my right honourable friend is looking at bringing forward those issues, evidently, if we are going to use this technology, it needs to be accurate and regulated and proportionate and intelligence led and it needs to be organised in a way that does not discriminate against sex, race, or any other

15:16

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

Noble Lords have had the opportunity to be briefed by the Met police on facial admissions and on both occasions, it was clear, and the Met admitted that they do not have clear oversight which is what the noble Lord the Minister also admitted in an earlier answer. So when is the government going to put in some clear regulations? In what other area of public faith in pleasing to the police make up their own rules?

15:16

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Is interesting the noble Lady mentions she has been to meeting with the Metropolitan Police. That is part of a regular series of stakeholder engagement meetings that are being undertaken by the policing minister currently, with the police, with the current regulators, with civil society groups and with others. The purpose of those discussions is to gauge the sort of opinion that the noble Baroness has brought forward now so that we can, as I have said, look at the police using facial recognition in a framework set by the Home Secretary.

She may be inpatient on that but the issue has been identified by the Home Office, it has actioned by the Home Secretary and we will bring forward proposals in due course to try to resolve the various tensions that have been put to me this afternoon. afternoon.

15:17

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Next to North Korea, the UK rates as one of the greatest countries for having a great surveillance presence. Not a bad thing in my book. But we have heard from the government that they are exploring whether legislation is to theory, and, asked the government, although brother minister, what steps the government are taking to address public concerns on this because clearly there is a great deal of concern for stock, ask how this might tie in with the position and ID cards? ID cards?

15:18

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful for his support for a range of surveillance matters. CCTV for example is one of the greatest crime preventing tools that have been brought in in the last 30 years and it actually shows what has happened at an event, what might have been perceived to have happened so it is a valuable tool. As with DNA, as with CCTV, as with essentially facial recognition, In the principles of the police having the trust of the community is paramount.

That is why again, going back to Baroness Jones, we have tried to consult and look at and meet with and get a range of views on this issue before we bring forward essentially some better regulations on the point Baroness Chakrabarti has brought forward. As to ID cards, when I was last there Home Office minister in 2009/10, we had ID cards. I had ID card number three at that particular time. It proved to be useless because the government abolished ID cards in around 2011.

If he wishes to bring them back, that's a debate we can have and I look forward to engaging him on the topic but it wasn't me who abolished them.

15:19

Oral questions: Assessment of the costs of the recent works on the security door to Peers’ entrance

Second Oral Question.

15:19

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is unacceptable that the piers entrance does not operate as it entrance does not operate as it should. The commission has directed should. The commission has directed urgent work to resolve this. The commission agreed an exception to commission agreed an exception to release the cost of the work of the piers entrance, particularly as much piers entrance, particularly as much of the cost relates to building and infrastructure works. The total cost has been £9.6 million. The cost to remedy defects will not be borne by remedy defects will not be borne by the House and will be met by the Parliament's contractors.

15:20

Lord Robathan (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament's contractors. Do not hold the senior deputy speaker responsible for the scandal speaker responsible for the scandal but it is a scandalous waste of public money. Who gave the security advice on the use of store and that ridiculous fence? I was on the Joint Committee for security for five years. We never discussed that. Who was responsible and who is accountable by name for the huge increase currently 50%, in spending on the door, off now only £10 million, a door that doesn't work? Somebody accountable should be identified and should perhaps resign for this terrible waste of public money.

money.

15:20

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords, this is a very serious matter and obviously as I have said before, the backdrop to this was that Murphy review and indeed validated by the Centre for protection of National Infrastructure Plan the West front and this part of the Palace had considerable vulnerabilities. The director of security and the director of security estates who were responsible for the programme work to outside contractors, they report to the clerk of the Parliaments and the clerk of the House who are the accounting officers, and what I would like to take the opportunity of saying is that the Lord Speaker has written to the noble Lord Lord force to request that he given his experience for 10 years as Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office, look into the piers entrance works, to examine the programme specifications and the cost, and my Lords I will be placing a copy of the Lord Speaker's letter in the library so that noble Lords can have a look.

a look.

15:22

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

I wonder if you are able to tell the House how much the estimate was for this development in the first place and how much... You told us how much it finally cost but how much the estimate was originally?

15:22

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

Again I have to preface what Lord Rowbotham said, I'm not directly responsible for all this but my understanding is the cost originally was £6.1 million. And there were changes the course of planned works of technical issues and one of the particular problems will start they had to divert a gas mains below ground which originally passed through the entrance structure, some through the entrance structure, some of security abilities, the cost of significant structural and ground works.

So there were additional costs but my understanding is the first some that I have been given was £6.1 million.

15:22

Lord Hayward (Conservative)

- -

The senior deputies speaker has just identified the total cost in relation to the peers entrance. Before I do so I would like to identify that both houses are currently recruiting a new chief commercial officer. Which is going to cost £1 million in this Parliament. Under current circumstances, that is utterly unacceptable. Returning to the question of the peers entrance, senior deputy speaker said the total cost, the staff manning the outdoor calculator than the written answer he provided to me, is costing £2500 a week.

That cost has to be borne by someone. Could you please identify, by whom, and when?

15:23

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

Let me take some of that away so I get absolutely the precise answer. Dealing with the first question, one of the areas that I think we have not been good at, and by we I think the administration kindly is in project delivery capability and one of the reasons why it was decided that the commercial director at which is now joint directorate, is that we must improve delivery capability. That is what we are looking, with the appointment of the commercial director, they are large sums of money but in the end, this is what the commercial rates are and I'm afraid I'm still of a generation who thinks £100 is a lot of money.

But that is the situation. On the issue of the number of people that are involved in the manual use of the door while it is being repaired and made to use, I'm sure they are within the existing compartment of members of staff, but I'm mindful that the noble Lord Lord Hayward has asked me those questions and I will return to him put again a copy in the library so there is transparency.

15:25

Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We spent a lot of money on the entrance. Another lot of money on the fencing. But we still have the bag searches being done inside that secure area in the centre were a lot of people gather. So when is somebody going to address security problem of the bag searches in our midst? midst?

15:25

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

That is part of the future programme. I'm afraid to say, as we have seen with the door and the fence, the proposals are coming for more security operations in this part of the Palace and one of the areas that is going to be addressed is the point the noble Lord has raised. raised.

15:26

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord the senior deputies speaker has faced quite a number of questions on this but actually what a number of them come back to the question of who makes decisions in this place? What are the lines of accountability, is to line of accountability through the clerk of the Parliaments? And in this case, the clerk of the other place through as accounting officers? Or is it through members? And would be possible for him to succinctly explain how this works and how decisions are made and who therefore checks on these matters? Because I think there's a real danger that things for between this -- for between, this is a matter for this and that.

15:26

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

I think he makes a very valid point and something that has troubled me for some time. On this particular matter, of the peers entrance, the project business case has undergone a process of standard professional scrutiny. The clerk of both houses ultimately scrutinised and approved those costs following advice from the investment committee which is chaired by the two finalists committee director of each houses. What I will say is that going forward, the Finance Committee in this House, which has up-to-date head reports to it on major programs, they will be asked to supplement their work with enhanced cushioning of both costs and performance on a quarterly basis.

I would however say, as I'm very close to my colleague, it is part of the Department that is the accounting officer and legal officer and in the end the responsibility is directly in his hands.

15:27

Lord Dobbs (Conservative)

- -

We were discussing this issue and I made a mistake, I suggested that the Richard front entrance had cost us much as Grenfell Tower. I'm sorry I completely misunderstood, misread the briefing. I don't feel comfortable leaving such a silly comparison like that and corrected on the record so I hope that he and indeed the whole House will accept my apology for such a silly error on such a serious issue.

15:28

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

Well, I think the House takes that in the spirit and the manner in which the noble Lord made those remarks, both in their way are serious. Obviously the tragedy of what happened in Grenfell Tower remains with us always. But clearly also, the security imperative of protecting everyone in this palace is also often imperative but we also need to ensure that it is with value for money and actually the wretched thing then works.

15:28

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

- -

I say tongue in cheek, the best is often a real problem going for that and the terms of protection and there is a real risk of going for more and more and more to project us and in the final analysis can't totally protect everyone and really to be very careful. You talk about where we might move the way of looking at, to see what goods are held, that is going to cost another 10 million, 15 Min. Do we really need these things? There's a risk all of us have to take.

all of us have to take.

15:29

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

Again noble Lord makes a powerful point and clearly there's always the important balance between access and security and they are key considerations as we as parliamentarians need to do our work and indeed those who work here. I think this is one of the areas that we need to reflect on and particularly in terms of the peers entrance, the balance of security access, and indeed uses part are seeking to use the entrance. -- Users that are seeking to use the entrance.

15:29

Oral questions: Representations to the government of India about the position of minorities in that country Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)

Third Oral Question. Paper.

15:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

India is a multifaith, multi- ethnic and multilingual democracy and remains among the most diverse societies in the world. It is home to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians and other religions, it should be proud of this diversity. The UK contains a broad, deep and respect for partnership with India which includes dialogue on human rights and minority issues. The British High Commissioner in New Delhi along with our wide network across India monitors the human rights situation and engages with government and civil society stakeholders concerns arise we raise them directly with Indian counterparts.

counterparts.

15:30

Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)

- -

I thank her for reply. India is one of the great democracies of the world and it is even more sad that the present government is so repressive of a range of minorities, so that even academics who speak up against the government find themselves oppressed. I particularly like to draw the Minister's attention to the advantage community whose tradition tribal lands are very heavily militarised, for example in the region of the state of Chhattisgarh sir, there are armed encampments along the road and for every nine civilians there is one armed guard leading to human rights abuses and the imprisonment of innocent protesters.

What steps the government taking to make representations to the Indian government about this community in government about this community in

15:31

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

We have a network across India and we will raise issues such as those that humans but we keep a very close eye on human rights in India, whatever the nature of our relationship with any particular government, we will raise issues as and when we need to. and when we need to.

15:32

Baroness Thornton (Labour)

- -

What steps is the government taking to urge the government of India to ratify key International Human Rights Day to and withdraw reservations of existing commitments to combine the law with international law, particularly on Castor and religious discrimination. Castor and religious discrimination.

15:32

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

We raise these issues with the Indian government, as she would expect, clearly, it is for India to make its own choices and we do not have... Many decades thankfully, since we were in a position to do otherwise, we continue to have them put the appropriate conversations that she would wish Westinghouse, as I said, there are some things, human rights, that are universal and that is the way that this government is the way that this government approaches these issues.

15:32

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

On freedom of religion or belief,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On freedom of religion or belief, sought from the government of India, ahead of the trade deal, the U.K.'s independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will scrutinise the Free Trade Agreement and report on Trade Agreement and report on whether the measures are consistent with UK protections to animals, with UK protections to animals, plant life, animal welfare and the environment. What, if any, scrutiny

15:33

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

environment. What, if any, scrutiny is carried out on welfare of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Christians and other minorities? We do raise the issues that he is concerned about directly with the concerned about directly with the government of India, the issues government of India, the issues around animal welfare, plants, they around animal welfare, plants, they all relate to trade and our ability to trade fairly and be fair to our producers in the UK, they are part producers in the UK, they are part of the trade negotiation which is, of the trade negotiation which is, in many ways, separate to the conversations we would be having anyway, regardless of where we stand with our relationship when it comes

15:34

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

to trade.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady, whilst in opposition, was in the same division lobby as myself on a motion that said every trade agreement, going forward, should have human rights forward, should have human rights chapters. At the Dispatch Box, the baroness said the India agreement would not have human rights would not have human rights chapters. If we are to be having discussions with our friends, with discussions with our friends, with regards to the human rights, labour laws, the standards of supply chains, where will we see human

15:34

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

rights reflected in our trade arrangements, if not in a Free Trade Agreement? I think the nature of our relationship with the government of India changes in accordance with the nature of our position in relation to these conversations, it is a judgement, isn't it? Are these things best progress in a way we want to see if we take a hard line as part of a trade agreement are the best progress in other ways, it is about getting the right outcome for our relationship and human rights and...

It is a constant judgement, we are dealing with the trade negotiation in a separate attract to the conversations about human rights, slightly different when it comes to labour rights and the treatment of workers and those issues, but I think it is fair for him to raise that and use, in opposition, methods to raise concerns that we might not feel we want to use in government.

15:35

The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)

- -

As the noble Baroness has said, it is vitally important that His Majesty's Government leverages the influence to try and ease the tensions that are arising. However, the government has a more fundamental duty to make sure that these tensions are not imported into the United Kingdom. A Home Office report, commissioned by the Home Secretary, pointed out that Hindu nationalism was one of the most serious threat to domestic security. What is the noble Baroness the Minister doing to prevent foreign nationalism becoming an internal threat.

15:36

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I think this is a matter of great concern and the government, as he says, is taking this very seriously, not just in relation to Hindu nationalism but other forms as well. We are concerned about this, we talk with colleagues in the Home Office and my noble friend, the faith Minister, and other colleagues at local government apartments as well, it is not something that we wish to see enacted. We will take steps as and when we need to.

15:37

The Lord Bishop of Guildford (Bishops)

- -

On freedom of religion and belief, and how you engage with the Indian government on the misuse of those laws to target religious minorities, especially Christians and bosoms? and bosoms?

15:37

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I would add other communities to that list, I think it is obviously a concern, though there is no room for confusion -- convergent laws, it is not something we want to see, as I said, when other issues have been raised, we will continue to raise these as appropriate, usually in private with the government of India. India.

15:37

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, it is right that we criticise the treatment of minorities in India, where a historic mosque was demolished to build a Hindu temple. The home Minister describes Muslims as termites. Where a young British seat has been detained and tortured for years. Would the Minister agree that our condemnation would carry far more weight if we were seen to treat non-Abraham communities fairly in this country? The case she reported, in 2016, gave numerous examples of hate crimes against Christians and Jewish people and Muslims, no mention of non-Abrahamic faiths.

We now talk of additional detection and funding against anti-Semitism and islamophobia. Again, ignoring the suffering of non-Abrahamic faiths. I must declare an interest, I speak as a seat, leaving in the equal treatment of people of all faiths and beliefs.

15:39

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I do not think there is anybody in this House he would not agree that we should believe and we do believe in equal treatment of all people of all faiths and all beliefs. This is fundamental to who we are, we have laws which support that, and the vast majority of people in this country support that as well. Where we for short, although there are problems in communities, there are steps which should be taken and this government support that.

support that.

15:39

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I would like to express disappointment, as Lord Purvis has expressed, in terms of the lack of human rights chapters in the trade agreement with India. If you look at the report from 2024, huge amounts of concerns expressed, whether it is the detention of journalists, the bulldozer justice, whether it is issues in the enjoyable cashmere, are just going to raise issues with the Indian government, what are we going to get back other than having words with them? Has the government dropped the ball with this trade agreement.

15:40

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)

- -

I hear the challenge, I do, it is judgement, isn't it, you try to get a trade agreement with the government of India, is that best served by including measures on human rights, with that jeopardise the trade agreement? Should that happen? Or, are you going to see the reaction you like to see, in terms of human rights, by standing of human rights, by standing firm$$JOIN... I do not want know which is the best. We are dealing with the trade going and also having conversations about human rights, from where we are at the moment, that is the right thing to do, treating the government of India with respect and allowing us to have those conversations, which are, I would say, often more fruitful had in private than other ways we could go about this.

15:41

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I bacon the youth ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I core principle of government is that ministers are accountable for decision-making. It is right we are the principal representatives of the the principal representatives of the government in the public sphere, as a civil servant much mention makes a civil servant much mention makes clear, civil servants must clear an advanced material for publication, broadcast or other public discussion broadcast or other public discussion that draws on official information or experience, as it has done for several years, the government several years, the government continues to approve public identity by civil servants on a case-by-case basis and civil servants continue to

15:42

Lord Butler of Brockwell (Crossbench)

- -

basis and civil servants continue to be accountable to select committees in the usual way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If senior public servants cannot address their staff or answer their questions without first having created ministers everything they are going to say, they risk losing are going to say, they risk losing their public personal authority and

15:42

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

they become not leaders but puppets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I need to reassure your Lordships House, especially the noble Lord, there is no such guidance that would prohibit leaders within the Civil Service from engaging or talking to their staff in any form. The only their staff in any form. The only guidance that exists in terms that would need to be rigid is Number 10. would need to be rigid is Number 10. The noble Lord will be aware of the The noble Lord will be aware of the process, given that he introduced it.

Anything that pertains to the

15:43

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

it. Anything that pertains to the media, nothing that pertains to engage with staff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister agreed that while senior officers, for example, our senior officers, for example, our crown service, and it is appropriate for them to descend from or challenge government policy in public, nevertheless, if they are constrained to being little more constrained to being little more than oral press releases, then these all credit ability, surely it is within any government interest that

15:43

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

they be allowed to address, publicly, the professional challenges that they face in an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honest and open manner. At that point, I should declare my status in the Royal Navy before I my status in the Royal Navy before I get myself in trouble. Obviously, the senior service, I would want to hear from the first Sea Lord. I hear from the first Sea Lord. I think it is clear that there is no such restriction, this is about how such restriction, this is about how we do the grading process, as the noble Lord will be aware, the chief of general staff did a speech at the of general staff did a speech at the conference which was broadcast live conference which was broadcast live on 17 June, with an open Q&A, this is about making sure there is a clear process for government communications as opposed to

15:44

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

- -

communications as opposed to restricting speech.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is very important not to believe everything we read in the newspaper. Particularly at the moment. Would she confirm that what the government is doing is giving guidance to members of the Armed guidance to members of the Armed Forces, the Civil Service and the NHS about when and how they can

15:44

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

NHS about when and how they can speak in public and to make clear on whose behalf they are speaking, is that not sensible?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend makes an important point, we are living in an important point, we are living in an age of disinformation, there was a response putting on others to make sure there are clear communication sure there are clear communication channels, especially when we talk about issues pertaining to policy which has been made by politicians. which has been made by politicians. I also think it is important, at a point when we are trying to return point when we are trying to return to a politics of service, and re- establish the use of the Nolan principles, which is one have been principles, which is one have been added to the Ministerial Code, it is politicians that are hand accountable for policy decisions and accountable for policy decisions and they are the ones who are challenged

15:45

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the media. I was peasant at the conference

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was peasant at the conference to which the noble Lady referred. It is indeed the case the Chief of the is indeed the case the Chief of the Air Staff is a very welcome and full address. But there was another representative from the MoD he made explicit clear that he was unable to speak publicly and we were all asked to honour that undertaking and not repeat the remarks that he made. Going back to the Minister's observations, about the need, there is a difference between a great and censorship.

There is a concern that treating some of our senior public

15:46

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I used to run an organisation called Index on Censorship. We should be careful about the use of that word and how it's applied to here versus the political dissidents are used to present. She talks about something that everybody in this room has participated in, Chatham House rules discussion. And with regard to the specific point the noble Lady Raisi switches the land warfare conference it was completely appropriate Lee, it was the head of the army that led the discussion.

She will also be aware this is a cyclical new story that appears regularly, after all in 2020, the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was accused of gagging his head of the Navy.

15:47

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Politics in government are necessary and informed dialogue. Between ministers and civil servants. And between senior civil servants and outside experts. We need to maintain the ability of people who are expert policymakers to have that dialogue, and if it is felt that senior officers cannot honestly discuss, and I used to work in short house and do such things, -- Chatham House, decent policies, can the government make clear that senior civil servants have to engage with the outside professions which their policy-making responsibilities interloper?

15:47

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Ongoing engagement with stakeholders who ever they may be is absolutely key. The noble Lords will be aware I do, one of my responsibilities is to discuss the infected blood enquiry. There is a responsibility on our civil servants to engage everyday both with the infected community and with those charities that represent them. That is true of the part of government business and this is vital civil servant still have, are available to do so which is why this government has not changed any such policy.

15:48

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

The noble Baroness the Minister will be aware that under changes to the Civil Service code brought in the late Lord Hayward Whitehall was head of the civil service, officials are forbidden to speak to journalists without the express agreement of ministers. It's also the case, quite rightly, policy officials should only ever speak in public with the express agreement of ministers. Does the noble Baroness the Minister agree that for officials in implementation functions such as project management, the gagging order is unnecessary because these officials are already wrongly seen as second class citizens, blue-collar compared class citizens, blue-collar compared to the Whitehall, policy officials.

to the Whitehall, policy officials. We will not recruit the best of we have to in frontline them. have to in frontline them.

15:49

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

There is no such gagging order, this is about the grid system and making sure that if someone wishes to participate in an event there will be media present, a request goes through the head of comms from the government department that is available to all officials regardless of their status and this is about make sure we have a clear communications channel which every government since 1998, since 1997 has used in terms of the operation has used in terms of the operation of Number 10.

15:49

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Labour)

- -

I would like to he contribution as the former General Secretary of the Civil Service trade union which was affiliated, at the same time as Lord Butler, was the head of the Civil Service. There are times when it is difficult to speak about what is going on my personal experience, but the great thing was to have a dialogue going with Lord Butler at the time, about how these issues could be addressed. Having to be addressed publicly and how they could be addressed within the trade union.

It's a question of commonsense, it's a question of dialogue and knowing where the red lines are and I believe that that is still the case.

15:50

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

There is very little I can add to my noble friend except to say I completely, I believe her statement to be absolutely true where we currently stand. currently stand.

15:50

Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Conservative)

- -

Could I ask the noble Lady...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had a long career and a variety

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had a long career and a variety of governments going back to the early 1970s and in my last post, under the Cameron government, I was introduced to the grid system, which had been developed in the 21st- had been developed in the 21st- century which I found utterly ridiculous and quite inimicable the ridiculous and quite inimicable the proper government of the country. Nowadays there is an army of young men and women who are led to believe that they have got complete control that they have got complete control of the ministers and civil servants, as they endeavour in their various ways to defend their policies and ways to defend their policies and explain to the general public what explain to the general public what it is they are about.

At the moment I think the staff of Number 10 has reached about 300 of whom quite a number believe themselves to be experts in PR, although as we have seen at the moment they are doing a seen at the moment they are doing a fairly dreadful job. Is the government prepared to re-examine this way of doing things in a modern this way of doing things in a modern democracy and contemplate going back to more genuine Cabinet government to more genuine Cabinet government and more responsibility on ministers and senior civil servants about how they explain the government lie actions to the wider world? -- actions to the wider world? -- Government's actions to the wider Government's actions to the wider -- Happy.

-- Happy.

15:52

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I can't believe any civil servant or special adviser would have any luck controlling you. There is nothing unusual about efforts to make sure that government communications have a clear line. Noble Lords, noble members will remember Joe Haines, we have always had efforts to have clear communications and had PR professionals. In terms of the grid, it's been around for a long time. It was introduced before I even got the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. That concludes Oral Questions. Members wishing to leave can do so

15:53

Business of the House

15:57

Legislation: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - report stage (day 1) - part 1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hereditary Peers bill. I beg to move this report been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out received. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not

15:57

Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Conservative)

- -

"Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 1, amendment one, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Roberts of Belgravia. I beg to leave to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to leave to move the amendment, sorry, amendment one standing in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The adjective historic is bandied about for too often in electrics covering also some things that are unlikely to detain historians of the future. Football matches, TV shows, any number of announcements in the any number of announcements in the other place, are routinely described as historic, when they simply are as historic, when they simply are not. The other day I saw a hamburger described as historic. Today however, our debate about the abolition of the elements of our house after the hundred years of service is indeed historic and will be studied by historians in years to come.

We should so conduct ourselves that as Andrew Marr full road, his execution, future historians will execution, future historians will say that we nothing common to Norwegian peanut mumble scene. His Majesty's Government is about to do Majesty's Government is about to do something mean-spirited, and including the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain in this Lord Great Chamberlain in this legislation, because these two noble Lords undertake totally different roles on behalf of the Crown and state than any other of the Hereditary Peers.

Roles that greatly benefit from their being members of this House. Exercising these two Hereditary Peers from this bill would be an easy and cost list way both to show gratitude to them for their hard work in unpaid roles, but also crucially to allow them to stay in close touch with the members of your Lordship's House that the service efficiently. We all know the history. The office of Lord Great Chamberlain dates back to the Norman conquest when William the Conqueror appointed Roger Malet to superintend the improvements of Westminster Palace.

He did it by the way on time and under budget. As I'm sure will also be the case in the restoration renewal project. The office was made hereditary by Henry I in 1133 which is more than three quarters of a century before the nights we see above us here, forcing John to sign Magna Carta. For some reason, Lord Great Chamberlain is at the right in law to demand the clothes worn by the moniker at his or her coronation.

Although James I had just arrived from Chile Edinburgh and didn't want to part with them so he paid 200 so he paid £200 in lieu and similarly Queen Anne pay £300 to and similarly Queen Anne pay £300 to The Earl Marshal organisers occasions, this office was founded in 1135 and although Richard the third appointed the Duke of Norfolk in 1440, it only became hereditary Peers in 1672. According to the biography of King Charles III, when the present Duke asked his father about the complexities of organising the funeral, he replied, I organised the cards division crossing the Rhine in 24-hour is, I think I can organise a funeral.

It was he who codenamed the funeral Operation London Bridge, the organisation fell to his son, which he undertook superbly, as I'm sure many will agree. The ability of this country agree. The ability of this country Is one of the key aspects of the soft power about which we hear so much. Approximately 4.1 billion people around the world watched the funeral of Queen Elizabeth the second. This is estimated to be more than half the world's population, it was the most watched broadcast event in history, surpassing the 1996 Atalanta Olympics opening ceremony.

Over 2 billion people in 125 countries watch the coordination of the present King. These are opportunities to show the country at its best, appears mention in this amendment are central to them. We should try to make their job easier Differentiated between the efficient and dignified part of the constitution. The other place highlighted as the efficient part, however unlikely that might sound today. The monarchy being the dignified part. The point about the Earl Marshal is that they are dignified and efficient.

To spare them from this Bill would be done on the grounds that membership of this House would allow them to maintain the contact more easily that help them perform their duties. The Lord Great Chamberlain will be intimately involved in the restoration and projects. Because of his response was teased for the fabric of the Royal Gallery and robing room. It will be easier for him to undertake if he was a member of this House rather than an outsider. The people who run with Hall, the Lord Speaker, the speaker of the House of commons and him.

Nothing happens without all three of them but he would be the only one who is not a member of either House of Parliament. We seemingly can't build high road and rail links any more... Any longer or conduct public enquiries for less than £200 million or open Hammersmith Bridge to cars in less than half a decade, the restoration and project stated to take longer than the Victorians took to build the palace after the great Fire of 1834. We are familiar, as we heard, with the exciting saga of the front door, which is ever evolving and rarely revolving.

In a sense, the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are the opposite of that, they work well, cheaply and efficiently, but we are about to penalised and hampered the architect of our state ceremonial, it is as though we were looking for the one area of public life that works and deliberately trying to sabotage. What if, God forbid, anything went wrong in a state ceremony and there were criticisms of the Earl Marshal all the Lord Great Chamberlain in this chamber, they would not be able to speak up in their defence.

But surely an offence against justice. These public servants, entirely unpaid, in his 1994 book, Christopher Hollis wrote, where people are willing to serve their men without monetary abroad, let us take advantage of their readiness. Instead of taking advantage, we seem to be exiling them from the House. The eager terrorism, such a motivating part of the creed, for better or worse, has reached its ludicrous stage when it forces the Earl Marshal to queue up in the pass office to get a visitor landlord -- and yard.

Even the most eagerly Terry on the benches opposite must recognise there is something wrong about us treating and gratefully to noblemen whose crime is to have agreed to their sovereign's request to serve the country in the way their ancestors have for generations. In this building, where every brick exudes history, are we going to expel the holders of two of the great offices of state? Even the tribunal of the French Revolution spared two% of the aristocrats who were dragged in front of them for more justice, allowing them to escape the structures of the guillotine.

Here, your two%. In the persons of the Earl Marshal and the great chamber. The government is, in percentage terms, going to be even more inflexible and ideological. Membership of the House of Lords for these two the noble Lord would cost nothing, but it is away thanking them for centuries of efficient and invaluable service to the state. Indeed, to strip them of it is an act of ingratitude and I hope the government will think again. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, at the end insert letter A1. In section of

16:07

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

insert letter A1. In section of House of Lords Act 1999, excision of hereditary peers, insert except for the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.

16:07

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

I very much enjoyed the last contribution, I'm sure that we all did, I think we are encouraged to declare if we are hereditary, I will do so, the irrelevance of which was bought out to me at breakfast when one of my life period colleagues said to me did not realise I was a hereditary. As a House has heard from me, at each stage of the Bill, I am hesitant to speak again, members will be comforted to know I am not here next week, this will be my last opportunity to contribute.

Assuming we parse it this week. I have great respect and friendship for my crossbench colleague, the Lord Great Chamberlain, and have told what I propose to say. I am not clear why ceremonial duties should come with the right to legislate by sitting and voting in the House of Lords. I would point, rather, to his string of contributions successful vote last evening, as a better measure of his commitment and worth to this House. That is the same metric I would apply to any of us, so called hereditary Peers, regardless of the performing royal ceremony duties, only which would apply that to Life Peers.

