Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the report. I congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues on producing a unanimous, thoughtful and forward-looking report, which I hope we can, in effect, endorse today and, in due course, adopt its recommendations.

Taking on the implementation of a manifesto commitment ourselves is surely the best way to bring about change—not being dragged screaming and shouting to the inevitable outcome, but through debate and consensus. I therefore very much regretted the tone and content of the speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord True, would have learned from his experience of resisting and resisting the Grocott Bill, which would have very gradually ended the hereditary principle. We probably would never have had to “expel”, in his words —or, in ours, let go of—the hereditaries. He resisted that in government and then in opposition, and that is a shame. I hope we can do this differently.

This is a working, legislative House, and whatever decisions we make today must be centred on what enables our—Peers’—time, expertise and collective wisdom to be best used. This is not a retirement House, and appointment to it should be not as a thanks for services rendered but, as the heading on my list when I came here said, as a “working Peer”. Our central role is to share responsibility with the Commons to make laws.

I have always worried about being appointed for life rather than for as long as one can contribute, which is why I welcome the introduction of a participation requirement—although, like my noble friend, I would have quite liked appointment terms. I strongly welcome the introduction of a retirement age, partly because we all fade with age but, more importantly, because if we are to do good work here we need to be continuously refreshed by those who have more recently been in their particular area of work or expertise.

When I arrived 16 years ago, I was very fresh from the consumer and charity world, but that experience is now 16 years old. Surely it is right that we move over and let those with more up-to-date experience, contacts and knowledge make their contribution to emerging legislation in their areas of expertise. We do not hold in our heads all the experience of the world.

We could do this through maximum terms of appointment, as I have said, but the Labour Party manifesto took the other view: that age was the correct criterion. Of course we will lose some Members who we will miss a lot—although I still think we will be friends with them—but we would be able to welcome a new generation with much to offer.

These proposals will not solve the issue of the size of the House, but they do two things. First, they signal that we recognise the need for a reduction in size and have designed a tool to start that process, rather than leaving it to the Commons and the Government, who could be rather more draconian. Secondly, it begins our side of that bargain: we are choosing to slim down, and our example should, I hope, help stay the hand of future Prime Ministers—whether under this or any other Government—about how many people they appoint here.

The Government were elected on a manifesto with a retirement age of 80. We should help that happen. The process is ingenious: it is staged, but clear and predictable. We have all looked to see our date of retirement, and I will tell noble Lords a secret: I will be leaving on my birthday—I am one of those. There will be a time, therefore, when I will be the oldest person in the House. I never thought that would be my aspiration, but it is now.

I support the report. Let us do this ourselves—willingly, not with it enforced on us, and with a bit of humility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I am slightly surprised to hear this from the party opposite, which went through rather a lot of Prime Ministers. Somehow I do not remember that party calling the manifesto discredited at that stage.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will ignore that comment.

We have not sought to agree a collective position across our Benches. It is for noble Lords to come to their own view. Of course the Front Bench has a view, but we must always respect the views of our Back-Benchers.

It is not for a single House of Parliament to expel parliamentarians. This is a proposal that has been brought forward by the Government. Let them bring forward a Bill. It is for Parliament to decide.

As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in our debate, Parliament may wish to implement grandfather rights without opposing the Government’s plans for a mandatory retirement age. That was the solution when the Irish representative Peers were expelled. It is what the House voted for during the progress of what is now the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026. We also know that a resolution of the House would not prevent Peers refusing to leave in line with the committee’s proposals. Peers may fairly argue that the test should be the competence, not the age, of the Peer. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to earlier, age is being mistaken for capacity. Peers may also argue that the other place has no mandatory age limit, so why should their departure not be voluntary? All this is a recipe for a continuing, rumbling discord in this House. If we are to have a mandatory age, let the Government bring it forward and allow both Houses to scrutinise it thoroughly.

