Lords Chamber

Wednesday 9th July 2025

(began 4 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:09
None Portrait Introduction of Lieutenant General Edward Grant Martin Davis, CB, CBE, KStJ
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As As we As we have As we have done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have done previously, As we have done previously, I would like to pay tribute to the retiring Black Rod. Sarah Clark took retiring Black Rod. Sarah Clark took up as Black Rod in February 2018, up as Black Rod in February 2018, up as Black Rod in February 2018, joining us from Wimbledon. Who would have thought Wimbledon would have have thought Wimbledon would have been good training for her work here? Could be said she went from here? Could be said she went from tennis to ping-pong in the House of tennis to ping-pong in the House of Lords.

When the office of Black Rod Lords. When the office of Black Rod was created, a decree stated the post should be held by an gentleman post should be held by an gentleman famous in arms and blood, a reference to the post-holder being a reference to the post-holder being a man who had served in the military. Sarah Clark makes history -- made history as the first lady are sure history as the first lady are sure of Black Rod. -- usher.

As her first rehearsal, she marched onto the Commons and walked straight in. They forgot to slam the door. At the second attempt, they remembered to slam the door but the timing wasn't quite right and she was a head away from a broken nose. The result was a stone email from the Heritage Team with something along the lines of " Do not lock the door". She served with a duty, dedication, care and professionalism.

In just 7.5 years, she has led to hundred 52 introductions to Your Lordships' House, 11 state openings and other events. All of us know the huge logistical arrangements required behind the scenes. They are organised by Black Rod to ensure a seamless visit. Sarah has overseen five state visits to this palace, ensuring that visiting dignitaries enjoy the experience. Even on her final day of post, she was here to welcome President McCrone. But it was service leadership and can professionalism following the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II she works tirelessly literally round the works tirelessly literally round the clock to ensure the final journey of her Majesty reflected the mood in respect of the nation.

Hundreds of thousand members of the public walked through Westminster Hall to pay their final respects and hundreds of millions watched on TV from all over the world. This would not have been possible without the fantastic support of the house staff, and particularly the young staff, and particularly the young man Asher -- yeoman usher. It's impossible to refer to that time without mentioning the doorkeeper's, many of whom became familiar faces when the event became live streamed on TV and made for emotional viewing.

Service leadership and commitment to that time was the embodiment of the truly excellent public servant that she is. We have enjoyed our time with her. I've spoken of her professionalism, her dedication and leadership. But we also remember her friendship and her sense of fun. After Sarah and I spoke about her departure last week, and I should confess, it was over a and I should confess, it was over a gin and tonic, she said to me, overcoat it has been the greatest honour to service Black Rod.

I deeply appreciated the huge support of the House and members have given me in over 7.5 extraordinary years with so many extraordinary moments. I leave knowing I did my best to deliver my duties and certainly had an enjoyable time here. I could not have asked for more." And neither could become my Lords. Whilst we might fondly imagine Sarah will be spending time at home with her partner Catherine and her two dogs, Madge and Wilma come I'm sure she will remember the role with the same dedication that we have seen.

I warmly welcome our new Black Rod, a Davies, to Your Lordships' House. -- Ed Davis. He brings a wealth of experience. Were confident his previous diplomatic experience will serve him well in juggling the demands of this role and we look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to working with him. Hear! It's a pleasure on behalf of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure on behalf of these benches to follow the Noble Baronesses The Lord Privy Seal who Baronesses The Lord Privy Seal who spoke beautifully for us all as our leader and her generous tribute to our outgoing Black Rod, Sarah Clark. our outgoing Black Rod, Sarah Clark. I rather like the joke. I wish I had thought of it myself. By curious thought of it myself. By curious coincidence, I found myself sitting last night in the evening sun last night in the evening sun watching Carlos Alcaraz.

I thought who in their right mind would who in their right mind would exchange that glorious theatre of Wimbledon for a dingy 19th-century building riddled with mice and building riddled with mice and moths. Who would swap the centre court 's a giant retractable roof, costing just 70 billion -- million... But we all know who did make that choice and that was Sarah Clark. And how grateful we are that she did. Despite the fact she is well and truly in her right mind.

She brought with her a wealth for -- wealth of logistic and managerial experience when she accepted our offer and the great late Queen confirmed that recommendation. She may not have been the conventional choice, as the Leader of the House reminded us, but she was Sarah has delivered on everything asked of her and immeasurably more. No one ever asked her to do. She hasn't done it with calm authority and sometimes wicked sense of humour. Her contribution to the life and functioning of this House was
15:16
None Portrait Tributes to Sarah Davina Clarke CVO, OBE
-

truly exceptional. As the leader told us she oversaw an extraordinary array of experiences during her time as a Black Rod. My predecessor, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, particularly remembers that unique and challenging period, during the Covid pandemic. When she and Sarah attended the House every day. Sarah armed with her measuring stick to keep us all two metres apart. The organisation of everything was as swift as it was impeccable. And I remember, on 21 April 2020 becoming the first Minister ever to answer a question virtually, rather than at the Dispatch Box.

I refreshed my memory last night My Lords and heavens the very first ever virtual question asked was about the size of our House and whether new life peerages should be on a two-out, one in basis. While looking at Order Paper today, see the important amendment, Lord Burns proposing a two-out one in system of appointments. Sometimes I wonder in this House, some things never change. Of course they do and often in unexpected and unforeseen ways. And always in one way historically.

Sarah was at the heart of things, managing subtle change and maintaining continuity. As a noble Lords will be aware, I had the honour, as a leader, working alongside her, during some of the most significant and sensitive occasions in recent history. When the eyes of the country and indeed the world, as the leader said were focused on events here in Parliament. Not least lying in state and state funeral for Her late Majesty The Queen Sarah's leadership then was in every sense in suppressive and indispensable.

In truth I can say and not a single foot was put wrong. As those extraordinary silent, never ending, never to be forgotten cues filed past and paid their respects to the Queen. A moment of solemn, national reflection, quite impeccably staged. Sarah's work at that time showed how we can in almost a must act with unity and dignity, in difficult times. Once again, as the leader said, done with the utmost calmness and good humour. If I may add, a final personal note, I will never forget her own personal encouragement and kindness to me, in what were often difficult and challenging duties as a very new leader, on behalf of your Lordships' , we warmly thanked her for her trailblazing service, her lasting contributions and for her personal warmth, good humour and unfailing attention to detail and duty.

We wish her all the very best in her future role and for our part, we will miss her cruising the West front corridor, looking for the best acts from the Which? Offices. Always there for a flapjack, but never in a flat. We thank you Sarah, it is unbelievably hard act to follow. At the same time we look forward with confidence to welcoming a left general general Ed Davis as our new Black Rod, sure in the knowledge that he will build on the strong and sure foundation that Sarah played.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lieutenant General Ed Davies. When Sarah first came to be interviewed. I think the majority of you, of whom I was one, was probably you, of whom I was one, was probably one of curiosity. At no great expectation. How could someone who expectation. How could someone who was a non-military and heaven forbid, a woman and with no public forbid, a woman and with no public sector background possibly compete with her more traditional competitor with her more traditional competitor candidates.

The interview however was a revelation. She was calm, she was a revelation. She was calm, she was assured, she was thoughtful and was assured, she was thoughtful and she was humorous. We thought that she was the best candidate, but we were so surprised at our own conclusion that we invited her back for a second interview, just in case for a second interview, just in case we missed something the first time round. But the second interview round. But the second interview merely confirmed the first.

And those characteristics, which we saw in Sarah when she first appeared at in Sarah when she first appeared at the interview, she brought to the job from day one. She immediately job from day one. She immediately established Serena authority and a sensible, no-nonsense approach, which meant that she was quickly respected by the House as a whole. The respect which only grew, as she managed the many, many quick changes which are required during Covid. And with such great aplomb, the great Royal event that occurred during her watch.

Personally, I found her simply a pleasure to work with. She is, I believe, taking a bit of a break before taking on other duties. I wish her well for the break and for her future career, whatever it might be. And in doing so, I welcome might be. And in doing so, I welcome her successor, has a hard act to follow, but I'm sure he will do it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extremely well. I'm going to do the other way round. On behalf of these benches, can I add are warm welcome to lieutenant general Ed Davies, he will find things in very good order. I look forward to working with him on all the many facets of a Black on all the many facets of a Black Rod is a unique role. It is a privilege, a behalf of my crossbench colleagues, to be a person that pays colleagues, to be a person that pays tribute to Sarah Clarke.

While we've known Sarah since she was Black Rod, known Sarah since she was Black Rod, she has been fulfilling three distinct roles, all of which involved crossbench members of the involved crossbench members of the Black Rod is not only the sergeant Black Rod is not only the sergeant in arms here in the House of Lords, but also the shirt to the order of the Garter and a secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain. Sarah's first Garter ceremony was at first Garter ceremony was at Windsor.

And naturally she arrived early, with her uniform practically early, with her uniform practically in a great bag. She and three others got into the lift, which promptly broke down, between the floors. Help was summoned and Sarah took charge was summoned and Sarah took charge of the lift, for time was short. One of the lift, for time was short. One instructions, others in the lift and exam that affords wild Sarah change behind them. Just as a decency was restored, the lift creaked on and the Windsor Fire Brigade were surprised to find an immaculate Black Rod, with a dress, as an ankle warmer at the bottom.

She stepped forth, of course with her usual affection and big smile and the Garter ceremony was none the wiser. The Lord Great Chamberlain remarked to me, on Black Rod's modernisations of the ceremony. One was to cut out the Kante of 100 garters to the Commons from the Lord Chamberlain. Sarah has now arranged it so that the great Chamberlain waves is very long warned, at a Black Rod already standing, allowing a Black Rod then to strike to the Commons with dignity.

Dignity not available to other Black Rod's in the centuries. The Lord Great Chamberlain is new method, owing something to his inner Apache warrior, is a great testament to his dignity. -- Kante. Sarah arrived as the noble Lord cook arrives on a bicycle dressed modestly and with an instant humour. It would be difficult with discussions in her office, her main weapons have been the chocolate digestive and her smile and how effective these have been. You have already heard of this six stage openings, the seven variations and the lying in state of funerals and the correlation of His Majesty The King.

What we have not heard is for these events, Sarah was on duty at 4 AM, each morning and occasionally earlier. Each of those events was an outstanding success. This apart, Sarah has been in charge of maintaining our proceedings in good order, this is including managing access for many other people who come to our House. Allowing for their and our safety in equal measure. This has all happened seemingly, Philip and with great charm. And a warm smile, we know of are Sarah -- effortlessly.

I know she would want me to mention a nil band/Fiona Channing, her colleagues who will be retiring later this year. And I very much salute them as well. In closing, you will note that I have not used the W word. Wimbledon, though we are all thinking of it. If Sarah had still been in charge, there would have been no nonsense with the line because this week. But Sarah is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going far, it is not goodbye, it is only a while. Is Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, I wish to offer our hard felt thanks to Sarah the way she has worked with those of us on these benches over these last 7.5 years. benches over these last 7.5 years. As others have already noted in a repeat she has held office as a point of great change, overseeing the response to the pandemic, during which time I myself arrived at a very Panta down Introduction.

very Panta down Introduction. Separation throughout that. Those Separation throughout that. Those major Royal events. As the first ever Lady Usher the Black Rod, Sarah's title embodies that change. Sarah's title embodies that change. In a very welcome one. I'm sure there was a very viable alternative, there was a very viable alternative, whilst we are these benches have willing members who remember standing in the Lord Bishop of had to refer to Sarah as a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, may provoke the kind of arguments of those sex and gender, which have occupied the and gender, which have occupied the Supreme Court.

I am glad we were Supreme Court. I am glad we were spared that. A few weeks ago, as part of my induction as convener of these benches, I paid Sarah a visit these benches, I paid Sarah a visit in her office. It is been instructed in some of the more arcane duties before me. I was struck by the fact before me. I was struck by the fact that she was in uniform and neither was either. The formal garble office that both of us on these benches where in this chamber.

Servers are daily remember the long centuries through which this House to serve the nation. The Lordship's House is a place where both the change and tradition have combined, to produce a form of governance and that nobody invented, but which has served and evolved for many centuries. One where ceremonial and formal dress are combined with such state-of- the-art practices, as electronic voting system, that many of us are using later today. Newly appointed Bishops, when they arrive to be enthroned in the cathedral.

Sarah's duties have as with well known, involved having the door firmly shut in her face and being required to knock with her staff of office in order to gain entry. An important tradition, one which contrast with the open door policy. The collaborative style of working that she is a was maintained. A prayer from these benches as she moves on in life, doors, unlike the entrance at the moment will always open and never shut. We also wish the new Black Rod the best in his new role.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lastly and briefly, I would like to pay my own tribute to Sarah Clarke the her dedicated service to this House. I wish her the greatest this House. I wish her the greatest success and future career. Sarah has served Parliament with distinction for over seven years, most notably lying in state of Her late Majesty lying in state of Her late Majesty The Queen and recognition of that, she was appointed the commander of she was appointed the commander of the Royal Victoria order. A richly deserved honour.

I would like to deserved honour. I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to Sarah for her kindness and support to me, personally, during a significant and demanding., The demise of the Queen demanding., The demise of the Queen and the session of His Majesty The King. Sarah was, as mentioned the King. Sarah was, as mentioned the first Lady Usher the Black Rod, in 670 years and I am sure more will 670 years and I am sure more will follow in her footsteps, in the years to come.

And I also extend my years to come. And I also extend my warm welcome to the new Black Rod Lieutenant General Ed Davey's, I look forward to working with him and look forward to working with him and on behalf the house, I wish him
15:30
None Portrait Oral questions: The long-term impact of schemes for early release from prison on public confidence in the justice system
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

every success, in his new post. First oral question, Lord Murray of Bloodworth. I beg leave to ask the question
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:14
16:16
None Portrait Legislation: House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill – report stage (day 2) - part one
-

have it. After close one, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. After close one, amendment Before speaking to amendment 13, I shall explain on the supplementary
16:17
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
list 13 A, a point that may have been an unintended effect of the been an unintended effect of the original drafting of amendment 13. Amendment 13 A ensures that the Amendment 13 A ensures that the proposal in this amendment 13, proposal in this amendment 13, before the house, will not apply to any existing member of this House, any existing member of this House, any existing member, but only to future ministerial appointments of future ministerial appointments of new life peers.

After all, on this side, we do not favour the. Expulsion of any member of your Expulsion of any member of your Lordships' House macro. Indeed your Lordships' House macro. Indeed your Lordships voted to support the constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in usual channels that if the clarifying amendments, 13 A is supported in a division in the main amendment 13 division in the main amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential. There will be only one vote My Lords There will be only one vote My Lords on this issue, before the House.

And the purpose of this, is to send a the purpose of this, is to send a clear message to the other place and clear message to the other place and to the government, all governments. I emphasise all governments My Lords. I will come back to that. That service as a Minister, in your Lordships' House macro should be Lordships' House macro should be There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay. This amendment is about paid.

Now I spoke at some length on this in committee and I do not need to repeat all of the arguments here. Let me set out three firm principles, on which, surely we should all stand across this House. The first is a fair days pay, for a fair days work. The second is equal treatment for Ministers, in both treatment for Ministers, in both houses. The third is that no one, no member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country, for the lack of a private means to do so.

That isn't an fairness that should have cease to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. The principles are set out currently apply in relation to laws and Ministers pay. Surely all government Ministers in the House of Lords, whatever party is in office should be paid. If they wish to renounce their pay, or any part of it, all well and good but that does not affect the basic underlying principles. Now, at committee, I spoke a very frankly of my sense of shame and I might have added anger, that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was a Leader of the House.

Because frankly of opposition at top of both major parties and exclude the noble Baroness opposite for stop she was extremely helpful and constructive in her discussions. I needn't repeat those points today towards the end of the last government. 14, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers, including my noble friends, Lord Howell, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough and it is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then would now be rewarded by this bill as originally drafted, excluding them from our House.

And as I said at committee, my Lords, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, an internationally respected servant of his country will start doubling as being unpaid and unable to claim allowance, because he was so often able to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen. Today, the Downing Street website tells us, directly from their, the noble Baroness, the honourable lady of Chesterton, Lord Chancellor Flint, Lord Timpson, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, they all work as the Ministers of state, unpaid.

The noble Lords, Lord Brady, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz, Lord Lyon and Baroness lady Blake of Leeds, or work as government Whips, unpaid. According to the government website. This morning. -- Lord Lyon. Understanding the immense burden that falls on Whips, in your Lordships' House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly and I may say that each and every one of those Ministers that I have named our Ministers who are greatly admired and respected, by their colleagues on this side of the House.

No one should be required to do all that work, without pay. No one, in any other work place would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. One asks where is the clause in the human rights Bill, to right the wrongs, done not just to those individuals, but frankly did the dignity of this House. Now I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire tremendously. It is a lead noble Lords to keep public service here.

Not everyone in this place has the means to do that. An fairness and injustice. It should end. The problem results from 250- year-old statutes, the ministerial and the act of 1975, the total number of paid Ministers to 109. House of Commons disqualification act 1975, allows for 95 Ministers, in the House of Commons. -- To 50- year-old statutes. The effective legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships' House, under the limit 109 is just 14.

That is clearly not enough. The system must be changed. It could be changed by a simple bill agreed across the parties, to amend section 2, part five of schedule one of the 1975 act. Very swiftly. Self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However it need not forever repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future governments and all parties, in the other place to address this.

I hope we may agree, now that this bill has been amended and is going back to the other place, to send this important message down the corridor. On the message down the corridor. On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House. I believe it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here, who may wish to serve their party and the country as a Ministers, or Whips in this country, but cannot afford to do so, without pay, to have that chance.

We and our side will work across to agree and expedite a full solution, going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this a first step to the House. The firm belief that if no messages ever sent, the same experiences I had, the same experience of the former leaders of the House have had to go on recurring. People here will be asked to work for nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments proposed, after clause into the new clause is printed on the marshalled List. Amendment 13 A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled List. Amendment 13 A as an amendment, Lord True? I have already spoken as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have already spoken as explained. Amendment proposed, as an explained. Amendment proposed, as an amendment to amendment 13, insert two, this section does not apply to two, this section does not apply to Ministers of the Crown appointed before the day on which this section comes into effect.
16:25
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
Others like to pay tribute to the leader of the House, to my noble friend, for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punching points. There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained on the total number of Ministers. And I'm very indebted to the last Parliament, Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that they do seem to be an increasing inflationary effect of the number of Ministers that are needed to run this country.

When I was Secretary of State through devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolution in Scotland. One Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers, in the Scottish parliament. Looking at my noble friend, Lord Clark, my noble friend Lord Clark and my noble friend and the noble Lord Lord Farnborough were running the Department of Transport in 1979, with two Ministers. And in 1979 that department was responsible for British Airways, the reports, the national trade cooperation.

None of which are applied to the previous of which are applied to the previous governments Department of transport, just a shot at being nonpartisan. In 1979 there were two Ministers and by 2023 there were five Ministers, in the Department of transport, with much less to do. The same is true if you look at 1979, there were five Ministers in the DHSS, which was then split into two departments, the Department of Health and the DWP. They had five Ministers in 1979.

The two departments had 12 Ministers. Now you could argue that things got more complicated, but it does seem to be that there is an inflationary effect to which even beats the Bank of England in their ability to create this kind of growth. I think it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld. No one should be required to be unable to be a Minister because they have not got the private means to do so.

Just to follow up on my point. It doesn't look to me suspiciously like ministerial appointments in the other place is being used as a means of patronage. Patronage by the previous government, to make sure people will go through the roles that this government has got a huge, till recently they had a huge majority. It doesn't look as though that is what is happening. If you add onto that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on.

It doesn't look as though appointments are being used which actually will increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected chamber and the House. I think my noble friends amendment, this principle is very important, it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. This is not the only non- army in terms of the way this House is treated, in respect of renumeration. Our select committees. Our select committees as they go and do our work.

They only claim half a day's attendance. And yet if people have participated in our questions, remotely, they can claim a full day's attendance allowance. And I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how, in this House we are paying £371 for just turning up and no one points out that out of those £371, people are expected to make a contribution to the overnight allowance, they are expected to be able to cover their own secretarial and research costs.

I just point out that in the other place at the allowances for secretarial and other support can adopt 1/4 of £1 million. The housing allowance is up to £25,000. Yes they've got constituents, but also in this House we are often a sitting along after the other place has gone, because we are clearing up the mess, which has been left, because bills have not been properly considered. And Ministers in this House, God bless them. Ministers in this House are expected to stand that Dispatch Box, and answer questions and not just on their departments, but for the whole of the government.

So this is an onerous task and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is frankly utterly unpaid is frankly utterly outrageous. It is outrageous that the other end of the corridor for people to use patronage, because that is what I think is happening to create additional ministerial traditions. Goodness knows what they're all doing. They must have all known each other in Dubai. As far as I can see, we seem to go to a period whether Ministers were simply told what to do by the people in Number 10, unelected special advisers.

There is no justification for what is going on here. I very much hope the government will accept that there is support on all sides of this House for dealing with this anomaly and ensuring those people who serve our country so brilliantly by being Ministers on the front bench are properly rewarded for doing so, but more importantly that The other point I'd like to make is this system were ministers are expected to rush here, it is ridiculous. How can foreign office ministers, for example, like the noble Lady who may be doing important work overseas and is important work overseas and is completely unpaid.

Or defence ministers. It's completely unacceptable and it's yet another example of how the other place shows lack of respect for this place and how it receives our amendments, how it considers them, and how it treats our ministers and people in Parliament. I do hope the noble Lady will be able to persuade her colleagues to find a way of sorting this out finally, so that people can see this house respected and treated properly.
16:32
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
As a proper probably the most recently retired unpaid Minister,... They raised the issue of principle. The issue is around Prime Minister's The issue is around Prime Minister's management of MPs in the Commons. Although I don't think this amendment is really appropriate in this bill, I do think it clearly is a substantive issue. It is unacceptable that members of -- ministers of the Crown are unpaid. It reduces the talent pool from which to choose. It also has a flavour of cricket 50 years ago of the gentlefolk amateurs.

Quite unfair but it does give that flavour of those compared to professional politicians. How can this be so? Of course, prime ministers could exercise rather more restraint over the number of columns ministers who are appointed. Good luck with that. -- comms. We could also bring forward a little bill to increase the number of paid ministers. I do believe, and I think Lord Forsyth has put his finger on it, the atmosphere in which we currently exercise, I just cannot leave the government would ever do that.

To actually increase the number of paid ministers. I do think it is worth acknowledging the inflation has go down a bit -- gone down a bit because research from the library shows that in 2010, Mr Cameron had 118 ministers which means that at least nine over unpaid. Mrs May had a similar figure in 2015. Mr Johnson had nine unpaid in December 2019, according to the Parliamentary library. Mr Rishi Sunak increased the figure to 17 unpaid ministers, 15 of whom were in Your Lordships' House.

Frankly, I'm very dubious about whether we will see any improvement until we come back to the fundamental issue which is substantive reform of Your Lordships' House. Lord Forsyth might shake his head but the reality is why is the Lords treated in the way it is? It is because we are not legitimate at the moment. I'm afraid the sort of amendments from the Lib the sort of amendments from the Lib Dems on an unelected house and even thinking -- tinkering around in terms of numbers is not going to cut the cake.

Until we decide what the role of the second chamber should be, what its powers should be, how its membership is arrived at, whether ministers would be appropriate to serve in such reformed second chamber. And finally, what are the respect of powers and relationships between the Lords and Commons and how do you resolve differences? Let's get down to the real business and really not go ahead with this proposal, which I'm afraid is for the worse.
16:36
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involved an exchange of labour in return for payment. And since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him. In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, it has long been recognised in law with limits, of course, put on the number of ministers in the Ministers of the Crown Act and the 1975 act expanded on that and the limits on numbers.

And paid ministers in the House of Lords are indeed -- should be entitled to claim parliamentary allow -- allowances under the rules of Parliament, but they are not and many lose out even on the parliamentary allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives his or her labour, he or she that takes the money, and he or she that benefits from the Labour.

I am in no doubt that without payment, and I speak as a former director of a think tank and employer, we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all ministers, including those in the Lords, Parliament and the executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters. We need to be clear about the duties and we know what the duties are in this chamber, but the public are not aware of the duties, and we've heard about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by ministers of the Crown.

Therefore, it is very important, in my view, that this employment contract should be set out and people should be free to see roaming freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability. I support the amendments and I also echo what my noble friend said. They can denounce the payment, they can give it to charity, but the principal remains. charity, but the principal remains.
16:39
16:40
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I was also very happy to add my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord True, and I agree with the points that all my noble friends have made so far. In contrast to the rest of the bill where we have been debating very complex and profound elements of our constitution, this is much more of a commonsense and and. One that could be fixed with a single clause or even with a sunset clause attached to it if others agree there is even more reform needed.

One should be paid fairly for the work that one does to attract the widest in from the largest pool, and adopting the principles of meritocracy, as Earl Markham said. I would like to just make a couple of points. The first is stability. Both the previous government and the current government being able to attract people of great reputation and achievement but what we have seen historically, it has not always been a stable ministerial model. Actually, stability is a very important thing in terms of delivering and executing effectively a government's policy.

If the Minister changes every year, that is unhelpful. And I know that a number of previous ministers have felt unable to continue in their role despite the unquestioned expertise that they brought to it. And there is a kind of effectiveness point. I was fortunate enough to be a minister, and certainly in education, I did all of my visits pretty much on a Friday because I needed to claim for my expenses or whatever it's called, allowance, for attending Your Lordships' House.

Colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and so forth were not able to. There was an article in the Times in 2023 but reported a Conservative backbencher as saying, " You can always find ambitious " You can always find ambitious flunkies who will do the job but it is much harder to find someone good." I have to say I never thought of myself as an ambitious funky. I worked with excellent fellow ministers. -- flunky. For me, being ministers.

-- flunky. For me, being a minister, it was a highlight of my career and I would do it paid or career and I would do it paid or unpaid but it is not a choice we should ask colleagues to make. should ask colleagues to make.
16:43
Lord Caine Portrait Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
-
Iris to support the amendment. I do so on the basis of some experience. In November, 2021, I was invited to join the government. Having been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland since the mid- 1980s, it was familiar territory for me. At the time, it was made very clear that there was no salary. Ministers of the Crown are rightly forbidden from having outside forbidden from having outside . Summer fortunate enough to be independently wealthy.