I would add, I have the same view, albeit milder, on special pleading for other automatic appointments, such as the Lord Chancellor, as at amendment 10, in group 9, they should be selected rather than have a legal right to expect they will come here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What an honour to follow on from my noble friend. To whose amendment my noble friend. To whose amendment I added my name. There is little that I could possibly add to the that I could possibly add to the excellent remarks. I will not waste your Lordships time in repeating the your Lordships time in repeating the same arguments in a less fashion. I same arguments in a less fashion. I would like to emphasise that the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are essential components of the framework within this country.

It would be a bad day for country. It would be a bad day for the government if the holders of these offices are no longer able to these offices are no longer able to carry out their duties freely and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without impediment. I rise briefly to address amendment one and ask specific

16:09

The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)

- -

amendment one and ask specific questions relating to the Earl Marshal and Lord Bichard Berlin, in closing, count the noble Baroness confirm what discussions she might have had to confirm that the ceremony rules will remain wholly unchanged following the passage of the Bill. As Lord Roberts has stated, we owed them a huge debt of gratitude for their remarkable service during the recent succession of King Charles III. Has anyone, proposing or opposing the amendment, consulted with the current holders of these offices? I spoke with the Earl Marshal this morning, he was happy for me to confirm the House that he does insist upon his continued service in the role of Earl Marshal, but he does not think a seat in this House should be reserved for his hereditary self.

Perhaps it could be made available to somebody of a more diverse background, he suggested. Hereditary Peers, our time is up, we should accept that and go gracefully.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I put my name to Lord Roberts's amendment and I did so

16:11

Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)

- -

Roberts's amendment and I did so because though it seems like a small point, I think it is part of a bigger point, I'm afraid Lord Cromwell is mistaken in thinking that the Lord Beecham is here because of his ceremony duties, it is the other way round, the ceremonial duties have emerged over time from the fundamental duties of the Lord which him. The Lord Great Chamberlain, this is a practical point, has a great many practical duties, they include the organisation of great occasions Westminster Hall, joint response booty for the control of Westminster Hall and the chapel, the organisation when heads of state visit, such as President Macron next week, the sole responsible team for the robing room, staircase and gallery.

The ballot for the state opening. And correspondence with individuals and organisations relating to the Palace of Westminster. Those are practical things and we need to ask ourselves whether if the Lord Great Chamberlain was to be removed from this place, that they would be so well accomplished. If they would not be, what possible advantage could there be in removing them? It is true, the Earl Marshal's rule is much more ceremonial, I will come out that in a moment. It should be obvious that performance of these tasks is best fulfilled by a full member of the House.

The Lord Great Chamberlain needs to know the people here, he needs to know our hopes and fears, conventions and rules and traditions and our quirks. It is a very nice and encouraging that the present Lord Great Chamberlain is often visible in this chamber, observing the habits of the tribe of which he is a member. I do not see how it could be done better any other way. If he cannot sit here, it is inevitable that his personal knowledge of the place will decline, and his successor will have no such knowledge.

I endorse what Lord Roberts said about the restoration and renewal project, very competitive project, it is important he is able to do his job in representing the views of the manic on these matters... The interest of the manic. In doing so, he needs to understand what we think, so he can say something that reflects reality. His fundamental one is to maintain the crucial and historic link between the monarchy and Parliament, I think we can trust him when he represents the monarch's interest because he is one of us and we can have a friend.

What good comes of fraying that link? I turned to the role of the Earl Marshal. The points made about our connection with the monarchy apply to him as well. I want to mention something else, this is not the first time that the Earl Marshal had been removed from this House, it is interesting what actually happened, it tells us something, as is well known, the Duke of Norfolk is almost always Roman Catholic and continue to hold the place under tolerant one X in the past but Parliament was not so tolerant.

Until 1824, they were excluded, the Dukes of Norfolk were excluded, but continued to be ill is Marshall. This creates inconvenience in which they had to create deputy Earl Marshal. They got round it by appointing Protestant cousins to the appointing Protestant cousins to the post. In 1824, a Bill was brought in to change that and allow the catholic Norfolk's to come into this House. An important Bill because it was the forerunner of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, thanks to the ancestor of the liberal Duke, who surprisingly took a very modernised a few, and said he would resign if it did not get through, catholic emancipation came in and decided a whole series of emancipation is which changed the franchise, the qualifications for university, all sorts.

Rather important. I was sorry to hear the noble Earl quoting the current Earl Marshal saying that one adversity should be encouraged because, actually, the Norfolk's brought great diversity, they were the catholic voice in this House at a time when it was not allowed. So, isn't it strange that, in this 21st-century, we are trying to kick out the Roman Catholics from this Parliament and narrow, in some sense Parliament and narrow, in some sense Parliament and narrow, in some sense This amendment points to something quite big because the history of your Lordship's House and Parliament shows the evolution of a careful and sometimes hotly contested nation ship between Parliament and the monarch.

Most of the roles and offices of our state have reflected this, indeed the very phrase Prime Minister for example reflects the fact the Chief Executive of the government is the First Minister the sovereign. And the legitimacy of our institutions depends on respect for this history, and legitimacy somewhat under threat today. When we disrespect legitimacy, as Tony Blair did when he interfered, attempted to interfere of another great office, that of Lord Russell, chip away at out legitimacy and rendering our situation more of a husk and less of a living thing.

I will end with a reminder that in May 1945, when Winston Churchill and quite a lot of other things on his mind such as Victory in Europe Day, it was his first instinct to write to the Earl Marshal and say, let's bring back the state opening of parliament, which we have had to spend to the entirety of the Second World War. And I think when he did that he was showing an instinctive respect for our traditional constitutional arrangements and I feel we should do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the same. Are we going to hear all day the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are we going to hear all day the cry of frontbench? I think in this cry of frontbench? I think in this House, the tradition is that those on the backbenches are permitted as fellow peers to make a contribution fellow peers to make a contribution in our debates. I also, if I may say, have never had the proposition that someone who is hereditary Peer that someone who is hereditary Peer should have to declare that. I hope very much if that is the principle that is being pushed that when we come to debate the principle of democratic house, but those who are Life Peers will declare their interest in responding to that noble interest in responding to that noble Lord Lord Newby.

This isn't a profitable way to go and I think as profitable way to go and I think as was said very wisely earlier, should was said very wisely earlier, should conduct a debate with Amity and with conduct a debate with Amity and with respect which other and a degree of tolerance. History does actually tolerance. History does actually matter. It matters greatly. And it

16:18

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

matter. It matters greatly. And it was no accident that in 1999, the then Labour government decided outside the discussions that we were having about the elected peers to leave an ex officio place for these two great and ancient hereditary officers in our chamber. It was a wise decision then and I think it would have been wise replicated now. We have heard long history of these great officers and more importantly their current relevance, set out ably by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia and underlined by the noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham.

I agree with my noble friend that we diminish the ceremonial part of our state at great peril to ourselves and actually who we are as people. It's one of the things as was said by my noble friend that we do amazingly well, and which attracts huge income from tourism and far more deeply, deeply respect and interest in our country. This Parliament is a Parliament of three parts, Commons, the Lords and the Crown. And the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are visible embodiments of that.

They are part of our parliamentary constitution that can be traced back to early mediaeval times. They're every bit as important today and they must be able to fulfil the duties state openings and all the other events in places where a bus and serve our house and our country. When I look back on the great and moving events that took place in our recent memory, after the demise of the late Queen, and the accession and coronation of His Majesty King Charles, I will remember as we all do the active, practical and dedicated part that both the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain took in making this event possible, and so memorable.

And I would like to record my personal thanks, as your then leader to the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Lord Lord Carrington and indeed his predecessor, the noble Marcus Marcus predecessor, the noble Marcus Marcus of Cholmondeley. They are also ex officio, other members of the house, and they have often over the years brought great insight here and I agree with the noble Lord Lord Cromwell who spoke, when I went home late last night, the noble Lord Lord Carrington was in his place having made a full practical and helpful contribution to the House.

And those of a long memory will recall the 17th June of Norfolk who was referred to by my noble friend who won the military Cross in DeFi in 1944, Korea general, he brought immense wisdom to our discussions of the literary affairs. And with an Earl Marshal responsible for our state opening of Parliament, Lord Great Chamberlain can travel to much of our estate, developments to R&R, restoration projects, these offices of state will need the unfettered access to the chamber resource and office-based needed to fulfil their roles on our halves.

I agree they should be never have to queue for access or beg for a pass. Of course as others have argued, when the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain do have such an intrinsic role in our house and ceremony, much the best way forward would have been to allow them to remain as full members of our House. And I agreed with the noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham, when he said that the ability to serve us can only be strengthened by knowing and sharing the experience of our members and staff.

It worked for many hundreds of years and it seems a shame to change it now. The unnecessary removal of these ex officio members, separate from the 19 elected peers, is to be regretted. However, I know that noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal has been talking to colleagues about this and about the best and properly dignified way of enabling them to go about their important services to the Crown and to this House in an unfettered and unimpeded way in the future.

And we should all be open to future. And we should all be open to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hearing what she has to say. I am grateful to the noble Lord Roberts for what I thought was an erudite and entertaining speech, I think his amendment is similar to that from noble Lord Strathclyde when we had committee stage as well. when we had committee stage as well. I think the cries of frontbench was eagerness to hear the noble Lord

16:23

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

16:38

Amendment:2 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

leave withdrawn. In clause 1 amendment to, Lord Parkinson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitley Bay. My Lords, many sensible ways of improving this bill were discussed improving this bill were discussed in committee but perhaps the most sensible was one which is being discussed many times before amendment two which I'm delighted to amendment two which I'm delighted to say supported by the noble Lord Lord Verdirame army and my noble friend Verdirame army and my noble friend of elderly, 6 to abolish the by- elections through which history elections through which history appears join your Lordships house, by allowing those who have come here by that route or who still sit here through the ballot which followed the House of Lords Act 1999 to continue to do so until like the rest of us they choose to retire or rest of us they choose to retire or leave by some other means.

They will come here by varied roots and for come here by varied roots and for different reasons, it ensures that we are treated equally in our moment we are treated equally in our moment of departure. This amendment was debated rather late in the evening at committee and given slightly at committee and given slightly short shrift. I can quite understand the frustration of many, particularly on the benches particularly on the benches opposite, you have spent far longer than I debating this matter but I felt it was important to bring back one report not least because so many of us have not had that opportunity, of us have not had that opportunity, it also seemed to me that the sudden opposition to it by those who have previously supported this solution was based on a few.

Is. The first assumption of claim is that these by-elections were never intended to be around for so long. The sense, that is correct. But only because they were intended to ensure that further reform of your Lordship's House would follow. The preservation of a small number of Hereditary Peers maintained through by- elections came about as a result of a compromise agreed before second reading of what is now the House of Lords Act 1999. Then just as now, the Labour government had been elected with a large majority in another place on a manifesto proposing reform of your Lordship's House.

Then, just as now, there was some scepticism about whether it intended to carry out both stages of that reform with equal alacrity. Or whether it thought simply to remove a large number of Parliament -- parliamentarians. At the time he said he was not offended by such scepticism was not that is why he accepted the comprise proposed by the convener of the crossbenches, Lord Weatherill, to keep a small number of Hereditary Peers here by way of surety. As Lord Taverne explained second reading.

The compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage to take place because the government with the great popular majority in their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10% of the hereditary peerage remaining for so long. But the 10% will only go, he said, when stage II has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place. The noble and learned Lord gay that guarantee from that Dispatch Box on 30 March, 1999, at column 207 of the official report.

Noble Lords will note that stage II did not take place. The Labour government carried on in power for more than a decade but the only further reform it enacted the removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack and the abolition of the Law Lords. In doing so instantly, it allows those judges who had come here under the jurisdiction act of 1876 to continue to do so for as long as they wished. That is why we still in your Lordship's House benefit from the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Collins and the noble and learned Baroness Lady Hale of Richmond.

Towards the end of his time in office Gordon Brown proposed in the constitutional governance and reform bill to end the by-elections, as Lord Taverne had predicted Mr Brown could not tolerate 10% of the hereditary peerage remaining for so long. His bill did not contain measures for stage II reforms. So Parliament rejected that part of it shortly before dissolution in 2010. What we have before us today is a proposal not only to polish the by- elections but to remove the remaining Hereditary Peers from this House at the end of the current session without fulfilling Lord Taverne's guarantee.

The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships when he gave it in 1999 that it reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Council's on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent. Whatever else we may think of the bill before us today, we have the opportunity to defend that honour today. The second Claymore assumption is that the by- elections are somehow eccentric or alien or embarrassing to your Lordship's House.

In fact, they are not an unusual feature. Following the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, elections were held among Scottish and Irish peers to elect representatives of the number to sit in Parliament. When the Irish state was established in 1922 the Irish elections were discontinued but those who were already in the House were allowed to stay and continue their work. The Scottish elections continued until 1963 when the period Jack permitted all Scottish peers, and female, to take their place among the bands -- the period Jack.

Apart from a 36 year gap between 1993 and 1969 there have been elected members of your Lordship's House for the last 318 years. Like many other elements of our organic constitution, the by-elections of easy years, of recent years, have been easy to pillory. But so too are by-elections to other legislative chambers. Liberals may recall the Hulton price by-election of 2008 which attracted the six candidates, none from the Labour or Liberal Democrat parties, or the contest Fermanagh and South Tyrone which attracted just two.

The winner being a convicted criminal and hunger strike who died 26 days after his election, provoking a change in the law. The present Leader of the House of Commons was first elected in a by-election with a turnout of 18.2%. The present Foreign Secretary in the Minister of State for Europe were elected at by-elections on a 25% turnout. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, came to Parliament in a by-election where just 19.9% of the electorate turned out to vote.

I'm not sure that stands in such stark contrast to the by-election which brought his brother to the Labour benches of We shouldn't denigrate to those who win elections under the rules we advised. Just as no one would question the legitimacy of those members of the Cabinet who came to the Parliament in those lacklustre contests. Nor does it follow that seeking to end the by-elections the alloy ships house should be accompanied by the explosion of those who have won them. For those people from all benches who put themselves forward for election in your Lordships house, did not devise the rules by which they were elected, they have served here with distinction, and in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than some who have been appointed.

I know that is an uncomfortable thing to say, but I think we know it to those colleagues this bill seeks to dispel, and I hope we can upload their diligence and public service and seek to harness it for a while longer. The file claim or assumption is it is somehow too late to embrace the solution, that the opportunity to do so has been squandered by those who have opposed it in the past. That is the argument we were given in committee.

For many years, the Leader of the House supported this solution. She said, during the last parliament, that the government should support it, when it will undoubtedly come before your Lordships house again. I can quite understand her frustration, and exasperation, that the previous government did not heed her words. But when I suggested in committee that the government for which she is now part could do so, she said this. " But we are not going to, because the time has passed. The opportunity was there, it was rejected so many times, and that is why we had a manifesto commitment." But I believe that, as well, is based on a mistaken assumption.

There have indeed been many attempts to end these by-elections, they have always faltered because they were not accompanied by the other half of her accompanied by the other half of her noble and learned friends guarantee. There was a bill that sought to end by-elections and drive progress in further reform, but did not go beyond first reading. Other attempts have been made through private bills bought by Lord Avebury, and the noble Baronesss, Lady Hayman, Lydia Jones, among others. Each of those has demonstrated the difficulty, perhaps even the undesirability, of trying to deliver constitutional change through private members bills.

An attempt to end the by- elections command to deliver stage 2 reforms, was made in the government bill brought by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition by 2012, that did not secure cross-party support, particularly in another place, and unfounded. Most recently, the crusade has been continued, with great tenacity and wit, by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The formulation he has proposing every parliamentary session since 2016 apart from this one is exactly the same, that we advance today. Just as with noble Lords who propose private bills under the last Labour government, the noble Lord has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.

In 2016, his bill passed second reading, but ran out of time at committee. In 2017, it made it to report but fell there. In 2019 and 2021, it again passed second reading but fell awaiting committee stage. The most recent attempt in the last session of the last Parliament is the only occasional which did not have a second reading. So the last time your Lordships house have the opportunity to express an opinion on the noble Lord, Lord Grocott's solution was in December 2021.

On that occasion, the bill was given a second reading without division. While it certainly attracted critical scrutiny from some noble Lords, it won support from all corners of the House, including from my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble viscount, Lord Waverley, who has retired from your Lordships house last week, and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza. So, it would be wrong to claim this idea has been repeatedly rejected. Indeed, as the Leader of the House has often pointed out in the past, it has generally been supported in this House, it was the other place where the problems have often come up.

I know that she, and many noble Lords, regret that this idea has not been taken up sooner, but for many others, that was simply not an option. Since these proposals were last debated here in December 2021, more than 160 members have joined your Lordships house. The last time there was a division on the bill to affect these changes, was in March 2019. Since that time, 257 new members have arrived in your Lordships house. That is almost 1/3 of the House, which has never had the opportunity to vote on this matter.

That is why I have tabled this amendment today, along with two of the other relative newcomers to your Lordships house. I hope that those that have previously supported this proposal will do so again and those that have never had the opportunity of doing so take this opportunity. Perhaps there first and their last, to show their support for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is in a position to give an assurance to your Lordships house, assurance to your Lordships house, that if this amendment once to carry, it would be part of a wider carry, it would be part of a wider package of reform, some of which I indicated in the amendments and indicated in the amendments and touched on by the noble Lady. Those of us who have done something for this amendment would be much happier this amendment would be much happier about supporting it and we thought that the part of a wider package, that the part of a wider package, for which the Tory frontbench was party.

Here, catholic my noble party. Here, catholic my noble friend's question is directed to the government that will have more opportunity to say what they will do opportunity to say what they will do on stage 2 reforms. But I will come to my noble friend's question in a moment because it is important. In fact, it reflects a conversation I fact, it reflects a conversation I had with a colleague across front benches, when I told him, when I was intending to move this amendment, I intending to move this amendment, I said I hope we would cease impunity from those who previously resisted from those who previously resisted it.

The fact I stand here from the opposition Dispatch Box to move this amendment, is an expression of that. amendment, is an expression of that. My noble friend, Lord True, and manoeuvring, Lord Kinnoull, suggested a soon as the government was elected the by-elections be discontinued, in recognition of the government's manifesto commitment and dissipation of the debate on this bill for but I can be humble yet, I say to the government, and noble Lords in every corner of the House, on this, we give in.

We will not hold the present government to guarantee, binding and honour, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irving, we leave -- Yield to the mandate and taken at their word. No matter what has been said about the establishment of a Select Committee, to look at some, not all of the governors manifesto, I know Lord Wakeham is in his place, others will remember the Royal commission, rather weightier than a Select Committee that was set up by a previous Labour government, to seek a way forward on a stage 2 reforms of Ben, I wish the Select Committee far greater success on this occasion.

We will reserve our scepticism and hope to be proved wrong. But in return, we urge your Lordships to show the same clemency and generosity afforded to the Law Lords and the Irish representative peers, in days past. To our friends and colleagues that sit here, by

16:53

Senior Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

accident of birth, and who work just as hard as the rest of us in the service of the country they love. I beg to move.

16:53

Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)

- -

Amendment proposed, leave out clause one and insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I added my name in support of this amendment, which has been this amendment, which has been served, admirably introduced, by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I agree the opportunity Whitley Bay. I agree the opportunity to adopt this solution should have been seized earlier, those that tried but failed are right to be frustrated. And the Conservatives do frustrated. And the Conservatives do deserve the criticism they are getting. But these are not good enough reasons for us to fail to enough reasons for us to fail to enough reasons for us to fail to seize this opportunity now.

And as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson said, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson said, many never had a chance to vote, and for those who did, it is true some of them are supporting today what they opposed a few years ago. It is they opposed a few years ago. It is also true that others are opposing today what they supported only a few years ago. Consistency does not years ago. Consistency does not serve many well. Many are better serve many well. Many are better served by returning to principles and judging this issue on its and judging this issue on its merits.

This amendment was a good idea when the bill on which it is modelled was last given second modelled was last given second reading in December 21, it remains a good idea today. To put things in a numerical perspective, since December 2021, 13 new hereditary peers have come to this House, through the route of section 2 of the 1999 House of Lords Act. If the proponents of those proposals in 21 Had Their Way then, as I wish they had, I wasn't here, we would have 74 former hereditaries today, instead of 87.

The difference is just 13. It is certainly the case that the party that gained the most from the accepted hereditary roots of this House was the Conservative party. There is no doubt the bigger loser was the Labour Party. This is not fair because it has resulted in a political imbalance in favour of the Conservatives. But as the numbers I have just mentioned show, this is an imbalance that has been -- Can be corrected, indeed, that correction is already under way, 49 new peers have been created since January 24, 45 since the election, importantly, this political imbalance did not become a constitutional imbalance, in spite of the new Conservative peers, the house remain very effective at scrutinising legislation and holding the previous Conservative government to account.

Since 1911, significant changes to the make-up of this House and its legislative conventions, defining our role, relative to the other place, have generally travelled with the chief opposition on board. We break this habit at our peril. We often consider the hypothetical scenario, the Prime Minister coming in and appointing large numbers of new peers, to achieve control of this House. Lloyd George was not the only one to be so attentive. What stands between us in this scenario is the fact we are not an elective dictatorship, we are a representative democracy with complex systems of checks and balances that make it very difficult for a Prime Minister, even with a large majority in the other place, to affect power grab.

Each of the three main political parties with experience of government has historically acted as a check and balance, no party leader ever achieved full control of his or her party. A few of them were humiliated by the their parties. Ask Jeremy Corbyn all is trust. But what if the next Prime Minister is not a leader of one of these political parties with experience in government, what if he is a leader of a movement he sets up and controls, that is a scenario that has to be in our minds for the next election.

This is what Reform's manifesto said in 2024. Replace the crony filled House of Lords with a much smaller more democratic second chamber, structured to be debated,.. I doubt elections will be his priority. What he will want is an upper house that he controls in the way he controls his party. He he will seek to achieve this, it and just perhaps, some elections. If this scenario came to pass, we would have to accept the principle the party that wanted election would need a sufficient number of peers to govern, but we would also be perfectly entitled and would be constitutionally mandated to assist, that there should not be any removal en masse of peers, unless there is agreement with the main opposition on the basis of a clear affair principle and transparent approach.

My Lords come on a different note, one hereditary peers told me he was not going to vote because he did not think it will write for him to vote, I would respectfully urge him and anyone in a similar position to reconsider. The idea that we should not vote on constitutional rules affecting the composition of the House, because we belong to the affected category of peers is wrong, it will create a bad precedent. She peers over the age of 80 have stayed on amendments seeking to oppose an age limit of 80, or peers who might be excluded by participation threshold, abstain on those amendments, of course not.

In all of these situations, peers should vote on the basis of principle, rather than personal interest. If our conscience tells us that our personal interest prevents us from fairly excessive principle, then we should abstain. But if we are generally convinced that the principle is right, it is arguable to vote in a way that upholds that principle. My Lords, I went back to the second reading speeches and it was clear that many of your Lordships expected that, by now, there would be some compromise on the question of the transitional arrangements for the 87 hereditary peers.

And those that expressed this expectation, included many who are fully supportive of the bill, and deeply critical of the opposition, of the attitude of the main opposition. The key principle is that the revolution -- Resolution of this issue must be clear, fair and this issue must be clear, fair and And we would see later, is none of these things. We have already been asked to pass this bill and leave for later fundamental questions about the reform of the House, foreshadowed in the Labour manifesto, although I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House earlier.

We cannot be asked to pass this legislation while remaining blind to the transitional arrangements for the 87 peers, it would not be a good outcome for this House or its credibility, if some of the 87 reappeared, on a basis that is neither clear nor transparent, doesn't reflect any prior consensus. The question of what happens to them must be resolved in this House and before this House. This could have been achieved with a firm assurance, on the basis of cross-party agreement. We have received no such assurance, it is now our duty to fix this problem voting for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, like him I have added my name and support of have added my name and support of this amendment. Lord Parkinson has set out very clearly with his customary brilliant oratory the arguments for the amendment and I won't take the time of the House by won't take the time of the House by repeating them. As Lord Parkinson repeating them. As Lord Parkinson explained, your Lordships I note often refer to the issue we are

17:01

Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)

- -

often refer to the issue we are discussing in this amendment by the shorthand of the Grocott Bill. I appreciate that Lord Grocott persevered with his bill for many years, I have to tell you Lordships I go back even further than the first Grocott Bill, in 2010 Lord steel as Lord Parkinson mentioned introduced a similar bill. It passed its stages in your Lordships house, and when it came to the House of Commons, I as a junior backbencher adopted it as a Private Members' bills in the House of Commons.

I tried to introduce it there but as is so often the way in these matters, it didn't proceed. Your Lordships might recall that at that time the measures in the bill were not Conservative party policy so you might wonder what a loyal Conservative like me was doing supporting the steel bill. I've always been loyal to my party but I was vehemently opposed to the Liberal Democrat constitutional reforms adopted by the coalition government on those matters I was a government on those matters I was a rebel.

It is just as well that those of us who were rebels at that time succeeded, otherwise your Lordships house would probably not exist at all. Or it would be a faint shadow of what it is today and a mere mirror-image of the House of Commons. So I was glad to be a rebel and I tried to make progress with what was then called steel bill and was referred to as the principle of withering on the vine, I was thought that was a rather sad way to speak about the demise of the hereditary Peer ridge, but it's not quite a sad is that which we are facing today.

We can all understand why noble Lords on the government benches wish to stand by the principle in their election manifesto that right to do so, the principle that there should be no more have hereditary Peer just created is a good principle and nobody is disagreeing with it. But this amendment is not about principle it's about practicality. We are all here, except of course the hereditary Peers, we are all here because somebody in a position of authority made a subjective judgement that our past experience and future potential made each of us a suitable person to become a member of your Lordships house, I glanced at the bishops benches and I wonder if my theory on that is correct then I think to myself yes it is, even more so it's just a subjective judgement in their case was made perhaps by higher authority than the rest of us.

But we were all invited to become Life Peers because as I said our past experience and future potential made easier -- made each of us appeared to someone making a subjective judgement as a suitable person to become a member of your Lordships house and so to contribute in some way to the government of our nations. Every one of your Lordships adhered by virtue of a subjective judgement. I am asking to make a subjective judgement today.

Those among us who were first admitted to Lordships house by virtue of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers have over the years, and some of them not just years but decades, by virtue of the contributions they have made to the government of our country and the work of this noble house and their places here. They might have come here in the first instance because of the achievements of their fathers and grandfathers and now look around you and you know that they deserve their places because of their own achievements they have served this House various governments and oppositions, and of course the crossbenches in roles in which they have worked hard and achieved much.

My argument in favour of this amendment is that as individuals they have earned their places here just as your Lordships who are Life Peers have earned your places here. Consider for a moment what each of you individually has done in the past to merit your position as appear. Then consider our colleagues who face expulsion and ask yourselves, if he really less worthy than I am? I'm asking you to examine your consciences and to consider your consciences and to consider this matter not in principle but in practicality we have in our midst some excellent parliamentarians, it would diminish your Lordships house if we lose them.

It would be sad to see their experience their dedication and their talents lasts, not gradually and as they leave the House one by one, but in one fell swoop, diminishing this House immediately and irretrievably. I implore your Lordships to make a subjective judgement just as a subjective judgement was made about amendment.

17:08

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

I do want to express some concerns about this amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Baroness and indeed Lord Parkinson, and in the end I think they have advanced a very good argument, but the concerns are threefold. First that if we accepted this amendment we are entrenching numbers, and that it is the case that we want to get the South Down to around 600 we are actually entrenching numbers around 830, and that makes tasks more difficult.

Secondly and differently we do have to ask what public perception will be about, and the public will say that this is a self-serving amendment in the sense that we are looking after our friends. The public will also say that in the absence of any other measures we are not serious about proper reform. That takes me to a final point and my conclusion, I'm going to support this amendment but I'm going to do so on the following basis, that my party is committed to serious, robust reform and will play a full part in any negotiations that take place so that we will have a properly reformed house with participation requirements, a fit and proper test and enhanced HOLAC may be time to turn peerages under retirement age.

I want to see a fundamentally reformed house and I will support this amendment on the basis that there will be a substantial support on my benches for it.

17:10

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

The issue before the House is not the merits of the hereditary Peers, it's not the contribution that they make as to which there can be no doubt, the issue is very simple. Is it really acceptable in 2025 that the decades to come house of the legislature should continue to consist of a large number of people who are here purely because of who their ancestor was. For me that is unacceptable.

17:10

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak in support of the amendment of Lord Parkinson. Peer comes from the Latin par which means equal. In this House wherever will we sit we are all equal, we have a shared experience, we are here with a common purpose, to scrutinise legislation and to serve our country. There may be peer to we disagree with, there may be Piercy we admire but in the brief time that I've been this House I've understood one thing, that we are all in this together.

Both hereditary and lifetime appointment that former constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the Hella hereditary Peer element is an attack on our constitution. But this has already happened so I accept reluctantly there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers. But what I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard- working hereditary Peers who across this House bring so much energy and expertise.

Unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, that it really works, as Ian Dhont wrote in his book how Westminster works and why it doesn't. He is a man of the left and this wasn't what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion, that this is the one element in our system that works. For hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had an overall better attendance record than life payers and over half of them servicemembers and select committees.

I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary he was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility, and perhaps if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige. For those of us who think we have been placed there because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our house worse and not better.