Perhaps the most painful part of the committee’s report is the proposal that Peers be expelled from the House mid-Session, once they reach the age of 80. Grandfather rights would avoid that. Transitional arrangements are proposed in this report, but these do not mitigate the real impact that mid-Session expulsion would have on the work of Peers. If a Peer knows that they are expected to leave the House in the middle of a Session, that will disincentivise them from being involved: from speaking at Second Reading and tabling amendments in Committee in those final months of their public service. Our most experienced Peers might step back sooner than they should, depriving the House of their wisdom and good judgment. We must carefully consider all these issues. In the case of previous expulsions, which themselves caused real acrimony and unpleasantness, Peers saw out the Session. We opposed those expulsions, but the House at least accepted that Peers must be given the opportunity to complete their current work before being forced to leave the House. Surely that is the least we can do.

We know that the average retirement age is not much over 80 at present, so why are we doing this? We must balance the negative effect that mid-Session expulsion will have on the scrutinising work of Peers against the reality that these measures are solving a problem that exists in theory but will have very little impact on average. The impact of this change will not merely affect an average; it is not just a question of numbers. Behind the statistics that we have heard today are noble Lords who have dedicated their lives to public service—noble Lords we have known, worked with, agreed and disagreed with—and they are the people alongside whom we have voted for many years. The moment of their expulsion marks the endpoint of a long and distinguished career in public service, and we must consider the individual impact of these proposals and how that affects our work as a House. They should be given the opportunity to complete their work as parliamentarians rather than being expelled suddenly as the guillotine falls. That would allow noble Lords to bring their contribution to public life to an end in the way that they wish, as they deserve, rather than being bound by an arbitrary date.

As we have heard, the Government’s plans mean the departure of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. We have heard how he won the House’s support for his amendment to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill earlier this year. As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising reminded us, the noble and gallant Lord was 96 when he won that Division. These plans will mean losing the expertise of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral from the Opposition Front Bench. We have benefited from his extensive ministerial experience, and he helped lead the House in challenging the most damaging elements of the Government’s Employment Rights Bill.

Under this proposal we will also lose distinguished noble Lords from the Government Benches, such as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, who were both singled out for special praise by the Prime Minister in his first speech as leader of the Labour Party in July. We will lose the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has so ably demonstrated his reputation as a defender of parliamentary scrutiny in recent weeks. The loss of noble Lords across the House is not just a point of personal pain, although we on these Benches ask the Government what these friends of ours have done wrong. Their loss also has an impact on our work. Losing the expertise of long-serving noble Lords risks the quality of our scrutiny. It is this effect that we should put at the forefront of our minds.

My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has set down four tests that we should consider in our deliberations. Will what we do improve the ability of the House to hold the Government to account? Will it enrich the experience of the House? Will it enhance the independence of the House from recent or present Governments? Lastly, will it enable the House and its committees to do their revising work better? Those are the tests we must apply before taking any decision on the future of our House, and we believe the proposals before us fail those tests.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the intent behind the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I believe that it is right that the House be given the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in exhaustive detail, given the significance of the legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out, the comparison that can be legitimately drawn with government legislation of equal significance but perhaps less moment that has had a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation.

I also think it right to take account of the point that was made fairly and succinctly by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: that we are being invited to commit to extra time without necessarily knowing how much and under what circumstances. We may receive enlightenment from the Government Front Bench; we may receive indications from Ministers as to what is envisaged; but it would be helpful to know, rather than to vote in favour of or to offer our support for a generalised sentiment rather than a precise plan of action. Indeed, some of the concern about the legislation being put forward has come from those who sympathise with the generalised sentiment of the legislation itself but worry profoundly about implementation.