Unless, I was not in the category. As a result, for reasons that will be understood across the house, it was necessary for me to attend Your Lordships' House each sitting day. To be an effective minister, as I know Northern Ireland requires a significant amount of engagement and visibility within Northern Ireland itself, and that was something I was constrained from doing. For the first year, invitations to attend events or meetings from Monday to Wednesday or substitute for other ministers had to be declined.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the ongoing significance of US involvement in the affairs of Northern Ireland and the importance of engaging with Irish-American. Of the ministerial team of three, I had by far the most experience in these matters and the best network of contacts. In March 2024, the then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis, asked me to accompany him on the Saint Patrick's visit roaming St Patrick's Day visit -- Saint Patrick's Day visit.

Lord Hain will be familiar with those events. It is essential that the UK govern's voice is heard. Had to decline in order to attend Your Lordships' House. It was a less than satisfactory situation. Has been referred to by a number of noble friends when they had been in government. It cannot be right that members of Your Lordships' House have to face challenges with which I grappled for a year and be expected to perform as ministers without a I strongly support my noble friend and urge herself, a distinguished Northern Ireland office Minister to accept this sensible and necessary amendment.
16:46
16:48
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
act on it. Five years unpaid Lord Minister whip in the coalition Minister whip in the coalition government. I would say that we had government. I would say that we had a coalition government and we may find ourselves with the coalition after the next government. There may well be an argument for having a larger pool of Ministers. We have to spend some part of our time marking spend some part of our time marking each other, so to speak. My responsibilities were in the Foreign Office, the Cabinet office and I did indeed spend quite a lot of time indeed spend quite a lot of time outside the country because I enable the Foreign Office to send someone to another countries which would to another countries which would have otherwise been entirely neglected, without sending the most junior Minister, as it were to be junior Minister, as it were to be junior Minister, as it were to be there.

I was lucky enough to have an academic pension, WiFi has an academic pension, WiFi has an academic pension. That means we are moderately of the conservative moderately of the conservative variety. Actually one can't manage variety. Actually one can't manage much beyond. I did not mind missing some of the days in the House. -- My wife has an academic pension. It is range very widely, including the relationship between the two houses. I say to the noble Lord I'm reading the House of Lords and the 17th and early 18th century we had! Maybe we could move back towards that.

An appeal that is deliberately designed to be as narrow as possible we are talking about the relationship between the two houses. The way it is have been struck and how many Ministers we need. Lord Forsyth is absolutely, of course, patronage and keeping backbenchers in order. Has led to an expansion of government. He didn't make as much about the expansion of PPS is in the House as well as trade employers, which has meant, the House of Commons has ceased, in effect to do a lot of the job of scrutiny.

I met a Labour MP some weeks ago, who had been elected last year who said she was wondering what the purpose of an MP is, in the garter Commons now. You are not expected to be able to change the expected to be able to change the decision, or to get back, as it were the mistakes that your own government is making. There are some hypothetical issues there, but those issues are broader than this bill. We all know what the impact of this amendment in passing will be.

The House of Lords will have fewer Ministers. That would damage this House very considerably. The current government is highly unlikely to shrink Ministers of the Commons. If we want to shrink the number of Ministers, we should be agitating. Of course part of what is happened is as a local government has got weaker and weaker central government has taken on more and more of what used to be the role of democracy. Ministers had expanded in all the things that they do.

From these benches we will not support this bill. Yes we do favour much wider parliamentary reform. Yes we do favour much more thoroughgoing reform of this House. Yes we are immensely disappointed at the turbidity of this government with respect to this bill, as in so many other areas. Here we are in the bill which is concerned with small change in the nature of this Hause grow and is not able to persuade government, without a much longer conversation, to change the 1970 to change the way the Commons operates those in these benches will vote against the amendment.
16:52
16:52
16:53
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord are true for raising this issue and Lord Parkinson's amendments. He and I have discussed this many times. Indeed when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one. And I welcome both noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers union, which are happy to supply application forms in due course. I think as much Lord Forsyth is an unlikely candidate am sure he would be very welcome.

Let's go to the heart of the welcome. My honourable friend Lord Faulks, the clerks did decide it was in order. That is not to say they're not in scope. They are in scope, no matter how wide they go from the original title of the bill. I'm glad Lord True tabled his amendment 13 A, he did so recognising that the consequence of them at 13 would not only would we lose a Ministers from the government, if passed, would actually lose them from your Lordships House as well.

The Minister has welcomed his amendment. I think first it is right to say that the work of the Lords is one of the most difficult jobs in government, both paid I hasten to Our defence Ministers are paid Ministers, they are still here in the chamber, recognising their duty to also have a responsibility to the House as well as to other departments and to the government. The work they do, covers not just their ministerial work in the department, but it covers any other work related to the government.

They will ask questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have a great pride in the Ministers we have, in our government. Indeed I have respected Ministers from either party, the three parties who have been in government, in the past. I disagree, actually with the noble Lady Barran when she said, she was quoting somebody else. About it being hard to find someone good. Actually we do find good people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They make a sacrifice. She did quite somebody and I accept To be clear, I completely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be clear, I completely disagree which is why I went on to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say that I thought I had worked with excellent Ministers and we have excellent Ministers. I thought that was a quote she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought that was a quote she was making. The points made about ministerial pay, again was a very supportive and valued defence. Lord Forsyth, went a little bit wider than this issue. Lord Wallace as than this issue. Lord Wallace as well, talked about the House of Lords and House of Commons. It shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government. I have to say that as the noble Lord true say that as the noble Lord true confessed we have been able to make some improvements in this some improvements in this government, before the general election there were 31 Ministers in government, in your Lordships House, government, in your Lordships House, only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid.

We have been able to improve the situation now, that we have only nine unpaid Ministers, 20 Ministers. Lord Forsyth asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours and persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward to deliver this. Lord True knows that I have done so since I have been imposed and that is where the position is so much better than it was, I look forward to further improvements in that regard. Lord True gave three principles.

One was a fair days pay, for work done. The second was equal treatment. There isn't equal treatment between the two houses, he will be aware that ministerial salaries, that Ministers receive in the House of Commons is in addition to their salary stuck in the House of Commons that there is a choice, in the sense that Ministers who aren't paid do claim can claim the daily allowance. To say they are completely unpaid. We understand what we mean, members outside may not.

It is worth looking as well, that since 2010, there has been no incremental cost of living increases in ministerial salaries. And that has meant that for those Ministers who as we term are unpaid, particularly if they live in London, they can actually be earning more than the Ministers who aren't paid. There are a number of issues to be addressed. I'll discuss the figures, is very similar amounts. When I'm pointing out is that there are a number of issues to be addressed about the inequalities between both houses.

And I think we all agree about serving. The principle behind the amendment, but I will say, I think if the noble Lord had, as his think if the noble Lord had, as his To amend the ministerial and other salaries act, to increase the number of Ministers over all, that would guarantee, it would help certainly increase the number of Ministers. In terms it has always been the case, since then that a small number of unpaid Ministers, under the last government in your Lordships House.

In looking at this amendment, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean any currently unpaid laws Minister would receive a salary. It would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Ministers and therefore a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to do so. Although this amendment would have no effect, we cannot support this amendment.

I do think there is an issue to be addressed. The noble Lord Forsyth is leaping to his feet. The assurance that he saw that we are doing so. I think you can take some comfort this is significantly better the situation and it was under the last government before I ask the noble Lord true to withdraw I will take one intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady sits down. If the amendment 13 was to be If the amendment 13 was to be passed, amendment 13 A is clearly sensible. We are going to vote, sensible. We are going to vote, consider amendment 13 A first. Would be possible to agree 13 A first and be possible to agree 13 A first and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then vote against amendment 13? The noble Lord makes an interesting point. But understanding interesting point. But understanding is that we would be voting on 13 A first and Lord True has said, it is consequential and he would not seek to press 13. It would have to be a to press 13. It would have to be a vote for or against 13 A, rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote for or against 13 A, rather I am most grateful to the leader of the. I think that the point made by the Noble Lord Hunt may have some validity, but in respect that he validity, but in respect that he said in practical terms it probably means increasing the number of Ministers to deal with this issue, which is a one clause bill which which is a one clause bill which could be agreed between the first frontbenchers and would go through fairly quickly I would suggest Castlewood the Noble Lady explore the possibility of doing that with colleagues.

My Noble Friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view at the top of the party that did not understand this space and did not agree to it, but I think that in fairness there is overwhelming support that anyone that understood this issue surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would find it possible. You make an interesting point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You make an interesting point, and I know that the build he refers to under the last Government we were never approached about that draft bills. And the Noble Lord troops bills. And the Noble Lord troops spoke to me about it, do not think in the ever place it was ever discussed and we were never poked about it. I think that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is an increase in the number of Ministers, increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to look at the number of lots Ministers within the total number of Ministers and I think we made no important point when he said the number of businesses overall is growing in Government.

Is that necessary or not? I think a discussion around that could take place around those two issues, but I place around those two issues, but I think that we do want to secure for this House that we have the right number of business to do the work that is required of us. Having said that is required of us. Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve that. It will not take us any further forward and I think his suggestion is a better suggestion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggestion is a better suggestion and I am happy to take that one forward, but I do urge the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I am very grateful for all those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful for all those who have spoken in this short debate and I have been struck above all by and I have been struck above all by one thing, that absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We did have a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat benches who said that they supported the principle of it, but would vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against it. The Noble Lord said his amendment has universal support. It does not have universal support. And what I have universal support. And what I did say is that in principle of supporting our Lord's Ministers and supporting our Lord's Ministers and I deferred Noble Lord Forsyth way forward on this, so I do not support the amendment, and I do not think anyone disagrees that the principal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anyone disagrees that the principal ensured we have the rights of our Ministers. That is exactly my point and that noble Baroness has reiterated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Baroness has reiterated. I did point out that the consequences of this would be a reduction in the number of noble Lords Ministers to be extremely bad for the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the House. Also, incorrect, it needn't necessarily do that at all, and I must say when I heard the Liberal must say when I heard the Liberal Democrat bench, we cannot support this because this is very narrow, this because this is very narrow, won't those the benches that pressed won't those the benches that pressed two divisions on this bill to redesign the House on a democratic redesign the House on a democratic basis? And they have the gall to come forward and say that your Lordships should not actually ask that Ministers be paid.

And it was that Ministers be paid. And it was even more startling from the Liberal Democrat benches there intervention. The intervention from the Noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who is universally respected in this House I thought was Jermaine and I would like to thank him. I had not realised he was also on that list for unpaid Ministers which would have been 10 up to if you to go, but the Noble Lord very skilfully, the noble and learned Lord immediately picked up that the key point he made, I think he said there is never going to be a bill that comes along to deal with this.

And, frankly, as I said, we have the employment rights Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I served as WIPO on the 99 bill. I was present for every session. And I was present for every session. And I keep the flame that one day we will deal with these issues in a statutory way because I still stick to my point that you make no progress in this area whatsoever. progress in this area whatsoever. The idea, I know they may not agree The idea, I know they may not agree with me but the idea that Government would bring forward till to say we are going to increase the number of Ministers is just completely naive.

Ministers is just completely naive. That is why, in the end, we should get to the real business of sorting out what this place should be ready

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for. The Noble Lord obviously absolutely makes my point for me. absolutely makes my point for me. When an opportunity arises, let's When an opportunity arises, let's put aside all the Aja of whether we like Hereditary Peers or not. We like Hereditary Peers or not. We have a bill that concerns our house. And the better workings of this And the better workings of this House. And as the Noble Lord said, if there is a mischief that might be if there is a mischief that might be addressed, let us use this bill to address it.

The bill has already been amended, it is not a bill that is in tact. It is not a bill that is
17:08
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
not going back to the House of Commons. And the House of Commons Commons. And the House of Commons under the successive Governments, the House of Commons will continue the House of Commons will continue to ignore the voice of the House of Lords in respect of our quest. And what we feel to support the amendment, it will force the House amendment, it will force the House of Commons to consider this point. It will force the House of Commons It will force the House of Commons to consider whether there should be a fair days pay for a fair days work a fair days pay for a fair days work in the House of Lords Bill.

People force the House of Commons to consider whether meritocracy should consider whether meritocracy should apply and the absence of wealth should not and I want the opportunity to serve your country. opportunity to serve your country. It will force the House of Commons to consider the principle that no one should be prevented from serving one should be prevented from serving the party or this House for private the party or this House for private means. Those are critical principles that should be laid before the House of Commons and this amendment enables that to be done.

I beg that enables that to be done. I beg that this appears on all sides that would stand up for their fellows, may be silent fellows in this House who secretly would like to come forward and serve, but as we have heard from the benches opposite have to look at those balances and ask, well, we cannot. Yes, we can and I beg to leave to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Testing amendment 13 a, the amendment, the question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", I think the not contents have it. The
17:09
None Portrait Division
-

think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the Voting is now open. Clear the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that they may amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the The question is that the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted, They have voted, intense, They have voted, intense, 94,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted, intense, 94, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted, intense, 94, not content, not 39239, so the contents Amendment Amendment 13. Amendment 13. It Amendment 13. It is Amendment 13. It is moved?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 13. It is moved? Lord True has spoken in favour of the amendment and on his behalf I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment and on his behalf I move family. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The contents have contents have it. The contents have it. In that case, we move on to amendment 14 in the name of... Not amendment 14 in the name of... Not
17:21
None Portrait AMDT: 16 Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-affiliated)
-

move. 15 withdrawn, so 16, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ashton of Hyde. In the committee stage of this bill, it was pretty much acknowledged that this amendment acknowledged that this amendment addressed a genuine problem. The House as a whole would benefit from a solution. That problem in a nutshell is that House of Lords nutshell is that House of Lords reform act 2014 clearly states that a notice of resignation must be a notice of resignation must be signed by the end witness, and therefore a peer has lost mental capacity and the clerk of the capacity and the clerk of the Parliament doesn't feel able to accept antennae signature, they accept antennae signature, they could be the preferred situation where appears at any could arrange medical care or sell a peer's house medical care or sell a peer's house but could not submit notice of resignation on behalf of the peer.

Thus leaving that peer free to speak or vote in the House when they really shouldn't. This is really shouldn't. This is undignified for the and bad for the undignified for the and bad for the reputation of the House. Amendment 16 and the House of Lords act 2014 16 and the House of Lords act 2014 to allow a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign a letter of resignation on behalf of a peer. Following the debate at the committee, I don't think the intention of this controversial, and I won't spend more time on it, I do thank the leader of the and the clerk of the Parliament separately for spending time with me to discuss this amendment.

The leader has done what she said she would do at committee and together with the clerk of the Parliaments, has come up with a solution. The issue is whether it is the best one. In the decade also since the passing of the 2014 act, clerk of the Parliament and his predecessors have accepted legal advice that it would not be lawful to accept a notice of resignation by a peer's agent or attorney. So the leader recently commissioned further advice from the government legal department, which I'm informed admit that there are good arguments on both sides, but now advises that an attorney may submit a notice of resignation on behalf of the peer.

Onto that new government lawyers advice, but conscious of the good arguments on both sides, the clerk of the Parliament has changed his mind. And says he is now prepared to accept says he is now prepared to accept the legal risk of accepting a resignation letter from an attorney subject to certain safeguards. I should emphasise that the unfortunate clerk of the Parliaments is only implementing a system that we have created. But he is the person who is forced to take the legal risk by accepting this new advice instead of the previous advice.

Later he may be found to be correct. In accepting the new advice. Or he may not. What would happen if eight successive clerk of the Parliaments disagreed with his interpretation of the advice? What would happen if court found the advice was incorrect? Why should we leave the clerk of the Parliaments to bear the risk we have created? Surely it would be better if we make the situation clear by amending the 2014 act in the way suggested by this amendment. And by the way, the government is already amending the 2014 act in clause 3, section 4 of the bill.

As we all know, legislative time is at a premium. So adopting this amendment is a perfect opportunity for this House to do its duty to revise legislation and remove doubt. In the words of the leader of the when she was the Leader of the Opposition, there is an obligation on us to do what we can to improve legislation, that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our role. I beg to move. I assume he was just about to sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume he was just about to sit down. Tag might have, I have just moved the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved the amendment. Understand what he's suggesting this and I have a lot of sympathy this and I have a lot of sympathy but for clarity I would like to know, in his discussions with the clerk of the house, for the attorney to exercise and attorneys power, they would have to make sure that the person they were representing had actually lost capacity. What had actually lost capacity. What steps have been included to assess that capacity? Because under the Mental Capacity Act on which I Mental Capacity Act on which I served for many years, there is a procedure to assess somebody's capacity and I would just say, particularly in respect of often very elderly people, sometimes people are deemed to have lost people are deemed to have lost capacity when in fact they are suffering from things like urinary tract infections, so in order to exercise that power legally, what exercise that power legally, what has my noble friend agreed will be the way in which capacity is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegally accessed? As far as I understand it, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As far as I understand it, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that an attorney established under a lasting power of attorney must think about code of practice within that bill. And when they make decisions on the other person's behalf. So they are under a duty to abide by the code of practice which is contained within that bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, but within that code of practice is a very clear Code of of practice is a very clear Code of Conduct for and how capacity is assessed, and by whom it is assessed, and by whom it is assessed. There should be an assumption of capacity before that process starts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process starts. Exactly, so the attorney under a lasting power of attorney has duty lasting power of attorney has duty and if he or she was exercising that duty, within the grounds of the act, duty, within the grounds of the act, then they would be acting lawfully, and that is what they would do, they will establish the capacity using the advice that is contained in the the advice that is contained in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the advice that is contained in the In the case of doubt, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause 1 insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. My Lords, I will be brief because
17:28
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will be brief because I spoke to this amendment, I co- signed it at committee. But this seems to me to be an amendment which is just based on common sense and is just based on common sense and one that this House should accept without question. It seems... It seems to me at least that this is a very timely amendment and one which is also based on humanity. There were, as I explained last time, or there are, two types of powers of attorney.

And section 1 of the 2014 act does not seem to come within either of those types of power. And therefore in order to avoid the confusion that currently seems to be abroad, we should make that go away by agreeing to my noble friend's amendment. We have heard something of what the clerk of the House may or may not think but with the greatest respect of the clerk of the house, what the clerk of the House thinks is neither here another. This is a government bill, and the government policy, presumably, is not to permit this amendment.

They must justify their refusal to accept the noble Lord's amendment, and cannot hide behind their lawyer or our clerk. The simple point is, are we to be humane, to allow those who have lost their capacity to be released from the burdens of membership of this House of Commons, of this House of Lords, or are we to leave them to hang on in some undignified way? This is sensible, it's humane, and its timely. And I support with great vigour of my noble friend's amendment.
17:30
17:32
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
solution is not to put the matter, Mackay join with others to support the amendments proposed by my Noble Friend Lord Ashton. The Friend Lord Ashton. The constitutional role of this House is to review and improve legislation, to review and improve legislation, and this is a clear case of improving legislation. I make only two points. One to the observation two points. One to the observation made by the Noble Lord paddock, that we have never seen a second set of we have never seen a second set of legal advice has not been provided by the department.

There is absolutely no convincing reason why absolutely no convincing reason why confidentiality should not be waived in respect of that legal advice. It in respect of that legal advice. It is impossible for us to make any judgement without that. But it is equally clear that there remains equally clear that there remains doubt, real doubt, as to the advice doubt, real doubt, as to the advice that has been received because parliaments have talked about being willing to take a risk. There is only a risk where there is only a risk where there is uncertainty.

The second point I wish to voice is mental incapacity does not sincerely proceed in a linear fashion. Take the simple example of George III. Pronounced mental incapacity may be followed by clear and lengthy periods of lucidity, and, indeed, in the case of George III, that led to constitutional problems and went on to question some of the steps taken. Now, here, you also have the case of someone that suffers a massive nervous breakdown and then fully recovers to discover that they have been resigned from this House.

An irretrievable step, they cannot go back, and so what do they do, Dessie to challenge and review the decision on the grounds that it was unlawful and they may well succeed, but what happens if after one or two years in court it is determined that they were entitled to continue as a member of this House. And then see I would have acted in the following way with regard to primary or secondary legislation that passed through this House during the period that I was unlawfully prevented from contributing to the proceedings of this House.

It seems to me it just leads to a constitutional problem
17:34
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
and one that is resolved by a very straightforward amendment to the straightforward amendment to the I have seen two of these matters happened before. The whole thing about legal advice given to a about legal advice given to a minister being revealed to the House and I can't remember a huge row about it and that Mr actually, the house adjourned for about 10 minutes while everyone recovered their composure because the row got so composure because the row got so bad. And there has been long- bad.

And there has been long- standing legal advice, there it is a good thing or a bad thing, I think this is not the place probably, to bring it, unfortunately. Though I do bring it, unfortunately. Though I do agree with the help of the House on the other occasion they had been able to say what that advice was, able to say what that advice was, and I do not think this is the time to do it. There is a long precedence to do it. There is a long precedence for that.

And on the question of the powers of attorney I have met this as well to look at things like that and the answer is the question of capacity you get advice on it and capacity you get advice on it and you get legal advice on it and then if you want to push far enough you end up with protection, probably the end up with protection, probably the power of attorney, someone to push it that far. And it would be very unfortunate.

If it occurs in the case that a person recovered somewhat and two years later said no, I am afraid he would not have been sitting for two years, by reason of non-attendance, so that might just solve the problem.
17:35
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
I rise in support of my noble friend's amendment and in addition to the legal arguments that have been made I just wanted to make a slightly different point which is it is a shame, actually, to be speaking before I have had the noble Baroness the leader set out her case, as my Noble Friend said, she was very clear in her response at Committee stage that she takes this matter very seriously and I know that she does and I know that as we discussed at Committee stage this is something that all of us that have led our groups have had to deal with and I think we are united in knowing that it needs addressing.

I think that, for me, the thing that I find hard to understand is why we would not use this opportunity that we have right now to put this matter beyond right now to put this matter beyond doubt. Because there are very few opportunities to do that. It is presented to us right now, so I would hope that the noble Baroness the leader would take this opportunity. If she does not, and my Noble Friend does push a division and is successful, I hope that in the period between now and the Commons considering any amendment that we passed that the noble Baroness the leader uses that opportunity to make the case to the Prime Minister and to her cabinet colleagues in support of this amendment because as the noble Baroness sometimes reminded me when I was sat where she is, that as the leader of the, she has a responsibility not just to bring the Governments arguments to this House, but also to take the arguments of this House and represent them back into Government and I think this is one of those occasions when the House would look to her to take that lead and I would simply add as well that on this occasion it is not political or partisan, it is something that is about serving the public interest, not just the interest of those of us as individual members and I hope very much that she is able to act in accordance with that if my Noble Friend does divide the House with a successful passing.
17:37
17:39
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a way forward on this. This amendment is identical to the one tabled in committee. This particular amendment seeks to allow a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement and given to the clock and Parliament and I thought the debate we had in committee was a very useful one. And I think it was an example that it is the House at its best coming together to solve an issue that we all need to be resolved with the dignity of our members as well.

There was, of course, cross-party support for addressing the issue. I have to say that I think it lingered unresolved for far too long, and it is something that the House should have addressed a long time ago. So, at the Dispatch Box immediate commitment to this House to report back on the House. And I unable to do so positively today. Can I get some of the background of why this matters to me personally. It was something that I was concerned about before I was leader of, when I was a Leader of the Opposition.

And I know previously does were given the same advice as I was that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by power of attorney, and as their family had a particular case were a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that member to retire. And when they approach the clock in Parliament they were told the member could not be retired but he could take a leave Thought that completely and totally unacceptable. Because we did not give that member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity.

And so I investigated further and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. And given that the circumstances with which the power of attorney is accepted as significant, for this House not to accept it seemed to me to be rather strange and I thought it was unacceptable. The director of a company that he could not retire through the House. And so I raised this matter with Parliament and I also sought my own Government legal advice and I have discussed the matter with and Leonard colleagues around the House and the clocks in Parliament and we have reached an immediate practical solution.

Members may or may not have seen the preceding committees report. Which the Clerk of Parliament contacted saying that having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards to come unto he would be linked to accept the noticeable regulation signed on behalf of those that have lost capacity in the Mental Health Act or their power of attorney from the 2005 act. The safeguards of that this is a standard procedure in all cases.

And if there was any doubt that they would raise that, OK, I have got a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number of other points to make. Thank you. Just asking you to bear with me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just asking you to bear with me through this. On the basis of that is that legal advice received on is that legal advice received on that and understand the point made by the Noble Lord Paddick about not by the Noble Lord Paddick about not receiving or sharing legal advice even though that is a commonly held view was Government, but I may have a way forward on that. I think he a way forward on that. I think he will understand the risks for why Government does not share legal Government does not share legal advice.

But anyway, we have moved on, so it is now possible and I on, so it is now possible and I understand there are families of noble Lords that have looked presently to ensure that they can presently to ensure that they can retire their members who are ill. retire their members who are ill. So, that motion, that decision is So, that motion, that decision is the lasting power of attorney during power of attorney. So, we are clear power of attorney. So, we are clear that we can accept both of those.

Now, the risks that the Noble Lord Now, the risks that the Noble Lord has referred to is a position that may change again. The matters we considered proved by the procedure and privileges committee already which the Noble Lord also has amended with noble Lords the report was published that I shed on 24 June with details and development decisions have been made. Now, to state the obvious, I am sure that noble Lords understand this and to reverse this we require further consideration by the committee and any notification to the House so I am confident that position is practical, it is sustainable, and it will not be reversed.

In the House has a clear view on this matter that members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney, so my view is that we should let that work through to ensure that it takes effect, but listening to the discussion that is taking place to proceed further, I did take the view, and I have long held this view and discuss this with noble Lords across the House that this House should take responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? And, as I have said previously on issues like the time and participation I want the House to step up to its responsibilities, I have to say I question whether in order to resolve this we need primary legislation, but I do not think that we should pass legislation that is not needed, and I also concerned that as it is drafted amendment could create the risk of unintended consequences, unlike the report from the procedure and privileges committee, this amendment only makes provision for lasting power of attorney.