Surely the principle of any reform should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improvement not diminishment. Lord Parkinson won't be surprised that I don't agree with this that I don't agree with this amendment for the reasons 's so bitterly put by Lord Pannick. There

17:13

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

bitterly put by Lord Pannick. There are a number of points which I could take issue with but I like to pick up a couple from Lord Parkinson speech. He implied that those of us who supported the Grocott Bill in their various guises were almost being hypocritical by not voting for this today. The truth was that the Grocott bills were very much with respect to Lord Grocott, second best. That was the best that was an offer and we saw that as a way of making some progress while believing that what is in this bill was preferable to that.

Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parkinson... How can you possibly argue it was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How can you possibly argue it was second best when the Leader of the House has told us that had we accepted Grocott in the last Parliament, this would not have been necessary?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm explaining to the House what I thought, not what anybody else might think, but what I thought at might think, but what I thought at the time. Secondly the noble Lord said that the system of by-elections said that the system of by-elections should not be thought to have been accept -- eccentric. Lord Grocott accept -- eccentric. Lord Grocott was very adequate pointing out just how eccentric they were, particularly in respect of by- elections for the Liberal Democrats where on one notable occasion there were seven candidates, three electors and nobody in the Liberal Democrats new half of who the Democrats new half of who the candidates were.

They were truly eccentric they brought the House into disrepute certainly in respect of that sort of by-election, and they were simply not sustainable in they were simply not sustainable in any way. I strongly agree with the noble Viscount when he points out that one of the consequences of this amendment would be to maintain over a considerable number of years unless there was a great increase in the Size of the House a significant Conservative plurality over the Labour benches and that seems to me something which is a bad thing because the inevitable consequence would be that the government would increase their numbers and we would have a bloated house, apparently everybody agrees that the House is too big yet this amendment, if adopted, would have that adopted, would have that For decades to come.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I think said, in his humility, he was willing to yield to the mandate. But the mandate gained at the ballot box is what is in the bill. Not what is in his amendment.

17:16

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)

- -

I will make two very short points. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows the respect which I hold him, but may I say it is a subtle piece of advocacy to say that the hereditaries sit here purely because, to use a noble Lords phrase, purely because of the family they were born into. Since 2005, that is not the case, it is the family, plus an election. And indeed, some of them sit here on a further basis than other members of your Lordships house.

Secondly, on the two late argument, which seems to be the primary point put by the government front bench, I have never quite understood why it is, that opposing a private members bill with all the legislative hurdles and difficulties that such bills have, precludes you from later supporting an amendment to a governance bill, which is bound to become law.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would just like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would just like to say a couple of things. I am finding it difficult to compute exactly what is going on today. Because, Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a after Friday, bill after bill, to a three quarters empty house which is characteristic on a Friday, I have been faced with substantial opposition. Not just from individual members, not exclusively from the Tory party, but overwhelmingly. But Tory party, but overwhelmingly. But also from the government.

And the also from the government. And the bills got no further. And here we are now, pretty full house, not bad. are now, pretty full house, not bad. All agreed. That these by-elections are farcical. The amendment gets rid are farcical. The amendment gets rid of them. The bill before the House,

17:18

Lord Grocott (Labour)

- -

which I strongly support, get rid of them. That was my motive for bringing the whole process in to begin with. Believe it or not, the primary motive was to stop this absurdity, which Lord Newby has described the most offensive one of the lot. I didn't think it would be a problem. I have been around quite a long time, but I thought, surely there is no one in this House who thinks that a by-election to get into this House should be exclusively her -- For men, both at the electorates and candidates, and that it is feasible to have an electorate of three, when you have seven candidates.

By the way, Lord Newby didn't mention the last line is that, which is all three votes went to one of the seven candidates. So, it was 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote going to the winning candidate. I mean, North Korea wouldn't dare to do that, basically. I am flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly, everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought it in, first come in 2016.

Since when can I need to say, 27 you hereditaries have come here, those who stay, we might as well do it now, a whole new generation have been elected. Since I first introduced the bill. But I must be... Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Who elected him to come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House? As far as I know, although I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as I know, although I don't know the intricacies of the mechanism that brought me here, I think there were probably more than think there were probably more than three people that thought it was OK. three people that thought it was OK. And I would be dishonest today if I didn't admit to being flattered, by finding that it seems to be universally described as a Negro cut universally described as a Negro cut bill, I mean, it is lovely to have a bill named after you, even if it was bill named after you, even if it was rejected -- The Lord Grocott bill.

I rejected -- The Lord Grocott bill. I like the ring of that. And I very much like the ring of the new and improved bill, in front of the improved bill, in front of the House. I think we ought to call the original one, House of Lords Reform Bill, Lord Grocott number one bill, Bill, Lord Grocott number one bill, the one before the House now, to be the House of Lords Lord Grocott the House of Lords Lord Grocott number two bill.

Why do I support House of Lords Lord Grocott number two bill, because it is better, it does the job more effectively. We can move on from this endless debate we seem to be having, to discuss other aspects of reform, although I really do despair at times about the inability of this House to deal with such a simple proposition, two clause bill it was, cost nothing, save money, but cost nothing, upset no one, but time and time again, it was rejected.

Filibustered, I won't mention everyone, in anticipation of this debate, I did a check of who has spoken against it on its second reading, and various outings. There were two culprits, I won't embarrass them now, more than any others who persistently put down 60 or 70 amendments the day before the second... The day before the committee stage of the bill. And you are powerless in this place, if people are to recognise that way. Perhaps if they reflected in the quietness of their own souls, what might have been if they hadn't done that.

Because I do believe that, maybe not if my bill had got through, but certainly if Lord steel's bill had got through, most of the hereditary is -- Hereditaries now will have gone through, in the mechanism of this House. I will say to the House, it has been a bit of fun, this somersaulting, by so many members opposite, but thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It is a long, long, long overdue.

It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk. Let's get on with it and get on with it quickly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just following on from the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just following on from the noble Lord. When he says we are now removing the hereditary principle, it is accepted on this side that we are removing the hereditary

17:23

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

principle. His speeches are very entertaining, mocking the system brought in by his own party in government. And very entertaining they are. My difficulty is that the leader of the House repeatedly told us, both publicly and privately, that, had we not opposed what is called the Lord Grocott bill, then this would not be necessary. And therefore, it seems to me, what is the principle here that we are discussing? And the principle appears to be, the hereditary principle, that has been accepted, but the idea that we should pluck out of this House hard-working members, namely conservatives, and we have heard from the liberal benches that they are worried about numbers.

On my count, there have been 45 New Labour peers appointed since the general election. That doesn't strike me as being the activities of a party concerned about the size of the House. It strikes me as being a party concerned about the number of people who will go through the lobbies in support of them. And therefore, one is left with the terrible suspicion, that what is going on here is taking a group of people out of this House, who happened to be people appointed or came into this House as hereditaries, a party political reasons.

And that has a very dangerous... I will give way in a second. That is a very dangerous precedent to accept. How soon before we have people arguing for this precedent that other groups of people can be taken out because they are not convenient? Now, I am trying to be not too partisan today. So, I will appeal to the opposition. To the government. I mean, the government, let me just put it gently, the government is in a certain amount of difficulty.

On a number of issues. And the one thing which I learned when I was in government, is that having a good and effective opposition is a really good thing for government. Because it makes you avoid making the kind of mistakes that governments do. And therefore, it is very important, especially in this House, where we simply ask the government to think again, and we have no ability to force them to do otherwise, by the force of argument. It is very important to have an effective opposition.

One third of our frontbench or hereditary... I will give way to the noble Lord when I finish my point. One third of our opposition, of the opposition frontbench, or hereditaries. -- R hereditaries. People have enormous experience. Not only is the government not accepting this government not accepting this amendment, damaging this House by creating a precedent, there was damaging the opposition, and the number of Tory peers there are as that is a disgraceful thing to do. And what is the argument? I know that people on the benches opposite have sought to argue, well, can't you get other people to do your frontbench? I say to the Leader of the House, she tried using that argument.

It is a very hard thing. I will come onto that later, it is a very hard thing indeed to ask people to give up the time, and have the expertise for so yes, you can bring in new people, but it takes a long time, it has taken me a long time, to get used to the way this place operates. So, what we're talking about here, if we don't accept the Lord Parkinson's amendment, is gerrymandering the opposition of the House and that is a disgraceful thing to do.

I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for finally giving way. When he talks about disabling the opposition, would he like to explain to the would he like to explain to the House what his party did in government from 2010 here last year, in terms of the numbers they appointed? My Lords, I do excuse the appointed? My Lords, I do excuse the noble Baroness, Lady May, because she took issue of the size of this House very seriously. Alas, her House very seriously.

Alas, her predecessors and those who succeeded her did not. The reason that we, as her did not. The reason that we, as her did not. The reason that we, as a party, have put members of the House since an election in, have tried to get ourselves a reasonable balance, a disgraceful approach of balance, a disgraceful approach of so many Conservative prime ministers over those years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over those years. There are a lot of things we did in government which I would not like to defend, but the noble Lord, I do to defend, but the noble Lord, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, I not disagree with the noble Lord, I understand why a number of very good and excellent appointments have been made to the benches opposite and I understand the reason why they wish to make up the numbers. All I am saying is that, to argue that you are not going to accept the amendment by my noble friend, because you are worried about the size of the House is ridiculous, whilst at the same time you are increasing the size of the House.

And I just say, have a care here, from Parliament, for the importance of Parliament, the importance of having effective opposition, the importance of not disabling the ability of this House to carry out its constitutional duties. In the end, it will be to the disadvantage of the government. And to the disadvantage of the House. So, I very much support my noble friend's amendment. And I say to my noble friend, Viscount, I am glad he is going to vote for it but I don't see any unconditionally about it, the reason I'm going to support it is because it is in the interest of our because it is in the interest of our country, our democracy, and the interest of this splendid institution, the House of Lords, which always should be held in the highest regard.

highest regard.

17:30

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

The thing I find all about the argument just advanced, and indeed about the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson's amendment and the way he introduced it splendidly, though that was. It is the implicit assumption that the other place, if the amendment were to pass here, the other place would say, goodness, that's a good idea. And accept it. that's a good idea. And accept it. Does he really think about what has happened, if so, I have a bridge to sell to him.

If he doesn't, then does he think the process of ping- pong will be good for the image of this House. We all know the strength of the contribution that hereditaries have made to our But if one adopted the phase-out that Lord Parkinson suggests, what we would see the press writes about was not the contribution that the hereditary set made, but a last- ditch effort to save the hereditaries. The ping-pong would be disastrous for the image of this House, ping-pong would be poison.

We really need not to get into that game. Course we would like to see many of our hereditary colleagues come back as Life Peers, and of course they will. That is in the hands of the parties and arrangements will know about -- no doubt be made. Of course that is going to happen. Of course we will be sorry to see those no will not be coming back, but the government are entitled to say a manifesto is a mandate, and it would be very dangerous for the image of this House for us to be seen to be dragging our feet.

I was very impressed by the speech at second reading made by The Duke of Wellington when he said that it was gracious, it was elegant and his message was times up. Let's go the right way. We really must avoid being seen by the country as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dragging our feet. This is not about ping-pong this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is not about ping-pong this is about reform and reform to be legitimate must be principled, proportionate, fair and respectful. Hereditary Peers is currently

17:32

Baroness Meyer (Conservative)

- -

serving this House entered under a binding, cross-party agreement in 1999. They did so in good faith committing to public service, many without expectation of office or reward. Some are relatively young and gave up successful careers to serve here. To subject them now to mass eviction is not just poor constitutional practice, it is an act of bad faith. They are not ceremonial relics, they are active and dedicated parliamentarians as many have noted before. The question here is not about reform and whether it should happen or not, the all agree.

How should reform be done. Can we do it with fairness and decency, or allow it to proceed with injustice and haste? This amendment that does not preserve the hereditary principle for the future, but it allows those already here to remain until they retire. This is reform done properly and fairly. The Minister will argue that this bill fulfils a manifesto pledge, but the pledge said nothing about mass eviction. Delivering on a pledge does not justify injustice, particularly when it breaks a binding agreement and when just 34% of the electorate voted for it.

Without this amendment this bill amounts to constitutional vandalism, it removes a long serving group with an age-old sense of duty and responsibility. Not for what they performed, but for how they arrived. This is why this bill feels vindictive. It also sets a dangerous precedent as my noble friend precedent as my noble friend mentioned before. Today it is the Hereditary Peers, tomorrow it could be the crossbenchers or anyone who dares to dissent. This House draws its strength from its independence and diversity of thought.

Let us not mistake destruction for progress. Let us pursue reform the British way, incremental, inclusive and fair. This amendment allows reform without injustice on it like it honours service, it gives the government the chance to act with principle not vindictiveness. I urge all noble Lords who value fairness and decency to support this doing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Image of the House. Of course we know and accept that Hereditary know and accept that Hereditary Peers are anonymous. But what about most of the rest of us? Let's be

17:36

Lord Dobbs (Conservative)

- -

most of the rest of us? Let's be clear about this, we are here, Lord Grocott and I hear because we crawled so far up the affections of a Prime Minister that we got parking rights. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The idea that this is going to cause a great change in the reputation of this House, well I wish that were the case but may Killy, make Meg Russell of the constitutional unit from University College London has just published a new set of findings.

She did some opinion polling on this very point. One of the points was you could either limit the number of prime ministerial appointment to this House or get rid of the registries. She said I'm quoting here, limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments had by far the highest support. Amongst the public. Just three% of voters chose removing the Hereditary Peers without also limiting the number of prime ministerial appointments. We are not in such a bad way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do not think it is possible to do both? To limit the number of appointees through the prime appointees through the prime ministerial structure and reduce the Size of the House in the way that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested in today's bill? I finish my remarks just to respond, I would love that to be the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

case. I've been waiting for Lord Burns to rise and contribute to this

17:37

Baroness Browning (Conservative)

- -

to rise and contribute to this debate, he has not done so so may I as a member of his committee the burns committee set up by the former Lord Speaker Lord Fowler. We did bring as a report from the burns committee before this House a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers, deal with retirements, but it was based purely on prime ministers of the day and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House, by those prime ministers making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the chamber.

As we know it's only my noble friend Lady May who has kept to that bargain and who understood why that was important for that to work. Indeed in subsequent reports that have been available to the House the agreement on retirement was actually working. So we had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed, and have we stuck to that but particularly had former Prime Minister stuck to their side of the bargain? I don't think we'd be in this position today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You will remember that I did intervene in one debate we have been intervene in one debate we have been going on for hours and actually were not addressing the issue that was in

17:39

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

not addressing the issue that was in the small bill. It's not a big bill, its aims are very clear and I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the bill is about. If you remember there were many speeches about reforming, many speeches about age and they went on and I remember intervening saying, actually those are going to go nowhere because the purpose of the bill is well defined. So I did regret as I sat in your Lordships house and listened to so many speeches with the loss of hereditaries sitting around and actually addressing the future as if they would not present in the House.

The sort of experience I used to have in this country when talking about black people. You will be in a meeting they are talking about black people suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people are not being asked, they are not being asked what they think is good for them. It seems to me that what Lord Parkinson is trying to do, and I think it would be clear what his amendment is about, first of all it abolishes the system of by-elections for Hereditary Peers.

Secondly it prevents Hereditary Peers from joining the House. And then the third element that those who are here, there will be and what a way in which, there will be no more new ones made. What's the problem? I think with this amendment is what think with this amendment is what will the government do when it's already brought a bill which we have discussed, we know where it's going and I just wonder if I could ask the Leader of the House The Lord Privy Seal in this Select Committee you are intending to set up I just wonder whether thought will be given to what might be done with those of our number one going to go out this particular bill and they intend actually if the opportunity was granted a way of continuing to serve that no longer has hereditaries but actually has Life Peers.

Would that be a question worth taking up? And if it is going to be one of those things that they take up, then Lord Parkinson raised an issue which to me should have been raised again and again and again in those long debates. Then finally this question of remembering where we are going, you know the problem is that in a society, in a church, in a community, any organisation, any Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile.

In order not to be senile and know we are we are going with this bill but what I heard from with this bill but what I heard from the noble Lady Lord Privy Seal that she is setting up a bill. It would be quite good to know whether for those who feel that this is a place where they can continue to serve whether there is going to be a mechanism of bringing that about and not see this bill as the end of their being here.

I came into this House in 20,000 90,005 is the primate of England -- 2005. Which also got me in some trouble, why may -- why am I a primate, I thought primates with some animals that I came here as a primate, may be a vicious one, and then when I retired I became a crossbencher. We can all change in some way in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House. I have had a fight classic time here.

I love everybody here really who has been giving us quite a lot of wonderful words, wonderful a lot of wonderful words, wonderful thoughts. And for me to be quiet when I look around and for those not everybody, for those who feel this is still a place where they can do their public service, they can't also be changed from hereditary to Life Peers. They can't, if it can happen then there will be a way in which we say yes, this bill triggered a change and in those many speeches that were made about change can be revisited in the future at a future moment.

So for the Lord's and Baronesses, we need to reflect and I just hope that we won't have more and more debates about other things, we will move on quickly to making sure that we finish this very tiny

17:46

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

sure that we finish this very tiny I don't wish to still the debate but perhaps I might as the noble Baroness did on a wider point in the Baroness did on a wider point in the first group, perhaps I might intervene briefly. As the previous leader of your Lordships house in fact and now is Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Opposition in this House, the remarks I'm going to make I make as leader of the Conservative party leader of the Conservative party here and with the full assent of the Leader of the Opposition nationally.

I may say by the way to Lord Kerr, I may say by the way to Lord Kerr, this house should never be allowed this house should never be allowed from proposing a thought to the from proposing a thought to the other place, indeed one of the arguable contentions that we have had on this bill is that it must have no amendments. I've never known, there have been I'm sure known, there have been I'm sure occasions, it is unusual in our Parliamentary proceedings that the expectation should be that a bill and certainly one of this constitutional significance should constitutional significance should be unamended.

The proposition that one can't have a conversation with the House of Commons on this matter might well apply would apply to a future bill to remove people over 80 as promised in the Labour manifesto, I hope not. I hope this House would I hope not. I hope this House would I have been listening carefully to the debate which was initiated very ably by my noble friend, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and brilliantly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame me, and my noble friend, Baroness Laing.

They have put a proposition previously, as Lord Grocott acknowledged, that he owns it and loves it, but is going to vote against it today. A proposition that I think many of us know in our hearts is the right and balanced way forward. I think many of us know in our hearts that if there are not a party with applying, there would be majority in this place to reach a balance solution. That balance solution gives the party opposite and the Liberal Democrats what they have wanted, have legitimately wanted for a long period, which is the end of the hereditary principle, as a means of entry into this House.

But on the other hand, doesn't mean existing members already of the workings of this House, the way my noble friend, Lord Forsyth suggested. My Lords, in case there is any doubt, I would like to put on record, beyond any doubt, what those who have been following debate on this bill from the outset will already know, that the party has no plan or intention or device to block this bill indefinitely or delay it passage, or the ping-pong that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham referred to.

In the days from the last general election, my Lords, and from the crossbench peers, we recognised regret it or not, the Labour Party's mandate to enter the entry of peers to this place by any deferment of hereditary. The convener and I propose, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, graciously accepted to help accept the proposal, the by-elections for hereditary peers should be suspended. That has been accomplished, my Lords, and it remains so. It is done, not an issue with this debate, even though the word by-elections have featured a great deal.

No person has entered this place by reason of election, under the 1999 act, since labour's victory in the last general election. Nor, my Lords, should one ever do so again. Now, that's actually a mighty thing, under the eyes of 800 years of service here, by hereditary peers. By the end of this month, my Lords, by the end of this month a bill will pass which will end entry here, on the grounds of hereditary, permanently. And if the government should choose to send it for Royal Assent, it could be law by the first day of August Dawn.

That is the position. And whatever may be implied or said to the contrary, us on this side are not arguing. My noble friend's amendment doesn't alter or detract or frustrate that in anyway for in fact, it enables it. The sole issue before your Lordships in this debate, as my noble friend, Baroness Laing, argued so passionately, is not who comes here in the future, but who goes now. And of course, is the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame me said, and I think Lord Pannick slightly missed that point, if this bill successfully affirms that any government may expel some, group existing members from the legislature that they may not like for whatever reason, in any future executive, using what will be the awesome power, my Lords, unique actually in the world, of a Prime Minister to choose who comes here, and now, in this example, who goes.

Any future government, of what ever colour, and heaven forbid it should be the example put forward he was by the noble Lord, could use the same arguments. I will complete my remarks and then I will give way. To use the same arguments to expel any other group amongst us now here in the future. I give way to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. This is an absurd, fanciful,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an absurd, fanciful, imaginative suggestion. Can he just, by way of evidence, tell the House that in 1999, when 667 hereditaries that in 1999, when 667 hereditaries were removed overnight. Can he were removed overnight. Can he explain to us how that has raised the spectre he is trying to put before us. That it has enabled subsequent governments to act in a subsequent governments to act in a completely arbitrary and brutal way he has described. It is pure fantasy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fantasy. It certainly discouraged the Labour Party who removed the law Labour Party who removed the law lords, although those who are here to stay, and now removing the rest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of our hereditary colleagues. And he completely,... I didn't follow his argument in having an equality between having an equality between legislation that is brought forward after a manifesto has been provided after a manifesto has been provided to the electorate, that the ability to change the composition of the to change the composition of the House of Lords, by that matter. Manner. Was the same as the ability of a Prime Minister, actually has come at the moment, which is to nominate and have, come into the House as a life peer, any number of people.

That's where the arbitrariness comes. It comes from the prerogative there, in terms of how people come in. What we are talking about now, is the composition of the House and changing it by legislation. And those two are not comparing well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister has no power

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Prime Minister has no power to exclude, Prime Ministers you exercise the power, by Royal prerogative, to recommend to the monarch appointments, but no Prime Minister has the power to exclude, no Prime Minister in the world has no Prime Minister in the world has the power to exclude, the only other Parliament which in any way, house of parliament in any way similar to ours, is the Senate of Canada, there ours, is the Senate of Canada, there is no power for the Prime Minister to exclude a group, or a group of to exclude a group, or a group of members.

My Lords, the debate ranged widely, with the decision that we make. The decisions we always make, make. The decisions we always make, as people who make law, must be on the face of the paper before us. The proposed act of Parliament. And it proposed act of Parliament. And it is the bill that The Right Reverend Prelate raise, the bill before us, and each of us, privately, my Lords, in a few minutes, is what we have to decide is not whether entry by decide is not whether entry by hereditary is over.

It is. It is whether we are sent to the expulsion whether we are sent to the expulsion of 80 of our comrades. These are people we know. People whose worth we know. There is no one actually outside this House knows them. People we respect. There is no one outside this House respects them. As we see them sitting on the wall set, another committees, on the front benches, as my noble friend said. In service as ministers over the service as ministers over the decades.

They are people we like, my Lords. That is a small thing in relation to their service, and the holes their departure will leave in our ranks. And well the bell goes shortly, we will all rise from our place, and we will go this way or that. We can go and say out, and what the bill says is out, out with you all. That is what the bill says. And you must go for one wrong, about which you could do nothing, or by whom you happen to be conceived.

Or whom you happen to be conceived. Or else we may, by quiet assent, or by active move into the other lobby, say yes, we agree. We will have no more new hereditary peers. But we do not wish to hurt those who serve now and to hurt our house. We value who you are. What you have done. And may it do for this House. And we should like you to stay and sit with us and serve at our peers. My Lords, that is the choice we make in a few minutes.

It is not about who comes here. That has settled. It is history. No other hereditary peer will ever take the oath at this Dispatch Box. The decision we make is about who goes. It is simple. And binary. And it's a decision that each of those, each of us in this great House of Lords, which for the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame said, has the right to make this decision about its composition and its future. And instead, suggest a way future.

And instead, suggest a way forward to the other place. All of us must now make, with our unique sense of this House that we love, and the good that the people we are discussing do for this House, we must make a decision about those. Those people we know, who often for decades have been and are, and I submit should continue to be, our fellow peers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have had a bit of a rehash for a debate we have had rehash for a debate we have had previously in committee, and a similar amendment. Amendment to today is almost identical to that

17:57

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

18:12

Division

18:25

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

18:42

Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)

- -

to see it enacted. The reason I want to speak briefly to my Amendment 22, and I think also to support his amendment for -- four because I do whole of Europe which he appeared to want to represent, but that is obviously very different from party list systems and POR system and election that Liberal Democrats would want to see. I'm delighted to be here speaking with Lord Hailsham my noble friend sitting in front of me because of course one of the great authorities on this issue is always cited as his ancestor.

He talked famously, his father he talked about an elective dictatorship. I think my concern having spent 27 years as a member of the House of Commons is actually precisely grounded in that worry. But a government with a significant majority in the House of Commons, unless it is completely lost control can get its legislation through with almost no impediment. That is also of course free to ignore amendments sent from this House precisely because we don't have the legitimacy that an elected house would have.

I discussed this a little while ago with the great constitutionalist Professor Sir Bernard Ochs told. He said to me I completely disagree with. It would be quite wrong to have an elected upper house but his next comment made for me the argument as eloquently as anybody could. For an elected upper house. He said I have written many times that what we have achieved in Britain is the perfect unique -- unicameral parliament just with two chambers of I'm afraid to often that is the way our Parliament operates, we depend for this House and effect, we depend entirely on a government with a large majority in the House of Commons deciding whether it will accept or take an interest in amendment and improvements that come from the often excellent revising work done by the House of Lords.

So I don't want to stay in the House long but I -- detain house long but I do think in principle it's right to move to an elected house, I to move to an elected house, I completely disagree and I'm greatly reassured that he agree so profound with me with Lord Newby's prescription for how to go about it, this is a debate that has been going on for over a century as he said, it will continue. I think it's important we do engage with it in the spirit of accepting that it is not a given that the House of Commons operates so well as a democratic assembly that it automatically deserves unquestioned automatically deserves unquestioned House of Commons tells me it works very poorly, its principal function is to select a government and most of the time, it lets the government get on with pretty much what he wants to do.

I think the more challenging our Parliament and that comes with democracy, is the way to go forward. go forward.

18:46

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

May I say that I strongly support, with one qualification, the alterations made by my noble friend. I have always been a strong supporter of the concept of an elected second chairman. And my reason is I want to see the second reason is I want to see the second chamber being more than a revising chamber, I want to see it as being a determinative chamber, with pass commencements with the House of Commons. But I do accept in the modern world, it has to be legitimate, the only legitimacy that this country recognises, the only legitimacy the world recognises, is an election.

And therefore, having settled on the view that I think the second chamber should be a determinative chamber, with substantial pass, I favour unelected chamber. I do accept that there are problems about deadlock, this and that. But I don't think that they are inscrutable, and they are actually addressed in many other jurisdictions in other parts of the world. I think you would need staggered elections. I disagree with my noble friend. I think the method of election should be some sort of proportional representation.

I am very much against party lists. I think it should be constituencies. Probably similar to the European constituencies that existed in 1979. Very large county based constituencies. But the fundamental justification is that it would be able to face down the elected dictatorship that my noble friend referred. I agree after the chaos of yesterday in the House of Commons, one wonders whether we have got an over mighty government. But we can have over mighty governments, and in my experience, it is very similar to my noble friend's experience in the House of Commons, where I was there for 13 years.

And I find the power of the House of Commons, when it controls its backbenchers, a deeply worrying fact, that is why I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

see elected second chairman. Before my noble friend sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my noble friend sits down, he says he is concerned about gridlock, what is he going to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about it? We have to have anti-gridlock mechanisms, and I think you can have qualified voting but there are a qualified voting but there are a variety of measures you can put in place. But my noble friend is right to say there are problems and they to say there are problems and they would have to be addressed. But they are not inscrutable and they would be addressed in the context of any debate of legislation setting up an

18:49

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)

- -

debate of legislation setting up an elected second chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I begin my remarks in support of Amendment four, I would firstly like to comment on the announcement by the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, earlier in the debate. I welcome the establishment of a Select Committee to look into retirement age at participation. Although, obviously, I would like to Although, obviously, I would like to Although, obviously, I would like to see it go much further, it is a good first step. Even small changes our progress and I accept that.

So I look forward to that Select look forward to that Select Committee be informed. And now I Committee be informed. And now I moved back to support for Amendment four, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to which I have added my Lord Newby, to which I have added my name. At committee, tabled my own amendments unelected house, but I am pleased that since committee pleased that since committee successful cross-party working has led to a single unified amendment on an elected house being presented to the House today.

I will not repeat the House today. I will not repeat the marks that I made during second reading, and committee of this bill, reading, and committee of this bill, but I will speak in relation to a new aspect of this amendment, in order to be helpful to the House. The new edition today is the inclusion of citizens of the assembly. As the mechanisms assembly. As the mechanisms designing the second chamber composition. We are a dire time in our politics, where trust is at an all-time low.

This is largely due to ordinary people not feeling like they have a voice, that is listened to by decision-makers. And can we blame them. We can and must do so much better. The British social attitudes published by the National Centre social research last month found that 79% of those surveyed believe the present system of governing Britain could be improved quite a lot or a great deal, and I am not saying there aren't good things about this place. There are. There are so many individuals here would bring expertise in their field and that is invaluable.

Also, I'll conduct through cross-party working could perhaps be learnt by other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place and other parliaments. Our conduct. However, the procedures are not fit for the procedures are not fit for the 21st-century. It is clear this chamber does need reforming. I believe that this work can only believe that this work can only begin once we establish that those of us who scrutinise and draft new laws must be accountable to people that live under those laws. So, what that live under those laws. So, what is a citizens assembly. The group of typically 50-150 randomly selected typically 50-150 randomly selected citizens, broadly representative of citizens, broadly representative of the populations.