In the evidence of the Committee that we have had so far, I believe that the debate has been characterised by high-quality interventions from all sides. I would briefly single out the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The debate she initiated on the age at which this momentous decision might be taken prompted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to acknowledge that many wise arguments were raised and that it was appropriate that some discussion should take place outside this place about how her concerns might be taken account of in the legislation. It was gracious of him to do so, but valuable as those conversations outside the Chamber are, they are no substitute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed out, for an acknowledgement in the Chamber of a willingness on the part of the promoters of the Bill and others to come forward with their own amendments, or to accept amendments from other Peers which ensure that the lacunae identified in the legislation are to be properly addressed before we reach Report and Third Reading, or on Report.

My final point—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The mover of the original Bill, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have written to all Members to say that their door is open, offering to discuss a way forward. The offer has been there, and the noble Lord should accept that.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I did accept that, and if I did not make myself clear enough, let me make it absolutely clear: I consider it to be wise and gracious and I am grateful, but it is still no substitute for the legislative process itself and for legislators being satisfied that the acknowledgement of a fault or lacuna in the Bill is to be addressed through an amendment or to be rejected, so we can make a judgment about the Bill, unamended, on that basis. That is the purpose of legislative scrutiny. It is not about reassurances, however polite, well-meant and honourable; it is about legislation. This is a law-making Chamber.

I have two final points. The point was made by Joubert, the French philosopher, that it is better to comprehensively debate a principle without settling it than to settle it without comprehensive debate. That is the essence of the democratic principle—all the more so when we are legislating. I want to see the maximum amount of time, so that the amendments that have been put forward are properly scrutinised. It is not just a personal preference on my part, and here I take profound issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for whom I have enormous respect. She referred to what has been written about our debates outside. We may or may not wish to take account of that, but it is quite wrong to say that this House has been lowered in the estimation of outside observers because of the way in which we have handled the debate on this Bill.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I have to do so because this is a concept that, like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I have proposed in your Lordships’ House on many occasions. I have not heard that support for it from the Conservative Benches in the past, but I have put it forward because I believe it would be a useful component of a wholesale reform programme of your Lordships’ House.

However much I agree that it is useful, I cannot agree that we should vote for it tonight. If I had written the Labour Party manifesto, I might have included it, with many other things, and if I had been the parliamentary draftsman for this Bill, I might have looked much more widely and had a much wider Bill —but I am neither of those things.

We have before us a very specific, narrow Bill. I do not believe that I shall argue later in today’s proceedings even about the content of the agenda for the Select Committee—but this should not be included in it, because it is not based on a manifesto commitment in any way. It is completely piecemeal, and I have not heard support for it in the past as part of a wholesale package of reform. Therefore, however much I might be tempted by the idea, I shall be happy to vote against it if the noble Lord, Lord True, puts the question to the House.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Thinking of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I trust that no wives of these new Lords will take the title “Lady”. That just creates a whole lot—we have wives of Knights who call themselves Ladies, we have wives of noble Lords who call themselves Ladies, and now we have some of us who call ourselves Ladies. If this was to go through, I trust that the new Lords—who I am against, by the way—should not be able to give that honorary title, unless my husband could become Lord Hayter.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the combination of titles with membership of the second Chamber is one of the many things that we have inherited from the medieval period and the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, most of us enjoy it and I particularly enjoy the title that I have, because the village in which I live is a special one, a world heritage site, and people love to come and visit us. But I am occasionally confused—some years ago I was at a conference in Japan from which I had to return early. As I shared a taxi to the airport with a senior Japanese diplomat, he asked me in a most polite way, “Are you returning to your estate”? I wanted to say, “No, 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 a working and modern second Chamber. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord True, in his quirky way, described this as a modernising move. It seems to us to be adding another area of complexity, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to our already highly complex honours system. There are plenty of honours around: there are knighthoods, damehoods, and members of the Order of the Companions of Honour and the Order of Merit. We are not quite sure why—perhaps for the Conservative Party in particular—if one wants to award one’s more generous donors with something, the title of a peerage is particularly important.