Now, this is part of the broad law that involves both enduring power of attorney which is recognising privileges and procedures and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary powers of attorney more regularly used when someone has individual affairs when they are temporarily unwell. Also other inclusions that the Noble Lady referred to in the Mental Capacity Act, 2005, the legislation writes that was carefully developed set out lasting power of attorney or enduring power of attorney that should or should not be relied upon and does ensure the safeguards are in place.

I seeding out just the lasting power of attorney, and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context this is in. This is a complexity she went I have to admit to noble Lords when I first embarked upon this I thought it was a straightforward issue and the more I looked at it the more complex it has become. At the more I and where we are simple legislative fixtures for complicated issues, so I am grateful for the debate today and I do understand the strength across the There are so great that we need to have something in statute that ensures and eliminates any risk? I understand that point.

We want to get to the same outcome, I don't think there is difference in our view on this. I'll be honest about the options. Firstly, the noble Lord compresses amendment but we as a house, or we can accept the decision of the clerk asset out in the committee report, which they can about themselves of nowt. And families can look at now. Secondly, the noble Lord may push the amendment in the House can decide it has to be a statutory solution and vote his amendment.

The House will be saying that the only way forward is a statutory route. That would mean the current arrangements that are in place, as I took back, would have to fall, because we couldn't have the clerk, the Parliaments report, which currently will accept the lasting power of attorney of continuing if the House feels the only way forward is a statutory route. For those reasons, I would quite like to say to the House, I think we need, if his amendment was passed, it's not just a simple tidying up operation, is a bit more work to be done on that.

I make this offer to the noble Lord and the house, I have discussed this with him as well. I'm open to continuing discussions on this. I think we all want to get the same place but it takes extremely complex. And I think we want a solution that has longevity, but has durability, and is not going to be questioned further down the line. The amendment as it stands at present would have to be tightened up and is not sufficient on its side.

The offer I had made the noble Lord suggested, if we could have noble Lords have further discussions to see if we can find a way to take this forward, if the agreement can be reached, to bring forward changes to the bill, the fact that, that don't cause further problems, I'll make a commitment to the House on that, to take those forward. If agreement can't be reached, it still open to the noble Lord to bring forward his amendment at third reading. It's really the challenge by the noble Lady, can we find a way forward that we all agree on, we are trying to get the same point.

I hope we can. -- She's being extremely helpful. In the period before third reading, if the noble Lord Lord Ashton agrees with that approach, with the noble Lady be prepared at the very least to share with the House, or those who are interested in this issue, at least the substance of the legal advice so that we can understand what the issues and the uncertainties may be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The best way forward would be government lawyers to talk to the government lawyers to talk to the House to find a way forward, this is in the interest of the House to resolve that and if lawyers and resolve that and if lawyers and lawyers can talk, because I not a lawyers can talk, because I not a lawyer. But I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, but no Lord Pannick once accused me of being a Pannick once accused me of being a lawyer.

I took some pride. But we are all in the same place, we want to find a way forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to find a way forward. Before that noble Lord lady sits down, has thought be given to the down, has thought be given to the fact that Scotland may not be the precise the same as England? I precise the same as England? I wasn't able to catch what was said in the original statement as to what formula is she is using backend must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formula is she is using backend must be taken to ensure that Scotland would be covered by the solution put forward. He is right, and I'm grateful to him for the discussions we've had. him for the discussions we've had. Yes, in the legislative solution there would have to be referenced to Scotland as well. That is one Scotland as well. That is one confident the position we have currently for the procedure is the currently for the procedure is the right one, it works, but I accept in the views of noble Lords and what to -- want to have the matter beyond risk.

If it's possible to do that through discussions, and I've even said I will be happy to delay third reading to enable discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope that is available to the noble Lords. We do want to get this right. And none of us want to be in a position where a noble Lord whose family think it's appropriate for them to retire, to have a legislative limbo and not be able to...

If we pass this today we are in a position but I'm happy to have those discussions with lawyers, with government lawyers, between now and third reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord, I hope he will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
17:51
Lord Ashton of Hyde Portrait Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I would like to thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories, the formidable legal team, I must say. And all the other speakers in this debate. I should repeat my thanks to the leader of the House who spent a lot of time with me discussing this. And I'm very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks and I'm very willing to accept that but I'm afraid I don't think the commitment she has made, although generous, is enough, and I've noted that quite understandably, it included the ominous phrase, if agreement can be reached.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to intervene, can I be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, can't support him in that amendment and therefore we can't have discussions on it between now and third reading because... It's because it will be part of the bill. because it will be part of the bill. So we're not able to have discussions because it will be part of the bill. We'll have to wait until ping-pong which is why I think it's a better route forward. I'm sorry if you don't quite understand sorry if you don't quite understand the procedures of how we would have the procedures of how we would have to manage this.

If we were the lead to -- prepared to delay the third reading, to allow the discussions to reading, to allow the discussions to take place, that would satisfy the whole House. I think it is a totally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonable way forward. That's a shame that it is take it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a shame that it is take it or leave it as far as discussions are concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are concerns. He will understand the procedures of the House if he puts it to the vote today and his motion is lost, vote today and his motion is lost, then we are the position we have, then we are the position we have, the motion that we had at the committee, and that stance, that the committee, and that stance, that the clerk is accepting it. If his motion is one it is therefore part of the bill. And we can't address that until they have been to the House of Commons so it's not take it or leave it, we are unable to do so within our procedures but the way the House could have the discussions is if we discuss them at third reading.

It's in his hands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't agree with that exactly. Because it's perfectly possible to have discussions even if it was in have discussions even if it was in the bill because first of all, even if there are particular problems, once it's in the bill, it can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought back at third reading. If I can assist the House, for the companion, point .8 .153 says, an issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatively by a previous stage of the bill may not be reopened by an amendment at third reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

third reading. Still ping-pong. I do accept what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Still ping-pong. I do accept what the noble lady the leader of the the noble lady the leader of the House said. I'm quite surprised that there is such controversy on what I thought was a fairly common sense thought was a fairly common sense amendment. What we would like to do is get a solution that would, that is get a solution that would, that everyone would agree. And I think there is a principle here that errors, or problems with errors, or problems with legislation, should be addressed by legislation.

But if we have something that we all agree is wrong, on the face of a bill, that should be corrected by the face of the bill. I have accepted what the noble Lady has said about having discussions before third reading and also that the third reading could be delayed to enable the disc discussions. I'm sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly, so I'm therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepared to withdraw my management. -- My management. Is it your lordships' pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. We moved to
17:55
None Portrait AMDT: 17 Lord True (Conservative)
-

amendment 17, Lord True.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in preface, might I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in preface, might I thank the noble Baroness leader of thank the noble Baroness leader of the House for her readiness on that amendment and I think we have reached a good point in the result reached a good point in the result of that discussion and I thank her for that although there is no doubt for that although there is no doubt in my mind that there is a matter to in my mind that there is a matter to resolve.

We now move on to amendment 17 which in my name, seeks to amend 17 which in my name, seeks to amend the life peerages, to place absolutely beyond doubt what I absolutely beyond doubt what I myself and many others consider actually probably is beyond doubt, actually probably is beyond doubt, the untrammelled power of the Crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend bring with it a summons to attend your Lordship's House. Throughout the passage of this bill, and over the passage of this bill, and over many, many years, if not decades, we have heard arguments about the size of the house, we have heard of the house, we have heard complaints about people who take peerages and then don't attend the house, we have had reference to house, we have had reference to people who accept a period and then very swiftly retired.

And we have also obviously heard on many occasions of criticism of the previous ministers extensive peerage creations. This one is not doing too badly but I have got no complaint, it is perfectly reasonable to my mind that the Labour Party should create more peers in this house, that has or has been my position and I stand by what I said when I was in government and I stand by what I said at this Dispatch Box. We welcome all these new peers in the good spirit that is customary in our house.

But we all know that not all who receive the supreme honour and dignity of a peerage for a life in many walks of service, in business, or the Armed Forces, or the arts, or even sport, I may say, many other walks of life actually want to be working peers. In this place. Or even feel they may be equipped to do so. Some come and then they very swiftly retired. Some very rarely pass those brass gates but in the statistics they still can't among start number.

And neither of those things actually serves the interests of the House as a whole. This is one of many reasons why I submit your Lordships that this is an overwhelming case for a modernising reform of our system of peerages, so that those who are worthy of being honoured in this way for their services to public life, with this extraordinary high degree of honour, but who do not want, or may not be able to fulfil the obligations to attend here, may receive a peerage for life without being required to take a seat here.

It's not in its place, but I have often hold the noble Lord Lord Foulkes of Cumnock make this point and I have a degree. Lord Lucas argued it very ably at committee stage and I was also pleased that the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire supported the sentiment at committee stage. I mean, he argued then, and I quote him, separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how should be moving forward. I agree with him and I hope that now the bill is going back to the other place he will be as good as his word and support what he called this important part of moving forward.

They're actually having heard earlier that the LibDem policy on this bill is to vote against principles that they support, I wish I could be more confident that he would follow me if I chose to divide the House I will obviously listen carefully to the debate. Of course as I argued in committee, it is probable that the right to create a life peerage of this type already exists, indeed such a life peerage was created as recently as 2023, in the case of the present Duke of.

And there are many historical precedents, as I explained in committee. And when we hear a new peer introduced in the House, we hear our clerk in town every time, after the reference to the life peerage act, these words "and of all other powers in that behalf in arse These range of powers inherent to bestow upon peerages and other honours, but it is not done, because some people say the power does not really exist, it is not clear, it is not being done for a long time, as in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh, so while it may then be legitimately argued they have the power to create title.

Already exists, the purpose of this amendment is to put it absolutely beyond doubt that frankly would encourage its potential use. Why shouldn't we have life peers who are not required to attend this House by writ of summons? writ of summons?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a practical one, really, because there is a peer in the House that came into the House and did not make a Maiden speech because he considered the peerage and honour, considered the peerage and honour, and then one day the Prime Minister and then one day the Prime Minister said to that person by the way, with your experience, I have got a bit of your experience, I have got a bit of a job I want you to do that came in and made a Maiden speech.

And worked and made a Maiden speech. And worked inside the Government. That would not be possible with this kind of amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. It would, my lords, in such a rare case to apply than a second rare case to apply than a second peerage, the life peerage under the 1958 act could be conferred, it 1958 act could be conferred, it would be very simple. Like much would be very simple. Like much constructive reform, the system may constructive reform, the system may not be a great innovation, it is an extension of principle that exists under the Royal prerogative and extension to the 1958 act so that none sitting life he has may be none sitting life he has may be created through a statutory process as well.

I think this would be helpful to Prime Ministers that helpful to Prime Ministers that wished on a distinguished man and women, but not necessarily to swell the ranks of the House. There are many fears and many lords who currently do not have the right to sit in your Lordships house and I found the arguments put against this proposition in committee faintly risible. I submit that a clear and unequivocal form, enabling the creation of none sitting life years under the 1958 act would be no more or less confusing than the current position, and it would relieve us of the potential difficulties, both for individual peers and for the House to which I refer.

It might save some future peers, and, indeed, your Lordships house, from the unnecessary embarrassment of including people who do not want to be here and do not want to stay here for very long. I cannot for the life of me why any Government would wish of me why any Government would wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to resist it and I beg leave to move this amendment. Amendment proposed, after clause
18:04
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 9 and set the new clause printed on the Marshall list. I will risk the possibility of being called visible light Lord True being called visible light Lord True for disagreeing with him. But I think that he has failed to spell out precisely the point that he should have done, by my Noble Friend Lord Fox as someone who thought we should separate membership of this House from the peerage. I agree with that, I think it is a very good idea, but of course there are two ways of doing it.

One way is to say right, you do not require the peerage to be in this House, you do not need a title, we could call members that deals with a problem. Just as effectively as the problem he has constructed which I do not think is a serious one which is we create a new category of peer which is the last thing we would want to be doing I would have thought enable of this sort which is trying to simplify and clarify membership of this House, however far from that we have strayed, because according to my reckoning, if we were to make that mistake of following Lord True's advice, we would then have six categories of membership of this House.

We would have Hereditary Peers here due to the amendment we have carried for at least another 40 years, maybe longer, some Hereditary Peers here. There would be lords, some remaining from the previous legislation other would-be bishops, there would be Life Peers. And there would be, we would still have, though not of course as members of the law but we would still have the Hereditary Peers who are not able to sit. And these adding a further category which is Life Peers that are not able to sit in the Lords.

If he tries to explain that in understanding the House of Lords to the average anybody, let's say 18- year-olds during British year-olds during British constitution at the moment, that is just the ultimate in making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need additional categories of membership in this House. We need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fewer categories on this House. I am not proposing an additional category members of this House, the category members of this House, the whole point of this amendment is that those people should not be members of this House, and by the way any life that retires from this way any life that retires from this House is still a life here, so is he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confused by that one? If Lord True cannot see the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If Lord True cannot see the difference in category between a life that can sit in here and legislate and a Life Peers that legislate and a Life Peers that cannot, then we are going to have considerable difficulty in having a sensible discussion. There are, obviously, fundamental differences, just as there is a fundamental difference between and hereditary peer who cannot sit in this House peer who cannot sit in this House because he is not one of the
18:07
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:10
18:11
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The combination of titles with membership in the second chamber is one of the many things we have inherited from the mediaeval period of the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, particularly enjoy the title I have because the village in which I live is a very special one in a World Heritage site and you are welcome to can't visit us. But I am occasionally confused. Some years ago I was at a conference in Japan for which I had to return early.

As I shared a taxi with a senior Japanese diplomat to the airport, he said to me in his most polite way, are you returning to your estates? And I wanted to say no, it is to my allotment, but did not feel that he would entirely understand the subtlety of that reply. We, in the Liberal Democrats, are in favour of working, it is interesting that the Noble Lord in his quirky way described this as a modernising version, it seems to us to be adding another area of complexity as the Noble Lord said to our already highly complex on us system.

There are plenty of honours throughout, there are knighthoods, there are dangerous, you may become a companion of honour or be given the order of merit. We are not quite sure why. Perhaps for the Conservative party in particular if one wants to award once more generous donors with something the title of peerage is a completely title of peerage is a completely important area, but the Noble Lord took the honour of quoting what I said at Committee stage, I emphasise in terms of modernising the role of second chamber we are in favour of reform in which the title would be separated from a member of the House.

What would then happen to the title is to us a matter of secondary importance. Another Noble Lord has a particular problem with the existence of Liberal Democrats that relates to enrichment and others in the past. If it is even more difficult now, for the Liberal Democrats are involved roughly at the same level as the Conservative party. But I note that the Noble Lord Forsyth used to object to the appallingly high number of Liberal Democrats, here to the point where as he would point out we had less than 10% of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons.

Now that we are two thirds of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons, I look at those very full benches and ask does Lord true really wish to defend the gross imbalance between conservatives in this House and the other forms of representation? I would just remind the Noble Lord that not only enrichment but also throughout England the number of Liberal Democrat councillors is about to overtake the number of conservatives, so I recognise there is of underlying problems for the Noble Lord and I think he wakes up to 30 in the morning and thinks about the Liberal Democrats in that fashion, but what my party wishes is to separate the illness system from membership of the House.

We value the work of this as a second chamber. We see this as working in the second chamber. We do not think should be modelled, in future, with the honour system. And this is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the place. My recollection of the coalition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My recollection of the coalition Government was every time the Government wanted to get agreement on a policy that liberals demanded on a policy that liberals demanded more which is why we have got those numbers, and then for him to argue against this amendment is a particular example of that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular example of that. The idea that Lord Forsyth just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The idea that Lord Forsyth just quoted out is the first time I have heard it. I am not sure where his heard it. I am not sure where his source is. But simply do not wish to attain the House. This seems to us and a necessary amendment and we and a necessary amendment and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and a necessary amendment and we Member 17 is identical to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member 17 is identical to amendment 35. There was a lively debate on this proposal at committee, as I think we have seen
18:16
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
committee, as I think we have seen today, however I would point to our extensive, comprehensive and long- standing honours system that seeks to recognise and promote the outstanding contributions made by individuals from the length and breadth of the country and all sections of society. With the sovereign as the fundable honour, honours are awarded based on merit, regardless of background for those who give service above and beyond to better the lives of others. Which I would have thought is an answer to the apparent problem suggested by the noble Lord Lord True.

Many of your Lordships will agree it is an honour to be appointed as a P. But that quite rightly wrings with it responsibilities to the work of your Lordship's House. Peers are pointed in recognition of their skills and expertise, and how that can be put to the service of your Lordship's House. And as my noble friend the Leader of the House of Lords tweet, party leaders should be mindful of this when making nominations. The government does not support the decoupling of a life peerage conferred under the life peerages act.

We have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure all peers contribute to the work of the House. Which many noble Lords have been clear they support. I certainly do not think creating another layer to the system to provide for the creation of non-active peers is in keeping with the mood of the House. The noble Lord Lord True and others have consistently advocated for a thoughtful and measured approach when implementing constitutional changes to avoid unintended. I'm not sure it is clear how this new honorary peerage would work in practice.

It is not clear what holack's role would be. There would be a role for another honours committee. If such a system will necessitate the need for additional governance structures. Nor who would remove such a title if we got to that point. In addition, to create a new class of peers with the same titles as the ones who sit and vote would exacerbate the confusion that already exists among the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages. In essence, I believe this amendment raises further questions that have not been given due consideration.

Especially when we already have an established and much respected honours system to recognise excellence. I therefore respectfully request the noble Lord respectfully request the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
18:18
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I'm disappointed by the response from the party opposite. Isn't this the great reformist party? The party that says about the accomplishment that says about the accomplishment that it has is to change Britain? And we have heard from the front vent opposite that they cannot support the idea that anybody could be a PR or a newly created a peer that does not have to come and swell the numbers in your Lordship's House. That isn't the way that your Lordship's House in its devolved thinking has been going.

We have an important and interesting debate which is being proposed, put to us later, by the noble Lord Lord Burns. The whole tenure of the feeling of the House is that we should find ways to reduce the numbers. One way of reducing the numbers is reducing unnecessary entries by people who have no intention of being working peers and I agree with what the noble Baroness home and said, and if you google me you will find that I have repeatedly over many years proposed this reform and have done so even from the Dispatch Box opposite.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps wasn't clear, the proposition to which I have always given support is the one that there given support is the one that there should be a complete separation of honours and titles from membership honours and titles from membership of your Lordship's House. That is what I haven't had the support for from the benches behind him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the benches behind him. This is a separation but I think that the idea that, do we have such that the idea that, do we have such a low view of the public that we think the public can't tell one think the public can't tell one person from another? If I happen to hear from the Attorney-General of hear from the Attorney-General of the previous stage, offering this argument that was so confusing, does argument that was so confusing, does he think the public couldn't tell an attorney general, Major General? Are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they so confused? It has been an argument against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been an argument against any changes that the public would be any changes that the public would be unable to understand a voting system unable to understand a voting system in which one put one, two, three, four, rather than a. If that is the conservative view of the public as far as voters are concerned and I think you would find argue that without much more, related

**** Possible New Speaker ****

citizenship education could be expected understand the distinctions he is making. I'm startled by the interventions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm startled by the interventions from those ventures. We had a referendum on proportional referendum on proportional representation, he may remember. I think the public will understood the think the public will understood the proposition being put them and they rejected. I think for the noble Lord to say the public doesn't to say the public doesn't understand, he's digging his own understand, he's digging his own whole further. And so as far as the Lib Dems is concerned, I love the Lib Dems is concerned, I love the Lib Dems.

One of the most beautiful Lib Dems. One of the most beautiful thing about England is the simplicity of Britain and beloved the charming eccentricities. All we the charming eccentricities. All we ask is that they are always charming which isn't always the case. But which isn't always the case. But they have been today. Let me return to the case in point. My noble to the case in point. My noble friend Lord Blencathra skewed it when he pointed out very fairly and when he pointed out very fairly and properly this was a very considered but the Burns committee.

It is in tenure with how the House is going. It is an extraordinary idea, we have headed already so that we support something but we can't support it today, but we might support it sometime in the future. This is a nonsensical argument. As is the argument with respect of the public might be confused. I remind the House that this isn't an unheard-of thought, something that many people have argued for over a period of years. It would be a useful addition to the honours system.

It would prevent the House from being burdened and embarrassed by those who frankly don't want to come here but deserve a high honour and I big E protest the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". I think the contrary, "Not content". I think the not content to have it. The question will be decided by a vote. I will
18:24
18:36
None Portrait AMDT:18 The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-

My Lords, amendment 18.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 18. My Lords, each one of us receives on appointment and at the start of each subsequent Parliament a written each subsequent Parliament a written summons. The route says, and I quote summons. The route says, and I quote ,, "We strictly command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to us that considering the are bound to us that considering the difficulties of the set affairs and dangers impending, waving all dangers impending, waving all excuses, you have been personally present at our aforesaid Parliament.

Two treat and give your counsel upon Two treat and give your counsel upon the affairs. These words have a natural meaning and everyone who is in the chamber tonight is living up to their rate. I have observed in the various debates starting in November last year that those peers who are only in our house very rarely are not living up to the words or the spirit of their writ of summons. Legally speaking, the minimum attendance is governed by section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act, 2014.

This provides that every PR must attend at least once during a session that lasts more than six months, or they cease to be a member going forward. There have been quite a lot of statistics during the passage of this bill. And I and I think many are very grateful to the Noble Lord Blencathra for his work in this area. I have run a few fresh statistics for this current session up to last Friday. 122 of our 834 members had attended less than 10% of the time.

In looking at how close people of the 122 are to the 10% line at the whole house level it is entirely reasonable to think that were this amendment to be enacted, 83 or 10% of the House might choose a retirement option. I have looked very carefully at the crossbench edition once again. The 10% hurdle is one that would allow a very important part of the crossbench to continue their valuable work in the House without it. Examples of this senior lawyers still in practice and senior academics, having looked at the statistics for this session, which I did not have available in committee, when I made a similar point, I can say that nothing has changed, and I feel a 10% hurdle is set with the interests of the House in mind.

I believe that this is the correct level to move participation to from that set in 2014. A further note that we are able to debate this and, in particular, thanks to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord Glen Catherine, that we were able to debate this at some length in committee. I am very sorry, have got the wrong draft in front of me. I think that my point is already made. And we have been able to debate this is number of times and throughout the House and having been present at every single one of the debates there has been general agreement that people who do not come do not fulfil their obligations under the writ of summons which is a very serious document.

There was not a single person who did not feel that this was wrong, and the only real debate is to how high the bar is that we set. And the main point that in the selfish interests of the crossbench we have a number of people who are not able to come more than 10% of the time, so for us we would want a lower bar. And it is the case that we would have a heck out the number of members, and I think a lot of us feel there are too many members in this House, and certainly the facilities that we enjoy, the number of offices and desks and the sheer cramming when I go and buy a sandwich that restaurant downstairs at lunchtime is also something that would be of benefit.

Anyway, I hope it will be a very interesting debate. Something that the noble leader and I have discussed over many months and I are very grateful and it is something that in fact the noble and learned Lord that I have also discussed as well with various interesting other ways around it, but, in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close ones with the new clause printed on
18:41
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall list. When I was convener in 2018. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I was convener in 2018. It was in 2018 when my Noble Friend Lord Vernon produced his report Lord Vernon produced his report which received quite a lot of support across the House and I was persuaded it was one of my duties as convener to see whether I could persuade some members of the crossbenchers to retire, so that we achieve the balance that the Noble Lord was seeking. And what I did, and this is my own choice, I chose 10% which noble Earl has chosen in this amendment as the one that I would take.

And I was conscious simply the only way I could deal with this was writing letters to people who are below the 10% bar. Suggesting to them that it might be better for them to retire if they were not going to be able to make use of their privilege of membership of the House. I received a mixed response, I do not think I was particularly popular in making that suggestion, but some of them did respond, and a number of them did decide to retire.

The result of this was I was able to achieve the balance that the Noble Lord burns was proposing. I was able to maintain that during the rest of the tenure as convener into 2020. I was greatly helped by the fact that the Prime Minister at the time was Theresa May, she then was, who had very little interest in making, as far as the crossbenchers were concerned, proposing new members of the House, so it was quite easy for me to achieve, but looking back I am conscious of two problems.

The first was the problem of lack of authority and the convener that is much respected with the authority across the cross benches and just because I said was time to retire it is not necessarily something that they should follow in the House, and therefore I think that if we are going to follow this suggestion to attendance it is going to be configuration we do need a backing of something which will enable the proposal to be enforced. Whether it is by legislation or bite standing orders is a different matter, but some kind of backing is necessary if the Noble Lord and his successors are going to be able to maintain the idea that attendance below 10% is not acceptable any more, and therefore people should retire.

The other problem is, I think, and anticipating the Noble Lord burns will be telling us about in amendment 23, is the problem of the balance being upset by new peers coming in which exceeds the number of those who are retiring, so that is a different issue that we will come back to, but the main point I would like to take in support is that the 10% figure was warned that I decided was the right one in my time and I think we may go on to debate it, but it seemed to me to be the sensible one.

And the fat one is that we do need some kind of authority across all the benches who are seeking to enforce that idea. I are seeking to enforce that idea. I offer my support for that. I just want to mention one of the people to whom I wrote did we decide to retire. As somebody who was not living in London and had good reasons and found it very difficult to get here to attend and, looking back, I thought it was a shame that he did retire because he was somebody because who, if he was a little bit more active, would have made a major contribution.

But, in his case, he was only 1%. And I thought it is not really imagine. If he had been 9%, let's drop it and try a little harder, but his attendance was so far below that there was no chance, but we do have a question for having a cliff edge of 10% as to whether some people drop over the edge of the cliff who really should not do so, and that is probably something which the committee should be discussing quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carefully. Looking at the amendment and I'm happy with the percentage suggested, happy with the percentage suggested, but those are difficult. In 1995, I
18:45
18:46
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly now to support the amendment. House miracle a committee stage I presented three a committee stage I presented three options for removal of periods in the middle of the House seem to call out the 10%. I said to Lord Attlee, leave of absence should deal with the problem he has just described. Let me make clear, if we were not in constantly told by the government that there are too many peerages, I would not necessarily advocate this measure.

