Retirement and Participation Committee
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That: (1) It is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on— (a) a retirement age, and (b) a participation requirement, for members of the House of Lords. (2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on— (a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning, (b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and (c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate. (3) The Committee do report by 31 July 2026.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in July I informed the House of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the Government’s manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the hereditary Peers Bill and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door, and to those of other noble Lords, with some constructive—and at times creative—suggestions for reform of the House.
In listening to that debate and those representations, I have formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership of how these issues could be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I propose that a Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement and participation, and to consider what steps can be taken on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation. The Motion gives effect to the commitment I made to your Lordships’ House, and I am pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels. I hope that this is self-explanatory, but I would like to stress three points that may be helpful.
First, the committee is time-limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate and since, Lords reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly. I have therefore sought to give the committee a tight but realistic timeline for its work.
Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of this House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.
Thirdly, the Motion specifically asks the committee to look at non-legislative solutions, as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion for a lengthy intervention, but I would like to make it clear to the House that this has been discussed in usual channels, as the Leader said. These are matters that potentially touch upon hundreds of our Members, and the consensual and pragmatic approach that she has spoken about is one that will commend itself to the House generally. The Opposition will give full support to the Select Committee in its work.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that there is much more to say, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that the usual channels across the House have conducted these discussions. I do not suppose that we will get everybody agreeing with everything all the time, but if there is a willingness to make progress, we can do so, and I am grateful for the support on that.
G20 and Ukraine
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I too welcome the Statement. On Ukraine, the Leader knows of our continuing support of the Government’s efforts. I know that our Ukrainian colleagues value greatly the cross-party support in both Houses—other than some weakness from one party, so perfectly displayed in the courts in recent days. However, all three main parties here are working together. This does not prevent my Benches from pressing the Government to go further, deeper and faster in some areas—indeed, there is a duty to do so. We have been a constructive opposition since the beginning of the conflict.
It is why we press for wider sanctions, more harmful measures against the Russian war economy and a real focus on ensuring that loopholes are closed and sanctions are not circumvented. It is why we make the case as strong as we can that Russian assets, frozen for some time, need to be fully utilised after seizure, for Ukraine to use to defend itself. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which we believe that these assets should be returned to Putin’s regime, so we need to release them now for Ukraine. We have been told, on a number of occasions, that we can act only as part of either the G7 or wider forums, and yet another one has passed without clarity, so I hope the Leader can update us on when we will be able to see concrete action.
Regarding the current developments with the US, it is becoming what I might call yo-yo diplomacy; it is quite hard to grasp the White House’s intent at any given time. Russia’s response to the fairly positive and sensible moves by the Secretary of State in Geneva, as well as the UK and the coalition of the willing partners—that the Trump plan has been undermined by Kyiv and the Europeans—is directed exclusively at Trump himself. We support the Prime Minister in his efforts. We should not need to say this, but we have to: the future of Ukraine is for Ukraine to decide. Anything else is appeasement.
Ursula von der Leyen was right to say that a settlement cannot be imposed on Ukrainians and there cannot be a unilateral carving up of a sovereign European nation. The concern is that it would be a bilateral carve-up, with the White House as the other party. Our Government are doing their best with the coalition of the willing to ensure that this is not the case in our support for Ukraine, and we back up the Government 100%.
The two lines on Sudan in the Statement are welcome but insufficient. The world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe warranted only one mention in one sentence in the G20 communiqué. That is unacceptable. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is actively facilitated by G20 members and the UK as the UN penholder. Last week in the House, I raised the need for urgent action to prevent what might be horrors on top of those we have witnessed in El Fasher; they could be in El Obeid and Tawila. I hope that the Leader can update the House on what concrete actions we, as the UN penholder, are taking. We need to spend every hour securing a country-wide arms embargo, designated safe spaces for children and mothers, no-drone zones and concrete action against the RSF, which cynically says it supports peace, and the SAF and NCP, which have ridiculed it.
Last week I called for the Prime Minister’s direct involvement with Heads of State. I hope that there was more that the Prime Minister did at the G20 than what the communiqué and his Statement indicate. If the Leader can update me, I will be very grateful.
