UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This is a timely and important debate, and we have already heard a variety of views. I also look forward to the speeches from my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis and the noble Lord—also, I am sure, a noble father—Lord Boswell. I will look at this deal through the prism of defence and security and address these issues.

You cannot live, as I do, across the Clyde from Faslane, which houses our nuclear deterrent, and not have a sharply honed understanding of the importance of sovereignty. Indeed, one of the most salient arguments for me in the Scottish independence debate, favouring the union, was how independence would create a vulnerable Scotland, stripped of influence on the geopolitical stage and with a skeletal—some would say risible—defence capability. Having sovereign control over that UK defence capability gives strength and authority, and signals to adversaries, “You do not meddle with us, because you cannot meddle with us”. That is what sovereignty means: that unique strength and protection underpin everything that we do in defence.

When I was a Defence Minister, I was clear that, whatever was being discussed about Diego Garcia, and for whatever reasons, our defence and security interests must remain paramount. The admiral, the noble Lord, Lord West, the former First Sea Lord and the Chief of Naval Staff, warned in a Policy Exchange report that

“ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests—and the interests of our closest allies—in danger”.

These are powerful words and since the previous Government commenced exploratory discussions, global tensions have increased and the geopolitical situation has deteriorated. It is now unprecedentedly unpredictable.

My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, as the then Foreign Secretary, made his concerns clear to the Select Committee in the other place in early 2024. The previous Government did not sign off a deal; the risk was too high.

Two committees of this House—the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee—have published very informative reports on this deal. They certainly deserve our thanks. This agreement still needs to clear Parliament and I hope this debate will help the Government better understand why, in relation to defence and security, red lights are flashing all over the place.

It is regrettable, as has already been mentioned, that the request that the International Agreements Committee made to the Foreign Secretary for more time for parliamentary scrutiny was refused without reasons being given. For an issue of such primary importance as our global defence and security in this turbulent world, that is weak. Why were the Government so afraid of scrutiny?

Perhaps the answer can be found within the two reports to which I referred. Both confirm that there was a difference of legal opinion about whether the UK Government were under any obligation to act. The International Relations and Defence Committee cut to the chase; the chairman’s letter to the Foreign Secretary stated:

“While we heard differing legal interpretations of whether the UK was required to transfer sovereignty, both the preceding and current governments were involved in negotiations with Mauritius, and the decision to proceed was ultimately political”.


So there we have it—it was political, not a legally based decision. This Government are not obliged to transfer sovereignty and were not required to sign a deal. Our essential interests can still be protected by opposing this treaty.

Why does this matter? Let me quote again from the letter, at annexe A, paragraph 4:

“Witnesses were unanimous in their view that Diego Garcia holds a pivotal strategic role for the UK and US and that it is critical for broader Western security strategy in the Indo-Pacific. Dr Zack Cooper, Senior Fellow on US strategy in Asia at the American Enterprise Institute, described Diego Garcia as the ‘pivot point’ between the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, underpinning critical US naval and air operations”.


Which country is dominant in the Indian Ocean? China. Which country appears to be the new best friend of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean? Again, it is China. Are there any countries that explicitly approve of this deal? Yes, Russia and China. This is a dangerous deal and should be ditched, because the most carefully drafted text in the world cannot substitute for sovereignty. Even the wisdom of Solomon cannot achieve that.

I conclude by observing what my noble friend Lord Callanan already referred to. The cost of this will be met largely by an already-stretched defence budget, with the Government scraping around to find every penny they can. Defence is being asked to pay for the gravely weakened defence and security position the Government have created. I support the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan.

National Security Strategy

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It was important that the Prime Minister should, in advance of the NATO summit, signal the priority the Government attach to defence and national security. On these Benches we support that approach, as we do the analysis by the Government of the perceived major threats confronting the United Kingdom. There is much in the strategy with which these Benches can agree. I am aware of the continuity of advice to successive Prime Ministers on defence and security from No. 10 sources. I think that is very helpful, and I pay tribute to that expertise.

Protecting our country and our people from threat is the primary responsibility of the Government, and that was explicitly recognised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the other place. But that analysis and that primary obligation of government bring onerous and challenging responsibilities. First, I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in the other place in thanking our security and intelligence services, and all our defence personnel, for the extraordinary work they do to keep us all safe.