If a peer turns up for 5% of settings and his not getting an allowance for the 95% of sittings he is not here so there is no burden on the taxpayer. But there is a burden on the rest of us doing the work, as we will find out in our hard-working registries are removed and the whips start asking for volunteers to fill the slots. We will then realise how much our hereditaries have been doing. I think this issue will now be considered by the new Select Committee and I look forward to the conclusions.

Two points, as suggested amending the act of 2014 and that proves the point I made to the noble Lord last week, that we may need legislation to do these things and it can't be done just by eternal standing orders. And second, and finally, when the Select Committee makes recommendations on attendance, how will we pass them into law? If we can't use standing orders, either through primary legislation, or secondary, in my amendment 23, I, I shall give quick way to do it with secondary legislation and I hope others will supported.
18:48
18:49
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-
I hesitate to rise and was not intending to but since no other member of this House has spoken in opposition to the Earl of Kinnoull's amendment I should like to do so briefly. When I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation order to deal with persistent absentees and therefore it might be thought I was in sympathy with the intent behind this particular amendment but one of the reasons why I'm very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is firstly, it is based on a full premise, premise that we hear often, that this House has two-minute members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point.

If we look at the division and the division numbers and the votes we have just had, the numbers are lower in those divisions than one would expect in some of the divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those members whom the executive or others for whatever reason, ideological or otherwise, find inconvenient. A stone in the shoe. And we should not, in this House, be seeking to produce the range of voices to limit the number of members, or indeed potentially to forfeit expertise.

That takes me to my second point. Many of those members of this House who will not be here for 10, 11, 12 arbitrary percentage figure we choose, will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying the expertise for the public good, or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role, they may be for example former Prime Minister's. Would it be right if we found that for example Theresa May, Baroness for example Theresa May, Baroness May, were only to have attended this House for 9% of sittings in a given year, she should somehow be expelled? It would be an outrage.

But that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal. And that takes me to the third point. Because I note this is an amendment that comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and the crossbenchers are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate itself to the request for a form that comes from the other place and from outside and that is why I'm so cautious in pushing back. But rather than seeking to bend the operation of our house to those who are not in sympathy with it, what we should seek to do is to ensure that this House operates effectively, and challenging for to legislation, and making sure expertise is deployed, not in attempting to regulate our numbers but attempting to recollect the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here and if we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative and challenging that executive, when we undermine the case for this place and that is why, with the greatest of respect, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oppose this amendment. We undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who don't turn up more than once in each session. The answer to that
18:52
18:53
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule which means that people who play no part, after period, cease to be members of shipped out. The noble Lord Lord Hope talked about persuading non-attendees to retire. I, too, have done that. In one case suited my memory, I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group to try to explain to him he had done nothing for a considerable number of years, it might be appropriate for him to retire.

He was extremely sweet, he smiled, and said, I'd never thought of that. Took some time to think about it. Years later, he still hadn't thought about it. So I'm absolutely certain we need to move. As for the objections of noble Lord Lord Gove, the people we are talking about aren't the stone in the shoe. They are never in the issue. And when they are in the shoe, they are normally sound at best because they don't do anything. The idea that we By saying that people had to be here rather more than they do a moment, I'm afraid as fast legislation is concerned, is just wrong because in my experience, the number of people who normally are never here, and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a bill, is immeasurably small.

My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Lord Lord Kinnoull knows, and as I have said before, is that this issue I think should be considered first person equity, for a number of reasons. 10% may be the right answer but it's worth thinking about that. The other thing which has been put to me, and it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about is whether the requirement applies retrospectively not. Some people have said, unless it applies legislative we're just going to get flooded with people who have never been here before.

And the arguments for and against it but we need to discuss that. We haven't at all. For those reasons, while absolutely support the principle, if the noble Lord were to move this amendment to a division, I don't think we would be able to support him any longer.
18:56
18:57
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
and you don't work, you do not deserve to be here. I will support my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to say something quickly, going back to the good old days, before first report, in those days, there were normally a lot of peers, many more than now. People turned up when they knew something about it. There was a hard-core who turned up There was a hard-core who turned up and was running thing for the two parties, but others turned up with a new something. And sometimes you would get swelling. Also you have would get swelling.

Also you have experts who only turned up when they only knew about it, and I remember we were talking about decommissioning the North Sea oil decommissioning the North Sea oil rigs and very few of us knew anything about it. And somebody on the backbenches there he stood up, the backbenches there he stood up, and gave the government a tour, tool, which completely destroyed everything they had got in the bill. everything they had got in the bill. Absolutely nothing about people who had not the stuff, and the had not the stuff, and the government stood up and said, I think we had better get together and discuss this, could you come and advise us and that was the end and advise us and that was the end and it all got sorted out.

But you have to be careful, but you don't look to be careful, but you don't look out some of the experts, it has been when legislation is coming up and you are preparing for it. I have been in IT all my life and I remember the identity cards, the things were impractical, and online identity and all those things and we did briefing papers, so we took a lot of time behind-the-scenes. I think that needs to be taken account of but I don't how you do it.

In principle I can see the point of this. When somebody does absolutely nothing, they need to move on.
18:59
19:00
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
occupied the minds of him and many of his predecessors as convenience of the crossbenches, and we heard from Lord Hope of Craighead. In the section of its manifesto, seeing immediate reform of the House of Lords, the Labour Party pointed out that too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. And pledged to "introduce a new participation requirement". That does not form part of the bill that the Labour Party has laid before us but there's no reason why it should not.

And the noble Baroness the leader of the House always said she will be happy to proceed by consensus, where it is possible and I hope that following the lead of the noble Earl the convener of the crossbenches, we are able to establish some consensus on this question today. The noble Earl in opening his remarks reminded us on what authority we have all come to this House. We sit here in response to a writ of summons from our sovereign who has commanded us waving all excuses to be at the Parliament Holden here in Westminster to treat and give our counsel on certain arduous and urgent affairs.

Unbound Lodge, we During the last Parliament, noble Lords attended on average 646% of the days they were eligible to do so. Of the 906 six people eligible to return some of the last Parliament, 28 did not attend at all and 116 attended on less than 10% of the days that they could have done the threshold that is before our consideration now. They send a firm but polite message to join us a bit more option or retire gracefully helping us to improve the size and reputation of the House.

We are not a House of professional politicians and we don't want to become one. We remain busy, surgeons, judges, captains of industry, chancellors, vice chancellors, ambassadors and high commissioners, with experience past or present commence the works we do together holding the government of the day to account and improving legislation brought towards us. This was brought to Lord Attlee from the commendable example he gave the leave of allows...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The problem is by running an NGO in Africa, if I had taken a leave of in Africa, if I had taken a leave of absence and came back on rest and recuperation and there was a debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recuperation and there was a debate about Rwanda I would not be able to take part. That is true, but it would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is true, but it would be open to my noble friend to make the decision that he felt was the best way he could serve his country, way he could serve his country, doing the work or bringing experience to the debates present experience to the debates present before the House. Of course, as I before the House. Of course, as I said in Committee, we command the said in Committee, we command the less noble demands of those as husband and wives, parents, husband and wives, parents, grandparents, and they help us reflect the population that we reflect the population that we serve.

The government and the House serve. The government and the House are right to insist that we take our duties here seriously and that we duties here seriously and that we are seen to be doing so. We already have a minimum attendance requirement through section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That requires just one day of attendance per session which the noble Earl and others argued is not commensurate with the command we received from our sovereign. Since that became law in 2014 and it became law thanks to an initiative taken here in the House, taken by a former leader of Liberal Democrats, Lord steel of Aikwood, who I think would be staggered to hear the argument from the leader of Liberal Democrats here that supports the debate but doesn't want to take the opportunity to take this change.

If that is the pace of change from the Liberal Democrats, no wonder they did not finish the job they started in 1911. Under the 2014 act that your Lordships decided, 16 noble Lords have been removed for failing to clear the low hurdle it established. Some of them were seriously ill and perhaps that has helped them take a decision that it would be painful to take more actively, but it leaves a large number of people of those in the manifesto do not play a proper role in our democracy.

In Committee, Lord knew me reminded us that we are here to give council not just on what we consider ourselves experts, but then arduous affairs that change on the course of a parliament. Lord Bethell reminded us that the collective deliberative act that we all undertake here requires getting to know one another, establishing bonds of trust and understanding and not just turning up and disappearing into rival division lobbies. That is how we establish the consensus our leader rightly wants us to achieve.

There is an emerging consensus in the House that the current attendance requirement of a single day per session without having to speak or vote or sit on a Committee is too low. Thanks to the spreadsheets compiled at the request of Lord Blencathra, we know who we are talking about without having to name names or point fingers. We can proceed calmly. The noble Lord is one who has looked at those closely and is satisfied that a 10% requirement would not affect what he called the low-frequency high-impact members who bring sparing but specialist contributions.

He missed my quoting if heater in citing the exam of Lord Lloyd Webber and I have sympathy for what he said. Lord Webber was driven from the House, attacked for being a musician first and a politician second. Disappointingly, he was not able to be with us here still when the pandemic hit to give his experience on behalf of the performing arts and West End theatres that were facing plight. The 10% threshold the noble Earl of the convener has looked at would raise the bar slightly but not prevent us from having the expertise of people like that noble Lord joining us sparingly and importantly for our debates.

I think he will find, Lord Gove, that Lady May Maidenhead will clear that bar quite easily. There are certainly further questions that the House will need to address in future and how we turn attendance into more active participation so we are not encouraging people to game the system, making speeches for the sake of appearing in Hansard and reciting speeches written by lobby groups into the pages of the official report and we are all embarrassed by colleagues from all corners of the House that turn up below the bar before a few poultry minutes and then skulk off after the first division of the day.

It would be a disgrace to dispel members from the House to address that problem. We can do this in bite-size chunks as the noble Baroness says. There is no reason why proper consideration of those issues in Select Committee ought future debates on Floor of the House should prevent us from taking this initiative today from saying we expect better and raising the bar a little bit higher. As Lord Pannick put it earlier, this is a mischief we can rectify. The noble Lords amendment is a sensible, timely upgrade to the 2014 act.

We seen it in operation for a decade and we can strengthen it. It would provide the authority the noble Lord Hope of Craighead says is necessary to make progress on an important issue. If we allow us ourselves time to consider matters without delaying taking a step that I think would genuinely improve the standing and function of the House. I hope the noble Lord will press his amendment when the debate is concluded and I hope we can embrace this important, timely and modest improvement to the functions of the House.

functions of the House.
19:09
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I and grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue today and we have had discussions on this issue and the discussions we had around the House on a number of occasions. My sense is a lot of support and encouragement for participation requirements. I do not think there is a consensus on what that level is and the noble Lord seems happy with 10%. There were a number of noble Lords against it and went for once a fortnight and that might cause ridicule to the House, but I don't know what the appropriate figure is but we can discuss it and look at what it could look like.

Noble Lords made a number of issues in the debate and Lord Pannick and others said once in a session does not really invite participation. I think we all know what we mean about participation and what is appropriate, but quantifying that with the debate around 10% is very helpful. Lord Gove says the amount it would reduce the range of voices, it does not reduce the range of voices if people don't attend the House. I think Baroness May would easily score on that point as well.

I do think that we have to consider how best to address this issue. Lord Lucas asked a really important question and I have to emphasise that and I come back again and I have said if the House can take responsibility for its own behaviour and actions it should do so. I have to say in terms of what the House could do in standing orders, I don't think it is 100% clear. If we can we should take responsibility and do it, but as I said about Select Committee being set up to look at these issues in the round which would be participation and attendance and retirement and how we as a House might go forward.

It would be very appropriate for the Committee to look at what immediate legislation and what can be done without. That would be a valid way. That would be a way forward. In terms of Lord Parkinson setting a figure in stone and statute, I'm not keen to do that. The reason why, I feel like I've been around the houses, the reason why it is before the House the way it is is because it was something where the principle of it was 25 years ago.

On attendance and participation, there is a consensus that something should be done, but I've not seen a consensus around the House in a particular number. I think it worthwhile for members of the House to look at this and how it could be done. We have not said what participation is as well. How do we do it? Should it be in statute? If we send amendments to the other place, those who attend more regularly in the other place might think 10% was a difficult area to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justify and might have other ViewSonic. Those in the other place in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those in the other place in the other place said that they would turn up once per session.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

turn up once per session. The expectation is... The opposition has said something similar. They chose the proposal to similar. They chose the proposal to not have two attend at all. There is an expectation and those members of the House want to participate in our activities and want to engage. It activities and want to engage. It isn't just about sitting here and listening to other people debating, listening to other people debating, but about playing a full role.

The point about expertise is an important one but we are not here important one but we are not here for our expertise because we are not on every single issue, but we are on every single issue, but we are here for the judgement we bring and making judgement listening to debate. I think process of a debate. I think process of a Committee of House looking at these issues, the timescale is important. issues, the timescale is important. If we let the momentum drop as we are keen to progress on this, we would be failing in our duty but I would anticipate soon after Royal Assent setting up a Committee to look at these issues in the round and make proposals to the House to consider and consider if we can move more quickly on some things that can be done without legislation, or prior to legislation.

I can give the noble Lord assurance and I'm keen we make progress as quickly as possible. I would hope that would reassure him. I have no intention of putting this on the backburner. All of the points raised are valid and those who are concerned about the reputation of the House but the value of the work we do is it is impossible to do that if they turn up occasionally to vote or just for one amendment. You will probably see that in its entirety and the number of noble Lords that do.

I am grateful to him for raising this and I hope that is a view he will put to Committee when they discuss these issues and I respectfully ask he withdraw his amendment. withdraw his amendment.
19:15
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
This is the fourth time we have had a similar debate in the last As ever, it has been of a high quality and I'm grateful to those who participated in it. I referred earlier on to the many meetings I had with the Leader. I know how busy she is. In those meetings, we have been talking about the Committee and whether the committee could go a bit wider and deeper. I suspect that when we come to Lord Burns's amendment later in, this will be raised again, but the Committee in any event has this issue within it.

I've also had extensive discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and these were discussions that were around standing orders and what standing orders could do within the House. Many will not be that familiar with standing orders but standing order number two is the one that regulates the minimum age for being in the House. The minimum age of 21 is nothing to do with statute. It is in the Standing Order. That is by way of example of how powerful standing orders can be.

Standing orders come straight down primary legislation so they can never strike down section 2 they can never strike down section 2 of the House of Lords format 2014 -- House of Lords Act 2014. It did seem that there is considerable promise in the Standing Order route. The Standing Order route also brings another difficulty in that it is very comforting to hear that Lord Hope was looking at statistics some years ago, and now I have to look at -- I've now looked at lots of statistics and we have come to the same answer.

There is some comfort in that. But still putting 10% Institute would mean that if it turned out it was the wrong number, it is very difficult to move that around if it was a Standing Order -- move that around. If it was a Standing Order, it would be rather better. I'm certainly feeling that the personally present words are not taken seriously enough by a large number of fellow members of the House. At the end of all of that and much discussion and thought, I have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decided that I should beg leave to withdraw the motion. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 19 and 20, already Amendments 19 and 20, already debated, not moved. Amendment 21, Viscount Thurso.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Viscount Thurso. I rise to speak to amendment 21 in my name. It is substantially the same amendment as I put at committee
19:19
None Portrait AMDT: 21 Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)
-

same amendment as I put at committee stage and achieves the same purpose. There is one substantive difference and that is in timing. The amendment I put at committee stage would have come into effect during this parliament, when is this amendment would come into effect in the next Parliament. And I will explain briefly in a moment why I came to the decision to change that. The amendment itself is the same so I will not repeat the explanation, save that it creates term limits of 20 years.

Are not hugely humble -- hung up on 20 years or 25 years. I am concerned with the principal that nobody should have the right to sit in this place for ever. There is obviously a discussion around retirement, which we have had in the Select Committee, and I listened very carefully to the comments of the Lord Privy Seal in that debate last week. I think around that, the Select Committee will do a good job. I'm not sure if the Select Committee will entirely be able to do the job that is required.

The reasons I have gone for a new timing are firstly that I think it would be only fair to allow the current government the freedom to do what they wish during the lifetime of this Parliament to perhaps make up for some of the more egregious excesses that happened in the last Parliament. I think it is a little unfair to remove the current system, as it were, at half-time, change all the roles. -- Rules. The second reason was that if during the course of this Parliament, there is further reform, and if the Government are able to take through legislation which gives us a different landscape, then obviously, this amendment coming into force in the next Parliament could be got rid of or scrapped.

I want to make clear at the outset that what I have said in many of our debates - my primary choice would be a democratically constituted House of Lords. I have been saying that on and off in different guises for the best part of 30 years. I took part in the debate in the other place in 2012 and the draft consideration -- consideration of the draft legislation and was happy for that bill to achieve a second reading. But I recognise that having got that far up the hill and been marched back again by our then leader that there was little chance of anything substantive happening.

And I rather suspect that the Select Committee will do its work. Discussions will continue. But at the end of this Parliament, we will not be greatly further forward than we are. So this is a real long stop in the sense that if we arrive at that situation and if, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, the electoral results in the next Parliament are somewhat more surprising than they might have been at the last general election, with indeed one Paul I saw showing it would be the largest party in the House of comments would have no representations -- Commons would have no representations.

Whilst the largest party in this house would be the fourth party in the Commons. I don't think my amendment solves that in any way, shape or form. But it puts a bear under the saddle to ensure that if we were in that circumstance, the government of the day would be to do something about it -- burr. My amendment ties in with amendment 23 in the name of Lord Burns, which I hope to speak to briefly later. With one exception, which I will leave it to that point.

However, I do think there is an opportunity in this legislation which may be the only legislation to do something that would affect no one in Your Lordships' House during this Parliament or any of the operation of this Parliament or fetter the Prime Minister in any way during the course of this Parliament. If none of the hopeful reforms came through, would take effect in this Parliament. I would say to other things in moving the amendment. The first was in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his comments earlier about function should come before form.

I take the diametrically opposite view and always have done. It was a point that was thrashed out in the Committee of both houses will be looked at it in 20 oh. I think the looked at it in 20 oh. I think the function comes before the form and it follows the history of what has happened in the relationship between the two houses. If you have long discussions about the funding -- function, you will end up never changing the form.

Most of all, what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say is... How on earth can you go ahead and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How on earth can you go ahead and say we will elect the House of Lords without looking at the powers the house would have? You have the house would have? You have the conventions, which essentially are voluntary constraints on what we do. voluntary constraints on what we do. The conventions would not last one second with an elected House. It would just be wholly responsible to simply go ahead with out sorting out simply go ahead with out sorting out the powers and particularly what you do if there is dispute between the do if there is dispute between the two houses.

With the courts have to be involved? With other mechanisms which you have? You cannot go for an which you have? You cannot go for an elected house without sorting that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out. One of the jobs of a fisherman is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the jobs of a fisherman is to land the fly on top of the fish and what should take -- watch it and what should take -- watch it take the bait with vigour. If you'd like to meet me in the Bishop spa at like to meet me in the Bishop spa at any point, I will take him through any point, I will take him through the detail -- -- Bishops Bar. I will say that if she were to make me an offer as generous, I would grab it with both hands.

I genuinely hope that the government reflect on this. It has been put to me that this is not necessary because if we got our elected house, we won't need to have this form of term limit. It is true amendment is not about if we get an elected house, it is if we don't get elected house. And finally, if I could just conclude by saying I agree with the noble Lady the Lord Privy Seal when she said, as she once agreed with me when I said it, that we are here not for our expertise but for our judgement.

I don't have a vast amount of expertise, other than running hotels and fishing. I do think I have good judgement, however. My judgement is if we fail to do this at this juncture, we may well end up regretting it and not having the kind of reform that we all really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would want to have. With that, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after close one, leave out the new clause. one, leave out the new clause. Rights of Life Peers to sit in the house. Insert the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. I printed on the Marshalled List. I must point out to your Lordships that this new clause proposed by that this new clause proposed by amendment 21 would be in substitution for the new clause which was agreed by the house which was agreed by the house earlier today in amendment 17.

earlier today in amendment 17.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. 's I should perhaps declare an interest as one of the many members of this House who has many members of this House who has had the privilege to be in the house for over 20 years. That's not the reason for proposing the amendment.
19:28
19:29
19:31
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
I make a contribution in the name of amendment 31. It will require all life peerages to be created for a fixed term of 20 years. I looked up the debate that introduced the life peerages act 1958 to see why it was decided that new peers should be created for life. At second reading on December third 1957 I found that had participated Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Hailsham and Lord Attlee.. It was difficult to see the issue of why the new creation should be for life was never actually discussed.

Apart from the introductory speech from The Earl of Hume, what he said was we have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers and as hereditary Peers were therefore life, that principle was applied to Life Peers and they would be there on equal terms. It was much more of a discussion as to why the daily allowance of three guineas would be enough to attract people of the right calibre. Now that there will be no more hereditary Peers here for life, the original logic making the rest of us here for life actually falls away.

The need for experience which is a feature needs to be balanced by the equally important news of that experience to be up- to-date. Someone at the top of their profession 20 years ago or more valued to the House than those top of their profession today. The amendment allows them to renew those qualities that make it different from the other place which is why I support the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should start by declaring an
19:33
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should start by declaring an interest in being a member of Your Lordships' House for 20 years and Lordships' House for 20 years and I'm grateful to my noble friend who introduced them as they prepared for others potentially. I absolutely agree with him that we need to move to a position where the House is refreshed and that is why we have spent so much time talking about other ways of doing it. The central one being that of retirement. I think in answer to Lord Young of Cookham, the consensus across the House of being here for life is no longer acceptable because the people in declining years, declining in Your Lordships' House is no longer something we wish to see.

The question is which this amendment raises, what is the best way of having that refreshment? I agree with Baroness Hayman. For some people I would like to think I was one of them but others may disagree, being here for quite a long time can bring benefits. It brings this benefit, I agree with that expertise to the point one never had it is more in the past, but on the other hand, there are some things of the parliamentary process and the way we do business which particularly in a curious body like this you work over a long period and I am in favour of a retirement age and I favour a younger retirement age.

If somebody was appointed at the age of 50, I'm was appointed at the age of 50, I'm not sure I would want them to be required to retire at 70. My noble friend says the advantage if we pass this amendment is it will be in case the Select Committee made no progress if they weren't doing things which we will ask it to do. It is incumbent on all of us to make sure it is a success.

I don't think this is going to help or hinder that process. It requires us to agree which we broadly speaking have, we want to make changes around retirement and participation and the best way to get around it is via Select Committee. I have complete sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to achieve. I cannot support it because I don't think it is the best way to get to the end she wants.
19:36
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
I will speak briefly in this debate as the issue was covered at Committee stage and touched on briefly last week. I thank noble Lords for their contribution. There have been a number of proposals for reform in the House during the debate on this bill in common with other proposals and even those being mooted for consideration by Select Committee. The amendment would only apply to new peers. The reason for this is the perennial problem as Lord Parkinson observed in Committee that any debate on House of Lords reform descends into self-interest.

I agree with the assessment of the amendment because as we have repeatedly stated from these benches, we fundamentally disagree with removal of active parliamentarians by the executive from Your Lordships' House. Not only does this remove some of the most active, knowledgeable members of the House, it fails to respect the existing rights and expectations of our long serving hereditary colleagues. I have been for my sins involved in negotiations with trade unions, leaders and representatives who sit on the benches opposite.

I have greatest rift respect for those and the way the support for their members. They would always argue for grandfather rights and against the removal of any rights or privileges for existing members. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat benches have come round to our way of thinking and perhaps they will show the same kindness and consideration to hereditary colleagues in future votes. The noble viscount may have an incentive for not making a retrospective. If a 15 term limit were introduced without grandfather rights, by 20 2959 Liberal Democrat peers, more than 75% of their number, would have been removed from the House.

I will not repeat the reasons why we disagree with the amendment otherwise that we are a House of knowledge and experience. We should respect and appreciate public service. As such, we should not seek to prevent those actively and effectively contributing and wish to continue doing so and being able to serve. While I thank him for explaining his amendment today, it does not have the support of our benches. benches.
19:39
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord is similar to the one in Committee with regard to a term limit of 20 years it may be of interest for the House to know the current average length of service is 13.7 years which suggests 20 years may or may not be something the House would want to consider. The government agrees with the principal about membership of the House not being for life, but respectfully disagrees with this approach. As set out in the manifesto, the government believes retirement age is the most effective way of realising this principle while achieving the objective of reducing the size of the House.

As the Leader of the House set out at the beginning of report stage, we want to see further reform and we are determined to maintain the enthusiasm to implement manifesto proposals. We think that can be achieved by establishing the Select Committee and will work with the channels to put forward a proposal for the removal. We believe putting this in bite-size chunks is the best way to progress forward with the House. I would also reiterate that we feel confident to take greater ownership of our affairs and that means we should consider where we can to implement solutions without the need for further legislation if that approach has the agreement of the House.

If there is an agreed view that legislation is a better way forward, it may help pave the way to take the relevant legislation forward because we will have agreed the view. I respectfully ask the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
19:41
Viscount Thurso Portrait Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I am grateful to those who have taken part in this short debate which I think highlights the important issue of the size of this House and the fact more people are constantly coming in than going out and it's going to get bigger. I disagree with Lord Blackwell that people should be able to come whenever they wish. A time limit of a certain length is a fair way of ensuring current expertise and if you like not having the bed blocking that would otherwise happen.

I'm grateful to the comments from the Baroness Heymann and I knew she would not support me, but I'm grateful for the sympathy she gave to the point that I was making and Lord Young of Cookham, we were co- conspirators in the other place on many attempts to get a democratic outcome and it was very nice to have his understanding here today. I am grateful to Lord Newby for his comments. I respect his faith in the Select Committee.

My faith is not quite as strong as his but we will see where we go from here. With regards to Baroness Finn, I think she missed the point with considerable style but it is not about 15 years and my whole point is this was about laying it in the next Parliament to allow for people to look at the -- then. Baroness Anderson, if you are going to eat an elephant you should do it in bite- size chunks, but this has been around for 114 years and I have a strong suspicion it will be galloping around in another 114

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. With that, I beg leave of the House to withdraw. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. I think this would be a convenient point to move to consider the statement and we will not return to the bill before 20:42.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the bill before 20:42. Further consideration on report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Further consideration on report be now adjourned... Until 20:42. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not
19:43
19:44
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the House With leave of the House I With leave of the House I will now repeat a statement made by the Health Secretary in another place. Health Secretary in another place. The statement is as follows. There are moments in our national story when our choices define who we are. In 1948, the Attlee government made a choice, founded on fairness, that everyone in our country deserves to everyone in our country deserves to receive the care they need, not just the care they can afford.