Finally, the Prime Minister proudly reported that the UK will host the first presidency of the G20 in the coming year, for the first time since 2009. This is most welcome. However, I hope that, when it comes, we will be able to scale up our development partnership opportunity. I have reread the UK’s 2009 G20 communiqué and I was heartened that we had inserted, in paragraph 26, that we reaffirmed the objective of meeting our ODA pledges. The Budget today confirms what many of us feared: that the Government will miss the ODA target for every year of their Administration. Indeed, we now have the lowest level of ODA in 50 years, since ODA statistics were calculated. The 15% reduction in the Global Fund budget from the UK is an illustration of the fear that, on the development partnership, on seeking global economic opportunity for those who are most vulnerable and at threat, the UK Government are making us smaller on the international stage.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their strong support for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord True, thanked me for repeating the Statement but I did not repeat it because I was sure that noble Lords had read it.
Comments from both noble Lords indicate the importance of unity in this House and across Parliament and parties, and the strong message that sends that we are united in our support for Ukraine. Lots of comments have been made about us reasserting our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, which are comments we have all made time and again, and will continue to do so. If anything, as time moves on, our resolve is even stronger because of the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The sovereignty of Ukraine is a matter for Ukraine, and that cannot be repeated often enough.
However, it is not just about our support for Ukraine. We send a very strong message that Ukraine’s fight is our fight. It is hard to talk about winning or losing a war in which so many on both sides have died and suffered, but if Russia was to succeed, our security, and that of other countries across Europe, is compromised. Our fight is also the fight of the Ukrainian people, and we work together.
The Prime Minister met the coalition of the willing in London, and they met virtually yesterday; 36 countries are now signed up to the coalition of the willing and that is a very strong message to Russia and Ukraine about the strength of feeling for the just and lasting peace that is required. The noble Lord, Lord True, also made the point that it is no good trying to find a temporary sticking plaster or solution and to have to come back to this point two, three or even 10 years’ later. It has to be something that can last.
Noble Lords asked about the progress of the coalition of the willing in terms of military action. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, a lot of this is around the capability, co-ordination and command structure across the coalition. That is important; it is not just saying, “We have capability—it is there to help you”. It is working out how that works in practice, and that is what the coalition is about. The noble Lord asked about funding; I thought for one moment he was going to divert into a party-political rant about the Budget. I think today’s point is more sombre and serious; we can have that when we have our debate on the Budget. He knows, as we have said time and again, that the strategic defence review is very important to us and we look to that as we move forward with funding.
Both noble Lords asked for updates on the plan. If I understood correctly—I apologise if I am wrong—the noble Lord, Lord True, said that we should rule out the plan completely. It is for the Ukrainians to comment on what is there. There are clearly parts of the 28-point plan that were totally unacceptable and could not be accepted by Ukraine. If it says they cannot be accepted, we support it. It is right that it makes that decision. However, there are other points within the plan that it thinks it can work with and discuss further with the Americans. It is very fast-moving.
I think that during the Statement yesterday, one MP said, “Oh, there’s a deal been done. Can we try to confirm that?” No, the deal has not been done. There are ongoing discussions, and it is important that we give the Ukrainians every support we can in having those discussions on what they need. But we would never move away from supporting them, or from them deciding on their sovereignty. That is one of the most important things.
I cannot give a running commentary on where this has got to: it would be wrong to do so. We all know what diplomacy is like, and there will be lots of discussions ongoing over several days, perhaps longer. But we have to put our support, our faith and our trust in the Ukrainians, because of the suffering they have endured. The Russian community has suffered as well, yet President Putin is clearly responsible. The liability lies with President Putin. It is important we recognise that, and say to both Russia and Ukraine that that is where the responsibility and the liability lies.
I will try to answer the points that were made. Questions were asked about the sanctions. This is constantly monitored, looking at the impact of sanctions and the frozen Russian assets. Where we are coming from is that, while this war continues, sanctions continue, and we will continue to freeze assets. We are working closely with the EU Commission and our G7 counterparts to make progress.