The noble Lord, Lord True, did the honour of quoting what I said at Committee. I emphasise that, in terms of modernising the role of the second Chamber, we are in favour of thoroughgoing reform in which the title would be separated from membership of this House. What would then happen to the title is, to us, a matter of secondary importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, has a particular problem with the existence of Liberal Democrats, which relates to events in Richmond in the past. It is even more difficult now that the Liberal Democrats are at roughly the same level as the Conservative Party in the polls.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, used to object to the appallingly high number of Liberal Democrats here at a point when we had, as he would point out, fewer than 10% of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons. Now that we are at two-thirds of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons, I look at those very full Conservative Benches and wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord True, really wish to defend the gross imbalance between Conservatives in this House and the other forms of representation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only in Richmond, but throughout England, the number of Liberal Democrat councillors is about to overtake the number of Conservative councillors, so there are a range of areas that are a source of underlying problems for the noble Lord, Lord True. No doubt he wakes at 2.30am and thinks about the Liberal Democrats in a devilish fashion.

What my party wishes is to separate the honours system from membership of this House. We value the work of the House as a second Chamber, we see it as a working second Chamber and we do not think it should be muddled with the honours system in the future.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

103: Clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to “which” and insert “on the day on”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 103 has generated quite a lot of interest across the House. It is a very simple and easy to understand amendment. It effectively activates what would then be an Act of Parliament on Royal Assent.

Colleagues may not be surprised that I tabled it after the Opposition, most unusually, moved the adjournment of the House, all as part of their attempt to frustrate the legitimate work of a newly elected Government. They won that vote by a majority smaller than the number of hereditary Peers who voted with them. We saw men who sit in the House by virtue of appointment by an earlier Prime Minister—something which they now seem to decry about today’s Prime Minister—stop a newly elected Government continuing with its business that day.

That adjournment may not have been on this Bill, but it was behaviour which is not normally witnessed in your Lordships’ House and which we had hoped would not be seen again. However, I see from the Guardian that something similar has been suggested for trying to stop the Renters’ Rights Bill. I hope that the Guardian is wrong.

With regard to this Bill, we have had to sit through a tsunami of amendments that have no relevance to the purpose of the content of the Bill and which everyone knows will never be part of the Act. It may well be that the clerks said that such amendments were acceptable, but that does not mean that they had to be tabled. Just because you can do something, it does not mean that you should do something. I was particularly surprised to find that His Majesty’s Opposition had tabled amendments on future appointments to this House, which they know have got nothing to do with the Bill and will not find their way into the Act. The mover of that amendment is shaking his head. I think he knows jolly well that they are not to do with the hereditaries and that they will not find their way into this Act. That is not the action of a responsible Opposition.

There are also amendments, some perfectly within scope, tabled by hereditary Peers without the customary signal of a declaration of interest. The Code of Conduct says that we should all act solely in terms of the public interest and act and take decisions impartially. Peers

“should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves”,

and should

“conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the House of Lords”.

Importantly, the Code of Conduct says that, when speaking, any financial interest must be declared where relevant to the matter under discussion. Given that the privilege of membership of this House affects every hereditary Peer and that they have an interest in whether they are to lose their ability to be here, I would have thought that, even if it was only a perceived interest, they would have declared it when speaking or tabling any amendments.

In relation to our excellent hereditary colleagues in this House, I remind them that, contrary to what has been said, this has not been rushed and they have had enough notice about their future. When I was on the Opposition Benches, I spoke to many Bills from my noble friend Lord Grocott, and he and I warned your Lordships’ House, particularly the then Government, that failure to accept his Bill, which would simply have stopped new entrants, would mean that more drastic action was likely to follow in due course.

That would have been heard by all the hereditaries at that time and would have been known by any who joined since. Indeed, had we stopped the by-elections a decade ago, I am confident that this Bill would not be before us today, and those of our colleagues present at that time would have been able to see out their lives as full Members of this House, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said in an earlier amendment today. So those who will be leaving as a result of this Bill, and who were here a decade ago, really have only the Conservatives to blame for what is happening now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I was trying to aid the Committee, but I think the noble Lord would agree that in previous debates the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was congratulated on her ingenuity but that had very little to do with the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Ministers to respond in the way that they wish, and to speak to the amendment is the usual way forward. I have broadened my comments out to be helpful to the Committee, but we would normally expect the Committee to speak to the amendment and the Minister to do the same.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome not just the support but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which was even more ingenious than some of the others that we have heard. Maybe we can make a little list of which two of us should go out with the hereditaries.