It is the care they can afford. It is enshrined in law and in the service of self our collective conviction of self our collective conviction that healthcare is not a privilege to be bought and sold, but a right to be bought and sold, but a right to be cherished and protected. Now it falls to our generation to make it falls to our generation to make the same choice, to rebuild our National Health Service and to protect in this century what at least government built for the last.

least government built for the last. This is the driving mission of our 10 year plan. In September, Lord 10 year plan. In September, Lord Darcy provided the diagnosis. The NHS was broken by 14 years of Conservative underinvestment and by their catastrophic top-down their catastrophic top-down Labour has put the NHS on the road to recovery. We promised 2 million extra appointments. We have delivered more than 4 million. We promised a thousand new GPs on the frontline.

We have recruited 1900. We have taken almost 0.25 million people of waiting list. We have launched an independent commission chaired by Baroness Casey to build a national consensus around a new National Care Service to meet the needs of older and disabled people into the 21st century. Today, the Prime Minister has set out a prescription to get the NHS back on its feet and make it fit for the future. Our plan will deliver three big shifts. The first is from hospital to community.

We will turn our National Health Service into neighbourhood health service. The principle is simple. Care should happen as locally as it can. Digitally by default, in a patient's home if possible. In a neighbourhood house -- health centre when needed and in a hospital were necessary. We will put neighbourhood health centres in every community so people can see a GP, nurse, physiotherapist, care worker and therapist, and they can get a test, scan or treatment for minor injuries or -- all under one roof.

The NHS will be organised around patients, rather than patients having to organise their lives around the NHS. It will be easier and faster to see a GP. We will train thousands more, and the 8 AM scramble, provide same-day consultations and bring back the family doctor -- 8am scramble. If you have multiple conditions and complex needs, the NHS will create a personal care plan. Pharmacies play an expanded role in the neighbourhood health service. They will manage long-term conditions, treat conditions such as obesity and high blood pressure, screen for disease and vaccinate against it.

We will also reform the dental contract to get more dentists doing NHS work, rebuilding NHS dentistry. Over the course of this plan, the majority of the 135 million outpatient appointments done each year will be moved out to hospitals -- out of hospitals. The funding will follow. A greater share of NHS investment is spent in primary and community care. The second shift is from analogue to digital. No longer will NHS staff have to enter seven passwords to log in to their computers.

They won't have to spend hours writing notes and entering data. Our plan will deliver fronts of data from parts of the job they hate so they can focus on part of the job they love, caring for patients. Nations will be given real control over single, secure and authoritative account with their data. The single patient record will mean NHS staff could see medical records and no patient's medical history so they can provide them with the best possible care.

Wearable technology will feed in real-time health status of patients health can be monitored well they stay in the comfort of their own home. With clinicians reaching out at the first signs of deterioration. The NHS app will become the front door to the health service, delivering power to the patient. You will be able to book and rearrange appointments for you, your children or a loved one you care for, get instant advice from an AI doctor, instant advice from an AI doctor, feedback on your care, and see what feedback other patients have left.

Choose where you are treated, book appointments in urgent care so you do not wait for hours, and refer yourself to a specialist were clinically appropriate. Of course, patients can already do all that but only if they can afford private health care. With labour's plan, every patient will receive a first class service, whatever their background and whatever they earn. The third shift is from sickness to prevention. Working with the food industry, we will make the healthy choice the easy choice to cut calories.

We will roll out obesity jabs on the NHS, we will get Britain moving with our new NHS scheme, and we will update schools food standards so that kids are fed healthy, nutritious meals. We will tackle the mental health crisis with support and every school to catch problems early. 24/7 support with virtual therapist for those with moderate needs and dedicated emergency departments for patients when they reach crisis point. The science is on our side. The revolution in artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data offers a golden opportunity to deliver better care to value.

New, innovative passports and the medicines healthcare programs rubber products regulatory agency will see medicines and technology rapidly adopted. Robotic surgery will become the norm in certain procedures so patients recover from surgery at home, rather than in hospital beds. The NHS will usher in a new age of medicine, leapfrogging disease so we are predicting and preventing rather than just diagnosing and treating. It is therefore the ambition of the plan to provide a test for every newborn baby -- genomic test for every newborn baby.

This plan is backed by extra funding by the end of the spending review period. As well as the biggest capital investment in the history of the NHS. Alongside investment comes reform. This plan slashes unnecessary bureaucracy and delivers power and resource to the frontline. It abolishes more than 200 bodies because listening to patients, guaranteeing safety and protecting whistleblowers is core business for the NHS. It should never have been outsourced. The plan commits to publishing tables to rank providers.

We will intervene to turn around failing providers and we will reinvent the foundation trust model in a new system of and autonomy. Pay will be tied to performance so excellence is recognised and failure has consequences. Tariffs will be reduced to boost productivity, block contracts will end with funding tied to outcomes. The plan gives power to the patients in hospitals are financially rewarded by a better service. It closes health inequalities by investing more in working class communities. It working class communities.

It establishes and that -- and national investigation into maternity and services to deliver the truth, justice an improvement that bereaved families deserve. I'm sometimes told that NHS staff are resistant to change. On the contrary, they are crying out for it. They suffer the moral injury of seeing the patient treated in unfit conditions. They are the ones driving innovation on the frontline so their fingerprints are all over this plan. The public are desperate for change as well. Each of us has our own story about the NHS and the difference it made to our lives.

We also know the consequences of failure. To succeed, we need to defeat the cynicism that says nothing ever changes. We know that changing our plan -- the change in our plan is possible because it is already happening. We have toured the length and breadth of the country and scouted the world for the best examples of reform. If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the outback, we can meet the needs of rural England. Of community health teams can go door-to-door to prevent illness in Brazil, we can certainly do the same in Bradford.

We know that we can build the neighbourhood health service because teams in Cornwall, Camden, Northumbria and Stratford are already showing us how to do it. We will take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We will apply to best examples of innovation from around the world to benefit people here at home. Above all else, we will give power to the patient. This plan fulfils -- Bevans commitment to put a megaphone at the mouth of every patient.

The NHS will be there for us when we need it. Of course, we know there are those on the right who are willing us to feel. They will exploit the crisis in the NHS in order to dismantle it. The honourable member for Clacton, Nigel forage, and his cronies argue that universal healthcare could be afforded in the 20th century but not in the 21st -- Nigel Farage. Labour rejects the pessimism and so do the public. That is the choice. It is change or bust and we choose change.

We know that the British people are counting on us. It. Was to ensure that the NHS not only survives but thrives, and we will not let our country down. Of course, if we succeed, we will be able to say with pride that were echoed down the 21st century that we were the generation who built an NHS fit for the future who built an NHS fit for the future and a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I commend this statement of the House.
19:57
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
Before I begin, from these benches, I'd like to use this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness. I'm happy to see her back room and I look forward to seeing her back after the recess. -- I look forward to seeing her back after the recess. The answer has often been, opened what you have to wait for the 10 year plan." Not the panacea, it is time for some constructive debate. We will ask questions and perhaps offer some suggestions of improvements.

Let me be clear. The opposition welcomes aspects... It's a year and I'm still getting used to a year and I'm still getting used to it. The opposition welcomes aspects of this plan but we have many questions. The first thing is, I know there was a Casey Review but surely they understand we have to surely they understand we have to get here right. 30% of beds are waiting for discharge. It's about making sure people go to the community. Secondly, we agree about the use of technology.

I was Minister for Technology. This is something we will support if we can push this through as quickly as possible but also to ensure we can save both time and cost and improve the patient experience. There are far too many functions that are duplicated but also, if you fall off your bike in an area you don't live in, it should be easy for the clinicians in the base or the ambulance staff or paramedics to see your record and to pull it up.

We still haven't got there. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us if there will be duplication or whether we will be merging the records? The plan places emphasis on the NHS up. That is something I'm proud a Conservative government introduced. I hope the government will continue I am glad the government will continue to build on that. We know many people already have wearable technology and the integrate it with other apps. I just wanted to ask a question about concerns from patients who might worry about the personal data when it is shared with the app.

Where else is it shared? Can the government reassure people that their data will not be shared elsewhere? The next thing is a shift from the hospital to the community, something that we also agreed with. Page 36 says our aim is to establish a neighbourhood health a in every community. It says our neighbourhood will consist of 50,000 people. The Secretary of State said in his statement that we will aim for 250 The Secretary of State said in his statement that we will aim for 252 Simple Simple maths Simple maths suggests Simple maths suggests 50 Simple maths suggests 50 million people will be without one.

Could I ask the Minister to explain the maths behind this assertion of neighbourhood health centres and help noble Lords understand the maths and some clarification. If they do not serve the whole population and we don't have neighbourhood health centres everywhere, on what basis will they be set up? Who decides where they will be and if it does on the basis of need, deprivation or the politics of a local area. Will it complement existing practices? How to be make sure there is no duplication? We know we must tackle the obesity crisis.

The problem quite often we are tempted to go for top-down solutions banning this and that. When I speak to civil society organisations that work with people to encourage them to eat healthily, they are sceptical of these measures. A project like bright box near where I live in south London that goes into family homes and delivers ingredients and an easy to read menu that children can enjoy and teaches families to cook healthy food together. We need to get healthy eating and healthy cooking and sharing those on family homes and in deprived communities rather than a top-down solution to Whitehall or Westminster.

I would like to see more on how we engage the power of the community and civil society at local community level. We have fracture liaison services and there is only mentioned on page 165. I remember before the election last year, the current Secretary of State for health said he would act with immediate action on fracture liaison services. We had to give the government time to bed in. We have got the 10 year plan and there is nothing of concrete on them.

It is an easy one for the government. There is a lot to be gained and it will be realised in two or three years, easily before the next general elections. If the Minister does not have the answer, she can write to us and deposit a letter in the library. We look forward to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

replies. We welcome the noble lady to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We welcome the noble lady to her place and I understand when I say this and I do so in the nicest way that we hope she is not too long in her place and Baroness Merron is with us again soon. These Liberal Democrat benches are a commitment to Democrat benches are a commitment to the NHS that remains absolute. We want to improve the health service want to improve the health service particularly with moving Claire to people's homes and our support is people's homes and our support is contingent on deliverables and to be contingent on deliverables and to be properly funded and crucially address the interconnected crisis in address the interconnected crisis in social care.

We have long championed you cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. I conversed that as I read the new 10 year plan a familiar echo resonated through my familiar echo resonated through my mind. Having started my career as a manager in the health service in the manager in the health service in the early 90s, much of what is proposed sounds eerily familiar. This plan sounds eerily familiar. This plan speaks of a network of new neighbourhood-based care providing services between general practice and traditional general hospitals.

This is similar initiative to
20:06
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
previous government echoing previous government echoing polyclinic's in 2007. What it teaches about wholesale shifts of teaches about wholesale shifts of care from hospital. It tells us this inevitably involves running the old system and the new one simultaneously which is without exception expensive. Hospitals will continue to form their essential functions and fixed costs will functions and fixed costs will remain. The new community service demand significant new investment in demand significant new investment in buildings and technology and there buildings and technology and there is no immediate savings.

Let us not forget the stark reality where we forget the stark reality where we want to repair our existing crumbling health estate rather than building numerous hubs. Crucially building numerous hubs. Crucially for any plan that speaks of shifting care out of hospitals, the most frequent use users of the NHS is the elderly population. Keeping them out of the setting is that dependent on effective social care. This remains effective social care. This remains largely absent from this new plan.

We search in vain for decade-long funding and develop a roadmap for social care, offering standalone fully resourced social care strategy. A crucial strategic failure undermining the very foundation on which the shift in community is based on. Moreover, the enthusiasm with digital transformation is understandable, the digital implementation plan of how to do it is absent. The app is an agnostic tall and does not provide direct care or give jabs or provide treatment. As the King's provide treatment. As the King's Fund shares its content, scribes can only transform the productivity of the NHS if staff do not need to spend 30 minutes each morning logging onto a multiple out of date IT system.

It remains unanswered fundamentally, how will this be delivered? The plan is ambitious, but it is being launched into an incredibly chaotic delivery environment marked by significant structural change within the health system bureaucracy. The key question for the government is how will this be delivered. I ask questions to the Minister. What precise funding strategy is embedded within the 10 year plan to deliver the necessary reform and integration of adult social care? Giving the running costs of health facilities, can the Minister provide a year by year financial breakdown of expenditure and how these investments lead to overall system efficiency and savings? Will the Minister commit to publishing within the next four months a comprehensive independently overseen delivery roadmap for this 10 year plan detailing specific year by year objectives and naming leagues and mechanisms for public reporting on progress.

We wish the ambitions well but the key challenge for the government is how it will deliver on being open and transparent on that. transparent on that.
20:08
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Can I start sending my very best wishes to Baroness Merron and no one more than me is looking forward to her making a very speedy recovery and I and very pleased to hear from her that she is making good progress and we look forward to her return. It is appropriate to declare an interest as my son is a GP, and I think that is perhaps slightly relevant in the debate today. Just to recap, before I go into more of the details, I would like to emphasise that this plan is different in so many ways to the NHS plans that have come before it.

It is a roadmap for radical reform as we have heard built on three fundamental shifts. Those of us that have been around the health agenda for a while recognise the aspiration in the past for these measures that there is never a bold, innovative collaborative plan to take our ambitions forward. From hospital to community, making access to GPs fairer and simpler is fundamental in the current climate. From analogue to digital, giving staff modern tools and patients the kind of convenience and control they expect elsewhere in their lives and I think all of us have had heartbreaking stories about parents that go from one specialist to another and there is not that join up.

This must be changed. There is no reason why this can't be across all of the experiences the public has regardless of where they are seeking services. Of course, many of us have been talking about prevention in so many areas of life, but where better than people's health? Really looking at the root causes of poor health and making healthy choices the easy choice. At the moment it isn't that easy. The new NHS has patients at its heart, will deliver equity and quality, is devolved and decentralised and more responsive to local community needs where the Frontline is freed up to harness innovations and the rules and incentives in the system support clinicians and lead us locally to make the right decisions.

Of course, this means there is not a simple chapter or section within the plan for individual conditions or groups setting top-down actions. The impact on particular services and outcomes will be through successfully transforming how our health ecosystem works. Of course as we will go on to the more specific questions, this is very much work in progress. I am delighted at the reach the consultation has had over the last year and has informed the debate and the outcome seen in the plan so there has been no surprises.

Many who have been involved recognise what is in the plan. The plan is backed by 29 billion per annum by the end of the period of extra investment. Crucially, by driving to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and empower staff to give them the tools to do what they do best and that is caring for patients. I would start by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive comments and they were exceptionally helpful and we look forward across the House to taking this extremely seriously and moving forward.

If I can pick up the social care comments that Lord Scriven and I share a positive background in local government and nothing is closer to our hearts than actually working out our hearts than actually working out how we are going to bring them together. Absolutely fundamental and noble Lords made the point very clearly. Over the next three years we will focus on the neighbourhood health approach of those most let down by the current system and of course those include older people with frailty and social care professionals will work alongside NHS staff in local teams supporting recovery, rehabilitation and independence and we have examples where this is happening and services are joined up and the cultural difference between the NHS and local government has been successfully broken down.

We must ensure that this is replicated and spread and we need to enable care professionals to take on more health-related responsibilities like blood pressure checks and reducing avoidable hospital administrations. Of course paid terms and conditions must be improved through that agreement. In the longer term, Baroness Casey will produce the interim report next week produce the interim report next week but it is work in progress. I was just testing everyone was with us.

Next year in anticipation of in- depth work she is involved with and there will be cross-party discussions and engagement with stakeholders, picking up on the self patient record, I must write to the merger and how the different system will be achieved. We are very much about the patient being in control and giving a full picture to staff Shift to the community. Of course, we will initially prioritise those living in areas of greatest deprivation.

Opening neighbourhood health centres in places where life expect see -- life expectancy is low. With the specific reference to the liaison's, I will have to write. I don't have the specific details in front of me. Responding to Lord Scriven, and again, just supporting Scriven, and again, just supporting the comments about social care - absolutely critical we get this right and ensure that local leaders are right in their, responsible for delivery, reductive, with a coordinated response, and building on the work that has already been done.

And of course, in terms of funding, 29 billion is quite a significant amount of resources to work from. We recognise that there are challenges. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt Baroness Casey's work but I know that she has been encouraged to work with the best of the best, and I look forward to the outcomes. I have to finish will stop I'm sorry, there is never enough time. I would just like to end by saying our health system is in crisis and we need to act now.

We must make sure that the NHS continues as a publicly funded service, free at the point of use. We need to seize the opportunities provided by all the new technologies and medicines outlined in the plan and really go forward for innovation, and make sure that patients are at the heart of everything that we do.
20:18
20:20
20:21
Lord Bishop of Oxford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)
-
-
I welcome the Minister to her place. I extend the same good wishes to Baroness Merron. I welcome very much the three aspirations. I think they are significant. I think they are the right ones. They are a bold vision. While I welcome the move from analogue to digital, for me, the document raises significant questions. We are looking to build a National Health Service which cares for whole people, not machines. We need therefore to be concerned for physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health at every stage of life across the NHS.

That demands continued investment in people, including, of course, chaplains. I have specific questions around the ethics, governance and provision of technology. I want to ask the Minister when will -- were well responsibility life data storage which echo the government continue to outsource this to Pelletier or another provider -- Palantir. I'm mindful that our data stored by the NHS is a hugely valuable commercial assets. When will the ethical debates take place, around, for example, the proposal that people want to undergo wholesale -- genetic sequencing from birth, which raises massive issues for our society? The document as it stands is wholly positive about technology.

It is techno-optimism. Could the Minister please balance this by telling us about the safeguards and reservations and governance that the technology needs in order to deliver the human, humane and kind care that we need?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Right Reverend Prelate for the very thoughtful contribution. I think it thoughtful contribution. I think it is a particularly -- I think it is particularly of the moment. I particularly of the moment. I recognise everything he said about needing to focus on people. I think needing to focus on people. I think we have to look at this as technology enabling better care. technology enabling better care. Freeing up time. How many of us go to the GP and there is a frustration to the GP and there is a frustration on the restriction -- about the on the restriction -- about the restriction on time? So much of restriction on time? So much of their time is taken up with at been.

Of course, data protection is absolutely central. The health service is not the only area where we are looking at systems of data protection. Of course, the normal protection methodology will be brought to bear. We have to make brought to bear. We have to make sure that in terms of governance, there is a much more transparent and there is a much more transparent and open style, which frankly, we have to all admit in some cases has been missing. This is an opportunity to look in.

I have to admit that I will have to have a conversation about where the discussions take place but I know that throughout the professional bodies, these are considerations that are taken into account all the time. It is absolutely fundamental. If we think people at the centre building the workforce so they have the opportunities to thrive and do their jobs to the best of their abilities for their patients, that is the direction of travel that we are on.
20:26
20:27
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Can I start by saying to the noble Lady, the plan might echo things that have happened in the past, but there is an enormous difference now. As someone who has been involved, the depth of collaboration, bringing people together, all of those things, recognising the different culture between organisations. Of the 200 bodies that are going to be bodies that are going to be disbanded, HealthWatch is one and they have been so positive and contributed to the future plan of how this is all going to look.

I think there has been a step change in terms of how we get out and actually work with people. I feel it is a very ambitious plan. I'm pleased about that. I am also very optimistic because I think, quite frankly, too many professionals have got too close to the edge and they realised what's on the other side if we don't all pull together and do something about this. And of course I'm going to see that we are disappointed about the decision to strike.

The majority of resident doctors did not vote to strike. Threatening strike action that could harm patients and set back progress will setback all the progress, so no one is welcoming the strike from these benches, I can assure her. And it is the basic truth that under this government, resident doctors this government, resident doctors have received a 28.9 pay rise. The Secretary of State has already met with the BMA yesterday and while he can't... He has made it clear that the government can't go further unpaid and we have this year, has offered to work with them to resolve issues they might face around working conditions.

It will be, of course, down to their managers to work with members of staff and come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up with a plan to deal with the action that is being proposed. I would really like to add my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would really like to add my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would really like to add my welcome to this 10 year plan, also to my noble friend welcoming her to to my noble friend welcoming her to her position, and to send my best wishes to the Minister Baroness Merron and hope that she recovers
20:30
20:31
20:32
20:33
20:33
20:34
20:34
20:35
20:36
20:36
20:37
20:38
20:39
20:39
20:44
20:44
None Portrait AMDT: 23 Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

23, I beg your pardon. Lord Burns. I begin by saying I welcome the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I begin by saying I welcome the statement from Baroness Smith and statement from Baroness Smith and her proposal to establish a dedicated Select Committee to undertake future work once this bill undertake future work once this bill becomes law. She highlighted specific proposals in the government manifesto, the retirement and manifesto, the retirement and participation on which she would like to make progress in Select Committee. There seems to be Committee. There seems to be consensus on the House on this and consensus on the House on this and many of us would agree.

The leader did not look at topics by the Select Committee and she suggested to become in the subsequent Committee and these were in the manifesto that stated the House of Lords is too big stated the House of Lords is too big and interpreted as a commitment. Several youthful conversations in this matter have occurred in recent weeks. If we are to address the issue of the size of the House we must address appointments and departures, either in this bill or subsequent.

Both matters are important. During the debate on the bill, considerably more attention has been given to measures that increase the numbers of peers leaving and with the number of appointments. The cross-party Committee which I shared with The Lord Speaker concurred that these may be in vain of the people leaving if no action is taken to constrain the number of appointments. The manifesto states the reason the House is too big is appointments are for life. However an additional more important reason is the present size of the House is on the Prime Minister's power and patron edge of appointment of members to the House.

With rare exceptions there has been a tendency for the number of appointments to exceed the number of The fact is there are no guardrails on point and is. By ministers can make more appointments than members who leave, and they do. They can appoint disproportionately from their own party and they often do. You don't have to gaze into a crystal ball when you can read an open book, as the saying goes. There is a regular pattern.

When a new government is elected, it typically finds itself with fewer members of finds itself with fewer members of Then the opposition. The present government has found itself in this position since the election. They came to office with many fewer members to this house then the conservative opposition. After one year in office, Labour still are some 75 fewer members than the Conservatives. There remains a gap. If it was not for the Hereditary Peers Bill, we would be approaching the house of 900 by the end of this Parliament.

What do noble Lords think would follow if there was further political upheaval at the next election? We would not be able to maintain the house's house -- House's size. Additionally, a fair distribution of new appointments is also crucial, reflecting changing political dynamics while preventing prime ministers from packing their benches. This amendment focuses on the first issue. Preventing any reduction in the house 's size, including the -- including because of this bill. The second issue is a fair distribution of new appointments.

I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness and noble Lords for helping me with this amendment and further advice during discussions. The first part of the amendment proposes that once the bill becomes law at the end of this session, the number of life your appointments should be limited to the number of life your departures until the next general election. This one in one out for Life Peers aims to give the government the opportunity to achieve broad parity with the Conservative opposition, as advocated by the Leader.

It provides ample opportunity without increasing the House's size. Moreover, since I -- each life peer appointment replaces one departure, it doesn't change the size following the You could also get underway before the general election. The second part of the amendment aims to reduce the number of members below the size of the Commons. To achieve this, it proposes a two out, one in mechanism. If this house has more members in the comments, as was recommended by the Lord Speaker recommended by the Lord Speaker possible committee which I chaired, the duration will depend on the details of any retirement and participation changes introduced in participation changes introduced in the meantime.

And the third part ensures that once the house's size equals that of the comments, the number of appointments should be constrained to prevent membership levels from rising again. The amendment therefore suggests a long-term commitment to appointments being restricted to no higher than the number of departures. We need to end the process of leapfrogging. I've argued this on many occasions in these debates. Normal practice should be that appointment I only made to fill the gaps left by levers as in any other parliamentary chamber in the world.

To avoid the destabilising behaviour from the past and creep from both sides of the house, we need sensible rules and conventions about the overall balance of appointments and departures and a fair sharing of appointments between the two parties. My purpose is basically to persuade the house that limiting appointments to the number of departures would be a key principle in maintaining this house no larger than the Commons for the longer term. I also hope that the Noble Baronesses the Leader of the House recognises that this should be an integral part of discussions of the proposed Select Committee.

If the measures are successful in reducing the house's size, it is crucial that they are not offset by a surge in appointments. This amendment will prevent that from happening and I look forward to her response was the victim.
20:51
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, after close one, insert the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. 23 moved by Lord Burns will stop when this country is confronted with a controversial issue, it frequently turns to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for an answer. Those of us with long memories recall the enquiry into hunting with dogs in 1999 and the commission on Freedom of information 2015. No sooner was that completed, then we had the Burns Commission and 26.

That followed a debate when the house agreed on December 5, 2016, without a division, that it size should be reduced and methods should be explored which this should be achieved. The Burns Report recommended the house 's size should be reduced to that of the Commons. The target should be achieved over time by a two out, one in a row. New appointments should reflect results appointments should reflect results of the last election. The report was welcomed by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place.

We debated it on December 19, 2017, and 72 noble Lords spoke out and there was general approval. One day after the debate, one of the noble Lord said this. " The question asked myself, that members of the committee as themselves is whether we should wait to make any progress on these other issues until we have a slot for legislation. We should try to put together a system that can be worked on on a non- legislative basis. But with legislation -- but which legislation? Because --".

The house is now bigger than it was then. Not because noble Lords haven't risen to the challenge by retiring or indeed dying but because with the exception of Baroness May, appointments have been -- prime ministers have been overgenerous with their appointments. We are left with the other option of legislation. That is now for us. Winding up the debate, that then spokesman Lord Tyler confirmed his party's support for legislation of the voluntary -- if the voluntary scheme failed.

He said this. " Unless the Minister is willing to abide by this constraint, we might as well give up now. Without a statutory scheme, ak successes cannot be held up either.." The leader said this. She went on to say " I do not consider that they are there is one insurmountable issue. The role of the Prime Minister and of the government. This will work only if the government play their part. It is not about giving up patronage appointments but about showing some restraint." Since then, there has been no restraint.