Members are selected by a civic lottery and brought together, to learn, deliberate, and make recommendations on specific policy issues. on specific policy issues. Governments around the world have used them to engage citizens and decisions on complex issues, such as constitutional reform, climate change, social care, and electoral change, social care, and electoral reform. And I am supportive of using citizens assembly is a mechanism for shaping a new elected house. For two shaping a new elected house. For two main reasons. Trust in Parliament is main reasons.

Trust in Parliament is at an all-time low, and I trust ordinary people to know what is best for them. Citizens assemblies and similar deliberative forums are well established around the world. As a way of delivering informed trusted decisions on complex issues. In Ireland, citizens assemblies were utilised in 2016-2018, the Irish citizens assembly involved 100 randomly selected citizen members, who considered five important legal and policy issues. In France, the citizens Convention on Climate Change in 2019-2020, the citizens assembly was formed following the yellow vest protests, resulting in 149 policy recommendations.

Any incorporated into national legislation. And in Canada, the British Columbia citizens assembly took place in 2004 on electoral reform. Here in the UK as well, citizens assemblies have been used across our nations and regions. Covering a range of topics from climate change to constitutional reform. For example, in 2020, six House of Commons Select Committee commission of the UK climate assembly, to examine how the UK should reach Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050. It was the first UK wide citizens assembly, on climate change, and published its final report in September 2020.

The process was well-run, highly engaging, and produced a highly impressive report, that shows how seriously the participants took their responsibilities. Between October 2019 and December 2020, the Scottish government commissioned citizens assembly of Scotland, that met regularly to deliberate issues and challenges facing the people of Scotland. And closer to home, for me, in 2019, Wales commissioned the National citizens assembly, to examine how people in Wales can shape their future through the work of the National Assembly for Wales. And now, I turned back to the amendment at hand.

And it isn't offbrand for the Labour Party to support this amendment as drafted. In fact, we have heard from senior members of the Labour Party who are supportive of citizen juries. In a supportive of citizen juries. In a recent biography of the Prime Minister, stated that wanted to take a new approach to government, by directly consulting the voters on some of the most vexed questions of Britain's future. It was suggested that using citizens assemblies could be used to come up with positions on devolution, assisted dying, and House of Lords Reform Bill.

Although recognising that Whitehall won't like this, as they will not have control. Of course, we can only pursue this option with the political will of this government, however, for something they have history in supporting, why the delay? So, I ask them, to join the supporters for this amendment today. And let us crack on with getting this done.

18:55

The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I would just like to say a few words about amendment number four, which I support wholeheartedly. It's a move in the right direction, the problem is, if this House does not have some democratic authority, it will lose its powers it has left. In the modern day and age, you must have some democratic legitimacy, it has often been referred to, particularly in previous amendments, it was referred to quite a few times. To survive, we have to have a democratic element.

Exactly what that is, we are not here to talk about. The whole point about this amendment, it doesn't specify what it should look like, despite some comments from over there, and over here, you seem to presuppose -- Who seem to presuppose what the outcome of this would be forced getting a move in the right direction is starting to permit the promise given by the noble Lord, all those years ago. And we might be moving in the right direction. But we have to get some democracy into the chamber otherwise it will not survive into the future.

18:56

Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise to support the amendment from my noble friend on the frontbench, and very much echo the thoughts of the noble Earl. I have spent 30 something years between this House first incarnation, the other place, and this House second incarnation, arguing for a democratically elected upper chamber. And I do so because I believe wholeheartedly that we need and deserve a strong parliament and a strong parliament requires two houses both of which can exercise complement re-authority to give the parliamentary activities, a noble viscount described, as legitimacy.

And this House, as it is currently composed, even after we hereditary is have all gone, still lacks the legitimacy necessary for a strong parliament. But my support for my noble friend is because this amendment seeks, offers, a roadmap to getting consultation, without prescribing the exact manner of how that democratic legitimacy can be achieved. I am not, today, going to be tempted into a long speech on what I think. If anyone is remotely interested, they can find it in old Hansards. But what I will say is the principle of a democratically elected second chamber is essential for the legitimate parliament, and as I think I said at second reading, I am a parliamentarian first and foremost, therefore, I hope my noble friend will press this or seek the opinion of the House and I will certainly support it.

certainly support it.

18:58

Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)

- -

My support for this amendment is largely symbolic but at least it is consistent with things I have said in the past. And stood for. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about my amendment, 32, which of course, we will come to next week. The purpose of that was to provide an echo of the 1911 Parliament act, that was there was still a requirement for the democratic element to the House of Lords Reform Bill's and to remind not just the House, the people of this country, that a democratic reform was a worthwhile stage to objective, which has been sadly missed by this government in this Parliament.

And that is the greatest mystic unity of this entire bill. -- Greatest missed opportunity of this entire bill. The House, in itself, has no or very little democratic legitimacy, the house I favoured and supported, in 2012, under the Kamron Clegg bill of that year was precisely to provide a case for an elected house, which included an unelected element, which was the great crossbenches. And the crossbenchers provided a good tempering row on the whole of the House of Lords.

Now, I think that in the current house, the House of Lords does an excellent job it revises legislation, it scrutinises legislation, it debates the great issues of the day. It doesn't overdo the power that it has. And the Lord Rooker, and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath are entirely correct in saying that we are governed by conventions. The fear some of us have had is under, if we change the composition of the House of Lords, but those -- Would those conventions exist and continue to provide that slight softening of the attitude of your Lordships the attitude of your Lordships house? Of course, the constituencies are important, and I join my noble friend, Lord Hailsham.

In saying the only way of doing it, this is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is to have constituencies, perhaps based loosely on the old European constituencies for supper think there were 80 of them. --. I think there were 80 of them in the country. I'm voting perhaps 1/3 every five years, to get what this House needs. I refer to speeches made in the past. I'd -- And rather like the noble viscount, if anybody really wants to go and have a look at them, they can and they will see them in some great detail, because we use the debate these issues regularly.

Several times a year. I am not convinced this amendment is going to be one tonight and I am discouraged the noble Lord, Lord Newby from actually voting. The other aspect, and I look around the House, is that many of my noble friend do not favour an elected house. And there are many peers on the Labour Party side who do not favour it either. As a hallmark of this debate run for the last 100 years is that the differences exist within the parties, less so than exist between the parties.

The only way there is ever going to be any kind of long-term sustainable reform of this House is to do it on a cross-party basis which is why I turn to the Royal commission, turn to the Royal commission, turn to the Royal commission, Even that, 25 years on has seen no further progress whatsoever. further progress whatsoever.

19:02

Lord Rooker (Labour)

- -

On Friday morning this week I was in a college in the Midlands for the learner with the Lords programme. The first thing I say to them is the House of Lords is nothing more than a large subcommittee of the House of Commons with the power to ask it to think again. That being said, it does not matter how the composition arrives. You have to ask yourself the legislation required by Lord Newby must by definition reduce the powers of this House.

He would have to remove the right to chuck out a bill. We don't use it. For self- evident reasons. But what is to stop a troublesome second chamber elected throwing out a bill before they even revise it? That would be chaos and therefore that has to happen with the legislation before the new chamber arrives. Will it be the case that the Prime Minister down the other end appoints the leader of this new chamber? Well, of course not. It is self-evident that could not happen.

You have to ask yourself would there be ministers in the second chamber? Does not have to be the case. Ministers can be summoned by this chamber from the other place at select committees and to explain bills. There are issues to be raised here that are not being talked about now which is why this bill and this idea is complicated. I fully accept that I take the view the chamber should be half the size of the Commons, it should be ministers, that is a view I have formed inside first game here.

They talked about the House of Commons, but between 1974 and 79, as backbencher have a lot more power because the government didn't have the power. The lip-lab pact was there. You have the problem of the current situation. You should not think it will always be the same but there are questions to be asked and I'm not expecting Lord Newby to answer them today.

19:04

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

- -

If I could follow my noble friend, it is nothing if not consistent on this issue and we vote together on the seven options that we were presented in the House in February 2003 following the Royal commission. Lord Strathclyde will recall in the Commons none of the options got a majority. But I think if I am to be critical of what happened in relation to the Royal commission, the original proposals the Chancellor Lord Irvine put forward and then the Royal commission, and then the various proposals that have come forward since including Mr Clegg's bill, the components of an elected House of which I am one is to do the work on the issue of power and relationship.

You cannot get away with it and say we should have an elected House. I agree with this, but my noble friend is right, in my view to make it work you have to strain the current powers of the Lords in order to make the relationship work effectively. You would have to tackle secondary legislation because I don't think you would need an elected second chamber with a veto power. That is what we have said. You could not leave that with an elected second chamber particularly if it was elected under proportional representation.

It is under proportional representation and is bound to claim greater legitimacy in the end to the Commons because the claim would always be we represent voters much more accurately than you do on a First Past the Post system. Lord Newby may not realise this. I am very sympathetic to what he is seeking to do, but let's do the work on the relationship between two elected houses should be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if he agrees with me that this House prides itself on that this House prides itself on what he calls a chamber of excellence of giving excellent views excellence of giving excellent views on expertise. In general people with expertise tend not to stand for election. They tend to be chosen. election. They tend to be chosen. election. They tend to be chosen. For whatever reason. Isn't that what is relevant? Maybe we need more experts in the House of Lords and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fewer politicians? I do think my noble friend who I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do think my noble friend who I respect greatly and worked with for many years now, I do think he underestimates the calibre of many underestimates the calibre of many of our Members of Parliament. I take his point that if you are to have an elected second chamber, many of elected second chamber, many of those who come forward might not put their names forward for election. At the end of the day and I think it is Lord Hailsham who made the point Lord Hailsham who made the point that at the end of the day it is hard to justify a second chamber of Parliament which does not have electoral legitimacy.

I would play that we make sure that that legitimacy is produced in a way that does not bring us to conflict.

19:08

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

I am somebody who is torn on this. I favour a unicameral approach. A lot of the arguments against the elected second chamber have been made very well even though I want a more democratic way of making decisions. I did want to raise one problem that we have at the present time which is that there is a crisis of democracy that far expands beyond this debate. One of the things that really struck me in the debate on assisted in the other place was the number of times that they effectively said they would leave it up to the House of Lords to sort out.

That is a disaster. That is a disaster because it is antidemocratic and one of the things that worries me as it increasingly as we watch a certain implosion happening at the other end that the House of Lords have given too much credit for being able to sort that out and being in democracy where the unelected House are the ones that are trusted is the real profound crisis of democratic accountability in this country and that is what we should be debating. I feel very self-conscious about being in an unelected House of Lords debating the survival of an unelected House of Lords in which people stay and go.

It is so self regarding. As for the notion we are full of experts, I mean, philosopher, kings and all that, I cannot imagine anything more offputting to the British public than asked patting ourselves on the back saying we know more than anyone else. I appreciate it is fashionable but it should not be something we do and we are not trying to undermine the expertise here, but do not make it a virtue in terms of democratic decision-making. To go back to the spirit of Lord Newby's amendment, I think one of the problems with the discussion on hereditary Peers is it is just too limited.

He suggests it is revolutionary and reforming when in fact it is going for low hanging fruit and what we should be doing is having a proper discussion about the democratic shakeup at both ends of the Westminster Palace. I do feel we the Westminster Palace. I do feel we are wasting a lot of time.

19:11

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

It has been interesting in debate. It started in a slightly predictable way. On what all appointed houses created by this bill, many whatever some of us think will consider the logical next step in reforming the House of Lords is to consider a democratic mandate. We must not get away from that. I heard talk earlier from bringing the House into distribute by talking about the issues that we were, but I'm not sure if it helps to be seen laughing at the idea of election which we were earlier.

Maybe we were laughing at the Liberal Democrat obsession with proportional representation. One never knows. As the Noble Lord Newby has explained, it has been a long held aspiration of the Liberal Democrats and before then the old Liberal Party that really was liberal to replace this House with an elected chamber. It is the preamble to the 1911 act as Lord Strathclyde reminds us. There has been various attempts often supported in this chamber to achieve a democratic second chamber.

The 1960s and 1970s most recently by 1960s and 1970s most recently by coalition in 2011 and I must confess my colleagues are not happy with me at the moment but I accept them looking at the proposal which I and many others in this House objected to. We know that it could be prosecuted because it was frustrated procedurally in the other place by a number of Conservative MPs and by the Labour Party. There is every logic and consistency in the position and I must say I hugely respect Lord Winston.

He is an expert. Whatever people say, he's an expert. However, speaking as someone who has fought seven elections and won them all, sorry, and twice fought the leader of my council and won both of them, I have to say I hope you consider me a complete nincompoop. I don't consider myself an expert but some are elected and can be good. I spend a whole life in the conservative and unions party and the people in the Labour Party could say the same thing.

This bill, it isn't just in the Liberal Democrat party, there are people on our bench, we heard from Lord Brady of Altrincham. The reality is as presented as we were discussing earlier, this creates something unique in the world outside of Canada which is an all appointed House with the Prime Minister and now with the aspiration to be able to remove it. No other democratic nation allows them to decide who their opponent in Parliament will be, how many or how to stop the chamber.

We stand alone in the world. They used to say this House was the only House outside Lesotho that had a regular Trealaw coming into it. After this we won't find many models with this legislation going through without a kind of additional elements that I know Viscount Hailsham was commenting about earlier. The shape of the House is being created as a result of this bill and I welcomed what the Leader of the House said earlier about an opportunity. We've not had the opportunity to discuss in usual channels.

We obviously will. We welcome that. The only thing that she did not say and we had a debate on the amendment to the noble Duke, but they did not say anything about a bill and that is when it comes to the noble Lord moving his amendment, I'd like to hear a little more. The first I heard was at the despatch box about the nature of if there would be a bill. The noble Baroness has intimated, we know she's been having these consultations and told me she's been having these consultations.

She came to the House and said this and we don't know the full shape of it. What she said earlier seemed narrowly confined to the issues of age and participation. The challenge from Viscount Hailsham is we need to look more at the process of the nature and reform is Returning to the basic thing, we do have to do that because this House is reformed, this House will be house with no protections against the use of patronage.

I may be a Sandra, once believed but they often turned out to be true -- I may be a Cassandra. But removing the easy criticised hereditary peerage it criticised hereditary peerage it will raise the stock West -- the question of... And by what right we should stay. Those questions will inevitably be asked and that is why we need the kind of protective reflection on improving the situation of this House and let us asked for by others.

But I have little doubt that the calls for action or even abolition as we have been hearing from Mr Faraj, -- from Nigel Faraj. Will grow. As Lord Nigel Faraj. Will grow. As Lord . It may be prudent, although I don't go with his model, or his methodology, but I think we should discount his advice, that we should consider how a democratic mandate might be appointed. We might rejected but it would be responsible to look at it in all its various strengths and weaknesses.

We really should not fear to consider it. Of should not fear to consider it. Of course, what will be most interesting is what will be the view of the Labour Party. Talked about doing it. -- They have long talked about doing it, having an elective element. It's rather whether a woman Prime Minister, although they talk about it, they have never, or not about it, they have never, or not quite yet, got round to doing it. The plan of Gordon Brown for an alternative democratically based second chamber was very enthusiastically received by Sir Keir Starmer when it was proposed by Gordon Brown.

And it apparently remains at the aspiration. And the lodestar that is their manifesto committed Labour to replace this House with "an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations". So we will look forward to hearing how work on this is progressing in the Labour Party when that noble Baroness response. Particularly in the light of the long recent declared shared interests with the Liberal Democrats in replacing your Lordship's House with an alternative second chamber.

My Lords, I don't think I will be able to support noble Lord Lord Newby if he moves his specific amendment. But as I said, I wouldn't discourage him from pressing the case that we should consider the implications and points that the noble Lord Lord Rooker and others made, the relations there would be between the chambers, these things do have to be thought about. Because there are issues that might potentially rise up and confront us develops.

19:20

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Milos, this has been a genuinely interesting debate and I thank the noble Lord Lord Newby and the noble Lord Lord Brady for tabling the debate. I would like to reassure the noble Lord Lord Newby that I am one of the minority, a West Midlands- based P. And with regard to my noble friend Lord Winston, he as always makes a pertinent and interesting point with regard to experts. Here someone directly reference about our house of experts and are usually reference but I doubt he would have put his name forward for an election, but we are lucky to have him.

My Lords, amendments four and 30 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Newby are similar to his amendments 11 and 115 tabled and discussed at committee stage. They seek to place a duty on ministers to take forward proposals to introduce a democratically elected element to the House of Lords in bringing forward proposals the government would be required to consult with a number of groups. I'm glad to note the noble Lord remember to add the public to his list this time. Amendment 22 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Brady of Altrincham is Lord Lord Brady of Altrincham is similar to amendment 90, D.

The amendment 6 to place a duty on the government to produce a bill which makes provisions to limit the size of the House and provide one of its members be elected. We had a spirited debate on similar amendments during the second day of committee where your Lordship's House made a number of insightful and intriguing points about the fundamental nature of this House and its place in our constitution. But debate and this underscored the importance of considering the potential benefits of reform, alongside the implications for the balance of power within Parliament.

Like then I will note the debate today has demonstrated the House has yet to settle when they particular side of this issue. This remains a fundamental issue with all of the amendments. Put simply, amendments of this kind are not for this focus will. This legislation is the first step in reforming the House. As stated, once the bill receives Royal assent the leader of the House will set out in more detail how we plan to approach the next stage of our reforms.

The longer-term aim is that the government will consult on proposals for more fundamental reform through the establishment of adult alternative second chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. There will be an opportunity for the public to provide their views on how to ensure this will best serve them. Amendment 22 particularly cuts across this aspect of the government manifesto, as it does not make any provision for consultation with the public. It is clear that there is an appetite for reform.

It is clear that the ongoing conversations that we will need to have. But this is also clear we are not yet ready to have a settled position within your Lordship's House, so with that in mind I respectfully ask that all noble Lords withdraw the amendments.

19:23

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I'm extrema grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is normally the case that at this point one says that it has been an extremely interesting debate about despite debating this many times it is a very interesting debate because it has shown up or illuminated the central issue that the democratically elected Lords would raise. Are we to be a mere urgent of the Commons and at the end of the day, totally powerless one or not? And are we to be part of a more effective parliamentary system in which the government is effectively challenged? The truth is, government is only effectively challenged in the Commons when it has a rebellion in its own ranks.

The opposition can't challenge it. Because in the end of the day, it always wins. We can't challenge it because at the end of the day, at the end of all the people, we have got no legitimacy to stand firm. And I don't think anybody who has followed recent decades of British Parliamentary activity would claim that the government has been effectively challenged and that nonsenses have been effectively called out by Parliament so I'm extremely grateful to noble Lords Brady, Hailsham for making that point.

Obviously, as noble Lords pointed out, there will be tensions between two elected houses. But I believe as in many other countries which have this it is possible to resolve them. The noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said he opposed having House of Lords elected under the arc. Because that will give us more legitimacy in some senses and the Commons elected under First Past the Post. There's a very easy answer to that.

And I think that will be clearly a great advantage. Milos, the government 's approaches an Augustinian one, we want to reform but not yet. I think that we ought to be putting a bit of pressure on them. Nudging them towards the goal which they claim their spouse. Therefore I do wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment for be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". I think the contrary, "Not content". I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by division and I will inform the House and and I will inform the House and voting is open. Voting is now open.

19:26

Division: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Amdt: 4

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that amendment four be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment four There There have There have voted.

There have voted. Content, There have voted. Content, 84. There have voted. Content, 84. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content, 263. The not content have I think this would be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this would be a convenient point to adjourn the

19:39

Statement: Welfare Reform (dinner break business)

report for the planned statement. The report will not resume before 20:37.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20:37. Further consideration on report to be adjourned. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. I think we will take a pause for noble Lords who take a pause for noble Lords who wish to do so to leave the chamber Questions Questions on Questions on the Questions on the statement Questions on the statement made Questions on the statement made in House of Commons on Monday 30th June on welfare.

on welfare.

19:39

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

-- Welfare reform.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I dedicated my working life to helping people into work, not just helping people into work, not just finding jobs, but opening their eyes to the opportunity, purpose and to the opportunity, purpose and dignity of meaningful employment. I dignity of meaningful employment. I do not plan to lecture the Minister on the challenges of her department faces and nor do I believe it serves faces and nor do I believe it serves this House to relay our political refrain about the past 14 years refrain about the past 14 years which do little to address the pressing reality that we face.

We pressing reality that we face. We all recognise the scale of the task ahead and that is why less yesterday's events were so yesterday's events were so concerning. Key elements of the bill were withdrawn. The result is a significantly weakened piece of significantly weakened piece of legislation now facing serious questions about its purpose, scope questions about its purpose, scope and impact. Even with those changes, more than 40 Labour MPs felt compelled to vote against it. That compelled to vote against it.

That should give us all because for concern and cause to pause. It reflects not just concerns with the process, but discomfort with the overall direction. I genuinely do not envy the Minister. Ministers were asked to defend proposals that have since been fundamentally altered. In the process, the government has not only damaged credibility, but opened a 4.5 billion pounds hole in its fiscal plans. Urgent reform is necessary but it must be long-term, evidence led and considered. Reforming PIP or any other benefit should never be reduced to short-term savings driven by arbitrary fiscal targets.

We were told this bill would reform personal independence payments but this approach to welfare has proved alarmingly hasty. The fiscal studies and Resolution Foundation confirmed the revised proposals were delivering no net savings this decade. This is not just a missed opportunity. It is calamitous policy. Welfare is a vital lifeline for people facing illness, disability or disadvantage. Reform must focus on strengthening this support securing long-term financial sustainability and maintain confidence.

This starts with asking the right questions. Is the current system sustainable? No. Our eligibility criteria fair and effective? No. Why are 3000 people entering incapacity related benefits each day and why do costs compare internationally and are those differences justified? How do we differences justified? How do we strike right balance between compassion and cost? These are not questions for headlines or quick fixes, but serious questions of governance, and requiring thoughtful cross-party collaboration. This highlights the limits of top-down approaches, tackling entrenched unemployment or ever increasing PIP bill requiring more than a new set of policies it requires moral leadership, cultural awareness and deep community engagement.

If we are to tackle the welfare challenge, policy must be person centred, culturally intelligent and grounded in the lived experience of the communities it seeks to serve. Real fiscal gains come from reform. A smarter, outcome focused approach that helps people move into work and that is how you reduce the welfare bill, not by cruelly cutting support, but by reducing the need for it while protecting those with serious health conditions. I urge ministers take stock, do not confuse speed with strategy or mistake cuts much-needed as they are for reform.

Please go back, reflect, consult widely, and returned to Parliament with a plan that meets the scale of the challenge with the care and responsibility it demands.

19:44

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank Baroness Stedman-Scott

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Stedman-Scott for introducing the reply to the statement and she rightly talks about missed opportunities. Not over the current government, but the the current government, but the previous government. The welfare previous government. The welfare provision is a broken system. We should not proceed until we hear should not proceed until we hear from the review and I hope that will be commented on. There is no doubt we are abandoning valuable members we are abandoning valuable members of our society.

People should know better within the leadership of the Labour Party who described PIP as Labour Party who described PIP as pocket money. We are enshrining in law that we have a system that all disabled people are equal but some disabled people are equal but some are more equal than others referring to an early approximation of the to an early approximation of the pics of control government in animal farm, the phrase is a comment on the farm, the phrase is a comment on the hypocrisy of governance.

The hypocrisy of governance. The proposals are a leap in the dark and not even the ministers know where they are going to land. Proposals they are going to land. Proposals are ill thought out, rushed and continually amended. As days weeks and months pass, we will see the unedifying, unintended consequences. Access to work scheme for those with a disability needs to be urgently fixed. Could the Minister tell the House what consultations have been made with carers about this This bill sends a message to disabled children saying that those who have gone down the path of their disability to the extent they could claim PIP would be over the line.

But those youngsters who know they have a degenerative condition can look forward to know PIP under the bill. PIP is a passport to other levels of support such as blue badges, railcars, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living the best dives. Perhaps the most important passport and benefit from PIP is the carer's allowance. We have grave concerns on these benches about this bill's impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carers allowance. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 per year.

We recognise the benefit system is broken and needs resolving. But it needs to be codesigned with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people. The root of the problem, sadly, is the NHS. Which is where a lot of these problems start. We really need to sort out the National Health Service and social care. They are part of the problem and part of the solution. What this so-called reform does, Milos, a statistic a piece of sticky plaster over it.

Patted on the head. And say, now leave it to auntie. Sadly, Antti hasn't a clue. auntie. Sadly, Antti hasn't a clue.

19:48

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Can I say I think the noble Baroness Lady Stedman-Scott for the tone of her contribution. We may disagree on sometimes analysis sometimes solutions but we both regulars the system is flawed and we want to make it better. Before I turned to the specifics, I think it is worth just reiterating that the principles behind our reform because that is what the noble Baroness that is what the noble Baroness that is what the noble Baroness Responses to those who can work should work.

If you need help the government should support you and if you can't work you should be supported to live with dignity. This bill, Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment set out to do two things, to reform PIP and Universal Credit. As was announced yesterday, and as I suspect most noble Lords will know, we will be looking at PIP in the round in the context of the review being led by Stephen Timms. I will return to that in a moment in terms of the question from the noble Lord.

The rest of the bill makes really crucial changes to Universal Credit to our social security system can offer the right incentives and the right support to sick and disabled people. It introduces the first-ever sustained above inflation right to Universal Credit standard allowance. That is the largest permanent real terms increase in the headline rate of out of work benefit in decades according to the IFS. And it ensures those with severe lifelong health conditions who we don't ever expect The changes in this bill are also part of a wider package of reforms including our right to try guarantee, scrapping the working ability assessment and our massive employment investment and employment support for sick and disabled people.

I will say I absolutely agree, this cannot be done top-down. The whole approach are having is one of eight working with councils, regional authorities, mayors, to try to build these from the bottom up, getting local plans, devolving support, working in partnership. What helps you to get to work in Liverpool is not the same as in Lincoln, in parts of Cornwall so we are absolutely doing that and making sure that it works. This is going to be a record amount of money. Across this Parliament a total of £3.8 billion of health and disability support.

This remains an important vegetation and all seem to be agreed that the current system is clearly in need of reform. The truth is, while the reform is no e-cig, it never is, and if I thought it was I now know it definitely never is. It is hard for Labour because a lot of colleagues care passionately about this and it really matters. I know others colleagues do. We always said we would listen, listen to disabled people and organisations and to MPs. And I think no one can say we haven't been listening.

And having listened carefully, we have tabled amendments in the other place to remove crossfire from the bill and the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. That means we will move straight to the wider PIP review mentioned by the noble Lord, and that that conclude before we make changes to PIP. Lady Stedman- Scott mentioned how we got here. We are doing the difficult work that is required to fix a fundamentally broken system. I know she knows how hard this is. She is right, we don't want to be throwing bottles at each other but her government invented PIP to try to solve the problems of DLA and now the IP has the problems we have here.

We have to try to find a way. Having inherited a system that is not working need to find a way to make it work. We have to do something about employment support. One of the many things the last Labour government did its order in the last over government -- Labour government we saw the disability gap narrow. When the coalition came and scrapped that it began to widen and it has never shifted since. Have to give good proper investment in employment support.

I think the noble, somebody, has asked about the fiscal consequences. There are challenges, we were aware of these changes will have a cost. The cost will be certified by the OBR in the normal way. The real price here is long-term reform will stop its long-term reform that. To shift the dial on the way we approach social security. In answering the question of the terms review, it will be led by right honourable friend and co- produced with disability charities, disabled people. The work begins now and I hope that reassures noble Lord about the work it will be doing.

Our aim is to get a new assessment that commands wider support possible so we can ensure PIP is fit for the future in a changing world. While the work begins on the team's review, the bill presses ahead with important reforms to Universal Credit. Crucially it addresses a disincentive to work that had been allowed to build up, because that previous government froze the standard allowance re-establish situation where someone who gets the health top up of Universal Credit gets more than double to single person just getting the standard allowance gets.

That means that traps some people in the system, entirely unnecessarily, by incentivising people to define themselves as capable of work. Our permanent terms increase to the standard allowance will mean nearly formally in households getting an income boost worth around £725 a year by 2029 /30 and that is balanced by a reduction in the health top up for new health claims from next April. Some people had expressed concerns about what we are proposed as a freeze. We are committed to ensure that combined value of the standard allowance and the health top up rises at least in line with inflation, for existing line with inflation, for existing claim -- claimants.

That will also apply to those who have severe lifelong conditions who we don't expect to be able to work and those near the end-of-life. We think that strikes the right and fair balance. I think I have probably answered most of the questions. Could I encourage noble Lords, we have just been, we have just closed a consultation on Green Paper so there's a lot of reform going on. We have this bill with the Universal Credit measure still here but with the terms review looking at PIP, we will be working with other experts.

But for all of us the country needs us to get this right. We know need to get it right. I'm one of those people who thinks listening is a good thing and if you listen annual to change your mind and you change what you are going to do. I think we are doing a better job and I commend this to the House.

