House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

I had finished my remarks but will respond to say that I would love that to be the case.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to contribute to this debate. He has not done so, so perhaps I might, as a member of the Burns committee, set up by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.

We brought before this House a report from the Burns committee with a suggestion of how we could limit the numbers and deal with retirements, but it was based purely on Prime Ministers of the day—and there have been quite a few of them since our report was debated by this House—making sure that they played their part in not sending so many people to the Chamber. As we know, it is only my noble friend Lady May who has kept that bargain and understood why that was important for it to work. Indeed, in subsequent Burns reports that have been available to the House, it was clear that the agreement on retirement was working. We had it within our grasp some years ago, agreed by this House that that was how we would proceed. Had we stuck to that—in particular, had former Prime Ministers stuck to their side of the bargain —I do not think we would be in this position today.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I intervened in a debate when we had been going on for hours and went on to actually address the issue in this small Bill. It is not a big Bill and its aims are very clear, but I think we lost the opportunity of concentrating on what the Bill is about. If noble Lords remember, there were many speeches about reforming and about age, and they went on and on. I remember intervening to say that those propositions would go nowhere, because the purpose of the Bill is well defined.

It was with deep regret that I sat in your Lordships’ House and listened to so many speeches, with a lot of hereditaries sitting around, addressing the future as if they were not present. That was the sort of experience I used to have in this country when we were talking about black people. I would be in a meeting where they were talking about black people, and suggesting what would be good for them, but the black people were not being asked what they thought was good for them.

We have got be clear on what the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about. First, it seeks to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. Secondly, it seeks to prevent hereditary Peers joining the House. Thirdly, it would allow

“those who are presently serving in the House to remain”,

but no new hereditary Peers would be made. The problem with this amendment is what the Government would do. They have already tabled a Bill, which we have discussed, and we know where it is going.

In the Select Committee that the Leader of the House intends to set up, will thought be given to what might be done with those of our number who go out under this Bill who wish, if the opportunity is granted, to continue to serve, no longer as hereditaries but as life Peers? Would that question be worth taking up? If it is taken up then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has raised an issue which should have been raised, again and again, in those long debates.

Finally, on the question of memory and where we are going, the problem is that any society, church, community, organisation or Parliament that forgets its memory becomes senile. We know where we are going with this Bill but, to prevent senility, it would be quite good to know from the Leader of the House—who told us that she would set up a Select Committee—whether there will be a mechanism to allow those who wish to continue to serve in this place to do so, rather than this Bill being the end of their time here.

We can all change titles. I came into this House in 2005 as a right reverend Primate. That caused me some trouble: why was I a “primate”—I thought primates were certain animals? I came here as a primate, and maybe a vicious one, and when I retired I became a Cross-Bencher. We can all change in ways that do not disrupt the reality of the House.

I have had a fantastic time here. I love everybody here who has given us their wonderful words and thoughts. It will be a very sad day when I look around and see that those who feel that this is still a place where they can do their public service—not everybody will feel that way—cannot be changed from hereditary to life Peers. If it is to happen, there must be a way in which we say that, yes, this Bill triggered a change, and then those speeches which were made about change can be revisited in the future. We need to reflect. I hope that we will not have more and more debates, but will finish this tiny Bill very quickly.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 19, in my sole name, which proposes the replenishment of the Cross Benches following the departure of the hereditary Peers with 20 appointments over five years via HOLAC, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is chaired so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

Currently, there are 32 hereditary Peers sitting on the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House—an increase in the years since I joined, when I believe there were 28 hereditary Cross-Benchers. No group will be greater impacted by the impending removal of the hereditary presence. Unlike other groupings within the House, the Cross Benches do not speak with a single voice, despite being so ably convened by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his illustrious predecessors, nor do we have any political or parliamentary machinery with which to lobby for replacements to ensure the relative proportion of the Cross Benches remains consistent after the passage of the Bill.

Contemporary political scientists and commentators —and, after this afternoon’s debate, I think the majority of your Lordships—consider that the expert, independent and ameliorating presence of the Cross Benches in this House is an essential element of its good legislative function. The Cross Benches provide considerable subject matter expertise not found on the more political Benches and tend to carry an apolitical casting vote that acts as a dampener to the political noise that emanates from the other place and is echoed here through the party-political Benches. We mess with that tempering role at our peril. I would ask the Minister to explain clearly in her closing speech how the Government propose to ensure that the Cross Benches of your Lordships’ House will not be diminished as a result of this legislation.

Your Lordships may recall that we debated this in Committee with Amendment 51, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, added their names. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, apologises that he cannot be here today, but he reiterated his support when we spoke this morning. He previously noted the importance of HOLAC and the people’s Peers process as a means of admitting distinguished and apolitical expertise to your Lordships’ House. The angels of HOLAC would not gain access by any other means. Think of the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Lane- Fox, Lady Bull, Lady Watkins and the indefatigable Lady Kidron—the champion of our creative industries. Think of the tireless work of many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Pannick, Lord Patel, Lord Currie and Lord Adebowale. None would have been here but for HOLAC.

Amendment 19 would ensure that your Lordships’ House continues to benefit from this HOLAC appointments process, which is particularly important given the dramatic decrease in the number of HOLAC appointments in recent years. To reiterate the numbers referenced in Committee, there were 57 appointments during HOLAC’s first 10 years between 2000 and 2010. Since then, there have been only a further 19 appointments, with six since 2018.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

As a former member of HOLAC, I wonder if I might intervene briefly. In the term in which I served on HOLAC, we would have liked to have introduced two or three Cross-Bench Peers a year, which had normally been the case. I am afraid that we were prevented from doing so by the Prime Minister of the day.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

That is very helpful, because I was going to propose a possible number. As I was saying: in other words, from initially making nearly six HOLAC appointments a year, we now have only one such appointment annually.