She concluded, " We will take this forward. I noted that a number of noble Lords quoted from songs in place. I will quote Elvis Presley when he sang " It's now or never". Clearly then, it wasn't now. Nought needed to be never. -- Not. We should support amendment 23. We might never get the opportunity again.
20:56
Baroness Hayman Portrait Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has come up with an elegant formulation, as he did seven years ago in the Committee that he chaired. For a way out of the conundrum that we have, we choose that however good our provisions are in terms of people leaving the House, if we do not have any constraint, any guardrails at all about people coming in to the house.

When we have a general election, when there is a majority, we will always see a large intake of members. There is every possibility that we will see it again in the future. So, I think it is tremendously important that we try and take some steps now. And the size of the house overall does matter. I'm delighted that the noble Lord is in his place now. I am also delighted that he obviously has become deeply affectionate and committed to the work of this House.

But one thing that he said in his speech. I disagreed with most of it come actually. One thing he said that was incorrect was that the house was in danger of being bullied by those outside into thinking it was too big and had to change. That is not the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, just said, this house has repeatedly recognised the need for it not to grow exponentially. It has repeatedly recognised the danger of it being larger than the House of Commons.

And I have to say to the noble Lord that it is perfectly possible other second chambers across the world managed to find the right combination of experts, expertise and experience, without rising in their numbers overall to pretty near four figures which is the direction we are going in. I suppose my view to those who say, " Doesn't matter, look at the average attendance figures. It doesn't matter if people are claiming allowances.

None of this matters." I spent five years as the Lord Speaker and in those five years, I made I don't know how many speeches about the House of Lords. And actually, the thing that most people knew about the House of Lords people knew about the House of Lords was not that it was brilliant. Not that it had fantastic Select that it had fantastic Select Committees. But it was only the Chinese representative council that had more members on it.

That issue of reputation should not be the only issue that drives us. We should recognise that we need a house that is peopled with enough members to do the job we ask it to do. But we don't have to have a single expert on every single issue in the world. We have several committees who can call -- who we can call for evidence. We need the house of a reasonable size and I would suggest that it should be lower than the house of commons, or no higher than the House of Commons.

Others have suggested much smaller houses. They look across the world and say that other people manage with us. I believe in the fact that it is a part-time house -- as a part-time house, we do need larger numbers because not everyone is here all the because not everyone is here all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many of our members on tearful time. Rightly castigated by the Leader

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rightly castigated by the Leader of the House because I didn't mean what I actually said about being a what I actually said about being a part-time house, I meant we are house that does not have members who house that does not have members who are expected to be full-time in performing their parliamentary performing their parliamentary duties. I very much believe that the elegant solution that Lord Burns has elegant solution that Lord Burns has put before us is the right way forward.

But with other, alongside other issues we have debated in the course of this narrow bill, these course of this narrow bill, these are very wide and important issues. are very wide and important issues. I recognise that the noble Lady the I recognise that the noble Lady the leader of the wants to use her phrase -- Leader of the House, to take this in bite-size chunks and I very well -- much welcome the very well -- much welcome the setting up of the Select Committee.

But I do think it is incumbent on all of us to recognise that with the effect of this bill which will reduce numbers and the membership of the House, the effects of anything that is done whether it is 10% attendance, five% or 20%, with anything that is done on retirement, whether that is done by age or by term limits, we will be reducing the size of the. That is an opportunity, an opportunity to get down to the size that is rational and that is defensible, while at the same time putting right the imbalance that currently exists between the opposition and the government party in terms of their party political representation.

That is a big opportunity. But it will be an opportunity that is short lived if we don't take on the responsibility of looking to the future and how we stop ourselves getting into this situation again. Whether that is by the unbridled use of the prerogative by a Prime Minister or because of the electoral effect of a big change and a single general election. I think it is incumbent on us to take that into account when we look at those other two measures that the noble Lady has suggested, the Select Committee considers, because they will have an impact on the Size of the House and that impact should not be short-term, it should be enduring.

I think we saw that the very principled and welcome attitude of the noble Baroness Lady May had a short-term effect, but it didn't last because it could simply be reversed by the next incumbent. We need some guardrails and I hope that the Select Committee if the House does not decide tonight to adopt the detail of this amendment, that the Select Committee will look at the issue in some detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to briefly support Lord
21:04
Viscount Thurso Portrait Viscount Thurso (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Burns having added my name to this. I thought Lord Young of Cookham expressed perfectly my views and therefore I'm not going to rehearse them again. I listened at an earlier To Lord Gove who expressed a view which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that you could go on putting people into the House more or less as long as you like. There has to be a limit at some point, we do not want a house of thousand 1,500 or 2,000 therefore at some point has to be a mechanism that puts some break on such that what goes out and what comes in our imbalance.

The problem as Lord Burns set out so well in introducing his amendment is that each incoming government finds itself at a disadvantage as an opposition to what has gone before. Therefore has to do something if it is to come remotely close to getting its business to restore that imbalance. I therefore think that tackling the Size of the House is one of the most important things we can do. I would make one small, it's not a quibble it's a suggestion to Lord Burns, I might have left out one in his amendment which is what's happening over this Parliament which will not, as a surprise since my previous amendment sought to put it into the next Parliament because I do think it would be rather unfair as I said at that debate if we were to change the rules as it were at half-time.

I think the current government deserves to have a reasonable number of peers but that simply underlines the necessity of having the the necessity of having the guardrails in place to ensure that going forward the House cannot go beyond a certain size and it should be reduced and something like the size of the Commons is broadly appropriate. I don't know whether the noble Lord wishes to presses amendment if you did I would happily support him but I said -- suspect likely he will take a more pragmatic decision in which case I would very much hope Select Committee will be able to do its job, although my doubts previously expressed that it will not be able to do enough remain.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to add briefly one argument in support of my noble
21:07
21:08
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Is quite clear that legislation is needed if we are to control people coming into the House and I support very much the line of thinking that Lord Burns has outlined. There is just one point that troubles me, perhaps I can do to mention it. When this government came in, the Prime Minister made a number of appointments strengthen the Frontbench of the party which was obviously going to have to deal with ministerial issues and represent the government at there is stages in both legislation and also debates.

It did strike me that the appointment which were made, I'm not going to mention names, were well chosen and the Frontbench was strengthened to the advantage of the House. The reason I say this is I think there's a great force in the point that Lord Burns is making that we need to discuss this in more detail. I am very much in support of the principal which lies behind it and I did my very best as Lord Newby did in his case to make it work and it was of course ultimately the Prime Minister's patron edge that made it impossible to continue to make it work that is the real issue we have to deal with and that brings me right back to the flexibility to strengthen the Frontbench I'm not talking about broad appointments, but is it right that the Prime Minister would not be able to appoint somebody from outside with his particular expertise to enable the Frontbench to perform its function to the best of its ability? I mention this simply as a point towards the point which I think Lord Burns is making that this really does deserve discussion and it will be very helpful since all these issues are intertwined, if the Select Committee could discuss it as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. Much appreciated, when we
21:10
21:10
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the amendment may feel it's only fair to Lord Burns he was smiling because I have lobbied him as I think most opportunities when I bumped into him in the corridors about this issue. Whatever might be said about the number of peers who have been appointed and it's very difficult, you feel rather impolite once you been accepted into your Lordships house, we have never thankfully had the situation where the constitutional convention has been busted that the government has the largest group but not an overall majority in this House.

All of us here I think are believers in the parliamentary democratic system, but if we were to have people involved in politics and perhaps empower he didn't agree with that convention that is unwritten, we would be in the situation where the Prime Minister of the day could within a few weeks of coming into office appoint hundreds of peers, placing of course the House of Lords Appointments Commission and potentially even the monarch in an unusual situation. Therefore we would have a situation where the executive would be in charge obviously not only having a majority in the Commons, but a commanding majority in the Lords.

We have never had that situation before course of having a Prime Minister he doesn't feel bound by that convention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady but can I ask this. The most important reform that ever took place in the House of Lords was place in the House of Lords was caused by the threat of the liberal government to create hundreds of government to create hundreds of peers. They had that right and they peers. They had that right and they knew they had that right the king agreed that they had that right, and if they hadn't had that right they if they hadn't had that right they would not have been able to bring in 1911 act.

Does the noble Lady think that therefore nothing like that that therefore nothing like that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should ever be repeated again? We are now in the situation where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are now in the situation where we have the Parliament act and I was just moving onto that point, that of course any Prime Minister of the day could reform make the situation a could reform make the situation a unicameral situation, but that of course would require the Parliament that that would be a delay of a couple of years and we all know in couple of years and we all know in politics how important it is to take your time sometimes when you are doing particularly constitutional doing particularly constitutional change.

I think it's more analogous now to the situation that happened now to the situation that happened in 2010 in Hungary. Hungary set up its constitution with obviously a president but also a unicameral situation with a two thirds majority to change the constitution, never envisaging that one party would last that majority which happened, and subsequently the EU does not fully regard hungry any more as a democracy. It would be such a shame in fact it would be I try not to use melodramatic language but it would be such a tragedy if the mother of Parliaments and sup in the situation of having what is described now in Hungary that you govern by law, the executive just brings us legislation to Parliament and just rubberstamped it.

I do think to Lady Hayman this really matters, that we as a Parliament at a time when we thankfully for very sad reasons have primary legislation, might not be looking at the main thing that we need to ensure so I fully support the noble Lords amendments.
21:14
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-
I feel compelled to rise again on the principle that there is no argument so implacable that it does not deserve to have at least one voice raised in opposition, it seems to be the case that amongst your Lordships house there is a consensus that the House is too large and that a variety of measures should be introduced, new guillotines in order to ensure that the numbers are limited. I think that the arguments put forward in good faith by many wiser figures than me deserve to be opposed.

In one of the reasons why think it's vital that we oppose them and I suspect following on from Lord Young's point about Elvis Presley I suspect I will find myself Lonesome tonight in making this case is that the arguments advanced so far seem to be not to stand up effectively to About the sometimes foolish use of the Royal prerogative by prime ministers who appoint people to this House you may be ill qualified all may bring it into disrepute. I won't mention any names or speculate on whom he might be thinking off but if it's the case the Prime Minister act in such a way the sanction of general election, the sanction of democracy punishing that prime ministers it punishes any prior Minister for any act of folly is the appropriate way of checking any misuse of power in any way in which the executive is not behaving in a manner consistent with the dignity of its office or with the public will.

Secondly the argument is made that what we really need to do is ensure that the House meets an arbitrary size that size depends on the size of the other place, 600, But there is no accolade from first principles about what should efficient size of this chamber would be and that every committee staff, every argument is certain every voice is valued. My view has been that every House and institution. It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it.

And the critical thing that matters is that this House has shown to be vigorous and welcoming debate, energetic and challenging legislation, determined in assuring a variety of voices are raised and to control the numbers arbitrarily and hope we can win approval is in my view a pre-emptive cringe. What this House should be doing is defending itself on the quality of the arguments made, the contributions it makes to improving legislation and the way in which it enhances scrutiny of what the executive does and the way in which debate overall is improved.

And Sibley arguing about the numbers here is displacement activity. And it is unfortunately surrendering to those people whose ultimate aim is not to improve this House but either to neuter it all off into oblivion. And that takes me to my third point, a point which in a way is a tribute to Lord Hope of crates -- crates had to Lord Hope of crates -- crates had worked. While we are principally here to scrutinise the executive, we have to recognise as a vital role to play.

One of the good things this Government has done is appoint distinguished figures from outside like Lord Timpson or Lord Vallance to the Frontbench. Previous governments appointed people like Lord Hill, Lord Nash, and Lord Agnew to the Frontbench. Are we really saying that a future Prime Minister should not be able to appoint a distinguished individual from outside to the ministerial position until someone had gone? That is the logic of this legislation. It would mean that the Noble Lord Lord Hermer couldn't have been appointed Attorney-General until someone else had been fired from the ranks of Labour members.

I may disagree with the Noble Lord, but this House is undoubtedly enhanced by his presence. This legislation would effectively act as a turnstile, preventing him entering until someone else had departed.
21:18
21:19
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Lord for his intervention, but I don't believe that if we reduce the size of this House in order to meet the criticisms of some that the fundamental opposition of many to the operation of this House would diminish, but more importantly I think that the principal criticism that can be directed to any legislature is not its size but its effectiveness operates to ensure that new laws are properly scrutinised and the more voices capable of being deployed in that debate and the more arguments made effectively the better.

And that makes my final point, I don't believe it's ever been the case that there has ever been a recorded set of votes in this House where when you add the division's content and not content that they have ever been higher than the full composition of the other place. This House is flexible. Our constitution is flexible. These attempts to impose external rigidities to meet some rationalist view of what we should be doing is an utterly mistaken cause to go down and urge your Lordships to reject it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That last point, quit about some Charter 88 rational view of the size Charter 88 rational view of the size of the House, I think if you read of the House, I think if you read the report, and just learned how much thought went into choosing that size as providing enough person power to do exactly the jobs that he has discussed, to which I am as has discussed, to which I am as committed as he is. And I believe committed as he is.

And I believe that the size of the House and the view outside it is not in itself the important thing. But it stands in the way of appreciation of what the the way of appreciation of what the House actually does, and that it is not defensible to those who have not studied in any detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

studied in any detail. Given our I thought it would be helpful to remind Noble Lords this is report stage and that any interventions need to be sure to please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please. I like to thank Lord Burns for his amendment and the way he his amendment and the way he introduced it. He races for very substantial issues, much more substantial by most of the issues we spent the day debating. First it should there be a maximum size of the House, how do we get there, how do we then stop recidivist governments from breaching it? And once we got there, how do we balance the new appointments between the various parties? So the first question and the third question I think are very straightforward in my view.

Yes, there should be a limit. Yes it will mean that no Prime Minister can then threaten to flood the House with 100 new peers, but the last time that was tried was over 110 years ago, and it's not proved to be a necessary part of public policy-making in the interim. Secondly, as the Noble Lord Lord Gove right when he says the more voices the better? Clearly there is a point at which that ceases to be the case, and what we are arguing about is where they should be.

If you are 5,000 people here, there would clearly be two new voices. We wouldn't be able to do anything. And those of us who spent many many hours debating here, including everybody who has been included in Lord Burns amendment has formed the view that the place would be better if it had a cap upon its numbers. So I think yes, there should be a cap on the numbers. I think it should be a legislative cap and if you have that, that solves the problem about how you stop future Prime Minister's ratcheting up the numbers again.

They won't be allowed to do it by
21:24
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
law. How do we get to that number? law. How do we get to that number? 650 or whatever it is? Actually if we do what we say we are going to do in terms of retirement and in terms of retirement and participation, we get beyond that number. We get below it. In fact it's one of the arguments about having a straightforward retirement ages we are taking out too many people, so I don't think the Noble people, so I don't think the Noble Lord, a bit of the Noble Lord amendment that deals with how we get amendment that deals with how we get to it is actually going to be needed in practice.

So if we agree that in practice. So if we agree that there should be a limit, and that that limit then means you can't that limit then means you can't ratchet up again, if we say that we get to the limit by a combination of get to the limit by a combination of retirement and participation limits, the difficult question that remains is that once you've got below the is that once you've got below the limit, how do you decide on the balance of appointments? Because the balance of appointments? Because the Noble Lord says there is a Noble Lord says there is a convention the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have a broad parody of numbers.

That may be fine, but there are some others of us here, and they are both on these benches and his. And what are we going to do about all of that? Well in his original report, he came up with a very elegant proposal in terms of the balance, which related to votes and seats over a period of three general elections, which has the advantage of being a stabilising force whilst still reflecting the fact that the House has got to move with the country.

And I personally supported that at the time as I think the government did. And would support it again. In terms of how on earth we implement all this if we could agree at all, given that the debate about retirement is going to be in part a debate about numbers, that's meant to be one of the issues. How quickly do we do it? If there is to be a retirement, if we are going to require primary legislation to deal with retirement, I don't see why it wouldn't be logical to include something about numbers.

How would you deal with, my final point about how you rebalance over time, once you've got below the cap, but you do that by convention or statute, I think that's a matter for another day. The only thing that worries me slightly is that I think framing a statute which can be amended in the light of the changing political circumstances might be quite difficult. But I do think these are hugely important issues. I think there are quite a lot of consensus on some of them, but I hope that we are able to debate them sensibly and make progress on them during the course of the Parliament.

And in the context of the other debates, we have been not least in terms of retirement.
21:26
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
In many ways this is the most important amendment we are considering today because it is the only attempt to curb the power of the executive over Parliament. This bill is the government drafted it shifts the scales rather dangerously in their favour. It leaves the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for deciding who comes to this House and who leaves it. If we were to throughout the small number of accepted Hereditary Peers in the way the bill hasn't initially drafted, but put it the House has now voted against, every member of this House would be appointed by all subject to the approval of the Prime Minister of the day.

That is the situation found in no other democratic chamber. As we've heard from our debates and committee and last week, House of Lords Appointments Commission, has no power to insist on the nominations that it makes and no guaranteed number, no guaranteed timescale. While this Parliament has only seen the introduction of 45 Labour peers, 21 conservatives and three Liberal Democrats, the independent commission has not been permitted to make any nominations under the present Prime Minister. In our debate last week with unable Baroness LEA of the House confirmed that the four crossbench was a cross-section not the House of Lords appointments commission's.

And he made clear that like is predecessors, he would be prepared to overrule HOLAC in exceptional circumstances if it objected one of his nominations on the grounds of propriety. Even the Lord Spiritual, notwithstanding the changes made under that great Presbyterian Gordon Brown, passed through Downing Street on the way to their Episcopal throne, crucially the procedural changes made by Mr Brown are not set in statute so could be done, undone by a future Prime Minister with a snap of fingers. Now I have served in government in different capacities under four per ministers.

I've seen the power of H&H and the seductive temptations it offers to pry ministers as they are the powers Wayne. We've seen the current Prime Minister wielding that power already. That's not new, it's not unique to our current Prime Minister. But the bill that he sent us would leave him more powerful than any of his predecessors and leave him and those who follow him free to succumb to those temptations without any guardrails as Noble Lords have put it.

At the beginning of his premiership Sir Kier Starmer began by appointing new peers at a faster rate than any Prime Minister for three decades. I'm very glad... I'm glad he has now slowed down, but he could change speed again whenever he wants. The Noble Baroness the Leader of the House has argued and will argue again I can see that this is because of the profligacy of his predecessors, following the argument that the Noble Lord Lord Burns at the noble Baroness Lady Hayman have made about the ratchet effect which leaves us in this situation after every general election.

In doing so, she and the Prime Minister have rather given the game away that this bill is not really just about ending the Hereditary Peers ridge but about removing a large number of peers from beyond the government benches. She studies repeatedly that even with that excision, the Labour Party were only formed 28% of the seats in your Lordship's House. Can you tell us this evening with the same clarity that she expects and intends the Labour Party to form same proportion by the end of this Parliament? Or does she see why so many of us like Elvis Presley, have suspicious minds about that? More worryingly still, we've seen the power of executive patronage in action throughout our debates on this bill.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed the conspicuous -- conspicuous number of abstentions so far or to be surprised by the argument of Noble Lords were usually so robust in asserting our role as a revising chamber, advising that on this bill, which is such profound consequences, not just for your Lordship's House of our constitutional settlement, that we shouldn't make any management at all or disagree with the House of Commons who have still only sat for I detect a certain nervousness not just among our hereditary colleagues or those over or approaching the age of 80 about voting for things that might annoy the present government.

I know the noble Baroness will want every member of your Lordships house to know they can and should perform their legislative scrutiny on this bill and as on any other without fear or favour. I hope she can reassure us that no one, even those that would vote on this bill in a way that she would rather they didn't will suffer any ill feeling or consequence from the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know she will say that such... First time I've been angry in this debate at all. The noble Lord this debate at all. The noble Lord is actually costing a line intent on me and others in my party about this bill, I hope you will retract and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rethink what he said. I'm sorry five angered the noble Baroness the leader but this comes from conversations I've had with noble Lords in other corners of the noble Lords in other corners of the House about amendments on this bill is a worry, and I know she will take is a worry, and I know she will take this seriously because she will not want them to worry, but they worry want them to worry, but they worry about the consequences of how they vote, how they are perceived approach particularly Hereditary Peers sitting on other benches with Peers sitting on other benches with the future uncertain.

I'm sorry if it has angered her but it should anger and concern us all. I know she anger and concern us all. I know she will say it doesn't need saying but I know she will also say not want I know she will also say not want any noble Lord to have that fear as they approach this bill or any other. Lord Burns is Lord Young of Cookham has pointed out the forms Cookham has pointed out the forms his duties here without any fear or his duties here without any fear or favour has been asked to look at so many important issue for a nation, he's worked harder and longer than anyone to find a way to tackle the question of the size of your Lordships house not least in chairing Lord Speaker's committee established by Lord Fowler.

The recommendations that he and his colleagues from across the housemaid shows that it is possible to address the size of the House without changing the law and the premise that the time Lady May of Maidenhead showed that it was possible as well with the restraint she exercised. The actions are subsequent prime ministers of both parties show that not all occupants of number 10 have been persuaded to do that. The current occupant of number 10 has not made any commitment notwithstanding the words that the noble Baroness used when she was Leader of the Opposition in winding the debate on Lord Burns's committee.

If the House is serious about reducing its size and asserting its independence in the face of the executive I hope that the noble Lord will continue to press the matter that he has been pressing on behalf of a house which often to do it for so long, and I hope the noble Baroness will be to give us the reassurances which I know we all want to hear and I'm sorry if it has angered her to ask for it but I do think it's important that she is able to reassure noble Lords on that point.
21:34
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I can reassure noble Lords in a number of items. Let me say that's just the first time I think in this debate we had such discourtesy from the member of the party opposite stop his allegation that somehow I will punish those who take a different view on this, I think you should look at is words again and rethink it because the tone of the debate has not been like that throughout, I'm sorry you descended to that level.

Can I thank Lord Burns for bringing this forward and I think he's been consistent throughout about issues on the size of the House and on prime ministerial patronage. I think others are perhaps more recent converts on the issue but he has a consistency and he's done so forensically, he and his committee look at these issues did so in a way I think the House could respect because it was based on fact and it was based on numbers and he looked at this with the committee in a very sensible way.

I was tempted on hearing the noble Lord earlier that perhaps he is thinking I should say we should do it my way and no other way, I think perhaps just the final time to follow a theme, a little less conversation sometimes could be more helpful. Just like to lighten the mood. Could I say to Lord Burns and I will just other comments that of men made, I think you can be completely wrong if departures through this House whether it be hereditaries or on retirement or on participation should merely create vacancies to be filled.

We did have manifesto commitment and I think it's been the will of the South that we should reduce the Size of the House, not because the noble Lord Gove's comments he performed, but because I think we are all looking at how do we as a house do our best work. How do we properly contribute to debates, how do we ensure voices are heard around the House. When the House gets too large there are concerns that not all members are playing a role. I think when he talks about reducing the size of the House he is right to say temporary reductions are not what the House is looking for.

I have reflected on the To Baroness Hayter previously full stop I do have a concern that if the Select Committee becomes a kitchensink of issues it becomes a talking shop and no progress is made. I think everybody is trying to avoid that happening. I do think and I spoke to her and Lord Burns on this, participation and retirement are obviously two major drivers for reducing the size of the House. It's implicit in that that if you looking to reduce the Size of the House we don't then seek to merely create vacancies to be filled.

It is an opportunity to reflect on the ideal size and look forward to that full stop it's always an issue about how much you constrain Prime Minister's patron edge, I think that has to be taken into account in the committee as well. Lord Parkinson said the Prime Minister is the sole person who proposes members for this House, he knows that it as well as I know that is wrong. The Prime Minister passes on the nominations from other parties and it was made clear in the statement he was quite disparaging about that the crossbenchers ability to nominate remain, would also through the free mine that might Prime Minister those nominations are people who have first-rate public service, they can also come to the crossbenchers as well.

Can I address some of the other points as well. Lady Berridge said this, I may have misunderstood her when she was speaking so correct me, it's always been accepted that the government would be the largest party but not the overall majority. Can I say my party is not the largest money my party though we are in government. If I just use these figures before in your Lordships house, I think is part of the reason we are now discussing the Size of the House.

That is because after about 12 and a half years of Labour government the relative size between the parties, I think that's as important as the Size of the House the relative numbers across the board including the Liberal Democrats, the relative Size of the House, my party then government party left office with under 30 more peers than the Conservative party. When the Conservative party left office in 2020 -- 2024 there were over 100 more Conservative peers than Labour. I find that totally unacceptable and that, it's never happened before in that way and that's partly why we are discussing these issues now because of the disparity between parties.

The noble Lord made it a party political point about Hereditary Peers, it long predates that I think we had the Grocott build that we try to put forward previously which was rejected by the party opposite, not by everybody, several noble Lords today said why did my party take advantage of this before. That it has to be an issue about how you get a balance of numbers across the House. I do have the view that this House does his best work when the two parties of government, the main party of government and the opposition party, have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of this House.

That's when I think we have the most respect, we work at our best and that works well for top the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only other time... The noble Lady has been consistent in saying this in consistent in saying this in opposition and in government, is that therefore a firm commitment that she doesn't want to see the proportion of the Labour Party outnumbering the proportion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament? I'm not in a position to make a firm commitment but absolutely, I think that is where the House does think that is where the House does its best work. It also dependent on the House fulfilling its responsibilities and abiding by the conventions of the House. He will know that when we were in opposition know that when we were in opposition we would not ever got up to the shenanigans we seem from the party opposite. I don't think we ever opposite.

I don't think we ever proposed an amendment for closure of the House halfway through discussing the House halfway through discussing an amendment for example, I think that's the first I've seen that happen. We do abide by the conventions, Lord Trees to say regularly what goes around comes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regularly what goes around comes around and I think he was writing the principle but perhaps not in action at least these days. She loves this word shenanigans,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She loves this word shenanigans, whenever I see a briefing in the newspapers I know where it's come from. She cited one shenanigan, can from. She cited one shenanigan, can she give another, the opposition has made repeated offers through the usual channels to deliver the government's legislation she knows the commitments we have given, we don't discuss usual channels on the floor. But can we put shenanigans to bed please and get back to good relations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid the noble Lord might use of the word shenanigans has been use of the word shenanigans has been used by many others since it wasn't original on my part. Going down a bit of a rabbit hole here we've had bit of a rabbit hole here we've had a lot of D grouping in the Session of Parliament of amendments than of Parliament of amendments than I've seen, but as an aside, what we are all looking for is the House to do its best work, be treated do its best work, be treated responsibly and be listened to and engaging legislation.