My noble friend the Leader of the House clearly understood exactly what I was saying, which is: if we are not careful then this will be on Royal Assent, because if we go much further then it will be at the end of the Session. That was the point of this debate. I think colleagues know I am not ill-minded or—what were the other words used about me?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Nasty and brutal.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I am slightly surprised to be called that, I have to say.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness was nasty and brutal. I said her amendment was nasty and brutal.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

“Hairs”, “fine” and “splitting” come to mind.

There are two major issues: we have been warned about having these long debates and about amendments that, frankly, are never going to be accepted, because even if they go through here on opposition votes then they will be overturned down there. So what are we doing debating Motions that are never going to be in the Bill and probably should never have been tabled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord, but I remember him saying the opposite from this Dispatch Box.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Surely the issue is good advice. If I am trying to say anything, it is: can we get on with it? That is really what the amendment is about. We should not be tabling amendments that are out of scope. I am sorry to do this in front of the clerks but, honestly, some of them are not pertinent to the issue. The advice is: can we please get on with this?

I think my noble friend will want to take forward the wider suggestion, but she is clearly not going to do that until we have moved on this issue. So to all those who want more done, my advice—and this was the purpose of the amendment—is not to leave it too long, or it will be the end of the Session by the time this comes in.

I would have loved to have had this amendment debated with the rest. I kept getting draft lists that said “degroup”, and people have clearly been asked to degroup their amendments. I do not know why mine fell out, but I would have much preferred the whole of the idea of commencement to be in one group. Still, frankly, if we are going to have amendments tabled saying that it should go to the end of the Parliament five years on, then of course it must be possible to say, “Are there other dates as well?”

So the purpose of the amendment was to say two things. First, please can we not go on until basically the end of the Session before this comes in? Otherwise, the hereditaries will have no notice of it and the House will have no time to make adjustments. Secondly, can we get it done for the sake of this House moving on? We heard earlier about constitutional amendments. That was in the Conservative manifesto for the election before last, but it never happened. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, quite often used to ask about it at Question Time: “Where is this promised thing?” It did not happen.

I have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. What has changed since 2021 is that at that point it had not been accepted. In 2021, we said, “Can we please just stop the by-elections and keep the people in?” That was rejected by the noble Lord’s Government. That is what changed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is indeed. Whether the grammar matters or not, these are clearly linked, and as for those colleagues we are going to lose through this Bill, who were kept here as surety, as a reminder, to make sure that the deal was followed through, surely we owe it to them to answer the question, before they are ushered out of your Lordships’ House, of whether the Government intend to fulfil the rest of their manifesto and what their plans for the future of this House are. If we cannot have that dignified and eloquent reminder through the presence of our hereditary colleagues, let us write very clearly in this Bill, in words and punctuation that should act as a perpetual reminder, that the Government are once again giving us a half-baked reform.

The limbo in which it leaves your Lordships’ House is unquestionably worse than the status quo. This Bill removes 88 hard-working Members, drawn from all corners of the House but predominantly from outwith the Government’s own Benches, and places the sole power to replace them and to appoint the temporal Members of this House in the hands of the Prime Minister. It gives him an unlimited power with no statutory limitations—not even modest guidance of the sort that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others suggested would be helpful when we discussed this at Second Reading.