Despite having a non-partisan, highly qualified appointments commission, we are simply not making use of it. Given that this Government are determined to honour the constitutional commitments of the Blair years with the Bill’s passage and the final abolition of the hereditary peerage, should they not also honour the Blair Government’s connected commitment to HOLAC and permit the replenishment of the Cross Benches in the way proposed by Amendment 19, which would ensure a modest appointment rate of perhaps four people’s Peers per annum?

As I have previously noted, I do not think that hereditary Peers should be converted into life Peers in any significant number. Amendment 9 should not pass. This is because our particular demographic will remain well overrepresented among the remaining Members of your Lordships’ House. I do not therefore see Amendment 19 as a route for abolished hereditaries to return to these seats, albeit that they would be welcome to apply with anybody else as common citizens. Rather, we should take advantage of the removal of the hereditary presence to increase the diversity of our membership and bring a broader array of expertise and opinion to bear upon your Lordships’ legislative efforts.

As I understood it—and as mentioned earlier—one of the main reasons for retaining a rump of hereditaries back in 1999 was that it would encourage the further reform of this House, leaving it better, not worse, as a legislative body. I am concerned that the Bill, as currently drafted, removes a group of largely independent-minded Members and increases the proportion of Members that are politically motivated. Amendment 19 would reverse that and replenish the House with a group of non-partisan and technically expert Members. It also has the benefit of diluting, if only a little, the relative increase in prime ministerial patronage that will result from the loss of hereditary Peers, which must surely be a good thing.

On that basis, I recommend it to your Lordships and look forward to hearing from the Minister why it cannot be adopted to support the continued and essential vibrancy of our Cross Benches.

Middle East

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her comments. To be absolutely clear, we are leaving no stone unturned in getting aid into Gaza. We are working with a range of NGOs—everyone possible—but we remain committed to the solution of ensuring that aid is properly distributed through the main agency, UNRWA. We have sought assurances on that and we have taken every opportunity that we have had to put it to the Israeli Government that they should open those routes to aid to ensure that it can get through. We are now in a desperate situation; as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, those seeking aid through the US-Israeli agency are being shot as they approach the distribution points. That cannot be right. We must be able to get proper aid in through the appropriate agencies.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that the first port of call for the Iranians to be provided with something not immediately available in the world—scientific expertise in nuclear weaponry, to replace the nuclear scientists whom we know have been killed—was Moscow? Is the Minister confident that, against the backdrop of the talks that will necessarily take place, and as we cannot yet identify what has happened to the uranium and given that particular port of call, we will keep our eye on the ball over what Iran will do in future?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right, and we should be concerned that that was the Iranian Foreign Minister’s first port of call, and we should be aware of what Putin said to him. However, that means it is imperative that we support President Trump, who has made it clear that the only long-term solution to ensuring Iran does not have a nuclear weapons capability is to “do a deal”, as the President puts it. We will absolutely be supporting our ally in achieving that fundamental objective.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I am not going to continue on the saga of the front door, although I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just said. Even I am considered occasionally a bit more diplomatic than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is right that there are now a number of areas for which there is joint responsibility, and one of them is security. I have been conscious of the fact that the House of Commons seems to dominate decision-making. Wherever it comes from, whether it is the Speaker, the House of Commons Commission, the Services Committee or whatever, they always get their own way and the interests of this House are not properly considered.

Neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are blaming the Leader of the House, who does everything she can, as do the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Speaker, but we should back them up and say that where it is sensible to have Joint Committees, we should have them. There should be more joint working on catering, for example; it seems crazy that we have two completely separate catering departments. There are whole areas like that which could be brought more closely together, but, in doing so, the interests of this House must not be forgotten. I say that having been a Member of the other place and recognising its pre-eminence regarding legislation; but in terms of this Building, the use of it and our own interests, we are just as important as the House of Commons.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that all those individuals—and I mean individuals rather than collective groups of people—who sign contracts on behalf of this House have professional indemnity insurance? Can she explain to the House what that level of cover is and what decisions were made in determining how much it should be?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

To follow up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my colleague on this lovely front door, I have good information that it is the first time that such a design has been used. Why should we be guinea pigs? We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right—did no one test it first?

On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here? I imagine not, but we have to make sure it does not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.

House of Lords: Nominations for Appointment

Baroness Browning Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, that is exactly the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about having two separate categories of peerage. I come back to the point that for all noble Lords it is an honour to be appointed to your Lordships’ House, but that brings with it responsibilities. I know noble Lords from across the House are very disappointed if colleagues are appointed and we do not see them, so I will take that back. Those who are appointed to this House at present do have a responsibility. I do not mean that everybody has to be here all day every day and be a full-time Peer, but we do have expectations that Members will be committed to the work of this House and play a part in it.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of HOLAC. May I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether, in discussion with the Prime Minister and others, there would be a complete discussion about the position of the Prime Minister in this role? HOLAC looks at the individual nominee from the point of view of propriety; it does not have the power to assess suitability, as that rests with the Prime Minister when sending the list forward in the first place. May I say to her that, if HOLAC suggests that, on the grounds of propriety, a person is not suitable for this House, the Prime Minister must accept that recommendation in future?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a duty, an obligation and a responsibility on all party leaders who put forward nominees that they should be suitable for the work of this House. The points that the noble Baroness makes are ones that we are considering.