19:55

Baroness Browning (Conservative)

- -

Is a carer and a mother, I have been having to deal with the DWP for most of my life and most of theirs. Can I just say to that noble Lady, I was as critical of the Conservative government methodology of reforming disability benefits as I am of this government's. And if I have to just ask her in the short period of time, one thing, it is this. When my noble friend opened in behalf of the Conservatives to the statement, her experience shone through.

There are ways of helping people, even people who have been out of work, or never been work, to get into work. Who have lifelong disabilities. And I have raised many of these issues with the noble Lady before. She knows my criticism of it. Please, train the people in JobCentre Plus. Use the examples charities use, for example to get autistic people into work, because they know how to do it stop please do it. And the money will seem far less over a period of time once those methodologies have been changed.

As a carer I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of having to try and explain to people who are to try and explain to people who are really anxious about their financial futures, don't worry about it, it's all going to be sorted out, it will be all right. But in fact I am genuinely worried. I'm 80 next year and like many elderly carers, I don't want to leave my relatives who have responsibility for with this sort of mess.

19:56

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I'm very grateful to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Browning the House has benefited as have I personally many times from her own expertise and the care with which it expresses what care with which it expresses what she does. Can I commend her on what she does. Can I commend her on what she has done personally and express my regret that the pressure on her and so many other carriers is as and so many other carriers is as great as it is but I think she stands as a shining example.

The point she makes really important. To point she makes really important. To pick up a couple, something I should have said in response to Lord Palmer, to reassure anyone listening Palmer, to reassure anyone listening that we are not making any changes to PIP until we have had the results of the Timms review so there is of the Timms review so there is nothing in this bill when it comes to this House which will affect people's entitlement to PIP. We made people's entitlement to PIP.

We made that clear yesterday and we have tabled amendments in the comments to remove clause 5 which is the clause that changed, that said you had to that changed, that said you had to have a minimum of four points. Hope that will give some assurance. And also I hope that she will see us also I hope that she will see us begin to unfold reforms to the job begin to unfold reforms to the job centres that we are going with the grain of exact what she says.

One of our concerns is that the system in job centres have become to box ticking and what we really need to do is release our workload to spend less time checking everybody in and more time focusing on the person in front of us to figure out what can they get, what they need, what help can they get. For some people it is getting into a job for others it is moving closer to the labour market. Our job is to try to support our work coaches and what we are doing is some incredibly interesting work, piloting an evaluation on trying to try different ways of supporting people and trying to go with what works.

I'm grateful and we will take the points.

19:58

Baroness Thornton (Labour)

- -

I would like my noble friend to expand on why it's so important that we tackle the issue of ill and disabled people being disproportionately out of work. And that only not -- that not only looks at Universal Credit and the broken system of access to work but also ingrown finishes and broken health service, particularly for young people. I just want to comment about PIP because I have a very close relative who has been working with one of our disability catch allergies for the whole of her working life -- disability care charities.

She is very irritated about the misunderstanding about the IP, something that prevents people from returning to work. Because it's clear that as the nuns means tested benefit disabled or ill people who work do not lose their PIP. People who work and claim it to help them with additional costs. The narrative of PIP is keeping people out of work, one that certainly she and her organisation profoundly disagree with.

19:59

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I thank her and I'm grateful to have a clarifying that. Those of us who spent a lot of time in the weeds of social security policy need to make sure we are being clear. I know members of this House will know that PIP is a non-means tested, non- taxable benefit and will stay so and its claimable indent in Many people get it in work. Her broader point is it's really important. We have to it's really important. We have to get, to tackle the disability employment gap we need to do number of things.

One is to tackle the underlying conditions, she mentioned mental health, we are seeing growing challenges in mental health but the government has investigated heavily, for example young people investing in specialist mental health professionals at every school. The youth guarantee for young people will improve access to mental health services. We are investing in the NHS to get waiting list down and get support, get people into that. We have to make sure employers are able to do their bit. And I'm really excited, the forward to the report.

We are going to be getting that soon for the former chair of John Lewis to look at how employers, how we can support employers, what the barriers are to employment, we are going to tackle on all fronts but I'm tackle on all fronts but I'm tackle on all fronts but I'm

20:01

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)

- -

Can I declare my interest as a current non-executive at NHS England. I want to ask the Minister to explain if it is the government intention to return to face-to-face PIP claims including a biannual review for the majority of claimants. If not, what are the reasons behind that? While the review continues, none of us want people who are genuinely disabled to lose out, but we also know the online system resulted in a lot of inappropriate claimants who have been successful and we need to deal with that rather than wait for the outcome of the review.

In addition, will the government review the mobility scheme which to the majority of taxpayers, particularly the lower paid, is considered unnecessarily expensive. New vehicles are normally provided every three years.

20:02

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

This is an important point about face-to-face assessments. They used to be and was stopped in Covid and have only been started slowly. We have said publicly that we want to ramp them up again and she raises an important point. The question of the motor ability scheme, there has been nothing in the proposal that we talked about that affected the mobility element, but I take a mobility element, but I take a broader point and I'd be happy to look at that.

look at that.

20:02

Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We look at the specific question about young people. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is one in eight of all young people. If the figure is true and you count 60, but if you take 18-year-olds up to 24- year-olds, it is 14.8%, one in seven of our young people. I've the last five years, the number has been rising. One of the big problems is 29% of 16-24-year-olds with a disability are not in education, employment or training, but the question is what is the government planning to do to help young people? Far to many of them are not in education, employment or training.

20:03

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

It is a very important point and we should be worried about the number of young people not in employment, education or training. If you start your adult life, what chance have you got if you do not have a start? There is the point about why. The truth is the evidence takes you so far but one of the things we look into, we look at a used guarantee for 18-24-year-olds to get easy access and apprenticeships to find work, but we are going to run trailblazers around the country and use them to inform the design of it.

We want to see what works for young people. We talk about them as if they are all the same and they clearly aren't. There will be some young people who are severely disabled who will never work and we need to give them appropriate support. Many others who have mental health challenges or physical health challenges and with the appropriate support, health support, encouragement and other support locally, they could be moving back towards the workplace. I am looking forward to finding out evidence of what works, taking it out and changing things.

20:05

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

I declare an interest as Chief Executive of cerebral palsy Scotland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have got 10 minutes. I declare my interest as Chief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as Chief Executive of cerebral palsy Scotland and I want to continue in the town of Baroness Stedman-Scott and of Baroness Stedman-Scott and support the Minister on the importance of supporting people to work. She will know because she confirmed in a written questions to me in April the average waiting time me in April the average waiting time for applicants on the access to work to receive a decision is 84.6 days to receive a decision is 84.6 days and 62,000 people waiting for their applications to be processed.

I want applications to be processed. I want to read an email to the baroness from an adult with cerebral palsy this week who said the government cut Access to Work support without cut Access to Work support without warning. All of a sudden they do not fund things until recently. People fund things until recently. People are losing their jobs and their sanity and they will end up back on the benefits being cut. What is the Minister doing about access to work now rather than waiting for the

20:06

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

various reviews? The noble lady nose given her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble lady nose given her connection in the sector that we consulted in the Green Papers on the future of Access to Work and we are working our way through the responses and I will go through that. The demand for access to work as been growing and the government will be aware of it and has been growing at a high rate and is challenging. We want to consult on it and then look at how we can it and then look at how we can reform the system to make sure it helps as many people as possible.

20:06

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

I welcome the fact that common sense finally prevails and the review of PIP will be taken about any decisions of eligibility and I hope that will allay the anxieties expressed powerfully by the noble Baroness browning that we all had in Baroness browning that we all had in our email boxes. It will be co- produced with disabled people and organisations that represent them, something I have to say was not done under the Conservative government. Why does the search estate say that the precise method will need to be worked out with disabled people and stakeholders, could my noble friend assure us that coproduction means they will have a full and genuine say throughout the policy process and will the DWP consider extending the approach to universal credit?

20:07

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I thank her for appreciating the decisions we have taken. The Secretary of State and Minister for Social Security has been clear that this review will be led by the co- produced disabled people and representative organisations and other experts and we are engaging and making sure that that is a genuine process. We are going to have this level of reform and we need to a consensus about what the assessment would look like. We need public confidence in the system.

If we will sustain the security system, we need to make sure people feel it is done well and appropriately and given to the right people. In terms of the universal credit review, I can reassure we are doing focus groups, changing realities, looking at specific aspects of the way it works at the moment and I hope that reassures her. reassures her.

20:09

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

I am conscious I've been here for three years. During Covid, I knew how challenging this was for the government and the principles set out the same principles that were there when the Conservatives were in office as well. One of the things that came through in the press release and written statement is I cannot find the regulations for right to work because that is building on reform we introduced and some of these matters, but the key issue is about the increase in mental anxiety, depression and similar.

I know the IPS has been expanded, but what is she doing with ministers in the health department about having a focus on mental health treatment in order to help people who should be better off in work but need help to get them there? there?

20:10

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I respect her experience. I understand her confusion. She raises some important points. The regulations will come out and we committed to the regulations that guarantee that they will never be reassessed for a benefit. It is important because we must've everything possible. If we put people in a position where you get twice as much money for not being able to work and then you are afraid of trying it because if it doesn't work we will go back, that is of course...

She has hit on an important thing and the regulations is doing what she wanted to do. On the question of mental health support we are working closely with health ministers and very soon this week we will launch our 10 year health plan which sets out very ambition plans. Patients will get better access to support including self referral, talking therapies without needing a GP appointment. 85 emergency departments and as I mentioned earlier significant extra support in schools, our youth guarantees and helping people get access to mental health issues.

We need to find ways of supporting people. Whatever the barrier is, we cannot get that out of the way. We cannot just tell them to go and work. I'm grateful for those important points.

20:11

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

I welcome the concessions from the government in relation to welfare reform because it is of difficulty. I ask the Minister that these concessions will because a funding gap for the Treasury. Will she indicate that these concessions are made regarding welfare reform are made regarding welfare reform will not be filled by below inflation increases and particularly universal credit? universal credit?

20:12

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Obviously in terms of how any decision is made, it will be done at the budget in the usual way as a matter for the Treasury, but the specific point, the bill says we are guaranteeing an above inflation increase in each of the next four years. A single person 25 or older will be £106 per week by 29-30. That is unheard of. That is the first time in decades we have increased the on inflation the rate of universal credit.

I'm not just universal credit. I'm not just hoping she is reassured, but delighted. delighted.

20:12

Lord Grayling (Conservative)

- -

Back in 2010 I worked hard to work with Baroness Stedman-Scott. I believe strongly that some kind of challenge is needed to ensure those who have the potential to work are given the right incentive to do so. The abandonment of capabilities assessment needs to be filled. assessment needs to be filled.

20:13

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I did not explain this as well as I could have. We regard the single biggest challenge is the fact the incentives are in the wrong place and we are doing two different things. We are separating off the connection of support from your capability to work and we will abolish the capability assessment and looking at how it can be used to make appropriate judgements, given support on the basis of need. We are making sure we do not make decisions that will not in the end be good in the long run.

We know there are 200,000 disabled people who reckon they could work now with the right support and would like to. We need to give the right support to those who want to be able to work. We should make sure that they make the right choice and support them in doing that we need to get the incentives in the right place or it will never work.

20:14

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

In continuing the cuts to the health element of universal credit and to those under the age of 22, the government is offering in recompense the fast track of 1 billion to support people getting back into work, but in a BBC report, a senior DWP official is quoted saying the government did not have a properly considered or deliverable program and another DWP official was quoted as saying not much has been done since this plan was announced in March.

Can the Minister tell me how many officials are working on that plan and how far it has been progress? progress?

20:15

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I can reassure her that the department is focused on this. There is not one single aspect of these changes. We are turning this around from a department with very heavy focus on processing benefits as they focus to support people in work stop crucially, we help every single worker focus on how to get someone into work and support that. I would like to correct one thing she said. She mentioned the support or access to PIP. We consulted on that...

Universal credit. We consulted on support and will look carefully at results. This government is committed on trying to make the lives of sick and disabled people better. If people have severe conditions, they deserve to live in dignity and we should support them. If they could get out and get a job and improve their own lives we will support them in that too and I want the House to support me in doing that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage is not set to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage is not set to return. The House will resume during pleasure entail 20:37. As many are of that opinion will

20:16

House Adjourned During Pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move this I beg to move this bill I beg to move this bill be further considered on report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further considered on report. The question is the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the bill be further considered on report. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it.

20:39

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

content". The contents have it. Baroness Smith of Basildon, Amendment five, Lord Newby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move Amendment five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move Amendment five which is in the name of my noble which is in the name of my noble friend and others. In preparing for this I'm looking at preparing for this I'm looking at preparing for Friday's debate which is on the report on the Select Committee report on the Select Committee constitution of executive oversight and responsibility. That report in and responsibility. That report in effect says that the chief responsibility for maintaining responsibility for maintaining constitutional behaviour rests with the Prime Minister.

The Prime the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister who is the powerful Minister who is the powerful executive is in responsible of making sure the executive behaves making sure the executive behaves itself. That is one of the itself. That is one of the underlying problems. It relies on the head of government being a good the head of government being a good chap. Of course, part of that is the chap. Of course, part of that is the responsibility or authority and responsibility or authority and power also lies with the guardian of the constitution and Prime Minister.

More or less unchecked. The written statement we have that was quietly put out on the government's behalf suggests that in future appointments to this House party appointments should require the party nominated to write a short note on the qualifications...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to interrupted. The citations have already been in place and were used in the last list that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and were used in the last list that came forward. Just a matter of accuracy. The Prime Minister in future would have to justify overriding the would have to justify overriding the would have to justify overriding the House of Lords. These control House of Lords. These control mechanisms on the Prime Minister's mechanisms on the Prime Minister's power of appointment but we have lived through a difficult period with Prime Minister's who did not securely pay attention to securely pay attention to constitution preventions and we did constitution preventions and we did override the advice on the integrity and suitability of nominations and suitability of nominations placed by the Prime Minister.

The long-term answer is we change the way the House is constituted. The way the House is constituted. The bill we presented when we were in bill we presented when we were in coalition in 2012 is we will do much better to have an elected second better to have an elected second chamber, elected in 15 year terms, chamber, elected in 15 year terms, it would resolve a lot of problems. In time, the very slow pace of reform that we have on these occasions would mean a number of interim measures to limit the prerogative.

And to guard against. The real risk is we might have a The real risk is we might have a Prime Minister who is not a good chap or chappess. The British have constructed a number of what are called constitutional guardrails to limit the Prime Minister is untrammelled prerogative power. We have the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, and the House of Lords Appointment Committee itself. In the Labour Party manifesto, the manifesto committed itself to construct in addition a new ethics and integrity commission which is also a means yet undefined by the government of checking the Prime Minister's untrammelled authority and holding the Prime Minister to account.

We are all painfully conscious but not all Prime Minister is respect constitutional or ethical constraints. That being the case, which we have experienced in this country, the United States has extremely painful experience at the moment and we might again have the experience after the next election. This interim measures seems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary and highly desirable. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

20:44

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

1 insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to amendment five and six and support the enhancing powers. Largely for reasons moved by powers. Largely for reasons moved by noble Lords, I would say too many made by previous Prime Minister is made by previous Prime Minister is have been made in respect of people who I rather doubt are in any sense who I rather doubt are in any sense appropriate and that has happened on too many occasions. At Committee too many occasions.

At Committee stage, I put down an amendment that stage, I put down an amendment that did not find favour from Lord Howden did not find favour from Lord Howden which was to require them to stake which was to require them to stake their reasons for not approving an individual. I did that because I was individual. I did that because I was conscious that injustice could happen and I think natural justice happen and I think natural justice requires reverie.

I think the argument is that this would open up the prospect of a judicial review. I think he was unduly pessimistic. I don't agree with him, but I have not repeated that part of my amendment. I would now like to come to amendment six and I'm grateful to The Earl of Dundee because here I think we are dealing with a fundamental question. They should carry out a proper test to assess the propriety of appointing somebody and furthermore I should also carry out a test and that person's likelihood of participating and that is the first part of the amendment which we have both put our name and I commend it to the House.

But if I I commend it to the House. But if I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he not aware that holack does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he not aware that holack does indeed reject any applicant for membership of your Lordship's House membership of your Lordship's House to quite stringent questioning about the extent of the commitment which they are likely to make your they are likely to make your Lordship's House -- subject and applicant. The attendance there tightly to give to the considerations which take place within your Lordship's House and within your Lordship's House and that that represents one of the key that that represents one of the key factors in the decision-making process.

I think we are in agreement. What I'm in favour of is putting this in a statutory frame. I putting this in a statutory frame. I don't doubt it is done in a don't doubt it is done in a discretionary manner but I would like it to be statutory and I think it's a very slight difference it's a very slight difference between us and I hope we won't fall out of the matter. The second point, and I feel sure I won't have the claimant here and I speak as a claimant here and I speak as a permanent member, paid-up member of permanent member, paid-up member of the awkward squad which relates to the oath.

It's a long time since I had taken the oath of Privy Council. I I'm not quite sure what it said. But I've been on the Internet have a careful look. And what it actually says is that members of the Privy Council, when they have a clear and informed view, should vote and speak accordingly. I actually believe that that is the duty of your Lordships, all of you. I certainly concern in the duty seems to be members of the Privy Council.

Money matters, and I speak now in principle which I do not have an informed opinion and I would like to think the other same. And in respect of those matters, I am quite happy to take the guidance of the front bench. But what is one's duty where one has a formed and informed few. I think it's quite plain. It's to vote in accordance with one's conscience. And we are not ECO chambers. This is not an not ECO chambers.

This is not an echo chamber. we are here to express an unfettered view in accordance with our settled opinion. And I would like members of the House to take an oath to that effect before a tin this place. So when a member of the whips office comes along and says, we want you to vote, you simply say, my dear, I simply don't agree with you. And what is more, I have sworn an oath that I will speak in accordance with my conscience.

And that will be completed.

20:49

The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment 19, which proposes the replenishment of the crossbenches following departure of the registry pierced with 20 appointments via the House of Lords Appointment Commission which is chaired by the noble Baroness Lady Deech. Currently there are 32 Hereditary Peers sitting on the crossbenches of your Lordship's House and an increase since I joined when there were 28. No group will be greater impacted by the impending removal of the essence. Unlike other groupings the crossbenches do not speak the single voice, despite being so ably convened by the Lord Kinnoull and his illustrious recesses, nor do we have any political nor parliamentary machinery with which to lobby for replacements in order to ensure the relative proportion of crossbenches remains consistent after the passage of this bill.

Contemporary political scientists and commentators and after this afternoon's debate I think the majority of your Lordships considered that the expert independence and ameliorating presence of the crossbenches in this House is essential element of its good legislative function. The crossbenches provide considerable subject matter expertise, not found on the more political trenches and they tend to carry an apolitical casting vote that acts as a dampener to the political noise that emanates from the other place and psycho tear through the party political ventures.

We must with that tempering role at our peril and I would ask that the noble Baroness the Minister in her closing explain clearly how the government proposes to ensure the crossbenches of your Lordship's House will not be diminished as a result of this legislation. Lordships may recall we debated this as amendment 51 of the committee stage to which the noble Lords Lord Anderson of Ipswich and The Earl of Dundee added their names. No Lord Anderson apologises he cannot be had today.

But he reiterated his support when I spoke this morning and he had noted previously the importance of HOLAC and the People's Peers process as a means of admitting to your Lordship's House distinguish and apolitical expertise, the Angels of HOLAC, who would not gain access by any other means. Think of the contributions of the noble Baronesses Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Bull, lady what. Lady Kidron, the champion of our creative industry. Think of the tireless work of many noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel,...

None would Pannick, Lord Patel,... None would Is particularly important given the dramatic decrease in the number of HOLAC appointments in recent years, to reiterate the numbers referencing committee there were 57 appointments during HOLAC's first 10 years between 2020 10, since there have been only a further 19 appointments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with six since 2018. I might just intervene briefly as a former member of HOLAC. In the time in which I served in HOLAC, we would have liked to have introduced would have liked to have introduced to a three crossbench peers a year which was what would have normally been the case. We were prevented been the case. We were prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister of the day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the day. That's very helpful because I was going on to propose possibly a number. In other words, from initially making nearly 6 HOLAC initially making nearly 6 HOLAC appointments year, we now have only one such appointment annually. one such appointment annually. Despite having a nonpartisan highly qualified Appointments Commission we qualified Appointments Commission we are simply not making use of it. Given this government is determined to honour the constitutional commitment of the Blair years, with commitment of the Blair years, with the passage of this bill and the final abolition of the hereditary peerage, should it not also honour the Blair government's connected commitment to HOLAC? I permit replenishment of the crossbenches in replenishment of the crossbenches in the weight proposed by amendment 19 which will ensure a modest which will ensure a modest appointment range of four panel.

I do not think Hereditary Peers should do not think Hereditary Peers should be converted into Life Peers in any significant number. Amendment nine should not pass. This is physically because our particular demographic will remain well overrepresented amongst the remaining members of your Lordship's House. I do not therefore see amendment 19 as a route for alleged hereditary is to return to these seats albeit they will be welcome to apply with anybody else, as common citizens. Rather we should take advantage of the removal of the hereditary present to increase the diversity of our membership and bring a broader array of expertise and opinion to bear upon your Lordships legislative efforts.

As I understood it, and as mentioned earlier, one of the main reasons for retaining ramp of hereditaries back in 1999 was that it would encourage the further reform of this house, leaving it better not worse as a legislative body. I'm concerned this bill as drafted moves group of largely independent minded members and increases the proportion of members that are politically motivated. Amendment 19 would reverse that and republish the House the group of nonpartisan and technically expert members. It has the benefit of deleting if only a little the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the loss of Hereditary Peers and this must be a good thing.

On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister White cannot be adopted and support the continued and essential vibrancy of our crossbenches.

20:55

The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)

- -

In this grouping, and I support the text proposed by the noble friend, your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue. The current standard. Future membership composition should be designed to serve this priority. If within the temporal membership offer from the House of 600, the political numbers were to be 450, the nonpolitical representation appointed HOLAC would then be 150 crossbench peers. As a result, within that total 600, respected proportions could then become the government and opposition parties at 175 political members each, next the independent nonpolitical crossbenches at 150, next all other physical parties at 100.

These proportions would then provide a good balance. And continuing our present standard of legislative scrutiny. However regarding life peerages confirmed on independent nonpolitical crossbench cope with the reformed house and as my noble friend Lord Houchen emphasises, in the first place, it must be HOLAC and not the Prime Minister of the day which recommends these appointments to the King. appointments to the King.

20:56

Lord Butler of Brockwell (Crossbench)

- -

Are intervene at committee stage to explain why I couldn't support amendments five and six -- I intervened. I repeat my argument briefly now. These two amendments would put the committee HOLAC into a position where they overruled the Prime Minister. In one case, Prime Minister could only make appointments to the House of Lords on the advice of HOLAC. And in the on the advice of HOLAC. And in the other case, the Prime Minister let...

Let me just remind myself. Excuse me. No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a life peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, so the House of Lords Appointment Commission would make the recommendation and in the other case, the House is that the Prime Minister could prevent the period Minister could prevent the period being conferred -- the being conferred on the recommendation of the appointment commission. In both these cases, it would mean the Prime Minister was entirely constrained by this advisory, and argument is that the Prime Minister should not, the Prime Minister's powers should not be constrained by an unelected committee of people, however distinguished.

Lord Wallace referred to other committees which constrain the power of the Prime Minister. But they are crucially different because they are simply advisory. In this case, what is being proposed are committees that would enforce the decision on the Prime Minister. And that, I think, in the case of unelected people, is wrong. If it was Parliament that was constraining the power of the Prime Minister, either to a point not to appoint, then I think that would be acceptable.

It is not acceptable in nonelected advisory, unelected body, committee, however distinguished, should do so.

20:58

Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)

- -

Is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord Lord Butler and like him I have a similar view that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should not be able to constrain the powers of the Prime Minister. Our system of appointment may not be perfect but it does at least have some semblance of accountability in that the person who is responsible ultimately is directly elected. However, whilst I wouldn't support any amendment therefore that a bridge powers to HOLAC, that doesn't mean that we should pay no attention toward a Prime Minister does all that we should not seek clarification as to what he intends.

And so I was intrigued by the Prime Minister's written Ministerial Statement of only last month of 19 June, setting out the roles and responsibly sees of all parties in making nominations to this House. Especially what he had to say about his and holack's rolled in relation to the crossbenches. In his statement the prime list reminds us that HOLAC determines the suitability as well as propriety for any crossbench peer it nominates to him for recommendations to the king.

As other liberals have said, clarification, I personally would not want HOLAC to have a role in considering the suitability of nominations from any political But the PM says it is statement, I will recommend directly from an appointment limited number of candidates to sit as crossbench peers. These nominations will be vetted for propriety by HOLAC. So, what the Prime Minister is making clear in his statement is that for any period she -- He nominates straight for the benches, the propriety, which I think is quite interesting, bearing in mind, the crossbenchers are not meant to be partisan and not in any way obliged to any Prime Minister, and of course, as we have already discussed this evening, the crossbenchers are about to lose a significant number from their ranks, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House is concerned about balance.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask some questions. And I don't expect the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House to signal now how many crossbench peers she expects the Prime Minister to create over this parliament but it would be helpful to get some sense of where she envisages the split to be, between the number of prospectors that are nominated by the HOLAC process, and the number of nominations to the crossbenchers she is expecting the Prime Minister to make directly.

And I note the noble Earl's amendment, with the proposal he has put forward for a specific number. And of course, my noble friend has already said in previous times, Prime Minister's had limited the number of crossbench peer -- Peerages HOLAC can create. And if I'm correct, HOLAC has yet to nominate any crossbench peer this year, but in the last few weeks alone, the Prime Minister has appointed four crossbench peers. So, what I guess I am asking the noble Baroness, the leader, is what are her views about the risk of, effectively, a two tier crossbench peer.

We have got those judged on their suitability, versus those who are not. And could she confirm, if I understand the prime ministers statement correctly, that the Prime Minister would ignore any HOLAC concerns about the suitability of a crossbench peer he nominates directly to the crossbench peerages. Therefore, what we could have them, which is back to my original concern, that we may have directly appointed crossbench peerages who are supposedly not obliged in any way to the Prime Minister, that HOLAC may have thought, potentially not suitable, if I had come up via their processes.

But the Prime Minister has decided they are suitable and he is going to appoint them directly. So, I would be them directly. So, I would be grateful for her views on that.

21:03

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. Who has asked some questions about a topic that caught my eye as well. Since this bill was in committee, there have been two significant developments, in terms of the crossbenchers. As my noble friend has just alluded, there was, on 17 June, a list of four nominations to the crossbenchers. For very eminent people, said Tim Barrow, Doctor Simon case, Dame Catherine Grainger, and Dame Sharon White, and we look forward to welcoming them all to the House at the work that they will do.

The announcement of their peerages was accompanied by short citations, in the way I have previously paid tribute to the government for introducing, it is a helpful thing and sets out the distinctions they have had in previous careers and the expertise they bring to your Lordships house. But it wasn't made clear whether these four were the people were nominated by the House of Lords appointments commission or directly by the Prime Minister. There was, in the 1990s, under Sir Tony Blair, a doctrine, and they wrote a ministerial statement to Parliament outlining it, to say that he would nominate a small number of distinguished people, who, for reasons of their former career, were understandably not suitable to be partisan peers, directly to the crossbenchers.

At the time he said that hard, he said that would be around 10 people per Parliament, they were known in Whitehall as the crossbench exemptions. Are the four people that were nominated on 17 June crossbench exemptions nominated by the Prime Minister? Or were some of them nominated by the House of Lords Appointments Commission is -- Is the question my noble friend ask just now, and it is yet to make recommendations for the crossbench peers that it suggests quite separately, from the Prime Minister of the day.

And like my noble friend, Lady Stowell, I was interested by the written ministerial statement the Prime Minister made to Parliament on 19 June. As well as the questions she has asked about HOLAC's role in assessing suitability. He said in a , that the commission can decline to support a nomination on proprietary grounds, and will inform the relevant political parties this is the case. He went on, it is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the sovereign, echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell.

He said, in the unlikely event that I come as promised, would proceed with the nomination against HOLAC's advice and propriety, I would write to the commission and this letter would be published on the go.uk. It has happened under other prime ministers, and they were critical of that. Is it the case, as the Prime Minister said the parliament, unlikely as he says it will be, that he may need to exercise that judgement to disagree with HOLAC, and appoint people to your Lordships house, against recommendations and propriety, would be grateful if the noble Lady could clarify that.

noble Lady could clarify that.

21:07

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise, and again, I feel I am going against the tide to oppose this amendment, which seems to me rooted in the outlook that I think of as good chap -- If you go through an operation, and you suddenly become someone who is uniquely capable of raising your eyes above the partisan and describing the true national interest, Lord Wallace said, what are the Prime Minister isn't a good chap or chap S? If you are appointed to HOLAC, you must have these virtues, how is it that you suddenly, by virtue of getting there, drop all of your assumptions and prejudices and become this kind of idealised Platonic Guardian.

I have to say it is a doctrine that has debilitated and delegitimise success of governments because it has widened the gap between government and government. A more accurate word would be oligarchy. It's a way of taking a group of people and putting them in a privileged position for stubborn oligarchy now based not on birth, so much as an outlook. How many HOLAC nominees, for example, would have voted with the majority in the 2016 referendum? Just to take the one thing we have an exact measure of how the country at large felt about one specific issue.