In this group and later, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to address the questions that are left unanswered through this Bill. Would she be open to an annual cap on the number of nominations that the Prime Minister can make? What does she think of a formula such as that proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Burns, in the Lord Speaker’s committee? I was very grateful for her generous words about my former boss, my noble friend Lady May, who adhered roughly to a two-out, one-in process—I crunched the numbers—as proposed by the Lord Speaker’s committee, but subsequent Prime Ministers have not, not least the present Prime Minister, whom this Bill will make even more powerful.

In 2022, Sir Keir Starmer endorsed proposals from former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown to transfer power from Westminster to the British people. He said:

“I think the House of Lords is indefensible”,


and said he wanted to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber with a really strong mission. That reformist zeal is not fully reflected in the Bill before us. The Prime Minister in fact has appointed a more Peers in his first 200 days than three Prime Ministers—my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak—put together. He has appointed more even than Sir Tony Blair, who was not known for his restraint when handing out ermine robes. He has already appointed more Labour Peers than the number of Cross-Benchers that this Bill will purge from your Lordships’ House.

And the people he has put forward, although we welcome them all to this House and do not denigrate the role that they will play, are drawn from a rather narrow cadre. Instead of the knowledge of nuclear engineering held by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, or the professional experience of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as a chartered surveyor, or the passionate campaigning for our creative industries that I see from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Freyberg, we have, since the start of this Parliament—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

It would be useful to know how this actually relates to the wording of the amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I think very directly, because this is an amendment to remind your Lordships’ House and future Governments that the Bill gives Prime Ministers greater power than ever before to nominate people to this House, and the present Prime Minister, whom this will empower and embolden, has sent us, since he became Prime Minister, 18 former Labour MPs, his former chief of staff and his director of strategy. He is entitled to do that, and it is no insult to any of them or to the contribution that I know they will make to your Lordships’ House to point out that they are unlikely to give the same breadth of independent scrutiny to legislation as the Cross-Bench Peers whom they outnumber.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The speaker’s own background is exactly the one that he is now criticising others for. He also has forgotten the people that Boris Johnson put in. So could we just have a little humility?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to my own amendment, which I hope has been brought forward in a spirit of humility, suggesting that there be a cap on the number of special advisers that Prime Ministers can nominate. The reason I have tabled that amendment, and the one which I see did not find favour from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean about former Members of Parliament, is that I worry that a Bill that empowers Prime Ministers to make the sole decision about who scrutinises them and the Government they lead in one of our Houses of Parliament ought not to give such an open-ended power to them.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak partly as co-chair, with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. That should be our starting point. What is our function and how can we best fulfil that?

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition failed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who sought to bring the House together. Instead, we had a catalogue of words such as “sweeping”, “purging”, “hasty”, “expulsion”, “guillotine”, “stampede” and “great hurt”. I do not think that that is the way to approach a serious discussion on constitutional change. He says that cross-party talks or even a convention might have been better, yet he did no such thing as bringing that together when he was Leader of the House, and he failed to ensure that the Burns report was implemented, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.

The noble Lord, Lord True, does not think that size is a problem, but look at the membership of second Chambers around the world. The House of Lords has 827 Members, which is higher than every other second Chamber, and it is the only one with more Members than the first House. We are not the same as those. We do a different job, we are not paid and we are part-time Members of a full-time House. However, it might be worth listening to what seems fit for another country.

Looking at political imbalance, the noble Lord says that what we are doing is for partisan reasons. I put it to him that he ought to take a look at what this House is at the moment: the main opposition parties have 350 Members, to just 186 for the party of government. Indeed, the government side has 86 fewer than the Conservatives—a position never met in the Conservatives’ term of office and an imbalance that will not disappear completely even with the loss of the hereditary Members. Unless we continue to grow, the party of government will remain much smaller than the main party of opposition.

Talking about the hereditaries, I have to say that all of us in this House, particularly my noble friend Lord Grocott, warned time and again that if the Grocott Bill were not accepted then this would be the only way forward. Had we moved at the pace that my noble friend would have suggested, there would be very few noble Lords who are hereditaries on the Benches at the moment. Indeed, the majority of today’s hereditaries were not here in 1999, when the temporary by-election deal was agreed. Everyone accepts that it was pro tem, although we may have had some difficulties about exactly when pro tem would be ended. The principle of ending the hereditary membership was accepted in 1999, and only its full implementation awaited.