I have to say the only time I recall a threat of the only time I recall a threat of introducing so many new peers was when Jacob Rees-Mogg was Leader of when Jacob Rees-Mogg was Leader of the House and just became Leader of the Opposition and we were threatened with 1,000 new peers on the Brexiter she. It never the Brexiter she. It never materialised it was recognise then that the best way of dealing things is the way the House normally does so. Lord Butler I think made a very good point about the quality, I good point about the quality, I think quality and commitment.

I don't think we are just the House of don't think we are just the House of the great and the good we are committed to the work we do and bring judgement to the issue and I think is right to look at that think is right to look at that issue. I think the noble Lord hopes comment on frontbench appointments particularly one of the issues I think deserves further consideration as well. I think it's an issue we can look the Select Committee would not look at more broadly to ensure we don't create vacancies to go back we don't create vacancies to go back to a larger house.

Lord Burns is amendment, I completely accept the purpose of putting it forward, I would say that one flaw in it is that if, under his proposals the point that Lord Newby was making, it doesn't take into account the relative strength of political parties and I think it would be wrong because under this it would be every that left, sorry I thought she wanted to intervene. Under this proposal when a departing peer the party of government could always appoint a party member of their party and not look at the balance of the House overall.

I think winter look at the balance of the House overall. I understand I think he's right to say needs further consideration but I would ask that tonight he withdraws his amendment but this is something that merits further discussion.
21:43
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
I am very grateful for all those who have taken part in this and indeed through the degree of support for the principle of constraints on appointments and the need for guardrails. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the House who I think indicated as I hoped that we would be in a position with the Select Committee to discuss the issue of appointments, the issue of relative size of appointments and those who are leaving. I don't want to press this to a division today as it's not the right vehicle I think such a change, the amendment also needs to be considered in the context of other proposals to encourage departures and allocate appointments as the leader has said.

I did refer to it in my remarks, at this stage I have not tried to deal with the issue of the allocation of vacancies to the different parties. That was set out in the Lord Speaker's Committee report, which said the allocation would be between the parties according to the votes and their number of seats from previous general election, I still believe that is very effective mechanism, it's one that allows a shift in the proportions depending upon the political success of the parties during an election so you do get movement.

Demonstrated in the Lord Speaker's Committee, this whole issue is a complex system of arrivals and departures. Especially given the potential for changing political fortunes and starting positions. One of my frustrations when I take part in many debates is that people like to pick, I understand the argument of your taking things in chunks, taking them in terms of rights and trying to, but they have to add up as a system and they need to be seen together because you get otherwise some very The fundamental issue here of course The fundamental issue here of course is the one about the potential as I described it for this mechanism, which can take place whereby Prime Ministers appoint the number they wish, they point to their own party predominantly, and you get this escalator.

Lord Gove says there is no problem about the size of the House, and we've never pretended to argue that there is a precise number which is wrong, but what we have observed is that this mechanism and the way that it works leads to a steadily increasing size of the House. In two or three more moves if governments which have substantial majorities for periods of time will see this explode to even larger numbers unless we can find some way numbers unless we can find some way of beginning to constrain this.

So I can assure those people who have mentioned I'm not going to leave this issue alone as long as I'm in a position to. I will continue to speak about the weaknesses in the current arrangements and explain why some of the most serious weaknesses I do believe can be fixed. Finally, during the progress of this bill I have noticed that the present opposition expresses remorse that the previous government not seizing the opportunity of the Grocott bill and for leaving the incoming Labour government with far too few seats relative to their own parties, which has caused a good deal of the attention we now have.

I'd say to the government I hope in the future that this government won't regret not suggesting some of these issues that we have been debating when they have had the chance because the chance does not come around that often. Meanwhile permission to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my men. I beg leave. Is at your pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn.
21:48
None Portrait AMDT: 23A Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 23.A Lord Blencathra. Despite the late hour, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of implementing any conclusions reached by the new House of Lords Select Committee considering possible retirement ages, attendance thresholds and participation rates. The excellent announcement of the Select Committee by the leader last week was welcomed by all sides, and I'm certain it will provide workable solutions. My management will ensure that the solutions are delivered into law expeditiously without the need for a new primary legislation.

The leader said the opposition would be up and running by October. And report by July 2026 Valencia December to be -- let's say December to be on the safe side. We know our select committees excel at what they do and I'm certain this committee will have firm recommendations on some sort of recommendations with various tweets. They will most likely confirm an attendance threshold, about those peers who may turn out for a few then set threshold of five, 10, 15%, what it will be, they will need to tackle the abuse of those who would turn up at 25, 50% of the time and do absolutely nothing or very little.

Determining what or how many contributions will be adequate will be very difficult and the committee may not reach any conclusions or have various options for the considerations of the House as a whole. But I believe by the autumn of 2026 this House will have before us a report with recommendations which we will debate and possibly amend these recommendations so by the end of 2026 or early 2027 this House will have agreed by a majority away forward on retirements and attendance and possibly also participation.

I ask my Noble Friends not to tell the Noble Lord Lord Forsyth, but I may on this occasion be in full agreement with the Noble Lord Lord Newby because if we get the attendance right, and with participation and retirements, we may not need a fancy formula to reduce the overall numbers, but that's as an aside. So what will their noble Lady the leader do with those decisions of this House? She and her honourable friend Baroness Anderson said in our debates before dinner that you would attempt to use in-house measures that is standard orders where we possibly can, and we all agree with that, but they also said we will need to consider the best legislative roof those issues where standing orders were not sufficient and that legislation would be required.

And the subtext was that that legislation would be primary. So the noble Lady will be phased with two options for primary legislation, one that she could say through the Select Committee thank you very much, very good work, we will now consult on the second stage of Lords reform if we consider a part elected, elected chamber, possibly with regional elements and we will add those to a built in due course, and we all know if the noble Lady said that it would be kicked into the long grass.

Or she can say thank you very much, I will now go to the Parliamentary business and Legislation committee and seek approval for a specific bill to deliver these recommendations. Another Noble Lords who were not familiar with PBL, it is a committee of the most powerful Cabinet business managers who decide which bids from departments get approval for the next stage that is putting a bill team together, then briefing the office of Parliamentary Counsel which will draft the bills. For those Noble Lords who have never appeared before it can be quite scary at times I tell you.

It's currently unusually chap at the leader of the Commons with both chief whips secretary of sky my secretary of state for Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The first question the committee will ask the leader will be is it a manifesto commitment? Yes, that's a good point. Is it short? Another good point. Can be easily amended. Well yes, because the Lords is much more flexible like that and can permit a wide range of amendments. So they say Lord Privy Seal, you telling us that all this bill does is put a retirement age and attendance threshold on peers and that they could debate a wide range of amendments in primary legislation? And the noble Lady may say yes that can happen.

Are there any votes in it? No, not really. Well we all know that the leader is very able and persuasive, but I suggest with possibly just 18 months to go before a general election, she has no hope whatsoever of PPL approving a bill to implement what our Select Committee decides when there will be inevitably the annual Home Office Criminal Justice Act Christmas tree bill in the wings, maybe something on health and employment, immigration and all the other big political issues which will take priority.

Does anyone in this House seriously think that a government, any government will introduce a bill on Lords changes in a Kings Speech in 2027 which will be debated in 2028, may be months or year before a general election? I simply don't think so. That's why we need my amendment 23.A. It self-explanatory. It simply builds in a statutory instrument part manpower that will enable the government implement any Lord Select Committee recommendations voted through by this House that also provides if those House amendments any Select Committee recommendations we can vote that through.

It enables the government to amend this act, the Life Peerages Act of 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, should that be necessary. I don't know if it is, but the public bill offers thought that we should have the power to do so just in case it should prove necessary. Now of course amending this act is a Henry VIII power, but I don't think any government can complain about Henry VIII powers since all governments use an excessively in all bills.

Whilst it may be possible to deal with attendance through standing orders, as I think that was hinted at earlier, I have not heard any suggestion from any Noble Lord that we could invent a retirement or participation regime which you can implement by standing orders alone. If that was the case, the government could have been shouting about that from the rooftops from the committee stage. It is assumed that these things will require some form of legislation. Without my simple amendment, we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having proposals on which the majority of this House agrees and with which the government also agree but we can only deliver bits of them through standing orders and have to wait for primary legislation to do the rest, primary legislation which might never come.

It will be fascinating to see what reasons the government might use to reject this new clause. It does absolutely nothing to undermine the thrust of the bill. The noble Lady the leader introduced the idea of a Lord Select Committee to come up with recommendations. How can the government possibly reject the simple solution to deliver into law the recommendations of the committee she has proposed? I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed after clause 1
21:56
21:56
21:58
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I was very touched when people called the Frontbench. I'm very happy if I'm so popular to carrier for the other side if that's what they would like. Now this will be an important debate actually on the next stage of reform, and it really is a coder to the very interesting debate provoked by the Noble Lord Lord Burns. And of course all this flows from the firm promise, firm promise in the Labour manifesto that another bill will be enacted in this Parliament to exclude peers who reach the age of 18 before the end of this Parliament make a tea.

And also promises in the manifesto to address issues of participation and conduct. Now during the committee stage I have to say that my Noble Friend Lord Blencathra was tirelessly ingenious in the proposals for improvement that you put before the House. Speaking from his creative experience as Chief Whip in another place, his knowledge which he alluded to again today, if the often unintended and bankability of government promises -- not bankability and his profound level of Parliament. So I was surprised that actually on reflection I wasn't surprised when my Noble Lords carefully thought out actually very clever amendments suddenly appeared on our Order Paper.

Following our debates last week. Now I think many Noble Lords who heard the statement of the Leader of the House last week wanted to hear more detail of the scope of what is planned and also to have more security in what will be the role of this House in We had a few of advances on that but no conclusion. My noble friend amendment offers the House a route to do that. When the noble Lady announced her proposals for a committee to consider a retirement age and participation requirement last week she said and I quote, she was determined to press ahead on She didn't include other issues that concern the House and we've heard about in our debates which might actually usefully engage such a committee as Lord Burns and others reminded us.

Indeed she double down in the last amendment on this in the last group when she said and I heard this that she did not want Select Committee to be a kitchen sink. Well your Lordships house might have a view on what should be served on the plate before that plate gets put in the kitchen sink for the washing up. In the debate that I've heard I think there have been a number of issues that this House would like to see the Select Committee consider.

I rather agreed with what Lord Burns in winding up his previous amendment said, that there could be more brought into the scope of the Select Committee and I hope it will. The noble Baroness also acknowledged that our house would I quote, seek reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder and that the government are serious about their intention for further reforms. That's good. It was language sounding very familiar to those of us who actually remember those days to the pledge that then came from Lord Irving in 1998 when he promised that keeping 90 elected hereditary Peers word and I quote, guarantee stage to reform.

My noble friend Lord Howard made a very powerful apposite intervention on that very point. Because we all know that those quite genuine good intentions led nowhere. There was no stage to reform and how can we know that what happened then won't happen that what happened then won't happen again now? Now I know and trust The Lord Privy Seal. She keeps her word and I know that her own honourable intentions repeated today and her deep interest in this House are every bit as genuine and honourable as were those of that great Labour Lord Chancellor 27 years ago.

However, I also have been The Lord Privy Seal and leader of your Lordships house. I also sat in her place as a loan member of your Lordships house in Cabinet. I know all too well the urgencies and priorities of colleagues in another place. I know from bitter experience the competing pressures to let the slate -- legislate and my goodness were living that in the session already aren't we. I know quite frankly and I mean to offend nobody it applies to all parties, whatever their talent the general lack of interest of colleagues in another place in this House and indeed their lack of understanding of the workings of this great house is enormous.

I also know how hard it is to secure legislative time to address issues relating to this House however warranted and popular they may be in this House or outside. I agree with and remember my noble friend description of the my noble friend description of the uphill struggle in PBL to get legislation that one might want, particularly relating to your Lordships house. So where I earned the place of them -- were I in the place of the leader of our house who has all our interests at heart, having set out the hopes for a Select Committee that might lead to some agreed reforms as indeed she has so constructively, then I would welcome myself my noble friend ingenious amendment.

For it reinforces and enact her commitment to legislate. It will strengthen her hand in those difficult discussions in the Cabinet committee on future legislation she can say look my friends, look what's going on in the Select Committee and House of Lords, look at their interesting deliberations, look what they going to send us, how we going to resist this? This is arming our leader to reinsurer her -- reinforcer position in those difficult discussions in Cabinet committee on future legislation.

It does something actually more which I think is equally valuable and equally important because it undermines and embeds the role of your Lordships house in discussing and designing the next stage of what is after all if I may say so politely to the other place, our own reform. This amendment, I mean our house. It's that were very rare thing this amendment, it's a win-win. It's a win for our house in influencing what should be done, and it should be if exacted a win for our leader in helping getting things done.

At the same time in subsection 4 gives an absolute veto on appraisal is from the Select Committee going forward if the other place do not like it. It does not give absolute power to your Lordships house, it gives an immense influence and ability to advise so I take my hat off to Lord Blencathra for dividing -- devising this practical and useful proposal so creatively. He's cleverer than I am. It's a good confidence building measure going forward.

What faith it would create among us if the leader said yes we will buttress the Select Committee. We will go forward in this way, we will have this failsafe mechanism like intake to my colleagues in another place and say here other proposals of your Lordships freely agreed and agreed a cross-party full it is a very ingenious suggestion I think a very helpful one. I hope the noble Lady can see his amendment as a way to reinforcer insurance to the House last week and again tonight because it's hard going to get legislation through colleagues in the House of Commons.

I hope that now this bill has been amended and is going back to the other place, the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. After all it simply takes the government at their word. That they want to Select Committee to devise proposals to form the basis of the bill. If the noble Baroness cannot accept it and my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House then we on the side and I hope he is on all sides who are interested in tying down the nature and the scope and the timing of reform will support him in the division lobby.
22:08
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
It's been an interesting debate and perhaps I will start at the basis of wire first suggested the Select Committee, it might help your chips house. The noble Lord is right is a was difficult to get extra time for legislation but I think it's important that this House has an opportunity to consider how you might want to implement as a house the to, and avoids referred to the three stages, this was the second stage, proposals on retirement age and on participation.

And I won't repeat things I said in the past but if there is an opportunity to come down with a view and Select Committee to bring forward proposals to your Orchard House for consideration that doesn't make that proposal easier. Lord Lucas very helpfully interjected earlier and asked me a question as if there are things we could do more quickly by Standing Orders as indicated by alkenyl, could we do so. That was something for the committee to look at the seems to me there is no opportunity for select Visy to look at those issues to come forward proposals to your Lordships house consider those proposals, to consider whether there are some we could take forward more quickly but where it requires legislation if the House is a view of which the House is in agreement with, how much easier is to persuade the government to say there is agreement on this want to move forward, a focus bill to deliver something that the House of Lords broadly in agreement with.

Thus was proposed in the first place. We may not cooperate think there's lots of other things in the issue are not quite sure to debate this later, I think I was quite clear to Lord Burns and Baroness Hayter that, Heymann sorry, that is implicit that if you're looking to reduce the size of the House you do have considerations to be made when you're looking at exit so I think that was quite clear. Baroness Lawlor described this, she implied this was being done for political reasons to make it more difficult for the party opposite to hold the government to account.

When hereditary Peers have left your Lordships house or can I say to her that even after the hereditary Peers apart there will still be 243 members of her party in this House. My party before the election had 171 members of your Lordships house. I think my colleagues help the government to account very effectively with that number. I'm disappointed the noble Lady thinks that with about will stop if I can finish my point, don't get too excited.

I will give way I'm surprised that she thinks that with those additional members something like 70 more members than we had an opposition, her party would find difficult to hold my government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

account. Thank noble Baroness for letting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank noble Baroness for letting me put my point again. But I was me put my point again. But I was referring to all the contributions of the hereditaries on all the benches and I'm talking about benches and I'm talking about effective contributions will now be silenced. I fear that is going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

affect the House. That is not the point she made at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is not the point she made at the time. Many members of your Lordships house make effective contributions and I think she should contributions and I think she should recognise those as well. I did enjoy recognise those as well. I did enjoy the noble Lord speech and Lord Blencathra is always inventive and engages on these issues but I have engages on these issues but I have to say to him, I don't recognise the veto that the noble Lord drew referred to on this, my reason for his amendment is that if Select Committee makes recommendations the Committee makes recommendations the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory amendments men the following actors appropriate to give effect to the appropriate to give effect to the recommendations in statute and the government must play those regulations.

In practical terms if the committee were to say we would like the House to consider the following options, how on earth does the government legislate for the options committee may recommend, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is what he would have, is he wanting to come back to that point? The House would consider the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House would consider the options and then come up with what they may be and not go to the government with a range of options to legislate on, it would be the decision of the House on retirement age or participation rates of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

age or participation rates of the threshold. We would consider the options and come with firm recommendations.. It clearly is uncertain because I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It clearly is uncertain because I didn't read his amendment like that, didn't read his amendment like that, it says where the House has been established that the purpose of reporting on possible retirement ages and that committee makes recommendations to establish the change a relevant minister must within 12 months of the committee within 12 months of the committee report in, take actions in subsection 2. He is not empowering the House is actually undermining the House by removing the House as a body from the equation stop aside body from the equation stop aside from that point I have to say to him from that point I have to say to him to say that matters of this importance should be merely considered from the committee to a Statutory Instrument, I'm sure there Statutory Instrument, I'm sure there are Statutory Instruments committee would have quite a bit to say about that power and whether they thought it was relevant at all.

The establishment of the Select Committee I would hope, and it's a matter for the House, if the House doesn't want it then it won't be set up, seems to me this is a good way forward the House to provide a few on these issues we can take things forward more quickly we would do so, where we can act prior to legislation we could do so where legislation is required in agreement from your chips house makes that a smoother process. His amendment before us today is unworkable in practice and also risks undermining the very role of this House by trying to bypass the House, it may not be what he intended but it's what the amendment will do, it bypasses the House, what happens in the Select Committee is enacted by set legislation.

That would be an extraordinary move in one this House
22:16
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
In view of the hour and made a House I will be brief. I may say to the Noble Lord newbie, he said we should pass our own rules where we could. I agree entirely. I amendment deals with those areas will be can't. For this comes down to is this...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surely has amendment that requires the Statutory Instrument to cover every single recommendation of the Select Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Select Committee. Yes, it is one way to guarantee, but if this House can impose, can but if this House can impose, can bring about some of the rules we want through our own standing orders, then so be it, but the legislative power is there. It does not have to be implemented. If the not have to be implemented. If the House is done in its own way. I was going to say if something comes down to this, we going to improve the recommendations of the Lord Select recommendations of the Lord Select Committee the noble Lady herself created or as we amend them or are we going to hang around hoping we we going to hang around hoping we get a government bill in due course to do it sometime? I've said before I will not repeat it, I simply do I will not repeat it, I simply do not see that happening.

I think was rather disingenuous of the nobility to say that the amendment is not technically perfect. I'm talking about the general concept here of about the general concept here of implemented what this House decides three a statutory instrument, and if the amendment is not technically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment is not technically correct, I think it's a simple... Statutory instruments are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Statutory instruments are not amendments will stop the means to say that this House would not be able to change what was ever in the Statutory Instrument.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course he is right. I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course he is right. I'm not suggesting we wish to amend the Statutory Instrument. My amendment seeks to say that with the House of Lords this House has voted on Lords this House has voted on proposals on retirement, possibly on participation and possibly on participation and possibly on attendance. Where we voted, the government would then be under an obligation to bring forward a obligation to bring forward a Statutory Instrument to implement Statutory Instrument to implement those proposals. And my noble and learned friend may say what if the government doesn't do what we asked for? And in that case this House for? And in that case this House would vote it down.

It's nonsense to suspect that our government will bring forward primary legislation to bring forward primary legislation to deal with little things like the age at which peers may retire and how at which peers may retire and how often they must turn up before they will be slung out of this House. I cannot see that being in a Labour cannot see that being in a Labour election grid for the next election. It's not going to happen. I also It's not going to happen. I also agree with the noble Lady that in a normal build these two little things would be statutory instruments, secondary legislation.

And the secondary legislation committee secondary legislation committee would certainly not disapprove of would certainly not disapprove of them, but these important things to ask and am still convinced my original assertion is right, the only way we will get these changes through as if this House has my innocuous new clause on a statutory instrument. I can't understand why the government's proposed route therefore I intend to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." the question will be decided by a division, and I shall remain on my
22:19
22:30
None Portrait AMDT: 24 Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Wolfson. I rise to speak to amendment 24 in my name and to move it, and this amendment seeks to place the amendment seeks to place the government intentions in respect of the determination of peerage claims the determination of peerage claims on the face of the bill, and can I say what a pleasure it is to see such a large turnout from the such a large turnout from the government benches when we are discussing the role of the Privy discussing the role of the Privy Council? It is heartwarming to see what focus the government benches what focus the government benches have this important matter.

Now as they explained at committee stage, they explained at committee stage, this bill removes the role of your Lordship's House in determining peerage claims, but it leaves behind a statutory lacuna. My amendment commanded to emphasise this point, my amendment does not depart at all from the government's intentions as set out in the Explanatory Notes. What it does is put those intentions What it does is put those intentions The peerage claims determination process will still be undertaken by process will still be undertaken by the judicial committee of the Privy Council where the case is complicated, but it is possible that other arrangements may be made by future governments.

We need an effective system for peerage claims and since this House has had a role in this process up to this point it's only right that we in this House should be concerned about this debate and we should seek to secure a proper future for that process. I'm not going to, given the hour, say any more about the Irish. She issue which I made this point that committee, I know again the government benches are focused on this, save to say that I'm very pleased we could get a confirmation from the government that the Attorney-General said at committee stage and I quote, the position will be precisely the same in respect of disputed Irish peerages.

I'm grateful to him for that confirmation. In responding to my members at committee stage the Attorney-General also told the House that the power to refer claims to the Judicial Committee the Privy Council already exists under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, of course I accept that, he is right about that, I don't think with respect that counts is the case for my amendment. More convincingly the government made the case that requiring all claims to be made to his Majesty in Council would result in a significant increase in claims already considered beyond the state of consideration by the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the role of privilege.

Given that question of proportionality and the impact on the work of the Privy Council I'm not going to see you divide the House on my amendment today. But could I take this opportunity to ask, I don't know whether the Attorney-General, the noble Lady who will be responding for the government, whether she can foresee circumstances where a body other than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could take over the role of determining complex peerage claims, and could she confirm whether Parliament will be consulted on that matter before any changes are made.

I hope that confirmation could be given and that would be extremely helpful. If I may well on my seat -- feet to save time, no The Earl of Devon is going to be moving Earl of Devon is going to be moving his amendment, it while I'm on my feet can I just say this, I obviously recognise the complexity and strength of feeling that arises in any debate on primogeniture, unaware of families that are at risk of losing their family home as a result of the wars of succession and also entails attached to certain properties, not going to explain at this hour what an entail is, Wikipedia is available.

This is a serious issue which needs to be looked at. I should say very grateful for the conversations which grateful for the conversations which the Earl has had with me and with others, and grateful that he's taken a circumspect approach to these amendments seeking to initiate a report on gender equality in the inheritance of peerages and I hope that point also the Minister will be able to give the House some greater clarity on the government's position on this issue.

So far as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment in my name is concerned I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 2 page 198, at the end insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. Is a pleasure to follow Lord
22:34
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure to follow Lord Wolfson. I applaud his efforts to formalise the procedure regarding the dissemination peerage claims the dissemination peerage claims which I broadly support. I rise to speak to the two amendments in this group, 25 and 27 in my name which seek to ensure quality in that process. They address gender parity in peerages wants and our jurisdiction are to claims. As expend a committee quality at succession is an issue about which I care deeply both for personal reasons and because it's the principle that girls of Devon have champion since our inception.

Given the late hour you will perhaps be pleased to hear that I will spare you my stories of the Empress Matilda and Queen Marie dispersed in the service of team the Oldham was first and then lost and recovered. We were addressing and fighting real Henry VIII powers in those days, not fantasy once we talk about today. There is still so much work to do on gender parity and I be failing in my inherited duty if I did not pursue these amendments. I hope to change the law to remove the deeply embedded in a nation the vast majority of hereditary and I enjoyed the privilege of seating in neural chips house was that is no longer possible with my pending abolition.

The best I can therefore offer is these two amendments. The first direct Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the functions that this bill transfers to them in a non-discriminatory manner. That is amendment 25. The second which I minded to push to approach requires the Secretary of State to consult on the challenges that the JC PC faces in doing that and to recommend legislative changes accordingly. When we debated similar amendments I committee the Attorney-General generously indicated that the government approved the rationale of these amendment stating that government very much shares my unease at inequality baked into so many hereditary Peer edges.

He raised a number of specific objections to the form of the amendment as originally drafted not least the unconstitutional burdens placed upon the JC PC. I have taken those objections on board and therefore have revised the proposed amendments in the faint hope the government will accept them this time around, I fear they may not and the Minister will probably revert with the governments of stated objections that this bill is not the place to address the question of female succession, that they are not minded to amend the bill in any form and the issues raised far too complex for us to address in this or any other legislation.

The government is wrong for a number of reasons. First this is exactly the bill in which to address the exercise of jurisdiction over hereditary succession, as it is bill that removes that power one central from your Lordships. If we don't legislate for gender parity in this bill Parliament is proactively passing to the JC PC a power and jurisdiction that all agreed to be discriminatory. Validating and therefore proving the ongoing exclusion of women from hereditary. This bill breaks in gender discrimination.

Second this is the very last chance for hereditary members of your Lordships house to opine upon this issue before their abolition and thus for Parliament to benefit from the views of those directly impacted by this deep rooted cultural misogyny. It is also therefore highly likely to be the last time anyone will be sufficiently motivated to pursue this issue of we don't address it now it will be left to fester as a stain upon our national culture. As to the complexity of this issue the whole point of amendment 27 is to require the Secretary of State to consult and review the principles of gender equality should be applied when determining such claims.