And the idea that we can, in making these changes to the composition of this House, narrow, ineffective the way of coming here, putting another filter, straining the nominations through some sort of handkerchief, strikes me as utterly inconsistent with the times. And almost certainly unacceptable to public opinion. Also by the way very much at all is with Lord Newby's previous amendment. I was one of the small number that supported it, everyone spoke in favour of it and then voted against it, it was quite like the Holocaust centre, all the speeches were one way, all the votes the other way, but it seems to me that once we start...

Not all the speeches, my noble friend, Lord Howard, was indeed one that spoke in favour of the education. But once we start making these changes, the pressure is going to be a widening, rather than narrowing the route by which people come here. In other words, there will be more pressure for some kind of direct representation, some kind of democratic element. And those who are against it, the majority of you, my Lords, I suspect on both benches, those of you do not want a democratic chamber, I put it to you, your best tactic was to lie low and do absolutely nothing.

To allow this House, in the words of the golden son of a song, to do nothing particular, is to do it very well. Once you open the issue of the opposition and function of this chamber, then you invite the public into the conversation which I guarantee you is not going to end with a consensus around putting more power in the hands of some appointed committee. Rather than of an elected government. If I can go back to something that my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, said in the last batch, I do think there is a very strong case.

Now that we have decided to open the issue in changeable composition by, in my view, mistakenly removing our remaining hereditary colleagues, if we are going to do that, we should have a Royal commission and look in a measured and judicious way and how this chamber can be made more democratically accountable, because if we do not do that in a timely and temperate spirit, it seems to me very likely that a future government will make changes that the majority of the laws gathered here would not liken it will do so in a spirit of frustration, having been defeated in some measure and will lash out in anger and legislate in haste.

21:11

Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friends on the frontbench in amendment five, to which I added my name. In passing, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, the theory of good chaps in government was a wonderful theory that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who we don't see now as much as we used to, but who wrote and it was an excellent theory, that depends on the fact that we all actually like to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, I think he himself has said this, we have discovered we don't always do the right thing. My support, therefore, for my noble friend of the frontbench, is exactly because some check and balance is required on probity. Now, the desire to have probity in public life has been there as long as people have been in public life. But the desire to codify it, really began with the cash for questions scandal. And over the years has grown. And today, we have the committee of standards in public life, we have the principles of public life, and indeed if you stand for and are appointed to a public body as I was in Scotland, you are required to indicate that you know what these are under required to indicate that you agree to uphold them.

I think what my noble friends amendment does is simply to ensure that where HOLAC simply to ensure that where HOLAC have made are -- A recommendation to the Prime Minister by way of informing him they do not think that somebody has that require probity, that the Prime Minister should not make the appointment. And in this, rather disagree, although I have the greatest of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Butler, because to take his argument, it is to say that, if a Prime Minister decides that the ultimate rogue on the planet should get a life peerage, she should get a life peerage, and I disagree fundamentally with that, that there should be a check and balance, and actually, I regard it to this amendment as being a negative instrument as opposed to an affirmative instrument.

I think the other amendments are more of an affirmative instrument, which I disagree with, but this amendment is about saying, the Prime Minister has put forward a name, HOLAC look at it, and I think generally, we can accept that there are people of goodwill. Had as good as we get, in terms of neutrality in this House. And they will look at it and they will say there is a fairly major problem unable advisor Prime Minister. The idea that that person that they, having considered, Lord knows what that person might have done, they might have fiddled their taxes, they might have done all sorts of things.

But they are then... HOLAC is overwritten and the Prime Minister goes ahead, I think it is actually wrong. This happens already. The honours committee received nominations, and I look at them. And they go through the probity. And if the person they are looking at is not thought for whatever reason to be fit, then at that point, the recommendation doesn't go forward and I think this is very much in that, so I will happily support my noble friend in his amendment, because I think it's his amendment, because I think it's a very simple and small buttress for probity in public life.

21:15

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

I rise to oppose amendments five, six and 31. Noble Lords will probably remember that we are reprising a very excellent debate we had on 14 March, on my noble friend, Lord Norton of Louth's private members bill, which essentially sought to put HOLAC on a statutory footing. My Lords, this debate prompts us to address Tony Ben's five questions of power. Because it is about power. This is about putting members into the upper house of the UK legislature.

This is a very important issue we are debating this evening, and his five questions are, what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you? And I think in some respects, these questions are then answerable. Because the effect of the amendments are to put HOLAC on a statutory footing which I believe would embed semi-permanently and already closed system of appointment.

It will result in the establishment of an unaccountable, undemocratic and self-perpetuating body whose members share the same liberal metropolitan viewpoint and test entity to those who take a It will weaken the reputation and legitimacy of this House and undermine the Prime Minister. And his long established constitutional prerogative to appoint Piers on a case-by-case basis in an open system that guarantees accountability to Parliament, to his or her constituents, to the media and to others. HOLAC adjudicates along propriety is of course not in noble and it's the right thing, but suitability is a step too far.

The amendment also continues the regrettable trend of the accretion of power and decision-making away from elected politicians and towards quangos and non-deep about public bodies and more recently inter alia the best judiciary. It is predicated on the idea that HOLAC is a model of success, but is it? Although noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are of course noted for their knowledge and skills and experience and wisdom, they would inevitably be drawn from our educational, social, political, economic and demographic cohort.

Will we see more working-class men from Yorkshire, from Scotland, from Cumbria, from the East Midlands? Will we see more young women, people from South Wales, disabled people? I doubt it. As Lord Hannan rightly says it is a myth that any public body can be truly independent and impartial. Every Centene thinking person is subject to redistribute purchase and I come back to the point made by Lord Wallace of Saltaire about the good chap theory that's been mentioned and Viscount Thurso is quite right it was enunciated clearly by Lord Hennessy.

That was about convention, that was about historical precedent, it was never about bringing forward heavy- handed legislation. Relying instead on convention. In conclusion we all know that to a certain extent, I know my noble friend disagrees with this, arguably this amendment arises from one hardcase under the premiership of Boris Johnson as per minister in 2020. That is regrettable because as we know cases are very likely to make bad law. This bill is sewage and errors.

To add a bauble formalising HOLAC statutory role to this bill is I think inappropriate and wrong.

21:19

The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)

- -

It may be worth thinking about where there is power for the Prime Minister to appoint Lords came from. The comments of Lord Butler, it of The comments of Lord Butler, it of course derives from the fact that King John of the Magna Carta the power to raise taxes taken away from him, he was left with the right to appoint Piers, create Lords, to wage war and to write treaties & them. Since then waging war and treaties have recently come under greater scrutiny and there are problems with that and Parliament certainly is facing them at the moment with treaties being written.

The one thing no one seems to be questioning as the Prime Minister has the right to advise the king and constitutionally the king does not refuse the Prime Minister. But the power is really therefore so the premised has the power of the ancient monarchical powers to create Piers, if that power is still right 800 years later then that's fine I'm not sure we shouldn't be thinking as our predecessors did all those centuries ago but maybe circumscribing this right and having more control over it because I think that unfettered power with the person who is also head of the Civil Service, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, the Jewish -- judiciary in our single service department of them Civil Service I don't like one man having control of everything.

21:20

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

I've long thought that problem with this particular bill is that we become, we all become rather high- handed about talking about the Hereditary Peers as though they are the epitome of anti-democracy and the sales. To be honest with you we've all been appointed, none of us were elected and therefore it seems to me that that is a way of feeling good about ourselves by looking down on the hereditary is when in fact none of us have a legitimate right to be here.

That's one side. I did have a lot of regard for the spirit of Lord Newby's previous amendment. On looking for a democratic way of a lack thing a second chamber. The spirit at least of that was them off and the people should decide an irony regarded that well. Yet this leading amendment in the group in the name of Lord Newby seems to me the epitome of the opposite of that last amendment because this is all about antidemocracy, it gives the ultimate power to an unelected committee answerable to no one and Lord Butler explained that very well and I have been following speeches that have expanded on it.

Moving the amendment, Lord Wallace asked us to imagine if the Prime Minister or indeed the president may not be a good chap or chap S. I did wonder who would decide who is good, what is good, would it be HOLAC? Or the noble Lord Lord Wallace? And it's possible that he and I would not agree. The whole tone was that constitutional guardrails would be set up by those who know better who are more ethical or more virtuous just in case the voters voted in the wrong way and voted in wrong then.

We all know that this is a nod to having a go at the previous Prime Minister Boris Johnson, it's about President Trump, not about President Biden. It's got a partisan feel to it. When it comes to legislation I am very worried about how many Henry VIII powers there are being used at present, the number of Statutory Instruments that are contained in bills. I said that and argue that when they were put forward by the Conservative government, and indeed agreed with many people in the Labour Party in opposition about that antidemocratic trend.

But I'm sad to see that with Labour in government there are even more Henry VIII powers and even more Statutory Instruments. In other words I do think we should be worried by an antidemocratic trend that we are witnessing. But if we have to have a second chamber of the Lords, if we are going to appoint people, at least let's retain the notion that the Prime Minister who has got a democratic mandate should be the person who decides it rather than an unelected committee.

Just to note on the virtues of unelected expert committees, I am absolutely fine with them as advisory but not in charge. This morning we heard in relation to a discussion on the infamous door that has cost a fortune and doesn't work that ugly fence that is an antisocial insult that looks like a barrier between this House and the public, that was this House and the public, that was all agreed on by a very worthy committee and none of us even knew it was happening because they were unanswerable and we couldn't even at the end of that discussion I still couldn't work out who had made the decision.

It was even more opaque than a Prime Minister deciding on who gets in this House. In other words having a committee does not make it OK. Finally can I speak in favour of being partisan and taking sides. I am all for the virtues of the crossbench but there is something that seems to me to be wrong about this notion that the crossbenches are full of the great and the good your experts and that somehow they are superior to anyone who has got an opinion or a passion or a principle because they know more than the rest of us.

I appreciate that I never joined the crossbenches, I didn't somehow get invited. I'm just pointing that out. They are apparently independent but not that independent. So there is a group of us who I -- you are sort of maverick, Weir called nonaffiliated, and God knows what it means, but I do actually think that it's very important that we defend the right to be political, to be partisan, to actually say I'm not an expert but I am absolutely believe in this.

If we are going to Billy -- exist inherit organically some -- have some purpose despite saying how many PhD's we've got a hammy charities we've run. The great and the good are great and good but the writing of laws in this country being legislators is being political is not just about that. I am of course as frustrated as anyone about the way that party politics, the whipping process and so on, can damage political independence and courage on all sides of this House.

We have witnessed it tonight, we've witnessed it in the other place today over the last few days, that annoys me. Because I do want people to believe in something, but on the other hand I think the danger of saying that we are house of experts and that we are now going to have an expert HOLAC group who are going to decide on how many more experts they will bring in is that what we are doing is kicking politics out of what should be an absolutely political place political place

21:27

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

I will not delay the House long, I would like to say that many years ago under a Conservative government I advocated that Nigel Farage should become a member of your Lordships house. I think that if we recognised the role that he played in taking Britain out of the EU, people would have said he does represent the majority in this country. At the time he was polling quite significantly which is more than one can say for most crossbenches in this House, and he was a very significant little player whether you agreed with him or not.

The fact is neither of the political parties was going to nominate him and it took the crossbenches to actually make him an offer to join them. I think at that time he might well have done so because he thought he had finished his political career by taking us out of the EU and he would have had a very valuable role to play in your Lordships house. Think Like how different things would be today, it doesn't follow that he couldn't of lead reform from your Lordships house but I suspect it would have been rather more difficult and we would be in a very different position today if he was actually a member of your Lordships house.

So when we think about how representative our Lordships house is of British public opinion, we got barren mind that there are serious players out there who are not represented in this House and I believe they should be.

21:28

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

What we are all pondering what might have been I would just like to agree to an extent with Lord Jackson and Lord Hannan. It's something that worries me about HOLAC or any kind of body like that that the establishment of points itself. You lose or you risk losing that diversity. On the other hand I think we are trying to let perfect be the enemy of the good. You need a body to look surely at the propriety of people who are being proposed to this chamber.

The one point which I think is essential and where I completely agree with Lord Butler is that HOLAC should not have a veto on what the Prime Minister can do. We have to accept we are dealing with human beings and sometimes we may have a Prime Minister who makes erratic choices. The key thing is that they have to justify those choices but not that they are prevented from making them. One other comment to go right back to Lord Hailsham, I think he described pretty much what it's like to be a crossbencher without having to take an additional oath you just speak your mind and vote your conscience, but I will let him ponder that one.

My final comment is not quite sure how any of this actually relates to this bill but perhaps I am being too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrow in my thinking. Briefly and with some trepidation

21:30

Baroness Bull (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Briefly and with some trepidation somebody did come through the HOLAC process, and although I might become part of the establishment I didn't part of the establishment I didn't That. I definitely came from a working-class family and I definitely came from the Midlands, but I do agree with Lord Jackson and with others about the importance of increasing the diversity of the House because of the importance of having diverse views within the House, I do worry that the combined effect of our procedures, our system, our allowance the system will always mean that it's very difficult to have people who haven't become a little bit like us, look at the time we are working.

If I had caring responsibilities and lived somewhere in a rural part of the country without a good train service I wouldn't be able to get home and even with the generous increase in the allowances I probably wouldn't be able to afford accommodation in London. So I do think that in thinking of the next stage of how we increase the diversity of the House not just the way we look and the places we come from but our socio- economic diversity, disability as the noble Lord says.

We will need to think very seriously about what participation means because I know we have been talking in other amendments and will about attendance and criteria of participation, but this will mean that people who have other responsibilities can't be here as I said in Lord Lawson's bill we have a wonderful comprehensive school teacher who contributes but he lives in Hackney if he had lived in let Middlesbrough or Burnley it would be a little bit more difficult So I do think we need to think about intersectionality and that will mean thinking very hard about how procedures and systems in a way we haven't done before.

21:32

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

Thank you, my Lords. I spoke extensively about HOLAC at committee stage. You will probably be grateful that I do not intend to repeat myself and all I said again. I know there are many different views across this House. One HOLAC across the chamber. But I think we can all the chamber. But I think we can all agree that we want a house that has integrity and demands public trust. HOLAC provides a nonstatutory Safeguard with the protests to appointments to your Lordships house and its recommendations are currently advisory and do not mind the Prime Minister.

In a 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seek to prevent life peerages being referred when HOLAC recommends the date of their appointment. Amendment six and the name of my noble friend, proposes HOLAC in the place of the Prime Minister should propose peerages in any recipient should be fit and proper, as well as politically participating in your Lordships house. The effect of these amendments, my Lords, would place the power of nomination to this unelected chamber in the hands of HOLAC.

An unelected quango. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded the House. This was reinforced again by many of my noble friend this evening. HOLAC was created as an Advisory Committee. It was created to advise, not to dictate. To make its recommendations binding would fundamentally change its remit and transform it from being a source of counsel, being a gatekeeper for your Lordships house, that would be a constitutional shift in the power to recommend appointments to His Majesty should rest where it does now, with the democratically elected Prime Minister who is accountable to the people.

And I'm glad that the present Prime Minister who is very critical of former Prime Ministers who ignored the views of HOLAC, has now said that he might, now that he is in power, do the same. My noble friend, Lord Parkinson, has quoted already from the written ministerial statement but it's worth saying again, that he said, in the unlikely event are as Prime Minister would proceed with HOLAC's propriety and advice, would go to the commission and this would be published on gov.uk. A slight digression, I'm going to my noble friend, Baroness Stowell, and my noble friend, Lord Parkinson, for bringing the attention to the House to the Prime Minister words on the directly appointed crossbench peerages that were referred to in this same ministerial statement.

My noble friend Lord Parkinson reinforced the concerns and referred to the statement of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that committed... I remember the statement, I had to dig it up, when we were trying to work out how the Prime Minister made crossbench peerages. And they were actually, these crossbench peerages at the time, I think they were committed to 10 per parliamentary session. And only in a parliamentary term... Parliamentary was it? OK, thank you. And there were only to be 10 of them and they were meant to be for public service, meant to be allowed for cabinet secretaries to be appointed Chair, which is marvellous of course.

And various others. But there has been a slight change in approach. And I would be very interested in the noble Baroness, the Minister's views, following the comments from my noble friend, Baroness Stowell, this idea that there might be a two tier crossbench peerage process. Those that HOLAC judging suitable, versus those that APM is judging suitable. And it is interesting, because this does raise a new question of what is the criteria for suitability? If these appointments are supposed to be nonpartisan.

The more crossbench peerages the Prime Minister appoints to be crossbench, the more he risks potentially undermining the status of that section of the House. And I do think that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. And as I say, I would be interested in the noble Baroness, Minister's views. That is a small digression I suppose, because to refer to the amendment in the group, while I have sympathy with the two conditions proposed by my noble friend, no Hailsham, particularly in the latter in the light of this bill, with some of the most active participants of our house.

Experts continue with democratic accountability. HOLAC exists to advise, the Prime Minister decides, I am sure the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight and is careful with considered advice. But also it is an Advisory Committee at its remit should not take the place of a Prime Minister. Finally, my Lords, amendment 19, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Deben, like his amendment at committee stage, seeks to encourage HOLAC to recommend 20 new life peerages for the crossbenches.

And I very much appreciate the sentiment of this amendment. Your Lordships house is set to lose a considerable amount of experience and expertise. From the noble Earl's benches, not least his hugely respected Earl, and if this passes unamended. Other amendments are still to come from various noble friends of they seek to resolve this problem in a similar way, but for the whole house. And I hope that colleagues on the crossbenches will consider lending their support for these amendments.

In conclusion, my Lords, I appreciate the strength of feeling across the House of HOLAC and appointments to your Lordships house but as I said in committee, the balance we had deserves scrutiny and responsibly and we must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, particularly when it moves away from democratic oversight.

21:38

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

- -

21:53

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendments. Oaths perhaps we will come back to the question about the balancing to the question about the balancing appointments the crossbenches between the great and the good and people's peers is clearly another we people's peers is clearly another we should come back to I was very struck various points Lord Hammond's struck various points Lord Hammond's intervention particularly, we are discussing the different view liberal democracy and popular liberal democracy and popular democracy liberal democracy as were democracy liberal democracy as were those who govern Govan with the degree of checks and balances to degree of checks and balances to make sure that decisions with due consideration and that policy does consideration and that policy does not swing with popular opinion to rapidly from one to another.

When rapidly from one to another. When Lord Jackson says we shouldn't have unelected judges shot holding governments to account is actually saying that the rule of law should saying that the rule of law should not be a cheque on what the Tribune of people or whoever the president promised it might be should be. We are talking about a cheque. We are are talking about a cheque. We are not saying that HOLAC should make all the nominations, we are saying when the Prime Minister makes nominations HOLAC should advise and the Prime Minister should accept that advice..

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did not say this should be open about all nominations but for the Prime Minister. The only other nominations other than the HOLAC appointed once come through the appointed once come through the Prime Minister from the Pliskova parties so can I ask which other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nominations he is referring to? I must have missed spoken I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must have missed spoken I apologise, the Prime Minister makes the nominations, HOLAC considers them. That seems to be a valuable part of the checks and balances of a part of the checks and balances of a liberal democracy and I would say this is not a new problem, Boris Johnson is not the only person who has abused the system if one is looking for villains of the past my looking for villains of the past my party provides by far the greatest in David Lloyd George he sold in David Lloyd George he sold peerages.

We have thankfully moved away from the but I therefore wish away from the but I therefore wish the press list to about and ask if we made test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we made test the opinion of the If the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House. I missed the final word. The question is that amendment five is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by The question will be decided by division. I advised the House... The question will be decided by a division I will advise the House

21:58

Division: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Amdt: 5

when voting is open. Voting is now The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment five is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the The Contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not-contents to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment five The question is amendment five be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have My Lords, they have voted,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted, contents 55, not contents 234. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment

22:08

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment six, Amendment six, not Amendment six, not moved?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment seven. My Lords, in view of the lateness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I am going to be very brief in moving amendment seven. Perhaps I might say there is an abundance of caution I will not test the House, but I think there is a very strong case for introducing life peerages for a limited period. And a retirement period. And I think there is two reasons for that. Firstly, I do think membership of this House needs to be refreshed. Otherwise you get inflation numbers to an intolerable degree.

The two amendments I propose, the retirement amendments I propose, the retirement age, and limited peerage addresses that. But there is a second point, which is if one is honest about this, one's experience decays over a period of time. When I first came into the House, you rather a lot about criminal law. That was about 15 years ago. And I knew a great deal more when I went to the House of Commons in 1979. But once knowledge changes, whilst I have the understanding of the general principles of criminal law, I don't pretend I have the expertise that I previously did.

So, one's expertise to clients. There is a second point, that many of the issues that one is wholly convergent of, have changed. When I came into the Houses of Parliament, we knew nothing about transgender, artificial intelligence, it was wholly unknown, and we didn't have to worry about the internet. But now we have to regulate and debate the application of these matters, to try and regulate AI, try to regulate social media. And try to debate transgender in a sensible way.

And it is much easier for those who are more conversant with these issues in my generation are, to address them. And I think that requires, in part, a refreshing of the membership of this House. For those reasons, I see merit in a retirement age, and also limiting the period for which peerages are created. And so, my Lords, I beg to move, but as I say, I am not going to test the opinion of the House.

22:10

The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)

- -

Amendment proposed, after clause one, insert the new clause, the words is printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me, my Lords, I also see the benefits of a retirement age and rise briefly to speak to amendment 20, in my name, which is a variation 20, in my name, which is a variation on that theme. Both the noble viscount, and Lord Houchen, propose a retirement age of 85 in amendment a retirement age of 85 in amendment seven, my Amendment 20 a somewhat similar, proposes the introduction for only newly appointed life peers, for only newly appointed life peers, a retirement age of 80, or date 10 years after the members introduction years after the members introduction to the House, whichever is later, amendment 20 gives effect to the Labour Party's manifesto commitment, to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80, however, it introduces an important allowance for those who joined your Lordships house after joined your Lordships house after the age of 70.

This is an important distinction, my Lords, as it does away with an arbitrary 80-year-old away with an arbitrary 80-year-old age limit and ensures those, such as serving Supreme Court justices, whose period of public service has a whose period of public service has a retirement age of 75, will be able to enjoy at least a decade of to enjoy at least a decade of service within your Lordships house, irrespective of the age they are appointed. Noble Lords may recall the probing amendments of the noble the probing amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his excellent speeches at committee stage introducing them.

Along with stage introducing them. Along with the famous Glenn -- Excel spreadsheets, calculating retirement ages propose for the P noted retirement age of 80, if implemented immediately, would have a Draconian effect on the numbers of your Lordships house, removing somewhat up to 327 members. However, my Amendment 20 avoids that a gay team, is one of the organisational chocolate would -- That a guillotine, as well as the organisation choice. This would ensure that we do not lose instantly the institutional wisdom so valuable among our more experienced movers, because not impact any current life peers whatsoever.

It also fulfils Labour's manifesto, whilst also tempering the age based guillotine, at least for our existing members, while introducing gently retirement age that certainly seemed to find favour with the majority of those present at committee stage of expressing opinion. On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and I look forward to the noble Minister's the Leader of the House's response, particularly of the light of the indication she gave earlier, that there maybe a Select Committee convened to consider just this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

topic. Amendment 20, proposed by the noble Earl, the Earl of Devon. Let

22:13

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

noble Earl, the Earl of Devon. Let me remind the House again of the Labour Party manifesto, we will introduce a mandatory retirement age at the end of Parliament, once a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House and the next sentence, I will introduce a new participation requirement as well, threatening the circumstances with which members can circumstances with which members can be removed. Attempting to help the government, as the noble Earl so kindly pointed out, the committee stage put on a number of amendments in retirement ages, giving the House three options of retiring peers at age 80, 85 or 90, aged 80 would have removed 327 peers, which was far too Draconian, I think that is why the Labour Party suddenly dropped the 80 requirement age, when they realised they would lose 95 of their own number.

A retirement age of 90 would remove just 16 peers and not worth it, retirement age of 85 would remove about 185 peers, and I think was quite a bit of consensus in the House at the figure of, retirement age of 85 may be about right. Of course, the noble Earl, the Earl of Devon, removed this refinement and made a lot of sense and a vast improvement on my suggestions, and have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Earl of Kinnoull, and Lord Burns, I hope I'm not doing them a disservice by misquoting them, I will not try the patience of the House by tabling those amendments again tonight, but I wish to suggest here the solution to the objections we'll hear from the government at the end of this debate, explaining why we cannot do this.

And the answer lies in my Amendment 14 in the next week, which I will elaborate on then of course. The government will reject these amendments, probably the amendment next week, the noble Earl, Earl of Kinnoull, 18 on attendance, on the grounds they are too complicated for primary legislation there are a lot of loose ends to be tied up, with unforeseen consequences on how we must consult goodness knows how many people and organisations before we legislate. Of course, there must never be any amendments to the sacred bill, no matter.

Apart from the last two bogus points, there is merit in the government's arguments, we do not have the minutia of power retirement scheme, at age 80, with amendments and tweaks would work. Would it be appears birthday? Or at the end of the session? Or the end of the Parliament? As for consultation, my Lords, I would submit there is not any single person or organisation who knows the slightest thing about the retirement of peers than all the current peers in this House.

We are the people to be consulted. My Lords, I do accept that we do not have the minutia for retirement divisions meant to be put in the bill, in any primary legislation now, my Lords, I believe earlier, there was a wonderfully clever speech by the leader in her opening remarks today, we have been sold a wonderful plan with the noble Lords Select Committee which reports on a range of things. Now, the three crucial things the House were interested in when we dealt with these amendments was a retirement age of some sort, dealing with non- attendance, and a trickier one, which will launch some support for, peers that do not participate.

The Lords Select Committee will report on a whole range of things, up to 20 recommendations, a wide range of things. Do we seriously think any government will increment the recommendations of the law Select Committee? Of course I take the lead, I don't think any government will permit a new bill on changes to the House of Lords, because of the experience I have had with this one. Any bill limited to a few things can be amended for a whole range of things.

And I don't also believe it would be wrong to set these things in stone and primary legislation. It would be possible to amend them before begotten of the bill for some therefore, my Lords, I suggest we need a bill with special power, whereby we can introduce rules on retirement, attendance, participation and amend them if circumstances change and I will address that point in the next

22:17

The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)

- -

I observed last time a committee did everything in life tends to have at retirement age I do feel the amendment 20 and something like it is vital for us to bring in as part of the modernisation of the House. I'm going to make only two points, the first is in respect of the cliff edge. In organisations I have worked in we have often done mergers and acquisitions and had cliff edge problems with people. It is generally the case that an organisation that expels the seasoned and the good, expelling the human capital it is thought without replacement right away as an organisation that we can sell.

We, with people who are aged in our house beyond the age of 80 at the moment, where we to show them the door and we now know it's a very large number, the spreadsheet of Lord Blencathra, that would be something very weakening. This of course has an elegance in it because it doesn't expel anybody but it sets down the premise for the future and it is the route that is peculiarly British in it was chosen as we have already heard by the senior judiciary when they did the same thing some many years ago.

Indeed by the bishops when they brought in a retirement age as well. In both of those circumstances having spoken to people who were around at the time, the people in any event chose an earlier retirement age so we would be smoothing out the great problem of the cliff edge. Second and final point going to make is about the wrinkle that the noble Lord has cleverly introduced about the 10 year minimum alternative. From the crossbench perspective and indeed through us from that house is perspective this is a very good wrinkle, crossbench us to provide quite a lot of judges, we need to provide judges for special Bill Committee's, the Ecclesiastical Committee and there are other purposes as well for which the senior judiciary that we are lucky enough to have, I'm looking at at least one member here on the crossbench, very valuable to the House.

The trouble is that the Supreme Court has a retirement age of 75, so if they can only come and get trained up by the time say 77 we have them for a very short period of time. It is actually extremely helpful for us if the senior judiciary gets at least 10 years at bat and helpful for us in the House as well. I realise that when I was at the bar school I was told that the judge only ever hears the point the third time you make it.

I've now the third time you make it. I've now made this .4 times but the noble Lords noble Lady the leader was pointed out that we are all judges and we are here for judgement. I do hope you will ponder that the fourth time this might be a good point.

22:20

Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

I recognise that this country rather likes retirement ages but I'm afraid I don't share that view. Because I think my noble and learned Baroness Lord Mackay of Clashfern who recently retired, I may be wrong on this, I think he was 93. 97? Even better. He was as sharp as a tick, absolutely until the time that he stood down and his contributions to the south were memorable. He was very serious man in every way people listen to him in this House, and to think that we would put in place a system that got rid of my noble friend Lord Mackay fills me with absolute horror.

If we want to reduce the numbers of this House I never understood why a committee of this House turned down the idea of internal elections. We all know in our parties who the people are you don't come, you don't contribute and who actually pay very little role in this House, why don't you allow us to them out and reduce numbers that way and then you won't have this arbitrary business of saying, oh because you've reached the retirement age of acts that's the reason why you should go.

reason why you should go.

22:21

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thought that Lord Blencathra had summed up the situation at the end of Committee stage very well when he said there was broad agreement across the House that we need it to act on attendance, participation and retirement. I had reckoned without the noble Lord Lord Hamilton, but having sat through those earlier debates I suspect he is in a relatively small minority in your Lordships house, if we do think we need to move on those issues, the key question is how we can do it expeditiously and with the best likelihood of getting an outcome that your Lordships house wishes to see.