I find the ad hominem excuses not valid, despite the great names that have been mentioned. This is partly because I think it is slightly distasteful for those not mentioned, but also because basing constitutional changes on how we value particular numbers of our colleagues is not a good way of making changes. Importantly, even with the changes for hereditary Peers that we will see, any hereditary is eligible—just like the rest of the population—to then be appointed a life Peer. But like the rest of us, they should be here on their own merit. I am certain that a number of them would return, albeit with perhaps a different title.

It is quite hard to know what the noble Lord, Lord True, wants from the change. Does he want to keep a large number of elderly people here to reduce the chance of refreshing our membership, something which in the past he has often discussed on a positive note? Despite complaining how many would leave under the age criteria, it is really only a symptom of the fact that we have too few people here now in their 50s and 60s. I am feeling old at 75 and am contemplating retirement—why should the rest of us stand in the way of the coming generation?

It is hard to know the Conservatives’ view of the role of this House. Perhaps it is that of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who, responding to his very first Prime Minister’s Question in the other place, said that he had always supported a predominantly elected House of Lords. Is that the position now?

Today, I believe that we as a House should recommit ourselves to the function we currently perform and then support moves to a composition that makes that function easier to fulfil and enables our membership to better reflect the range of interests, experience, age, diversity and commitment to the work of this House. I hope membership will be seen as a working role, not just an honour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The speaking time is advisory. The noble Lord should know that.

Mr Thomas-Symonds has as his ministerial colleague in the Cabinet Office, Georgia Anne Rebuck Gould, the daughter of the late Lord Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck. The son of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, Hamish, is a Minister in the Foreign Office. Both were elected to the Commons for the first time in July and immediately made Ministers. I bet that went down well on the Labour Benches.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I will not give way to the noble Baroness. I am out of time.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Well, if the House will allow me, I will give way to her.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The noble Lord just referred to someone who has been leader of Camden Council. I find the idea that that person is here because of her mother or father rather than for her own abilities deeply distasteful.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I was not questioning her abilities; I was simply pointing out that support for patronage and the hereditary principle is alive and well in the other place.

Poorly thought-out policy and hypocrisy have proved to be the hallmarks of this Government; “party before country and constitutional convention” turned out to be their mantra. We need a comprehensive approach to reform of Parliament. The truth is that the House of Lords is working well and doing an essential duty scrutinising legislation which is not even debated in the House of Commons, as every Bill is timetabled there. The other place needs to put its own House in order. This House has a constitutional duty which we cannot shirk. Labour needs to think again.

House of Lords: Nominations for Appointment

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend consider that there should be a minimum participation by Peers in order to enable the House to benefit from their expertise and experience?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There is, but defining what that is is not easy. I entirely agree, and this is one of the things we are grappling with at the moment. All of us have been disappointed when we have seen colleagues come in, take the oath and leave, and we do not see them again till they next take the oath; that is not playing a part in this House. But neither do I want to deter colleagues who come in occasionally to speak on their area of expertise, which the House benefits from. That is why I do want to take soundings from across the House on how we can best deal with this. We want all colleagues who are Members of your Lordships’ House to understand the responsibility that the honour brings with it and play a full role.