And to recommend legislative solutions. Any complexities will be consulted upon and remedies proposed, just because the matter is complex does not mean it should not be addressed. As I stated before patriarch it puts up many barriers to its dismantlement but that should not deter us. Noble Lords may recall that the Crown wants fell under primogeniture indeed it did until the law was changed in 2013 with the succession to the Crown that. Altering the method of rule succession to gender neutral primogeniture if we can do it for the crown with all the complex conditions and rights therein shall you we can do the same for our simple hereditary peerage.

It simply cannot be that complicated. This issue goes much wider than the gender of those who succeed to hereditary titles as it is a point of general and important principles. Since the committee stage debate in which a number of noble Lord spoke in support of my amendments had been contacted by Lorraine of campaigners for equal rights you have pointed out that our country will never have gender parity what we preserve there are -- privilege and property rights in the upper reaches of our society only to men.

Those who campaigned tirelessly to end violence against and gender- based discrimination of all types note that if you are unwilling to remove gender discrimination everywhere we will never remove such discrimination anywhere. By passing this bill with clause 2 unamended this government which allegedly is committed to the principle of gender equality are simply condoning gender-based discrimination at the top of our society, effectively saying that it is OK to deny women the right to bear titles in the property rights, privileges and status inherent therein, solely on account of their gender is that really what this government stands for? As stated I am minded therefore to test the House on amendment 27, it's a modest amendment that simply because Forum report into the application of gender equality.

It may be that this is a quixotic campaign and I am tilting at wind in Wales windmills to call so late. If we don't make a change now it will never happen and the hereditary system will forever remain biased. I reflect upon the debate whether or not to move it to a vote and I look forward to the noble Baronesses the ministers responsible to I once more challenge the government to be brave, to channel Baldwin first Earl of Devon who set up the rights of women to succeed and lead, please support these amendments after 900

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years it's about time. On a debate such as this the
22:41
22:42
22:43
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned Earl friend Lord Wolfson and he has already made the case about the need to clarify the process for future claims to a hereditary Peer edge when hereditary Peers no longer sit in your chips house. My noble friend Lord Wolfson highlighted the complexity of this process in committee and even went as far as questioning whether the House currently has to resolve the claim in line with recommendation of the privileges committee.

From my own experience I can assure him that the House of Lords can overturn the recommendation from the privileges committee will stop the House of Lords has the power to debate and to vote on the recommendations of all its committees including the privileges committee. This means that the House can ultimately choose to accept, reject or modify any recommendation made by the committee. Lord Rooker would no doubt want to understand exactly what I'm talking about so in 30 seconds I will give him a brief example of evidence in the case of the morning case where a comparison of the DNA of my late Liberal Party member half brother whilst alive personally left sample of his lard with a physician despite not legally being allowed in the UK.

This in turn needed to be released and his DNA matched to a blood sample, I witnessed being taken from his alleged young son from his fourth wife, young boy who had no proof he was the boy in question when he arrived to give a sample at the clinic in the medical centre in Manila. One of the three vials of blood taken stayed in my briefcase as I continue to travel to China on business making the most of switches -- fridges in my hotel room.

It could argue that became contaminated and I'm sure if Lord Rooker had sat on the committee of privileges he may well have raised that issue. The fact is the House of Lords as a sovereign body with the power to regulate's own affairs including the ability to review and decide on its reports and the reports of its committees could have challenged that process. Whilst the privilege committee's recommendations are taken seriously they are not binding on the House. The House ultimately retains the authority decide on the course of action including their consideration of publication of the privileges committee's report.

In that case the House accepted the committee's report without debate. What this amendment does simply highlights the complexity of the current position and the need for clarification. It recognises that in the absence of hereditary Peers in your Lordships house the House would not be the appropriate body to determine peerage claims. What is needed is a clear streamlined and comprehensive system to determine these claims and this amendment places the resolution of peerage claims in accordance with such rules as His Majesty made by ordering as His Majesty made by ordering It is in line with the proposals originally drafted by the office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012 and tonight, this is a classic noncontroversial amendment.

It reflects the importance of this House as it currently is constructed, and which scrutinises the law, seeks improvement and resolves this obvious discrepancy, and I hope it will find favour with the government.
22:46
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Is the government going to say anything?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're going to be disappointed. I have not got a line from the box. Noble Lords will have to bear with Noble Lords will have to bear with me. May I thank Noble Lords for this surprisingly short debate on a very surprisingly short debate on a very important issue? On some very important issues. Just to clarify, important issues. Just to clarify, as we've just heard from Lord Moynihan, and as he so entertained Moynihan, and as he so entertained us while we were in committee stage about his family stories, the last complex case to be discussed by the complex case to be discussed by the JC PC was in 1997.

There have been fewer than 10 complex cases in the last 50 years, and routing claims are around 12 cases a year, which I are around 12 cases a year, which I hope it's Noble Lords some context for what we are discussing. Starting for what we are discussing. Starting with amendment 24, from the noble with amendment 24, from the noble Lord Lord Watson, my noble and learned friend set out in great detail the government's position on detail the government's position on peerage claims during committee stage.

To put it briefly closed to stage. To put it briefly closed to have the bill abolishes the jurisdiction of this House in relation to Hereditary Peers claims. relation to Hereditary Peers claims. In future it is intended that any complex or disputed claims which could have been referred to by the Crown to this House will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. To reiterate the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, and the power in section 4 of the Judicial Committee's act 1833, as the Noble Lord also touched on, His Majesty may already refer matters to the Judicial Committee for consideration and advice.

I'm sure Noble Lords would agree that where it is necessary to duplicate legislative provisions we should avoid doing so. Notwithstanding the ways the noble and learned Lord regaled us of his committee of his bitter experience of the abduction act 24 I expect the other place will be somewhat less exercised by this matter. His amendment would result in all cases apart from the Lord Chancellor being referred to the JC PC. Not the best use of their time as there is no dispute or legal complexity in these claims.

The amendment is therefore unnecessary. The Noble Lord did ask me a very important question which is whether I could foresee circumstances after that the use of the JC PC and if we did, with Parliament be consulted? Having consulted with my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General who thankfully was sitting to my left, we don't foresee this moving away from the JC PC, but my noble and learned friend the Attorney- and learned friend the Attorney- General assures me that although this issue has been raised before, so we would have to consider it in more detail Mike hasn't been, we would seek to consult a principle if there was going to be a move away from the JC PC.

If on reflection that isn't the case we would inform your Lordship's House at the earliest opportunity. That's as far

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as I can assist you on Noble Lords. I will be brief. Just to be clear, when the noble Lady says the government would seek to consult, is that consult so to speak generally that consult so to speak generally at large or consult with Parliament? The result was the difference, just to be clear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be clear. With Parliament. Glad to be able to assist even at this hour. Moving on to the point made by the noble on to the point made by the noble Earl of Devon, he has raised a very Earl of Devon, he has raised a very important point that was touched on in committee by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. He will friend the Attorney-General. He will not be surprised that the government's approach has not government's approach has not changed on this issue since committee, and I will briefly reiterate the rationale for that.

Whilst I am sympathetic to Noble Whilst I am sympathetic to Noble Whilst I am sympathetic to Noble Lords concerns as is the Lord Privy Seal, this peer only deals with Seal, this peer only deals with membership of this House. The Leader of the House of Lords and to him to explain some of the complexities of addressing this force to my personal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

view... Before she addresses the determination of Hereditary Peers and transfers that power to the Judicial Committee the Privy Council, so it's not accurate to say it only addresses membership of your I'm not sure I can play the agree with the Noble Lord, but in order to continue at this point and to give him the answers he seemed from the government, I'm going to seek to government, I'm going to seek to move forward. As I said, my personal view is that those complexities should not stop us from addressing the issue.

But that's not an issue for this bill, which is about membership of your Lordship's House. Specifically on amendment 25, I note this amendment has been refined by the noble Earl since committee, however the amendment still seeks to assert how the Judicial Committee should exercise its jurisdiction. On amendment 27 whilst the government may consult on how the principles of gender equality should apply to determining Hereditary Peers times, without legislative changes the law as it stands distinguishes between sexes as the noble Earl is clearly aware.

In the case of succession to hereditary titles, and is the duty of the courts to give effect to it, as have said this is something many members in both houses including myself are not comfortable with, but myself are not comfortable with, but my -- I do not believe this sum out of this bill. The law treats all applicants equally but distinguishes between sexes as the Noble Lord is clearly aware it does in the case of succession to hereditary titles. It is the duty of the courts to give effect to it.

In summary, the amendment on peerage claims is unnecessary and the amendments on primary gender chair are not for this bill. I would therefore respectfully request that the Noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
22:52
22:53
None Portrait AMDT: 26 The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

26 the Earl of Dundee. Within this grouping amendment 26 enables a review of the impact of enables a review of the impact of this act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the government to account. Your lordships will agree that membership composition of the reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House, and thus conversely that future membership composition should be designed to serve this priority aim.

If within the temporal motion the reformed House of 600 the political members fulfil, the nonpolitical representation appointed either by HOLAC or by Parliament itself would then be 150 Crossbench Peers. As a result within that total of 600 temporal members, respective proportions could then become the government and opposition parties at 175 political members each, next the independent nonpolitical crossbenchers at 150, and next all other political parties at 100. These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying out our present high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House.

Your lordships may well additionally consider that rather than direct public collections, indirect elections of 450 political members would in the first place the better ensure continuity of legislative scrutiny high standards. That is because direct elections of 450 political members would instead lead to conflict and jockeying for position between House of Commons and a reformed House of Lords. At committee, the noble Baroness Lady Smith leader of the favoured parity in this House of numbers between the government and opposition parties, such as perhaps 175 each.

While the Leader of the Opposition my Noble Friend Lord True observed that each of the government's opposition should have more critical members and the crossbenchers would have nonpolitical members such as may be reflecting an appropriate respective ratio of 175 for each of the government main opposition party to 154 nonpolitical crossbench members. Also at committee the noble Baroness Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent pointed out in particular that a reformed House must be a properly representative of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom and that in general the public or to be consulted on different options House of Lords Reform Bill.

Does the noble Baroness the Minister therefore concur that a key option to be put forward for public approval otherwise should be implied prescriptions of amendment 26? For these comprise firstly that the high standard of legislative scrutiny demonstrated by the present House should continue in a reformed House. If so in secondary, that indirect elections would assist that purpose better than direct elections. Thirdly, that also assisting this aim is parity of numbers between the government and main opposition parties are haps 175 each.

Fourthly that equally sustaining legislation scrutiny quality as well is the inclusion of independent nonpolitical crossbenchers at 150, thus one third of all temporal's and political numbers at 450. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed after close to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close to insert the following clause review impact on the effectiveness of the House of Lords is printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. Is or was a privilege to follow the noble Earl Cielo Dundee and it's nice to see Devon and Dundee legislating to the end. I rise to speak to amendment 28 which is in my name and once more considers whether the name the House of Lords remains appropriate once we have removed the hereditary Lords from these red ventures. Over recent months during the passage of this bill, we've the passage of this bill, we've heard from all sides of the cells how indefensible is the Hereditary Peers support within a modern Peers support within a modern parliamentary democracy.

We've heard criticism of Hereditary Peers predominately male gender and of predominately male gender and of their relatively privileged birth and we have heard particular disparagement of their feudal roots. Mine has been one of the few voices raised in defence of the indefensible, but if we are to indefensible, but if we are to accept as reluctantly I do that the thousand years or so of hereditary presence within our legislature presence within our legislature should draw to a close, should we not also remove the gendered not also remove the gendered privilege and feudal name of the House itself? I'm concerned that in keeping the name the House of Lords, along with its aristocratic nomenclature, its pretensions that go with it, we are removing the best bits, which other hereditary members of your Lordship's House who contribute so much, sorry and keeping the worst bits.

As the noble Baroness... The worst bits being the gendered discriminatory name and intention. As the noble Baroness Lady Finn stated at committee, words have power and names shape perception. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General criticised my citation to a dictionary reference of a Lord, suggesting it could do with some updating. Impression of this debate I therefore consulted the Oxford English dictionary which confirms the definition of the Lord as a title of nobility or high rank often associated with land ownership and power.

Particularly in feudal contexts. It can also refer to a man who has achieved mastery or leadership in a particular field or could be used as a temp respect. In Christianity Lord as a title for God Christianity Lord as a title for God or Christ. In other words a deity. Given names shape perception in May will be the case that the disparity noted throughout this report stage between the excellent work that takes place in this House versus the terrible opinion we suffer, should we not be looking at the departure of the Hereditary Peers, the Lord's is the Oxford English dictionary defines them, as an opportunity for every brand.

Surely it provides the perfect chance to step away from the negative associations with nobility and high rank associated with land and power and opportunity to remove that rich aroma of pewter and patriarchal privilege that pervades as many aspects of this venerable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

institution. I'm enjoying listening to the noble Earl and I find it hard to noble Earl and I find it hard to forgive the fact that his collateral ancestors participated in the ancestors participated in the deplorable bogus Latin Empire of Constantinople. And some of us Constantinople. And some of us remember that. So he should be careful. But if I come to a serious point, had he actually considered another argument for his amendment, another argument for his amendment, which is that we heard earlier of the greyscale of confusion on the greyscale of confusion on benches opposite.

By the different uses of the word Mullane Lord, and might not a better argument which would appeal to the confused elements on the other side that we elements on the other side that we heard about earlier, wouldn't his arguments actually help lift the arguments actually help lift the
23:01
23:01
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, these amendments call for review of your Lordships house to consider the effect of the expulsion of our hereditary colleagues and for the consideration of its very name. I think the noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. The need to reflect scrutinise and reassess is a defining version of this house and our duty is to test, examine and refine. The amendment from my noble friend the Earl of Dundee seeks view of the impact of this act on the effectiveness on your Lordships house and this is a fair challenge.

If this house is to be judged let it be judged on its ability to scrutinise legislation, revise policy and hold the government to account. We have consistently warned for danger of excluding in one stroke so many active, knowledgeable and experienced members. Individuals whose contributions have been vitals to this house effectiveness. The strength of this has always been as it evolves over time and reflects experience and judgement. The legitimacy is grounded in the capability and dedication of our members.

This is why we have argued it is critical that reform and review should be carried out through consensus and with full discussion. And while we seek to retain the wisdom and experience of a long serving hereditary colleagues who have, over the years, brought unparalleled insight to our deliberations. Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord the Earl of Devon invites review and consultation on the review of the name House of Lords. As I have said before this is an intriguing suggestion.

I was interested to hear that noble Lord Grocott who was toying with this in our debate on amendment 17 earlier baroness and for Lord Speaker Lady Hayman has also brought up in the course of today's deliberations. The title of this house, as the noble Earl says, evokes centuries of history and tradition and is certainly reasonable to ask whether it still reflects the institution as it is today. But I would say that the reputation of this house, its credibility and authority will never be determined by its name alone.

It will be determined by its actions, the quality of its debates, the sharpness of its scrutiny and the seriousness of it still variations. But scrutiny must leave to improvement and must not be a distraction. There is, I'm afraid the danger that such review becomes a distraction in the important work of your Lordships house. In conclusion I recognise the intent behind the amendments to assess the consequences of this bill if we are serious about the future of this house let us focus on what really matters, scrutiny, legislation and the real business of holding government to account.
23:04
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, from Devon to Dundee as we approach recess suggest a slight for holiday that we might want to consider. Both amendments in this group seek in different ways to place a duty on the government to review the impact on legislation after it proceeds Royal assent. Amendment 26 tabled by the Earl of Dundee is a duty on the state to report for both houses. Detailing the effects of this bill within 12 months of it coming to force.

Much like the noble Earls amendment 96 and committee albeit more focused this would place a duty on the government to conduct post- legislative scrutiny on facing the bill. Amendment 28 tabled by the noble Earl or Devon seeks to place an Secretary of State to consult with the public on the occasions of provision in the bill and the appropriateness of the name of House of Lords. This amendment is identical in committee. In committee my noble friend Lord Collings of observed moments to acquire were unnecessary disproportionate.

It will not surprise Lord's to learn the government has not these new amendments. Respect amendment 26 we agree that post-legislative scrutiny or reviews can add value to the legislative process but it would be of limited value in this case ultimately this bill does not alter any functions of the Lordships house or make a fundamental change to how we operate inside the house. It was normal more Nubian committee disc described this as a tidying up. Given the approach taken with the 99 act which removes a far higher number of members in the Lordships house and we should not have any scrutiny.

I cannot see the case for post-legislative scrutiny of this bill. Turning briefly to 28 by the Earl of Devon my response would be the same with noble Attorney-General gave the girl in committee. The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords in the passage of this bill. This house was still consist of peers of the realm once hereditary peers have left. Want to acknowledge that as noble Lord described the language used can seem to some particularly given that neither I nor my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal are in fact Lord's.

Neither is a noble Baroness Lady Finn. But my Lords I think we need to appreciate that outside the house it is very clear what House of Lords is and how it links to the other house. The purpose of this bill is clear and uncomplicated and I do not believe that post-legislative scrutiny or reviews will provide the house with any further insight. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws.
23:07
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am really grateful towards your marks. On legislative scrutiny and holding the government to account perhaps there may be consensus in three major respects. Firstly that the high standard of the present house in achieving this scrutiny should carry on in a reform house. Secondly and conversely future membership constitutes therefore to be designed to serve the priority aim and then following this consideration and thirdly that our present high-quality function of legislative scrutiny should still be able to reform by the revised house of 600 temporal members were there wholly elected or some combination being elected either directly or otherwise.

Beyond this consensus there are of course different views on how the reform house to achieve the desirable democratic effects in different ways. Such diverging see maybe illustrated by the case of having direct elections. This advanced with conviction by my noble friend Lord Houchen and in the context of seeking to reduce the unwelcome effects of elected dictatorship before direct formed the house of certain to stand up much more through the House of Commons, not least when governments of the day happened to have very large political majorities.

However in association with amendment 26 and as already indicated indirect elections are here advocated instead. These would be for 450 instead. These would be for 450 political members with 600 temporal members of who 150 would be non- independent crossbenchers either appointed by Al Akhbar indirectly elected by Parliament itself. As already alleged these proportions with provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present scrutiny to which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I am ever so sorry. Can you clarify as to what's happening you clarify as to what's happening next in terms of the next bill. I just think you might be repeating some of your initial opening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remarks. I think what I was hoping to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think what I was hoping to do was to put in context and I think my was to put in context and I think my noble friend Baroness Finn in her noble friend Baroness Finn in her own remarks set the context of what we really want to make sure that we would do is to continue the very would do is to continue the very high standard of legislative scrutiny in our present house in a scrutiny in our present house in a reform house.

If I could just finish reform house. If I could just finish my remarks. These already alleged these restrictive portions would provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present high standard. This could also seek the backing of public also seek the backing of public concentration and approval to which the noble Baroness very helpfully referred and committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

referred and committee. It's not the noble Lord. The foetus concluded I think just about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foetus concluded I think just about to say whether or not the amendment is to develop. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness. I'm not going to be tempted to press to a vote, but if I could possibly just finish my remarks I may be able to write off the context. I am very grateful to the contributions of the government front bench and also from my noble friend Baroness Finn. Within this grouping also Lord Deben for his useful member -- amendment for post.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Meanwhile Lawrence I beg leave to withdraw amendment 26. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. Is at your lordship that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your lordship that the amendment may withdraw entirely withdrawn. Amendment 27, Earl of Devon. Given so many have remained I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given so many have remained I hate to disappoint and also given how many resounding words of support how many resounding words of support from my amendment 27 I heard when we debated it including I think from the government front bench. On that the government front bench. On that basis I would like to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the house number 27. The question is that amendment 20 7B agreed to, as many say content. 7B agreed to, as many say content. The counter not content. I think the The counter not content. I think the not contents habit. We come now to amendment 28. Earl of Devon. amendment 28. Earl of Devon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Press it to a vote, please. The question is that amendment 20 7B agreed to as many as that say content. The counter not content..

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided. I will advise the house when voting is
23:12
23:23
None Portrait AMDT: 32 Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 32, Lord Strathclyde. I think some of my Noble Friend been waiting a long time for this moment. And I beg to move amendment number 32. It is late at night, so I can assure Noble Lords that I will can assure Noble Lords that I will not be testing the opinion of the House. And I move this amendment in a certain amount of humility, which some may view it is not my natural state but it really is on this occasion because the words of the amendment are taken from the original Parliament at of 1911, and its preamble.

And it's worth just reading it to your Lordships. Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation. Fine words, and a fine aspiration. I said at an earlier stage that the difference existed less between the parties than within the parties, which is why I suspect the ambition of the 1911 preamble has never been enacted.

I rather wish that in 1999 when we passed the House of Lords Act that I have thought of this amendment then and sought to replicate it in the 99 act. But I didn't. However, I am making up for it today. The beauty of this amendment as it doesn't actually ask the government to do anything. In fact doesn't ask anybody to do anything. What it is a reminder of the original intention behind the 1911 act. I understand the Prime Minister has said that he is keen on unelected House in due course.

And he has mentioned that on several occasions, and certainly my party over the last 20 years has also mentioned it will stop officially in manifestoes and in supporting the 2012 act, and of course the Liberal Democrats have as well. So I feel that there is plenty of support for the idea, fundamental idea that lies behind this preamble, even though it cannot be immediately brought into operation. So I hope that at this last amendment, on the last day of the report stage of this bill, the government, noble Baroness and perhaps smile beneficially upon the amendment.

And I accept it as I said it is moved with due humility, it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a humble amendment and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after the long title insert the new preamble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the marshalled list. May follow the number Lord Strathclyde and thank him for that unusual and welcome display of
23:26
23:28
23:28
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I'm slightly disappointed that the second time this evening the Noble Lord newbie has failed to put the case for what election when he was talking about the best way to deal with limiting the size of the House and prevent it growing. The best way is to have a constituted elected House when the people decide how the numbers in the House change. And again he has failed to align himself with the long held wish of his party to see election. I think at this late hour my Noble Friend has elicited a notable reticence from the party opposite in pursuing their electoral objectives.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

He seems to forget I moved in amendment for the active Lords and unless my recollection is faulty, he chose not to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chose not to support it. The elements are greatly mixed in as Shakespeare taught us, and I have as Shakespeare taught us, and I have to say that there is that terrible dual word of PR that always lurks dual word of PR that always lurks around in any proposition that comes from the neighbour Lord Newby. from the neighbour Lord Newby. Seriously, I don't think this is the time for reflection on the progress of this bill. We will have a chance of this bill.

We will have a chance for that next week on Bill do now pass. I'm pleased that in general the contact of the debates has been the contact of the debates has been good. I think important issues have been raised. I fear a more appropriate preamble for this bill would be something along the lines of whereas it is desired to create of whereas it is desired to create an all appointed House, and no proposals have yet been presented to proposals have yet been presented to restrict greater than the power of the executive over such a House, it is politically expedient to exclude immediately over 80 members of Parliament who do not support the executive.

I think that would probably be a reasonably accurate preamble. But my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for her patients. And her willingness to engage with the House, she has again shown in the chamber this evening. I, like my Noble Friends, in Humble Address to the House, but I think when the time comes, he should probably withdraw the amendment.
23:30
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Can travel to the Noble Lord and I think it's been great natured, good-natured generally apart from one slipup is referred to generally. I think the Noble Lord Parkinson is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I scared him off. He won't do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I scared him off. He won't do that again. My Lords, I think both that again. My Lords, I think both introduced in his amendment I think it was the most unusual introduction I've ever heard for an amendment in I've ever heard for an amendment in the Lordships house. He started by saying, "it doesn't do anything. It doesn't asked the government to do doesn't asked the government to do anything." Which is an unusual way to put the amendment when it's been introduced for legislation.

When he introduced for legislation. When he seeks to do is put preamble at the start as he said. Now, on the start as he said. Now, on the substantive issue he addresses here substantive issue he addresses here is the elected element into a second chamber and the noble Lord this doesn't fail him it's only last week doesn't fail him it's only last week that the House rejected that proposal. Although the proposal is a proposal. Although the proposal is a manifesto for an alternative and doesn't mention elections.

My fear doesn't mention elections. My fear putting something like this in that would actually make no difference doesn't seek to pre-empt any outcome doesn't seek to pre-empt any outcome or discussions further. I will say it is unusual. I think this kind of it is unusual. I think this kind of preamble is now obsolete. It may have happened in 1911 and I know the tendency in the Lordships house to look backwards at what happened and there have been excellent historical references in the house this evening and in the last week.

There's a good reason White became obsolete is because it's completely unnecessary because the long title with a purpose and substantive cost is legislation. I think it was the noble Lady Baroness Jay who to legislation from your Lordships house back in 1999 who said the words that do not mean anything have no place in modern legislation. So it has taken the noble Lord his own instruction doesn't do anything and doesn't mean anything and I ask that he beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
23:33
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, cannot hide my disappointment with the noble Lord newbie and indeed the noble Baroness lady Smith later of the house. Has not accepted my words. I am very pleased to have had the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Naason totally appropriate question. And remind us of what happened at the end of the First World War with the Bryce commission. Of course it would be able to recreate a Bryce commission, and indeed in the Labour government that ended in 2010 there was a joint committee of both houses which sat and discussed, and prior to that of course there had been a Royal commission.

There have been many, many occasions over the last 100 or so years were people have referred to this preamble, and looked at what could be done to bring into play some kind of elected house. None of them have come to anything. My purpose was simply to continue that historical reminder that this was the broad intention. This is an echo of the noble and learned Lord urban of rare and Faulkner of Thorton himself and so many other peers over the last 15 years -- 115 years have referred to it.

I recognise when I am beaten on this one. I said I would not call a division on it and I will not. Therefore on that notice my Lord I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leaving withdrawn. My Lords I beg to move house to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I beg to move house to now adjourn.
23:41
None Portrait Introduction of Lieutenant General Edward Grant Martin Davis, CB, CBE, KStJ
-

23:41
23:41
None Portrait Introduction of Lieutenant General Edward Grant Martin Davis, CB, CBE, KStJ
-

23:41
23:41
None Portrait Introduction of Lieutenant General Edward Grant Martin Davis, CB, CBE, KStJ
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 9 House of Lords - 9 July House of Lords - 9 July 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page