Secondly, I say to the Leader of the House that over the last few months a pattern has emerged from the Government of a series of important announcements concerning defence and security intentions but with two glaring omissions: no specific detail and no specific funding. These omissions seriously damage credibility, and I shall touch further on these aspects in my questions.

Let me deal first with security and intelligence. The Statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars: security at home, strength abroad and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. These Benches welcome actions that build on the measures that my party put in place when in government, including the National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action. It also introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. At home, protecting critical national infrastructure is paramount and there has to be a lead body for that. Is that the Home Office or the MoD, or is it a tandem operation? Are strategic discussions taking place as to who is taking the lead? It may be that there is to be a new joint task force, but any further information the Leader of the House can provide on that would be very helpful.

Within the United Kingdom, our citizens and businesses face cyber threats on an unprecedented scale. Given the recent identification by the Government of threats posed by China, may I ask three questions? First, are the Government confident that they have appropriate vetting mechanisms in place to understand whether imported Chinese goods pose security threats, and by whom and how are these mechanisms applied? Secondly, specifically in relation to energy infrastructure, how do the Government monitor whether potential malign activity is taking place, and are they satisfied with the robustness of the monitoring process? Thirdly, I have a very simple question. Will China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

On strength abroad, these Benches welcome the strategic defence review but express profound concern about the lack of detail on timing for many of the proposals and the vagueness surrounding money. In relation to the NATO summit, while the commitment to increase what the Government describe as national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% of that to be spent on core defence, is in principle welcome, there is no funding plan. We have been unable to elicit how the Government will fund even 3%. That omission—that lack of material detail—undermines the credibility of the Government’s intention.

To their credit, the Government understand the urgency of the threat—but not, apparently, the urgency of the money. For example, while the strategy document is in many respects admirable, I had to get to page 27 before I found reference to any specific sum of money, which is £1 billion to establish

“a new network of National Biosecurity Centres”.

On the next page, there is reference to £520 million to be invested

“in UK-based Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Vaccine manufacturing facilities”.

That is what I mean when I say there is a threadbare character about the Government’s funding specification. Can the Leader of the House shed light on when the 3% is to come through, when the extra 0.5% is expected to materialise and what the remaining 1.5% is to cover? If she cannot answer these fundamental questions, the Government are proceeding on a wing and a prayer.

On Monday this House will have a welcome opportunity to debate the Chagos deal. In relation to the defence budget, we understand that the cost of the deal will come out of the defence funding pot, which makes answers on increased defence spending all the more pressing. Promising more on the one hand, while whisking money away with the other, is adding to the opaqueness. That is what is damaging the credibility of what I am sure are the Government’s good intentions on our defence and security.

On these Benches, we shall support the Government’s efforts to strengthen our defence capability, to improve our security and intelligence services and to make our critical national infrastructure more resilient. I commend the Prime Minister on demonstrating maturity and responsibility when dealing with acutely challenging and fast-moving global situations, but these Benches will ask questions and seek clarity when that is what our national security interests demand.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy. In a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those who have dedicated their careers to making us safe, and I pay tribute to them. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House, and I thank them too.

We therefore support a great deal in this strategy—its judgment on the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers through technological change, and the need to address them across all of government, the economy and society as a whole. There should be, of course, a high level of cross-party support. I hope the Government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many workstreams that fed into this strategy so that we can monitor and appraise for progress.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global, open and interconnected country only if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports.

This is why, for example, I was very happy to see Taiwan mentioned in paragraph 21. Taiwanese security and the openness of the South China Sea are critical to our technology industry and wider trade. I welcome the aircraft carrier task group currently in the region. It is a key shipping route, essential for our economy. I will refer to China a little later, but the Leader of the House may not agree with me on those aspects.

We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, as the Leader knows. It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary?

We do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake, and we are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence and military leaders and chiefs, diplomats, and heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against malign interference.

The western Balkans is rightly raised in the strategy. Twice in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, funded by ODA. I hope that it is not under threat. If the Leader can provide reassurance on our posture within the western Balkans, that would be appreciated.

The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were raised, and rightly so. I welcome what was said, but we have to recall that, in the spending review, there are year-on-year cuts to the operational budget of the FCDO going forward.