The one way in my view which will not achieve that is to expect to do it via primary legislation for two reasons. First, no government is going to want to put before your Lordships house a bill with a raft of provisions for further relatively minor changes because they have seen what's happened this time and I wouldn't fancy being the Leader of the House he waits at the Cabinet committee to explain why another bill dealing with all these things that was a priority for the government.

The other argument I made in a number of occasions for which I apologise to noble Lords is that I do not want the House of Commons deciding on what constitutes proper attendance and participation by members of your Lordships house and I also think that if you were to say to MPs to take up some of the proposals we have just heard that 85 was to be the path retirement you would be more likely to get them to pass something which said it should be 70.

Because 85 is so far beyond any retirement age for anything of which I am aware that it appears to people outside your Lordships house is almost ridiculous. This is not to say that we do not have and have not had many members of your Lordships house you are over the age of 85 and who have been extremely impressive well beyond that age. But there are reasons for retirement age which go way beyond competence. Retirement ages are very often introduced in order to see a throughput of people, to get new experience in and to prevent an organisation living off its past.

That is why retirement ages are often introduced, that's one of the reasons why we need a retirement age here. If I am right in thinking that we should not looking to the government to produce a bill covering all these things how else do we do it? My view is that we can do quite a lot of it via our own standing orders, and the way to get to the point where we can change Standing Orders my view is the one that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has proposed.

If we have a Select Committee of your Lordships house with a strict terms of reference with strict timetable and which produces proposals we can implement them very quickly. On our own. We should decide what we consider is a proper level that participation, we should decide what in our view constitutes an adequate level of attendance and we should decide and recommend what we think is a sensible return -- retirement age. I can understand why noble Lords are rather cynical about any proposal by any government to set up a committee to do something which has no statutory powers to implement what its recommendations will be.

I think on this issue there is such a swell of opinion about the need for change and a willingness on the part of the government to accommodate that that for me I believe that we should grasp that proposal, we should from our groups put forward good people to serve on it and to task them with coming forward with agreed proposals in the quickest possible time. That in my view is the way that we should deal with all of these issues and therefore I believe that we should not make looking to put amendments in this them.

them.

22:26

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

If I make? -- May. He said almost written I was about saying the next group, but it's no less welcome for that. I just wanted to pick up the point about us all voting for each other, I was here in 1999 and it was a very unpleasant experience to have people constantly sidling up to you who had never spoken to before and urging you to vote for them because they were such a good chap to use a phrase. I really hope we don't go back to that, but let's get on to the next group and we will talk more.

22:27

Lord Winston (Labour)

- -

I must declare a conflict-of- interest in the case because the not quite certain I'd rather forgotten but I think my 85th birthday is next weekend. I have to say really I'm still employed, I'm still producing experimental work which has been published and I'm still teaching and I'm still training postdocs students and younger students and talking to children schools was the fact is we are discussing something which is a biological problem which your Lordships seem to have neglected.

If we had a rule that we only had people of a certain height in this chamber let's say less than five foot 10 would not be acceptable we would actually forget the gauzy and curved normality in statistics and the fact of the matter is -- Gaussian. If you look historically in the last 20 or 30 years of this House of Lords there are many people who have been in this chamber were actually demented in their 60s and far more in the '70s and 80s who clearly actually were mentally not really suitable to be in the position of taking judgement on legal issues and other issues of social care.

The fact of the matter remains that medicines changing and there is no doubt that we will be getting if we actually have successful medicine as we hope in the Labour Party in future we will have to see about that of course, we will see ages increasing and with people just still being mentally competent longer. I would suggest that the arbitrary rule of age of any time is probably inappropriate biologically and we should find a more sensible way of considering how we might encourage people to retire when they are no longer competent be when they are no longer competent be -- this House.

22:29

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

I can't resist responding to that because I also agree with it, I think one of the problem is we have is that the whips do not have sufficient power to tap people on the shoulder and tell them it's really time whatever age they are if they are infirm. From that point of view I agree, it's not a matter of age, it's a matter of capability and I think participation is the way to go to address that.

22:29

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

22:35

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

- -

There is a sense of feeling like dej vu again with these issues, having a number of discussions. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has the distinction of having the only amendment I have ever seen of being longer than the bill itself, when he looked at the options. We are grateful for his contribution this time. And also, for his spreadsheets he produced before. Just a sort of look at the issues raised, some of the points. I was slightly puzzled by a number of the points he made, but we dropped this.

He talked about consulting, retirements, why are we going to consult people, this house you best. Not sure if he was here when I spoke earlier, but hopefully some comments I make will reassure him on that one. He also insists a number of phrases that I never said, that he said I said, I will have to check in Hansard, he may have mistaken me for somebody else. The noble Earl of Kinnoull, I think he made some really important points on that one, And I have spoken, he is aware of that issue.

I have also spoken of a cliff edge and this is partly the reason, and I have said this many times before in your Lordships house. But we have a manifesto commitment that is very clear. There would be a retirement age that those people who turned 80 would retire at the end of the parliament, in which they turned 80. And as others pointed out in the House, in my discussions with them, one of the issues around that is that is quite significant cliff edge for the House, with members leaving at the same time.

And the noble Earl can raise that issue. Sorry, there is a wasp that keeps flying here. In the discussions and consultations I have had, the discussions in your Lordships house, has been very clear to me, notwithstanding some very good points made by those who are not supportive of a retirement age, there was a general consensus from those people around the House, that they thought the retirement age was a good thing, but it was a matter as well of two piers and three opinions on how that could be implemented.

-- Looking to move forward on a base. At the noble Earl himself has said it should be new members and not existing members and if you come in for a certain age, you can longer, these are all variations on a theme and what is the best way of reaching a decision when you have variations on a theme? I will take the noble Lords point. If you have been afforded legislation, and have said these are the various options, discuss this and come up with something, and I went through the pretty own edified experience in the House of Commons, the House of Lords reform, when it went through lobbies again and again, and achieve nothing, through very fast.

The purpose and the reasons for bringing forward, the noble Earl and I discussed what the mechanism could be. I leaned in, as I have been developing this, to discuss more with Lords, how could the House take a bit more ownership of these issues? And decide what could be a way forward. At the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said the best people to look at this are members of your Lordships house you understand how bowels hooks. -- How the House works.

I am fine to accept a commitment for don't know how we implement a requirement, I have a on it, strong views on how it might be done. I might be right, the noble Lords have made suggestions and other attendance and participation of what I am clear about, I did say this to the noble Lord, sorry you missed that point in my comments, when I said about the timetable for a Select Committee, said about meeting at pace. It seems to be there is no reason why it couldn't be set up in three months, a Royal Assent.

What I said was I hope, this time next year, the house could discuss any proposals coming forward from that committee. It may be sooner rather than later, but I don't want to curtail any committee, because I think it is for them to really say this is what you have set us to do, the terms of reference you have given us, how it would take us to do that. That is a discussion for the usual channels. I think it has been set up in the same way as any other committee of the House should be set up, the noble Lord asked about hereditary peers, he seemed to think they believe in Royal Assent.

If he reads the bill, he will find it is not Royal Assent, it is at the end of the session, would be for the parties to nominate, to make a decision on who they want to buy committee. It seems to me, if noble Lords have said they are interested in this issue, if they are genuinely serious in making progress on this issue, I would be interested to see what they say. One of the remits of the committee was for me to say other things, the noble Lord says lots could be done by standing orders, maybe some things can, but it may be some things need other legislation and if it needs legislation, what better way to get legislation through your Lordships house is if we have a settled view on what we think the outcome should be.

It is something I have discussed with noble Lords across the House, is there a way this House can come to review, a way forward we are broadly agreed on, that we can implement more quickly, that we are able to, or whether we are not able to, and we can have the full back of having legislation, where we have got the people around the House. And I think sometimes, it is that we have a legislation to do this. If we do things more quickly, and more expeditiously at the House agrees on it, why don't we do it? That is the purpose of setting forward, I hope that answers the questions from noble Lords.

I know there are something that if you come in a certain age, should be later, but the committee can look at those kinds of issues that I think would have the usual representation. I think it is important that we do not let these issues just drop away, I think it's important we don't just say these are lots of options. Let the House reach a decision on this and do something about it. My Lords, with that, I hope assurance and with that, I hope assurance and answers the laws questions, as we go forward, if he has a better idea for the Select Committee to do it, I am open to suggestions but I want to be about members of this House taking ownerships on decisions that affect this House.

I am also mindful of Lord Newby's comments previously at visit time, if we sent legislation to the other place and have an age, they may have a different view of that. And this is something, if we can do more quickly, if we do a settled view, that I am sure the House of Commons will respect that as well. My Lords, I hope that, having heard that, noble Lords are willing to withdraw their amendments and we can continue to look at this issue as we move forward.

issue as we move forward.

22:43

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

Hi very much welcome the suggestion they should be a Select Committee addressing some of the issues uncovered by amendment seven. With your Lordships consent I beg leave to withdraw. leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords. My Lords, is it your Lordships pleasure this your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment eight, the Duke of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wellington. I wish to speak to amendment eight in my name. I am very grateful eight in my name. I am very grateful to the noble Ladies, Baroness Parminter and Baroness Orton for

22:43

The Duke of Wellington (Crossbench)

- -

Parminter and Baroness Orton for signing the amendment, and the baroness would have to so if she had been in time. I have stated in previous debate that although I will be immeasurably sad to leave, I do not feel able to oppose this bill. I have always recognised that the matter is in the Labour Party manifesto, in the King's Speech and has been passed by the House of Commons unamended. But before I leave and others leave, I want to try and persuade His Majesty's ministers to go even a little bit further than the noble Lady, the leader, has already indicated, I do suspect that some of the reforms, for which there is probably quite wide support in this House, will require legislation.

I think Lord Newby is being a bit pessimistic about the risk of legislation coming from this House, to the House of Commons, on reforming some aspect of this House. I think if it comes with a having reached a consensus in this House, I think it very likely that the leader would be able to persuade her ministerial colleagues that the government should back that in the House of Commons. And the leader announced earlier in this debate that she was proposing to set up, that she was going to recommend that the House sets a Select Committee, that she did only initially referred to considering retirement and participation.

I do suggest a were over matters in the manifesto and indeed, other matters still, that ought to be considered by the Select Committee, the removal of disgraced members, and improvement in the regional balance on a very good point, and of course, the Lord Burns Report on the size of the House. And I do believe there is quite considerable support across the The leader will not like me to say this but it is more and more assumed across this House that once this bill becomes an act which it clearly will soon, that there will not be the stamina or the courage on the part of the government to attempt another piece of legislation on House of Lords Reform Bill's I really hope -- house of lords reform.

The leader made an indication a few minutes ago that the Select Committee could consider what didn't require legislation and what might require legislation which I think she replied would therefore lead to some necessary legislation. I hope the leader might in a few moments be able to go a little bit further towards the intent that there should be legislation where it is required to carry out certain forms that were in the manifesto and other ideas that are around. We cannot pretend that the removal of Hereditary Peers will improve the effectiveness of this House, that simply cannot be proven.

However I do believe other reforms about which there is considerable consensus really could improve effectiveness of this House. My amendment eight is deliberately non-specific, there are other amendments earlier this evening and later which are very specific. Minus deliberately not specific, I don't wish to tie the hands of either the government or the House as to what further reforms could be brought and I have deliberately said two years which I think gives the government time to devise the next piece of legislation.

I believe the amendment could be supported by all the political parties and by the crossbenches both here and in the other place. Because surely we all want to improve both the effectiveness and the composition of this House. I do understand that the length of time it has taken to get to this point in this bill will make any government very nervous about attempting any further legislative moves. So I think if I may suggest to the leader that I hope she will have the ability and the courage to move towards a greater intent and declare a greater intent for further legislation and I think that would be broadly supported by the House, it would not be right if the government went into the next general election telling the country that they had reformed the House of Lords simply by removing the Hereditary Peers.

So in the meantime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move my amendment. Amendment proposed, after clause 1 insert the new clause the words as

22:49

Viscount Hailsham (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1 insert the new clause the words as printed on the marshalled List. May I just speak very briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just speak very briefly to amendment 29 which is my amendment. Which is to link the exclusion of Which is to link the exclusion of the Hereditary Peers to a stage II proposal and in amendment 29 I have set out what ought to be included in a bill, I think there is merit in saying to the government that the Hereditary Peers should not be excluded from this House unless and until the government has brought forward stage II proposals.

That is a simple purpose of the amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I have put my name. I rise to speak to my amendment

22:50

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment , in theory it ought not to be in this group because doing some quite different. I did not ask for it to be regrouped because I didn't want be regrouped because I didn't want these pages to be accused of trying to have separate groups of amendments to pad it out. Possible amendments to pad it out. Possible may I say of course I listened carefully on the monitor because I can get in here what she said in the opening speech, she didn't mention consultation.

But during the consultation. But during the committee stage numerous ministers in the Frontbench told us about in the Frontbench told us about retirement and attendance, that it can be done in the bill because we need to consult on it, we need to need to consult on it, we need to get expert advice, there were lots of loose and to be tied up. I think the person who did the most of that was the noble Lord the Attorney- General. That's a separate matter which I wanted to put on the record.

Those of us who are here for the Those of us who are here for the Where there was widespread report for that retirement age around 85 with some tweaks as we heard, also widespread support for removing the minority peers who never turn up or so infrequently that their contribution to the House is not essential. A couple of speeches per annum from a grandee who never annum from a grandee who never served on the committee or does any of the other heavy lifting in this House does not in my opinion justify House does not in my opinion justify attendance.

That's why support the Earl of Kinnoull's amendment 18 which we will deal with the next week. There are also limited support for a participation requirement but for a participation requirement but that is much more difficult and technical and requires a lot of tears to give thoughtful consideration to how it would work. I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton that I also don't like a retirement age but the government have said one of the justifications for this is there are just too many peers and we got to remove might reduce the size of the Lords.

Therefore I suggest sensible retirement ages are far more moral and legitimate way to do it than to evict hard-working hereditaries. On the first two points of retirement and of tenants I believe there is attendance I believe there is a view in the House that we should do thing about that and that view is just strong on the Labour side. I think Labour peers want action but accept the government line that there cannot be any amendments on this issue since it will open up the bill to other amendments.

The government say that in the past they said that Committee stage they said they needed to consult on it but now they suggested a Select Committee to do that consultation all the heavy work and then they will bring forward a new bill in due course to implement those retirement -- requirements on participation and possibly even tightening up on removing distressed members. We seen a masterful stroke from the leaders in their opening remarks offering the Select Committee to look at these matters.

If this House and a Select Committee does come up with solutions does anyone seriously think the government will implement them? I simply ask any noble Lord or lady will stand up and say that absolutely confident that this government or any government in the future will bring in forward new primary legislation and compositional changes to the composition of this House, I don't think it will ever happen. Any new primary bill will be subject to getting all the amendments which have been put down on this bill, I believe -- suspect Public bills even accept once on the reintroduction of hereditary Peers which we could debate for days on end.

It's party dangerous for any government, and the pressure on the government over the next years with all the legislation proposed, I don't see happening. So what I'm doing in this amendment saying to the House, we need to build in a mechanism to introduce any changes this House wants to make in a tightly constrained Statutory Instrument that's the guts of my amendment 14. Let me say to government peers in particular, there is nothing in my amendment which sabotages the thrust of this bill to get rid of hereditaries, as long as I personally think that is.

My amendment would not open up built in rear myriad other amendments commits and he says that if a resolution of this House establishes or changes the age at which peers must retire or imposes a minimum attendance level or a participation requirement, in the government must within 12 months implement that resolution by laying a draft SI first. I envisage it working as follows. Take retirement for example, this house would set up a special committee of the great and the good and try to thrash out a retirement regime.

It may take 12 months or two years or we might never agree. If we did come up with something it would come before this House as a resolution. If we approved it than the government would have to implement it within 12 months and in SI. I trust the government not to change it so if hypothetically we set a retirement age 85 with various tweaks no government is going to change article 80 or 90 end if they did we would simply vote it down and be right to do so.

The same procedure I suggest would apply to the other things on a participation or attendance. It would be no obligation of this House to create these regimes and resolutions, we may decide for whatever reason not to do some of them because it's too difficult. I conclude by stating that the majority made in this House is we want to make some changes especially on retirement and attendance. We cannot do it in this bill for the reasons I set out. I strongly believe we will not get a bit of primary legislation to do it either.

Lord Newby said we can do it through orders, in my amendment I quote that we may need to amend various, the following acts of Parliament, this act in itself, the Life Peerages Act of 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act of 2014. That's not my whim was the advice of the Public Bill Office. It may or may not be right but I don't think Standing Orders we can actually amend in Act of Parliament therefore we would need an SI to be able to do it.

I'm old and ugly enough to be cynical about what the government suggests here. Lord Select Committees are brilliant, they are excellent and come up with brilliant solutions. But let us be clear that they are may be a danger in the reports, maybe they conclude may cover other things that the government will decide and need to consult on it further or not implemented immediately. Let me take the lead at her word, she is a thoroughly honourable and noble Lady. If the Select Committee is to be the way forward then at third reading I will put down a revised version of this amendment so that when the special Lords special Select Committee reports we will make recommendations on retirement attendance or participation that the government would introduce an SI and fermenting them.

Nothing else, keep it simple. If the Lord Select Committees the answer then an SI implementing the conclusions is the solution. What could be wrong with that? That I think is the only way to get the reform group we want through in an expeditious way. through in an expeditious way.

22:57

Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)

- -

I rise to support the amendments in the name of Viscount Hailsham and The Duke of Wellington. Earlier today my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships house about the assurance given by Lord Irving when he introduced the legislation which removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships house. He gave an assurance from that despatch box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage II of reform of your Lordships house of reform of your Lordships house was in place.

He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance. What credence could be placed on that assurance. And he told your Lordships house it was a matter of honour. A matter of honour. He could have said that assurance would only last for 25 years. But he didn't. He could have said that the assurance would only last until government was elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships house. He could have said that but he didn't, he didn't say either of those things.

He said it was a matter of honour. Earlier today in our very first debate the noble Baroness the leader for whom I have a great deal of respect gave your lordship assurances about the future from that same despatch box. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness gave your lordship those assurances in good faith. But if any of your Lordships were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by Lord Irving of laying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If it helps the noble Lord when I will are talking about something 25 years ago. I'm talking about a years ago. I'm talking about a rather short period of time, a matter of months setting up the Select Committee. So I hope you might assured by that because I'm not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

matter of three months. I wasn't talking about those assurances, I was talking about the assurances which the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. When the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chamberlain. When the noble Baroness said she gave assurances... That's the assurance from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's the assurance from the House of Lords Commission for members of all parties across the House. I daresay but the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I daresay but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the government, from that despatch box and that carries as much weight or and that carries as much weight or as little weight as the assurances as little weight as the assurances given by Lord Irving of lead when he given by Lord Irving of lead when he And so, my Lords, support the And so, my Lords, support the amendments we are currently debating, particularly my noble friend, who I am pleased to be supporting in this situation, going some way to restoring that sense of honour, which the noble Lord prayed in aid, when he was originally introducing the legislation, the Duke would go not quite so far, but nevertheless, worthy of support.

I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for what I am about to say. But when I made these points are when I made these points are committee. -- When I made these points committee, the noble Baroness ignored them when she came to reply to the debate. I hope that she will do the courtesy of replying to them when she winds up this debate and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. to say.

23:02

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

Much of the debate during the course of this bill has focused on what should be in it, rather than what should be in it, rather than what is in it. And these amendments eight, 14 and 29 seek to bind the government into a timed program of further reform after this bill has passed. At committee stage, I put down an amendment to the effect that shortly after the bill is passed, a time-limited group in a house be formed to hammer out not just the definition, but the real application and practice of a participation requirement.

And my amendment received wide support across the House. The reason why I have not brought it back again today is because on reflection, it is a matter that might be best addressed internally in this self-regulating house, rather than included in this bill and sent to the Commons, to also, -- To alter, block or tamper with, what the noble Lord Newby was saying, and is why I no longer support amendments that seek to bind the government to producing legislation about further reform and I am encouraged by the Select I am encouraged by the Select Committee, as it has become such a Committee, as it has become such a wide topic of discussion today.

23:03

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

To support the idea of a Select Committee being proposed by the Leader of the House I think is a very good way forward. I therefore very much support my noble friend, Lord Blencathra, because as he says, we need a way of incrementing the recommendations of that committee. -- Implementing. All my experience in this House, and no doubt many other people's to, is the other place are extremely reluctant to embark on legislation regarding this House. I would not expect was to get another offer of a mother for -- Of another bill for a decade or two, to get ourselves in this bill the power to move forward seems just basically sensible.

If we are going to have a committee, let's make it a potent committee and not an omnipotent one. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says we can do it of our own volition. Given the difficulties we had in even basic disciplinary procedures, and having to go to primary legislation, to give ourselves the right to have basic disciplinary procedures in this House, I am not aware of any evidence that we actually have the power of our own volition to change the sort of things that are being considered for the Select Committee, but I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Newby, would say what he thinks our powers are and what he bases that understanding.

Because if indeed we do have them, that would be encouraging a simplified approach. -- And encouraging and simplified approach. I very much hope our noble friend, when we come to it next week, will press his amendment.

23:05

Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)

- -

I agree entirely with what my noble friend, Lord Lucas, has just said. I support, in principle, amendment eight, in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. But I think he is rather timid. Because if he believes his substantive reform of your Lordships house, he should table an amendment to achieve that. Surely he knows, as my noble friend, Lord Lucas, has just suggested, there is no real chance that further reform of your Lordships house will be seriously proposed during your current Parliament.

And I do want, I am afraid, and I do not want to irritate the noble Baroness, the leader, but however many times I read the Labour Party manifesto, I do not believe that it is suggested do not believe that it is suggested there would be three stages of Lords reform. As the noble Baroness has argued on several occasions, I am afraid I do not agree that it was quite clear in the manifesto, that there were to be free stages.

-- Three stages. I think any rational person reading the Labour Party manifesto would understand that it proposed to stages. And this bill seeks to achieve only one of six measures which the manifesto proposed as part of a single action to modernise your Lordships house. Those words, I repeat from the manifesto. I would also suggest that if the Labour Party had clearly stated in its manifesto that there would be free stages of reform, of which the first would be removal of which the first would be removal of all of those that entered the House as hereditary peers and no one else, it would be strongly criticised across the media.

It would have been seen as discriminatory to treat some members of a body of people, doing the same job, with the same rights, in a different manner from others. I am surprised, at the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, of whom I have always had the highest regard, really believes the passage, on which she also added her name, would lead to substantive reform. If she really believes in a more democratic house, which has been the firm policy of her party for decades, her best chance of achieving it would be to work together with others to amend this bill before us now.

I had hoped that the noble Baroness might see the value in tabling an amendment similar to amendment six, tabled by my noble friend, Lord Lucas, in committee. And amendment eight, which I tabled. It contains 90 peers, elected in some sense, but to 2D hereditary stem, we could avoid moving to an all appointed house, and maintain the issue, but on a more open and democratic basis. I would suggest 24 the crossbenches, and 74 the principal party blocks to be allocated on the basis of the average number of votes cast in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last three general elections. Order. My Lords, I wonder if you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. My Lords, I wonder if you could confirm which amendment in this group you are addressing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am addressing amendment eight. I am addressing the general debate I am addressing the general debate on the group. I am about to conclude my remarks if the noble Baroness my remarks if the noble Baroness would allow me, if I were to briefly say, that I would believe it would be a nod to PR and in terms of numbers, it would benefit the numbers, it would benefit the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. But it would be less Party.

But it would be less devastating to these benches then of the effects of the Bill as it stands the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. Leaving aside the at present. Leaving aside the parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which can be solved, the three years average

23:09

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

solved, the three years average formula would produce 29 conservatives, 27 Labour, eight Liberal Democrats, and three each for Reform and the Greens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to add my name to amendment eight, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who has contribute so Wellington, who has contribute so much to the work of this House. As have so many other noble Lords who have so many other noble Lords who happened to be hereditary peers. And whose tremendous and dedicated contributions to this House will be contributions to this House will be removed by this bill. This amendment removed by this bill.

This amendment is deliberately not prescriptive, but seeks to ensure that this bill but seeks to ensure that this bill will not simply represent job done, in terms of House of Lords Reform in terms of House of Lords Reform Bill. This bill will not improve the effectiveness and value-added of effectiveness and value-added of this House. It will leave a net this House. It will leave a net loss. My Lords, I think we all agree we need to reduce the numbers of we need to reduce the numbers of this House.

And we would like to modernise and improve the effectiveness and efficiency. But if effectiveness and efficiency. But if this is all we do, then this will not leave our house in a better not leave our house in a better place and there is further reform, as the noble Earl, the Earl of Kinnoull, suggested, in spelling the seasoned and the good, rather than those who don't turn up, or underperformers, will not add value, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who talked about participation being particularly important.

So, I hope that the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, might be able to reassure us that this will not be the end of the matter and that there will be further reform to improve on a net basis the position and effectiveness of this House.

23:11

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

I am grateful for it. My Lords. It has been an interesting discussion, and in some ways, it ran over from the previous group, I rather thought. But there were some very important points raised, and I don't think the House in anyway, I will come back to it, should underestimate the challenge, which is in no way a challenge to any individual, it's a challenge to the realities of power and instances of government and the priorities of government, that was put out by my noble friend, Lord Howard, which is also intrinsic in fact to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Duke.

Now, I have said earlier today, my Lords, I feel that we on this side have been very emollient in this long process, and that we have made many efforts to reach accord, and not obstruct this particular piece of legislation and so far, there has been little in return. My Lords, continuing on that track, I have to say, in the light of what I said earlier, which I meant, speaking with the authority leader, as leader, that I cannot support, much as I understand his motives, an amendment from my noble friend, the noble Viscount, which would effectively seek to delay the implementation of this legislation, which I think is better now, as it was amended by the House earlier.

And it's effective in the sense it is not a full reform. I don't think the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount would, because of all the conditionality is in it, potentially lead to a very lengthy delay of implementation of legislation. And I think that made leaders into paths of conflict which might not necessarily lead to the most fruitful outcome. What I do understand exactly the point he is making, and that others have made. Insofar as the amendment from my noble friend, Lord Blencathra, is concerned, I think the House was not only entertained but hugely illuminated by the many amendments that my noble friend brought forward at committee.

He raised an enormous number of points and thought, he has not brought many back at report, but I think the consideration, in a sense, offering us a bridge to make some of those things possible. I understand where he is coming from and it is not really for me, it's for others in this House, I would doubt his aspiration that he would bring forward an amendment at third reading, in the manner he hinted at, because the normal expectation of the House is that that happens when the Minister said they are prepared to have a discussion on the thing.

This methodology that my noble friend has proposed is an ingenious one and it may well be that the Leader of the House, may well say that she is prepared to discuss with my noble friend this particular mechanism. And if so, then they could do that. But, if not, then my noble friend may have to reflect, between now, and I think then, will have to reach the amendment on the second day, may have to reflect on the way forward.

I turned to amendment in the name of the noble And to reflect the comment earlier on the comments by my noble friend Lord Howard and others. The reality is the great question in the air is will it happen. We have lived with this great certain see that this one thing must happen, we do this one thing, get rid of all these people, get those out and then we will think about what might follow. Maybe. I'm not disparaging the good intent of those involved.

Let's consider the realities of the matter. Attempts to bring about reform have been floated for decades and actually back into the 19th-century and have very rarely succeeded as others have suggested. Normally they stall an opposition in the House of Commons as they did in 2011 when we were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Newby endive went through the lobbies to vote for it. Or, and I had written this until Lord Newby used it earlier, they do founder -- flounder on that Augustinian tendency in every government, holy father.

Make me a reform of the House of Lords but not yet. It's ironic you see, we still have the coalition that saves the noble Lord. That is the reality and that was the case in 1999 to which my noble friend Lord Howard alluded. When the Labour Party brought forward and expulsion bill actually quite like those expulsion bills. After all there were two more in the 2024 Manifesto, hereditary Peers and those of us over 80 by 2029. Allow me I'm sorry to say to be a little sceptical.

Because some of us have been here before as we were is my noble friend said in 1999. When they promised to introduce an reformed house in 1999 it was said at first that if we all agreed to expulsion before the hereditary Peers then a second bill would come forward. But we had very little more. I remember being in the office of what I now occupy when it was occupied by the Marquess of Salisbury then launch Cranbourne. The late and fondly remembered Labour leader of the Lords, Lord Richard who I think many of us remember with great affection, knocked on the door and came in and said, Robert it's about we talked about reform.

He proposed a two thirds elected one third appointed house. Now Lord Richard had thought that was what had been promised by his party in the manifesto. And underlined in briefing from number 10 that they were going to go for a reform and partially elected house. Instead not so very long afterwards he was summarily and rather brutally sacked. Because many doubted Labour's intentions to reform, the cry went up no stage one without stage II. It was on that basis as a guarantee of further reform certified by the Lord Chancellor as Lord Howard has reminded us, that the then Lord Chancellor gave us all a pledge in Parliament and it was agreed that the hereditary Peers would stay until stage II was delivered.