Government Standards

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve confidence in government and to ensure Ministers are held to a high standard.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lord, as the Prime Minister has made clear, public service is a privilege, and this Government are committed to ensuring that politics can be a force for good. It was at the very first Cabinet meeting that the Prime Minister was clear about the standards he expects from all of us and our ministerial teams. The Prime Minister will issue a ministerial code in due course to set out the standards of behaviour expected by Ministers. It might be helpful to the House if I let it know that the Prime Minister met Sir Laurie Magnus on his first day in office and that the Government are committed to appropriately empowering the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and establishing an ethics and integrity commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. It is a great pleasure to be able to put questions to her. Given the importance of transparency in increasing public confidence and enabling the monitoring of ministerial actions, will she ensure, confidentiality apart, that ministerial decisions, such as public appointments, the award of contracts and meetings with in-house lobbyists, are open, transferable and easily available?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend has put a number of those questions to me over the years, given her interests and experience on this subject. She is right: public confidence can be improved by our being open and transparent about the decisions being taken. I can tell her that there are systems in place to ensure transparency around many of the issues that she mentions, but there is often a concern that they are not working as well as they could. As a first step, the Government have to ensure that they work better, including information being published on time but in a way that is easy to access and easy to understand. The ethics and integrity commission could look at this issue.

United Kingdom–European Union Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask the Leader of the House when she expects a motion to be brought before the House of Lords to establish and constitute the United Kingdom–European Union Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a matter for Parliament to consider the potential shape of the parliamentary partnership assembly, within the framework set out in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. I understand that informal discussions involving Members of both Houses are ongoing.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The partnership assembly is an important organisation: it will be able to get information from and make recommendations to the Partnership Council, which is where the EU and our Government will take decisions—so it is clearly of importance to this House. Could the Minister assure us that he will do everything possible to make sure that it is set up before the Recess so that we can choose our representatives to it and it can get going? Will he also do everything that he can to facilitate a report back to this Chamber from the parliamentary assembly, once it is set up?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are wholeheartedly in favour of dialogue between Parliament and the European Parliament, but, as the noble Baroness knows, the primary impetus from the UK side for establishing a parliamentary partnership assembly needs to come from both Houses of Parliament, which is why Members of both Houses are working on a proposal. Reporting back to the House by the PPA, once it is established, is something that the PPA itself will need to decide upon in due course.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, what we have heard today and since Friday have been tributes to, and indeed a celebration of, the life of an extraordinary and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, unique man. As probably the only speaker today who never met the Duke, this debate has brought him to life for me. It has set out a character, a legend, a teacher and a doer who has influenced the lives of millions more than those who actually met him.

The humble Address speaks of Prince Philip’s selfless UK and international public service, including during the war, his impact on conservation, design, science and technology, and particularly his impact on young people through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, as well as through the lesser known but significant Commonwealth study conferences, which he set up in 1956, and above all as the husband and mainstay of Her Majesty.

Indeed, as Barack Obama noted, his role in supporting her Majesty has been a role model for many, as we have seen how he fortified her in the many demands and challenges she has faced. So we might also reflect on how his role in promoting and safeguarding the monarchy as an institution has helped to bring the country together in peace and stability over seven decades. He has been a vital part of the constitutional architecture that binds us, supporting our democracy and its key players across the four nations of our union and throughout the Commonwealth.

He brought to this role, as we have heard, humour, hard work, energy, dedication and enthusiasm. His love for his own family gave them the space and his children the confidence to play their own part in the country’s future. He saw joy and sadness, drawing on both to advise and guide, seeing strength and potential in people and situations to help bring out the best in myriad situations. We have heard it is said that he did not want any fuss to be made of his passing. That was one request that was never going to be met. But that was of his making, in that he wove his enthusiasms, strengths, interests and wisdom into the lives of more people than he will ever have imagined, and, on behalf of them, we say thank you.

Your Lordships’ House has played its role today, combining reminiscences of personal knowledge of the Duke with testimony of the effect he had on the Navy, on charities, on young people and on the Commonwealth—and beyond, in other countries—in times of rejoicing and times of sadness. The Commons speaks for today’s generations of voters and localities but this House, with its longer memories and vast reach into different professions, sports, businesses, organisations, religions, specialisms and international experience, has painted a wider and deep picture. These fold into the humble Address to be read by his family and by future historians, expressing gratitude for the service he gave and acknowledgement of the legacy he leaves. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, “Weren’t we lucky?”.