On other threats, such as biosecurity, I agree that we are less of an island than many might hope. Last night, I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every single page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. There was a reason why, 10 years ago, Ebola did not become Covid: it was because of the UK, through DfID and ODA. But this document makes no mention of it at all. In fact, with regards to official development assistance, there is only the most passing reference in paragraph 30.

We welcome the elements on research and development and the reconnection with Europe to regain the ground that we lost considerably under the previous Government. Page 11 says that we will go

“further than the agreements we have already struck”

with the EU. That is good news. In what areas will new agreements be sought?

We will consider the China audit next week, but the Leader may know that we on these Benches are concerned about the Government’s approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed £600 million of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the Government announced £600 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We would like to see legislative action on transnational repression suffered by people living here in the UK. The director-general of MI5 has made public warnings that China exploits education agreements and sovereign funds for espionage on an industrial scale. Although we welcome the first scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret both that China is not on the enhanced tier and that education and sovereign funds are exempted.

Finally, I want to look further to the future. The convulsive violence in the Middle East, Sudan and elsewhere will have a lingering effect here in the UK. Community cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our national security strategy, because we know from previous conflicts that there is a lag, whereby young people affected by it now may well be radicalised in the years to come. Activities such as the Chamberlain Highbury Trust that bring communities together are examples of good work that we are doing in the UK, but, regrettably, as a result of the heightened conflicts that this strategy rightly seeks to address, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores in the future. Investment now is necessary so that we do not pay the price later.

Israel and Iran

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I fully understand the comments by the noble and gallant Lord. I was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, and I thought there was pretty unhelpful speculation about motives and intent. The simple fact is the reality in the world when we look. People mentioned Syria: there was an internal pressure in Syria and the regime fell because of that internal pressure, but history tells us that, when there is an external pressure on a regime, the consequences are the complete opposite. Some of those opposition people on the radio this morning were reflecting some of that—they saw things in a different light than perhaps we see from the newspapers.

I reassure the noble and gallant Lord: the reality is that we remain absolutely concerned about the nuclear potential of Iran. We want to see that limited and stopped completely, and we want to see mechanisms to achieve that. I know I repeated this many times on Monday: President Trump knows that, too. He wants a deal, and that is what we have to focus on and use all diplomatic means to do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Britain has an absolute right to protect British assets and British personnel in the region from hostile action. Will the Minister confirm that the Government regard that right as inviolable?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have sent flights to the region to ensure that our assets are fully protected and that we are fully prepared for any of the consequences. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question. I may have missed it—I was concentrating on reading—but if she cares to repeat it, we have plenty of time. Did I answer?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

There was comment in the media earlier today about possible legal interpretation of when conflict is permissible and when joining that conflict is acceptable legally. I was merely concerned to understand that the fundamental right of a sovereign country to defend personnel and assets in a region from hostile action is an inviolable right and that the Government understand that.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.

Parliamentary Commercial Department

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.

Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, on the face of it, it is utterly illogical and ridiculous for me to have signed this amendment. I want to get rid of the hereditaries and the Bishops—no offence. I want to make this House at least half the size. I agree, a little, on all sorts of things with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but let us deal with size in a different place.

Leaders already have quite a lot of power. We have tested these people. That is the whole point. We know the records of the Lords we are getting rid of—we have seen them and heard them. To suggest that they might not be a fit is also illogical. Of course, they do not need the title. I am sure that a lot of us just love being Lords and Ladies, but they do not, because they have been Lords all their lives, so for them it is not a promotion.

This Bill has an element of prejudice—I do not like it. As a working-class person, I loathe privilege and this sort of nonsense, but, at the same time, I also resent separating people into groups where you pick on them —we had an Oral Question on this today. So I very much support this.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on putting together an eclectic mix of people to support her—all women. That is interesting, I am not sure she intended that. This has been a painful debate and this amendment would close it. It would be an elegant solution to what has been a terrible amount of drudgery for all of us.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken sparingly on this Bill, wishing to speak only if I had something useful to say—a self-discipline which I note has not been practised universally during the course of the Bill. To summarise my position, the principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable in 2025; the Bill should not be opposed; but the Bill has consequences for the functionality of this House.