After that nothing delivered. After that nothing happened. Reform vanished and a long decade into a thicket of royal commissions, Select Committees, joint committees and cross-party groups, fine words, much smooth butter but no parsnips. Except the ending of the committee through, though in fact at that time no exclusion of the Law Lords who were there. Lord Howard his powerful speech reminded us of this solemn undertaking in the -- 1999 that it is swept aside by this bill without the merest sniff of a draft reform bill.

So while we appreciate the many discussions the Lord Privy Seal has had and what she has said today, I must note there have been no fall discussions about the terms of reference or composition of any such Select Committee and Lord Parkinson asked a number of questions with us, a Select Committee as she proposes might be a guaranteed rate map to new law or it might be simply another route into the long grass, whether that's intended or not. We look forward to hearing the details, more details of what is proposed because all of us here, particularly those of us of a certain age are affected.

A manifesto went wider than the issues of mandatory retirement and participation to which The Lord Privy Seal referred earlier. The noble Duke asked as others did earlier about the scope of the committee, will it cover all the Manifesto issues and others that have been raised? And where the noble Duke asked is the bill? Where is the guarantee of reform? Where is the undertaking binding in honour this time? Where's the beef? Heard a lot about the Select Committee but no commitment to a bill.

How can we be sure it will happen this time? When? So for those who want to see this reform where is the guarantee? Can the noble Baroness when she replies give us the House a cast- iron commitment that a further bill will come to this House in a timescale set out suggested by the noble Duke to enact everything there Manifesto said would be enacted and perhaps other things the House wishes. Though I have some doubts about the club rules approach that we, and unelected house, should decide the rules of who comes here.

I look forward to hearing the government responses. It's an important matter and we made some progress today, but a Select Committee for deliberation without execution leads us not very far. Certainly falls very far short of the commitment to legislate in the Manifesto. If it weren't this late hour and if the response were not crystal clear and without space for prevarication and evasion about a bill and the noble Lord were not satisfied, then perhaps he would have asked the opinion of the House pending what the noble Baroness replies.

In that case, I might have supported him in the lobbies. But I hope that we will have a clear response from the noble Baroness and it will include some clear route map to the kind of legislation to which the noble Duke has rightly challenged the House to see.

23:23

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

- -

Once again I think we've had a wide-ranging and very helpful debate. I have to say I can think of no other legislation before this House or the other place where there is more interest in what the next bit of legislation will be than the current piece of legislation. Nevertheless I will do my best to help noble Lords. Possible and grateful to the noble Duke because he has an multiplication tab discussions with me 4chan grateful and I know his commitment to reform.

I will come to his amendment as well. Where I think I probably depart from him is he wants to wait within the next two years something to bring forward, I think I would like to move more quickly. All his amendment does really is doesn't specify any detail of what should be The government to lay before the Parliament further legislation within two years of the bill receiving Royal Assent. I know he is seeking to provide latitude enough amendment and trying to be helpful, I don't think he necessarily does what he intends it to do.

Because on length of Parliament, when the next king speech will be, he will know that no will ever commit or hint as to what is in the king speech or the one after that. The assurance I can give him there is an absolute determination to deal with these issues. I'm sorry that Lord True, because Lord Parkinson was very welcoming the committee but Lord True seems more sceptical about this will stop I don't know what the Select Committee will say. While I have proposed this route, I've heard noble Lord say to me you will make so much fuss out of this one it will take so long you're never get another bill to reform the House of Lords.

I think that is an irresponsible attitude to take. I want to see further reform, I am determined that we should make progress on these issues and the reason for closing a Select Committee top to the House to take advantage of that, the reason that is proposed is there is an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on the particular issues I look at these things in bite-size chunks I think that's how you make best progress. On those two issues which is the stage II I think it's quite clear in the Manifesto that perhaps those of us who helped draft it wanted clears with what we were.

I think it's quite clear and it's also been quite increased consensus around this House during the debate that members want action on participation, attendance, and on retirement. If the House is serious about wanting that and can come to a conclusion on that, certainly that makes it much easier to take legislation forward because we have agreed to in the noble Lord is right I would have those discussions with my colleagues and I think the House of Commons I would expect the other place to listen carefully to what this House has to say to any reasonable proposals within the bounds of our manifesto.

I would also ask the Select Committee to look at what was possible, if it was possible it may not be, the noble Lord is right they got legal advice on the committee and they can't be certain, if it were possible to take action more quickly, I think the issue of participation is one particularly applies, without legislation I think or prior to legislation I think that would be welcomed. That doesn't rule out the opportunity of legislation but the best way to get legislation through is not as Lord Blencathra was saying very long amendments, lots of different suggestions, lots of different options, if we have a clear view than that I think gives us a really good opportunity to get some legislation through on a focus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I will give way. I was not suggesting a long series of amendments I merely series of amendments I merely suggested short SIA to input one of the Lords recommend. If the Select Committee are going to recommend things on retirement and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

participation can't you just use an SI to implement it rather than legislation? I appreciate his impatience I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate his impatience I was going to come to that so bear with me. If I come to his particular amendment I hadn't quite finished amendment I hadn't quite finished dealing with the noble Dukes amendment. Part of my problem with his, and I fully agree with his direction of travel, his intention direction of travel, his intention on this, I'm not too comfortable with moving the role of the House. I with moving the role of the House. I do think removing the role of this House I think there is real benefit I think noble Lord said earlier I think noble Lord said earlier Lancaster, the best people -- Lord Blencathra the best people to do Blencathra the best people to do some of this work is the House.

As any committee sees fit. I'm keen we any committee sees fit. I'm keen we should do that. If that doesn't work then we still got the option of, then we still got the option of, we've got manifesto commitments. I think it's easier to get something through and more quickly to sit through if we have a settled view from this House, if we can do things without legislation or prior to legislation then we should do so to move quickly. Lord Blanca is nothing if not inventive.

I have always admired his ingenuity but he will know of course as a former deputy Chief Whip in the other place that you can really, Chief Whip I apologise, I'm demoting him as a Chief Whip it even better than. That his amendment was only brought back if the Minister promises to keep something open third reading. I tell you why can't on his amendment very clear about this, we've had this discussion earlier and we spoke about the problems of legislation by SI and Slattery instruments and Henry VIII powers will stop he proposes within his way of working that we should take quite serious and important issues, take those decisions really by SI.

It is inventive, it's a way he would want to do it but I don't think simple resolution like that is an appropriate way forward. It would also give the other place opportunity to just inject it as well and I don't think that's appropriate. I think existing mechanisms or primary legislation is the better way forward. Lord Hailsham I think has been very thoughtful throughout this debate, his stipulation the next stage requires changes to the appointments process to limit discussion of the Prime Minister and party leaders.

We have already discussed and I think the House made his views clear on the previous boat. I don't want to repeat the arguments. We are committed to strengthening and clarifying the result of responsibilities in the appointments process. We discussed that issue earlier. He also talked about term limits and the size limit on the House, we think the government preferences for a retirement age and that is something a committee of this House could look at and participation, it does deal in a fact with the Size of the House and its very important issue.

Lord Trenchard's amendment went way beyond some of the issues we are discussing here but I noted the comments he made. I think Lord Howell and I apologise if in responding to lengthy debates in the last Committee stage didn't respond last Committee stage didn't respond But I think what he was asking me to come back on is why it is a commitment that was made 25 years ago, on hereditary peers, not being kept today? And I would say, one parliament does not bind another.

The decision was taken then. And I think it would be better, had decisions been taken, and more action taken more quickly, but it wasn't. And one of the reasons I'm proposing the Select Committee route has suggested, it would be prior to legislation, or with legislation, or if we do something ourselves, it is because it is very easy with a long period of time lapses, new people coming, new commitments are made, new Parliament selected, these things happen. I think we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move more quickly. I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Does the caveat she has giving way. Does the caveat she has just entered about future just entered about future parliaments apply them to the assurances she gave on behalf of the government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon, to the earlier this afternoon, to the future status of the Earl Marshal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? It doesn't, that is not the legislation we are talking about, that is the decision of this House, that is the decision of this House, I do find it difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House, I have that position in this House, I have faith in your Lordships house but it doesn't apply, and I think the commissioner said, those officeholders and future officeholders would as well. If, at officeholders would as well.

If, at some point in the past, this house some point in the past, this house took a decision, which I would oppose such a decision very oppose such a decision very strongly, I think it would be totally the wrong decision, I find it impossible to consider that what happened, but then it comes to legislation, it is the case that one parliament doesn't bind another, I think his party has changed the mind from the last Parliament to this one, on the Lord Grocott bill as well, so we see changes as we move forward.

My Lords, my impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the house wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us know our longevity in any position or anyplace, but we're talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord Parkinson raised this issue with me. I would have thought a Select Committee could be very up and running very soon after we have Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply, I think the terms of reference are quite clear, to specific issues, I understand the need other members have Onboarding this out.

The danger is there, we don't get anywhere, this has happened time and time and time again. I think the House has to make a decision, does it wish to make further progress or not? I hope it does, I want to, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. amendments.

23:34

The Duke of Wellington (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I am a moat -- Most grateful for those who contributed to my amendment eight. I must admit I haven't quite persuaded the leader to go as far as I hope she might. But I have to accept and I know she spoke in total good faith, that it is her intention that we should carry out further reforms. She believes the best way to do it is through a Select Committee, which, she just said, could be prior to legislation or leading to legislation.

And I think I must take her words, as she just stated them. And I really do hope, for all her government colleagues sitting next to her on the bench will have heard what she said, including the Attorney-General, if I am not mistaken, which is very good. So, I thank the leader, again, for her efforts to move to where I hope she would be. With a categorical assurance they -- There would be a second bill, but she certainly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tried, and in that spirit, I withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships leisure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is

23:35

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine. Keen. Keen.

23:36

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I am grateful that so many of your Lordships have remained in the chamber for this particular amendment. My Lords, I rise to move this amendment with due deference to the success of Lord Chancellor's, albeit I take no position on their past suitability. This may appear to be a slight amendment, but it does serve a serious purpose. There was a time when Lord Chancellors provided an authoritative senior legally qualified voice in the Cabinet, as well as undertaking duties in your Lordships house.

Today, the post has been changed significantly. And of course, we have had a number of Lord Chancellors who have not been lawyers. I have tabled this amendment to explore further the possible benefits of returning to the position, whether Lord Chancellor sat in your Lordships Chancellor sat in your Lordships house. My amendment does not, as I say, seek to look backward, we have course should look forward to contributions that feature Lord Chancellors could make. Not only in Cabinet, but to your Lordships house.

While we may not be able to return to the position before the role of Lord Chancellor was changed under the last Labour government, we can place the role of Lord Chancellor on the same level of status as it previously held. If, as was discussed at committee stage, the office of Lord Chancellor was to be seen once again as what might be termed a destination appointment, rather than one held by a politician on their progress through the Cabinet, we might get a great deal.

I suggested at committee stage that the Lord Chancellor, newly restored to your Lordships house could also serve as a Secretary of State for Constitutional affairs and thus as a guardian for our constitution. We do lack that guardianship today. With responsibility for the constitution being divided between various government departments, without any clearance-who is responsible finally for important constitutional decisions. The bill before us today is liable to set a dangerous constitutional president and ideal weather when the -- And I do wonder whether any logic's house, who was trusted with the position and sitting at the table, might have offered a sage warning to the government about the potential challenge that bills such as this can present to our constitutional order.

And it is in these circumstances, my Lords, that I beg to move.

23:39

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed, after clause one, insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is printed on the Marshalled list. My Lords, I will be brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will be brief. Because this is I think the fifth time I have spoken on this topic. The first time I spoke, the noble Lord, noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, whom I think we all miss very much, when I advanced the proposition that the Lord Chancellor should come back to this House, should come back to this House, enquired in that very gentle way of his whether I was making a job application on the floor of the application on the floor of the House of Lords.

I confirmed I was not and I declare the same non- not and I declare the same non- interest in this speech today. But, as my noble and friend, Lord Keen, has made clear, the position of Lord Chancellor occupies a distinct role Chancellor occupies a distinct role in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor is still the only Cabinet minister who takes a distinct oath minister who takes a distinct oath to uphold the rule of law. And, to uphold the rule of law. And, while the noble and Lord, the Attorney-General and I have had debates about what is and what is not constituted within that term, the rule of law, it is an important and fundamental part of our constitution.

I think it's undeniable that in moving the Lord Chancellor away from this House and allowing the position of Lord allowing the position of Lord Chancellor, in the House of Commons, and as indicated, it may be a stop on a ministerial career, rather than a grand terminus, I do think we have lost something. We have also changed the position of Lord Chief Justice, I think while formally the position of Lord Chancellor was the person who would speak up for judges, that role would now fall to the Lord, now Lady, of Chief Justice.

And while there have been some excellent holders of that post and the current holder is particularly excellent, it is unfortunate that we have, in part, turned that post into something very shop steward for the judges, whereas in the past, they had a member of the Cabinet around the Cabinet table that would be speaking up for judges, Justice, and the rule of law. I also think, finally, that there is considerable merit in what my noble friend said, about the Lord Chancellor heading a small but focused department.

One could even call it the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I seem to remember that name being used in the past, that department could have responsibility for the rule of law, for devolution, for Civil Liberties, for treaties. For human rights. For the very things that keep our society, the sort of society we want it to be. These things should not change, they should not come and go with government. Frankly, to the last government has well, we had too many Secretary of State for Justice, because it was treated as a cabinet position like any other.

But the reason it is treated like a cabinet position for any other is because that is essentially what the 2005 acted. I do not want to go back to the status quo, we cannot go back to a situation where the Lord Chancellor was a cabinet minister, and the judge, and occupied the Woolsack here. But we can identify that the role of Chancellor is different to any other cabinet ministers and for those reasons, I put my name to this amendment, and I support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think it may be helpful for noble Lords just to inform your Lordships house that my inform your Lordships house that my noble friend, my noble and learned Earl friend, the Attorney-General, also took an oath to uphold the rule also took an oath to uphold the rule of law when he took this office, so it is not the case, for the first time.

23:43

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. The point I was trying to make, and the Dublin and -- At the noble and the Dublin and -- At the noble and learned Earl Lord took an oath because you want to do, one that is based Institute is the Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chancellor's, that's the point I was making. That is correct but it is important to note the Attorney- important to note the Attorney- General chose to because it was part of his role. My Lords, the amendment 10, tabled by the noble and learned 10, tabled by the noble and learned Earl Lord Keen seeks to say the Lord Chancellor is always House of Lords Chancellor is always House of Lords rather than the other place. And the rather than the other place.

And the Lord made an articulated argument. Lord made an articulated argument. But with the greatest of respect, as my noble friend, the Attorney- General said, the previous debate on General said, the previous debate on this matter, they noble's amendment is more concerned with unpicking the is more concerned with unpicking the settlement agreed in the 2005 cottages format and recasting the cottages format and recasting the role of Lord Chancellor as it currently stands, then it is on the principle of the bill before us. The noble Lord makes his case with noble Lord makes his case with customary elegance but the government is not persuaded of the constitution, constitutional or policy rationale, for the maternity policy rationale, for the maternity of the 2005 decision.

The 2005 of the 2005 decision. The 2005 rightly mixed the executive of the judiciary, and it is not something this government wishes to reverse. This amendment effectively bind the This amendment effectively bind the hands of the Prime Minister and hope Be Lord Chancellor, excludes those in the other place from holding this role, it is unnecessarily restrictive and who would have the effect of appointing the Prime Minister to appoint a new Lord Chancellor, hereby appointed a new peer to displace or choose an existing peer or else trigger a by- election, to appoint a present Lord Chancellor to your house.

As my noble friend, the Attorney-General setting committee, the Constitution Committee noted that character, intellect, and a commitment to the rule of law, are the most important qualities of Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend, the Lord Chancellor, demonstrates these qualities in abundance and the House she sits in does not hinder her from doing her duties as Lord Chancellor for this amendment does nothing to safeguard the qualities of the role as Lord Chancellor. In regards to the creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs, I am surprised that this is a point raised by the official opposition, given they had 14 years in which to create such a department if they had chosen to do so and yet they did not.

Lord Keen has said the Lord not. Lord Keen has said the Lord Chancellor should be in charge of a department for Constitutional Affairs, such a machinery of government changes are of course a matter for the Prime Minister and are not a matter for this bill. Since the creation of the Ministry of Justice in 2007, different government departments have seen value in a single officeholder, having a more holistic oversight of the justice system. By virtue of their responsibility for prisons and privations, as well as courts and tribunals.

Therefore, my notes, I respectfully request that noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

23:46

Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)

- -

I am most obliged for the Minister's contributed. The amendment proposed is it within the scope of this bill. And the concept of the Lord Chancellor being in this House seemed to work for more than 200 years without any real difficulty. Indeed, the difficulties we face, so far as constitutional affairs are concerned, have emerged since 2005. And as a consequence of Nevertheless and having regard to the hour I will not seek to divide the House.

I beg leave to withdraw the Is it your logic pleasure that the Is it your logic pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 11, Lord Lucas.

23:47

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

I beg to move amendment 11 one of the most important parts of considering the future of this House is what the relative proportions of the parties should be in this House. To my mind quite rightly the government when in opposition complained about our habit of adding Conservative peers well beyond the point which would ordinarily have been considered acceptable. I do think if this House... Is to have a long-term future we must get away from the idea that the Prime Minister can tip us over any day he wants just by appointing a lot of new peers.

We have to have a degree of solidity in our independence. All my time here there has been recognition that we should have a rough balance between government and opposition, with the crossbenchers holding the balance and it has worked as a concept well, though it has been very hard to hold to in terms of actual appointments for peers. I very much hope that this will be an area that the noble Baronesses committee will cover. I beg to move.

23:48

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause 1 insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate the late our, there will be a keenness for everyone to go but I wanted to remind the House go but I wanted to remind the House of its history in opposing the amendment proposed by the noble amendment proposed by the noble Lord. One has to remember that without the right of the Prime Minister exercising the Royal prerogative we would not have had prerogative we would not have had the Parliament acts, and perhaps more importantly we would not have more importantly we would not have had the great reform act of 1832.

It had the great reform act of 1832. It was because of the Royal prerogative and the ability of the Prime and the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint peers that we were able to move forward to our current democratic state. I'm just going to quote from the debate that going to quote from the debate that took place in this House, not this took place in this House, not this chamber of course, but speaking from the opposition benches the Earl of Winchelsea said he suffered pain of mind, greater than he could express in thinking he lived to that our to witness the downfall of this country.

That night could close the first act of the fatal and bloody tragedy, it would close the existence of that house, the House of Lords, as one branch of the legislature for its independence which was its brightest ornament had fallen and without that independency might be considered as having ceased might be considered as having ceased to exist. Well we still have the Earl of Winchelsea on the opposition benches forecasting total catastrophe from this move towards a new democratic house.

Lord Gray the Prime Minister, that was the time the Prime Minister was in the House, he said in response if the House of Commons should, after their Lordships reject him for a second time a bill sent up from the House, persist in asserting the opinion expressed by, with reference that bill, and that it should appear that in the event of the country he was not probable that another House of Commons would be chosen less than reform then it is by the emergency had arrived which would justify the exercise of the prerogative by which only a serious between the two houses could be prevented.

I think the point still persists, almost 200 years later, that the right of the Prime Minister to subject this House to the appointment of peers is part of the process by which we achieved our present democratic freedoms, and one which I think would be lost with great loss to the country as a whole. My promise when I was appointed to this House by the leader of the Labour Party was to vote for the abolition of this House and I answered the sooner the better.

Unfortunately making the promise I wasn't quite told exactly what should replace the House but I'm in favour abolition and I think the power of the Prime Minister and the Royal prerogative is important and certainly should not be lost because we end up with either a fully democratic house which I opposed because of its effect on the Commons, or we have this House which is subject to democratic control

23:54

Baroness Finn (Conservative)

- -

This has been a short but important This has been a short but important debate and I thank Lord Lucas for bringing the House as attention once again to an unavoidable consequence of this legislation. We are heading of this legislation. We are heading towards a fully appointed house with all the appointments made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the Prime Minister. I appreciate the To assign numbers and timings of appointments is determined solely by the Prime Minister.

It is therefore some concern that the Prime Minister with such powers of patronage is attempting to remove over 80 parliamentarian opponents through the spell. We will have a debate, the spell. We will have a debate, another one, and the size of our house next week so I won't comment specifically on numbers at this point. However when the noble point. However when the noble Baroness The Lord Privy Seal spoke on this amendment at Committee stage she was critical of the we have the numbers and can get this through approach she felt previous government had taken and encourage government had taken and encourage the House of Lords to adopt a more deliberative approach.

That is exactly the approach we are seeking to take with this bill and with others, and we should not be criticised for doing so. Having spoken previously in the HOLAC debate noble Lords will be aware of my views on retaining the discretion Prime Minister's have to appoint they appeared -- peers they wish to appoint. But Lord Lucas is right to bring back this important issue of the balance between the parties and to seek further assurances on the responsibility of the Prime Minister to behave reasonably. I'm sure the current Prime Minister will continue to do so and I hope this amendment will not ever be necessary to stop but legislation should seek to look to the future and anticipate the future prime ministers might not behave in such an appropriate way in terms of appointments.

It is a shame we find ourselves in this position but I look forward to hearing the noble Lady the Minister's response.

23:54

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

- -

I listened to the noble Lady with increasing incredulity even she had a smile on her face when she came up with some of that. First of all I want to thank my noble friend for his points, I have to say in terms of history didn't go back nearly as far as many other members of this House have this evening. I think it is also always worth looking back at the 1832 reform act and what was achieved for this country by that legislation.

I would say to Lord Lucas I think he and I the same mind on this one. I don't agree with his mechanism for getting there, he talks when he first spoke about the relative proportions of the House, he is absolutely right. That's why when Lord Norton spoke of the crossbenches that's probably about right but I think to put into legislation just a proportion from one group of the whole house when he is not necessarily talking about relative proportions, I know he And some previous comments I've made I think this House works at its best when both parties have roughly equal numbers.

That depends though I think very much on the normal conventions applying and the way the House operates. That's when I think the House does its best work. I have to say to the noble Lady, she talks about yes I hope we hold that kind of you I would just remind her of the last government's actions on this. It has to be said that even with this bill the government will comprise only 28% of your Lordships house. 28%, part of the reason for that is under the last government, I use these figures earlier in the debate, when we left office in 2010 we had 25 more members of the House than the Conservative party.

At the end of the parliamentary Saturn -- session of the election before we came to office there were 100 more members of the Conservative government, I think over 100 than there were of my party. That I think does not serve this House well. I really think we should go back to the notion, she is right when she says that the House should be more deliberative. I think the House does his best work, but if the House thinks and I remember it was about a couple of weeks after I became Leader of the Opposition about 10 years ago, I was at Victoria Street having pizza when I got word that Jacob Rees-Mogg has Leader of the House of Commons had issued a statement that he intended to appoint 100 members to this House in order to force the Brexit legislation three.

That is not in the best interests of this House, he didn't do it in the end. I stand by that I think it should be that the House should be more deliberative in approach, it should be a case of where members are more active, participate properly and don't just turn up to vote when they perhaps haven't been around and participating in the work of the House. I think there is the way House. I think there is the way forward on this, a better way.

I'm really pleased even if the party opposite have come to this lately are genuinely welcome that conversion that we should operate in a more collaborative way and how the House works. I actually do agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the proportions as Lord Lucas said, I would ask him respectfully to withdraw this amendment this evening. Before she sits down could you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before she sits down could you say whether this will be, she intends this should be a subject for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her Select Committee? Not directly but I think as a result of that we will see I think result of that we will see I think when the Select Committee reports if they are looking at the issues of retirement and participation we would want to ensure the decisions they make take and this House may take a legislation that we maintain a balance around the House because I think it would be completely think it would be completely inappropriate to say this group is losing more than that group and use

23:59

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

losing more than that group and use that as a way to gain a political advantage for any party. I think maintain the proportions is something that has to be in the minds of the government and the opposition at all times and I would ensure that.

23:59

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

I am very grateful to the Baroness for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 12 Lord Blencathra. I shortened my remarks hoping we could practice by mid my but it might be 12:05 before I finish. I might be 12:05 before I finish. I rise briefly amendment 12 which Sibley states that any peer can Sibley states that any peer can convicted of a criminal offence or indictment ceases to be an and both the House of Lords within seven days the House of Lords within seven days of the conviction or the loss of appeal.

Noble Lords will point out appeal. Noble Lords will point out so what, we already got an House of Lords Reform Act 2014 a power to remove peers if convicted of a remove peers if convicted of a serious offence. However that only serious offence. However that only kicks in if the PF has been sentenced to be imprisoned or sentenced to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or sentenced to more than one year in prison. Nor does it apply if that sentence is suspended. However the Labour suspended.

However the Labour manifesto did say we will strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. So I'm members can be removed. So I'm members can be removed. So I'm That means. What are they talking about? Surely has to be peers who have committed a criminal offence or are they suggesting we will permanently remove peers who have had to apologise for inappropriate or un-woke comments? Which might also be considered to be disgraceful. Were my amendment use the government's own words strengthens the circumstances that by disgraced members can be removed, is that removing all peers who are convicted of an indictable offence which are of course the most serious ones, irrespective of the length of prison sentence they get? Nor would I permit appears to stay just because the sentence is suspended.

In my opinion if appears found In my opinion if appears found guilty of an indictable offence then he is guilty and should be removed he is guilty and should be removed irrespective of whether or not the sentence has been suspended. I back sentence has been suspended. I back

00:01

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed after clause one, insert the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a short but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a short but focused amendment. It rightly addresses the issues of standards and stress in our house and ultimately, how this House rests on its integrity and reputation. And as my noble friend mentioned, the my noble friend mentioned, the Labour Party's manifesto committed to " Ensure all peers meet the high to " Ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of standards the public expect of them." And going to do that by changing the circumstances on which disgraced members can be removed.

And continuing the debate we had on 12 November last year, my noble friend is, Lord Keen of Ely, asked friend is, Lord Keen of Ely, asked the noble Baroness, why there was a the noble Baroness, why there was a manifesto commitment in the circumstances disgraced members could be removed and I have to say there was not a good reason provided, I have to say, the only reason provided was the often repeated statement that the only we reform would be achieved would be to do it in pieces.

And we have heard that obviously, a number of times. While I accept the precise way this House works is not the common currency in the dog and duck, and people talk about around the country, the one thing I suspect people would expect, everywhere around the country, is that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers. And if you break the law, and you are convicted, you shouldn't continue to sit in parliament and that is the short point. At the that is the short point.

At the heart of this amendment. It is already the case, of course, that if you are convicted, and you have your liberty taken away from you. Then you lose your right to be here. To that extent, this amendment is only there therefore an extension of that principle. I accept the worst discussions across the Dispatch Box as there was a general understanding there were some complexities involved and the noble Lady told us they would be " Further dialogue". As it is now just after midnight, they come to the end of the first day of report, I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal could update as update us on the extent of that dialogue, and what the plans are, what the government's plans are in this regard.

If the government doesn't have anything really focused in this area, having thought about it, it might well be that the amendment from my noble friend is actually the way to go. actually the way to go.

00:04

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

To reassure noble Lords the government remains committed to strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed, our position has not changed. Not least it is not a matter for this bill. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly set out the current arrangements regarding expulsion. There are two routes of expulsion. At the moment, under the 2014 House of Lords reform, a lot ceases to be a member if they are convicted of a serious offence.

That is, they are convicted of a criminal offence and given a non-suspended prison sentence of more than a year. Whether a member receives a prison sentence but not one long enough to engage the 2014 act, the provisions of the House of Lords expulsion and suspension act 2015 standing orders will be engaged. Under these, a member that has received a prison sentence of any length is deemed to have breached the code of conduct, and may be referred to the Conduct Committee, who in turn may recommend a sanction up to and including expulsion from the House.

The current statutory framework is a tightly bound one, were only peers who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment can be subject to the section of suspension. Either on an automatic basis or by engaging the 2015 act and provisions in the standing orders. The noble Lord amendment will have an effect in bringing the scope of a much wider array of offences, with significantly varying degrees of seriousness and sentencing. I would question whether that is necessarily the appropriate threshold for expulsion.

Whether the sanction should be reserved for the most serious offences. The government is committed to ensuring those that work in public life maintain high standards of ethics and propriety. Not just in this House, but across all public servants and officeholders. As the House will be aware, the Conduct Committee has only recently concluded its review of the code of conduct, which made several recommendations relating to the process following a peer being convicted of a criminal offence. I believe it would therefore be right for the House to allow these changes to bed in before considering what further changes may be needed.

We are open to the idea of pursuing this further than the Conduct Committee. My Lords, given that the hour is late, I plan on finishing my comments there but I am happy to continue discussions outside your Lordships house on this area. And I therefore, respectfully request the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord withdraw his amendment. I do not think she answered the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not think she answered the question of my noble friend, what does the government have in mind, when it they talk about strengthening the ways of getting rid of disgraced members? What sort

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rid of disgraced members? What sort of offences would that be? My Lord, I am ever so sorry, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I am ever so sorry, I thought I had answered the question. We are working with the Conduct Committee to bed in what has currently just been changed and they are working with them to see if further changes required, after we have seen whether the most recent

00:07

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

have seen whether the most recent changes of actually work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lady for her response. In view of what she said, let us hope that the she said, let us hope that the changes of the Conduct Committee are effective, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on report be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. The question is that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that further consideration on the report be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn. House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 2 House of Lords - 2 July House of Lords - 2 July 2025.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page