I provided evidence at Second Reading that a hard-working, regularly attending cohort of hereditary Peers was making a valued contribution to this House. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, confirmed the point eloquently in her contribution. My solution was to convert some of them into life Peers.

If I understand the position of the Government correctly, the valued contribution being made to the House by this hard-working core of hereditaries is not disputed. Nor do the Government seem to refute, in principle, the idea of a conversion to life Peers—according to Labour Back-Benchers, you achieve that by putting the names on a party list and submitting that for approval, as is current practice.

So, if we have agreement on the two main consequences of the Bill, what is the best way of finding a solution when it is this Bill that is creating the consequences? The “prepare a party list for conversion to life Peers” approach has, to me, two obvious failings. It takes no account of the Cross-Benchers, who are very valuable Members of this House precisely because they have no party-political affiliation and have to sign a statement to that effect. They cannot organise a party list. Secondly, surely we owe it to the hard-working hereditaries who have been turning up and doing their share of the heavy lifting to recognise that contribution as a House and offer a House solution to what is a one-off event? This abolition will not recur.

The sensible amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Mobarik provides just that. That her amendment has drawn support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, speaks volumes for the common-sense desire across the House to find that elegant solution.

I had hoped that by this point conversations would have been taking place through usual channels to progress this solution, but it seems that this process has become constipated. If my noble friend’s amendment, with the authoritative support it has garnered, administers the necessary dose of laxative, it has my unqualified support.

Even the dogs on the street know that we have to come up with a solution. I hope the Government will sense the momentum behind this amendment, will become positive in their reading of the mood of the Committee, and will be prepared to come forward with something constructive.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I find myself very much in sympathy with the intention of this amendment and particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said a few moments ago.

Our tradition in this House is evolution, not revolution. We know the outstanding contribution that many of the hereditaries have made to our work. My concern is that in the ongoing work that we do, the sheer thousands of amendments that have been passed because of the detailed work that this House has done—I do not have the figures at hand—sorting out some complex but sometimes misguided Bills that have come to us, have often relied on some of the most expert, established and experienced Members of this House.

This amendment would not undermine the fundamental principle of the Bill. I think everybody in the Committee accepts that it has come because it was part of the election manifesto, and we want to work with that. But this would enable us to draw on the huge expertise and ensure that we can focus our abilities to keep doing our fundamental work. It would be only a temporary phase, and eventually the Bill would achieve what it wants to do. Meanwhile, I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look closely at this to see whether we can find a way through that draws on the best experience we can of the Members of your Lordships’ House as we take our work forward.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, while it is not a registrable interest, I am a member of the Church of Scotland, an elder of the Church and, with recent effect, a worship leader. With that background, I value the presence of the Bishops in your Lordships’ House as Lords spiritual; I am not sure that we voice that appreciation often enough. It is good to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in her place: I see her and her spiritual colleagues less as advocates for the Church of England and much more as disciples of Christ and the manifestation of a Christian presence in Parliament, and I welcome that enhancement.

I am not precious about which Christian denomination discharges that role, and that is not intended to be disrespectful to the Church of England. What matters to me is that, across our different Christian denominations, we believe in the word of God as contained in the scriptures and we seek to live out that example. That is the tremendous strength that we have in common and what cements us together. So, as a child growing up in a sectarian Scotland, there was a lot which I found baffling. I heard the playground slights, the derogatory remarks about those from a different Christian background. What I found increasingly incomprehensible was that these two denominations, the Protestant Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church were apparently commanded to do the same thing, to

“love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and … love thy neighbour as thyself”.

Perversely, this was traduced by so-called adherents of both Churches to a crass representation of hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

Let me be clear that the transgressors were not the practitioners within the two denominations but the so-called hangers-on, whose grasp of theology was tenuous, whose bigotry was entrenched and who personified a complete absence of Christian love and forgiveness. People were judged, dismissed as of no value and written off because of their surname, how they spelled their surname or where they went to school. Fortunately, increasing enlightenment and tolerance over decades have brought about much-needed change. I pay tribute to all the Churches in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, the politicians and the charities that have worked so hard to erase this ugly stain of sectarianism.

My own parish church in Bishopton has a great relationship with our friends in Our Lady of Lourdes, the local Roman Catholic church, and there are many similar examples to be found across Scotland. Playing her part in this transformation with characteristic skill and compassion was Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The historic and memorable visit by Pope Benedict to Scotland in 2010, when he was received by Her Majesty at Holyrood Palace, was a watershed moment. I was privileged to be there and the sense of history being made, of a new age of tolerance, was tangible.

This Bill is the essence of brevity but, in simple terms, removes an unjustifiable inequality. It abolishes an impediment which has existed for 196 years to a person of the Roman Catholic faith becoming, at the choice of the monarch, the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland. A Christian might be moved to say “Amen: what more is there to add?” As a Member of your Lordships’ House, I say, “A wrong at last righted, and high time too”. I can think of no more appropriate and distinguished incumbent under these new arrangements than Lady Elish Angiolini. To her, I extend my very best wishes and I support the Bill.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I want to start with what is undeniable. This House is good at its job; a core cohort of committed Peers and the bishops makes that possible. Let me say in relation to the bishops that I believe in a presence of faith in this House. They have the best Chief Whip of all, the Almighty, and that is good enough for me.

The principle of hereditary Peers is unsustainable. The Labour Party, in its manifesto, committed specifically to removing the remaining hereditary Peers and to introducing a mandatory retirement age of 80. These changes proposed by the Government have significant constitutional consequences, so where does this amalgam of undeniable facts get us?

It gets us into a bit of a mess, I am afraid, because there are no logical linkages between the start point of a House which is good at its job, reducing numbers, abolishing remaining hereditaries, sacking everyone who is 80 and over and ending up with a House which is good at its job. That will not be the end point. Others will have their view about how such fractured and disjointed reform can work. They will express specific concerns about the Bill and rightly focus on the very real problems of addressing poor attendance and minimal contribution to the work of the House, and a much-needed refreshment of the Salisbury convention. Well, I am a pragmatist, so I am going to address what is before us now.

I want to tease out what the Bill means in practice and explore whether there is any way we can reconcile the Government’s manifesto commitments with an end point of delivering a well-functioning House. Yes, of course, the Government can charge ahead with this legislation, but there are constitutional consequences. Let me make it clear that the following are my personal views—and I am not deliberately assaulting my colleague on the Front Bench with my notes.

I suggest that it would be helpful to separate the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve from the consequences, and then have an intelligent conversation about managing the transition. To inform that conversation, I have done my own research on who the hereditary Peers are and what roles they have in the House. I can tell your Lordships, because I believe so passionately in this place, that this was a labour of love, because the task was not easy.

Of the 88 hereditary Peers, this is what I discovered. There may be minor errors, but I believe the main facts to be correct and am more than happy if anyone wants to verify them. They do not completely match what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to, but we may have been looking at different sources. Six are Deputy Speakers, one of whom is the Convenor of the Cross Benches. An additional three discharge advisory panel duties for the Lord Speaker. Eleven are opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. Thirty-six serve on committees, of whom 20 serve on a single committee, 12 serve on two committees, two serve on three committees, one serves on five committees and, deserving of an award for valour, one serves on six committees. These 56 regularly contribute to the proceedings of the House. As for the remaining 32 not holding roles, I am here every week and my impression is that a considerable number of them also contribute. That is all part of scrutiny, so the question is: will removing the hereditary Peers impact on the efficacy of this House? Yes, I strongly believe it will.

Let me turn to the second commitment: the cull of the octogenarians. There are many people in their 80s in this House who are sharp as tacks. They do their share of the heavy lifting regularly and impressively, supporting the work of the House. They have the experience and mental acuity to do that well. Will their removal impact on the efficacy of this House? Yes, I strongly believe it will.

What happens if both culls take place at the same time? In my opinion, the functionality of the House is then seriously challenged, so, if the Bill is to progress, the Government, if they really care about this House and are not trying by covert means to reduce scrutiny and transfer predominant control of appointments to the Executive, have to be sensible and reassurance is urgently required. Here is what I suggest.

First, to preserve some degree of stability in this place, the Government should cancel the cull of the octogenarians and confirm their willingness to do that. Then, with immediate effect, through the usual channels, they should engage in productive discussions to invite party and group leaders to identify retirals of any of their Peers to assist in an early reduction of numbers. Secondly, the Government should consult with party and group leaders to prepare a list of the abolished hereditaries who should then be converted into life Peers; that conversion list has to be entirely separate from any party or HOLAC nominees presented for appointment in the usual manner. If the Government are able to provide such reassurance by amendment to the Bill, I anticipate that the proceedings of this House would continue to run smoothly.

I know there are many Members of this House, not least on the Labour Benches, who believe in this place and do not want to see it diminished. I believe that is the view of the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. But what is very clear to me is that, unless we can find some practical way forward, there is going to be a very difficult period ahead of us for this place. I have endeavoured to offer a non-partisan, practical way forward and I hope that the Government can be receptive.

In conclusion, in my view, any further reform of this House should proceed by way of consultation and consensus, not by a unilateral party edict.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to follow such a feisty and articulate octogenarian as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. May he continue to entertain us for many years to come. I shall try to reduce this contribution to simple components: purpose, presence, pragmatism.

The purpose of this House is to scrutinise legislation from the other place, improve it—sadly, a frequent requirement—and, by our Chamber and committee activity, better inform public debate. By any assessment, we discharge that responsibility very well. The presence within this House of political parties, Cross-Benchers, Bishops and a number of non-affiliated Peers reflects an impressive array of experience, talent and expertise. That explains without need for further enlargement why we discharge our responsibilities so effectively. To be fair, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged that. Pragmatism largely explains how we work. We make bad law good and good law better. The raucous exchanges familiar to elected Chambers are mercifully mostly absent from this one. By contrast, there is a discernible and collaborative desire to analyse and get to the heart of any issue, legislative or otherwise, and a House with the aggregate talent to be able to do that. I accept that to many onlookers the wonder is that this works at all, but it does, and those of us who attend regularly know that.

Pragmatism, I suggest, should be the overriding consideration in any attempt to reform this House. I see the House of Lords like an intricate tapestry. How many of us spotting a thread hanging down from a jacket or pair of trousers have tugged at it to find that the entire hem falls down or the seam falls apart, or have pulled an annoying thread sticking out of a button only to lose the button altogether? Let me make two general observations. If in the main this House functions satisfactorily, we should be cautious about embarking on change. That is not advocating for no change at all—very far from it—but rather urging clear analysis and identification of what the problems are before we try to solve them.

Secondly, if after such analysis change is considered necessary, it must be approached in a holistic manner with regard to how the House operates as a whole. If we do not do that, we neither understand the threads we are pulling out nor what the unintended consequences may be. What is unworkable is tinkering with the structure, removing a bit here and there, and hoping that the rest will somehow stumble along. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House calls that incremental, but I call it disjointed.

The Government are committed to addressing the issue of hereditary Peers in this House, and in their manifesto they also deployed ageism, opining that by the age of 80 you are past it and should get out. That is discrimination. We have just seen at first hand the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and there are sterling contributions made by Peers in their 80s whose experience is relevant, whose expertise informs and whose acuity is breathtaking. The proposal also drives a cart and horse through female representation in this House. I hope that the Government have begun to see the light, having recently appointed some imminent or actual octogenarians of their own, and they are very welcome. I would like to think that I am still good for a few years to go.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Thank you, my Lords. What the Government’s ageism experiment has demonstrated is that a disjointed approach to reform does not work. On the principle of hereditary Peers, we hit the same buffers. It is difficult to argue for the retention of such a system in a 21st-century democracy, but what is not workable is taking a machete to the hereditaries, culling 88 Peers from the membership of this House and expecting it still to be able to do its job. That is a constitutional onslaught. If at a stroke we lose these 88 Peers, who reflect a welcome age span, a geographical spread and diversity of experience and expertise, how do the Government expect proper scrutiny of legislation, adequate manning of committees, not to mention support for the Lord Speaker and his department and servicing the Woolsack? At present, our proceedings are not just enhanced by the hereditaries; the hereditaries are critical to getting the business done. That void cannot be filled by prime ministerial appointments. That takes the constitutional unacceptable to the constitutional repugnant.

This all goes much deeper than disquiet about the hereditary principle. It strikes at the heart of our British constitutional governance, our distinct and different role from the elected House and the largely unwritten but workable parliamentary equilibrium which has evolved over decades. I urge the Government to reflect very carefully before they start pulling out individual threads of the intricate tapestry. Intelligent change requires reflection, consultation, understanding of the implications of change and the wisdom of seeking consensus.