The noble Lord, Lord True, has asked me about this before, and I cannot give him any more updates. Those discussions are making progress. I would hope to be able to come to the House at some point and say where we have got to on that. I think that we are making progress on how assets can be used, but he will understand that the impact of that will come if we work together to get to that point. That is part of the discussions that are constantly under review to make sure we can move forward.
As for Sudan, I understand that it was extensively discussed, although that probably is not reflected in the Statement at all. The suffering there is probably the worst humanitarian disaster that the world is seeing. It is hard to imagine, in so much of this, the suffering that people of Sudan are going through, and the lack of hope people must have. We fully support the work of the Quad in trying to make progress to reach some kind of agreement to end the suffering there, and the famine that ensues as well. That was extensively discussed, and was, I think, very much in the forefront of minds there.
The noble Lord also asked about international aid and assistance—ODA. May I say to him that in 2009 we had had 12 years of a Labour Government? The economy was in a better place, and the world was in a different place as well, so it does not surprise me that we were in a much better place on this issue in 2009. Our commitment to return to where we want to be, to return to how things were, remains. Our commitment has not ended, but that is not going to happen as quickly as I know he would like, or as quickly as others would like as well.
The noble Lord also asked for more information about the coalition of the willing. I would say that this is one of the most significant moves by the Government —to bring countries together, jointly leading that coalition of the willing to support Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is also bringing together 50 nations under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We are looking at the full range of European military capabilities. President Zelensky, who talks regularly with the Prime Minister, can be in no doubt that he has not just our sympathy and support but our total backing, and that that is not going to fail him.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the key part he has played in the coalition of the willing. I think his efforts have helped to kill the idea of appeasement, which was in the air a week or two ago. The stench of 1938 has been eradicated, and that is a good thing—but I wonder whether I could ask my noble friend a question. Could she say a bit more about what is being done to help in the reconstruction of Ukraine? It will cost a lot of money, but I think it is important that we get our policies in place, so that a quick reconstruction of that country can be brought into being.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.
On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. I fully agree with everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Although I am in an opposition party, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Prime Minister has been doing a splendid job on the external front, particularly in co-leading the coalition of the willing. I will not say anything about his domestic travails, as I do not want to spoil the harmony. He has been extremely stalwart. I heard what the Minister said, and I think it does come through that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. He is quite right.
It has been heartening, in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European Parliaments in the last few months. I recall meeting Finnish colleagues and people from the French Senate, yesterday, and today, some of the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. That we are able to say, to note and to express the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is obviously welcome to them, and it is gratifying to be able to express that.
May I press the Minister about the use of the frozen Russian assets? I realise that discussions are ongoing, but could she give us any hint of where the current sticking point is? It is reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees. I may be out of date, but I think Belgium wants guarantees about its position, because most of these assets are located—in so far as anything is located anywhere these days—in Belgium. But is it that? Is it legal? Is it political? Can she give us any kind of time horizon? People are very impatient, and want to see these assets used for the benefit of Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She talks about domestic travails, but this is nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, and I would not want to trivialise that in any way. As she said, it is important that, across all Parliaments in different countries, it is not just the politicians and the representatives; it goes down to the people of this country. Some friends of mine feel that their lives have been enriched by being hosts to a Ukrainian family, who left Ukraine and want to return when they can. Because the politicians have been united, we have been able to lead our country on that as well.
The noble Baroness asked for further information on where the sticking point is. I cannot go into those discussions, and I think that she will understand why. Let me just say that we will ensure that everything we do on this—we want to make progress as quickly as we can—will be in line with international law and be financially and legally responsible. She will know— I am sure she has been involved in similar discussions before—that it is the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is why it is important to keep on pressing the point in order to get some progress as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right: we can focus on using the interest on those assets, but we have to look further than that for the long-term future of Ukraine.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, one of the principles that we apply in many debates is that we should not talk about people without them being present. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue to resist the carve-up of an independent country by two major powers? That means that we have to put pressure on the United States to see this not just as an object of interest but as something that has to involve the Ukrainians at every step.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would hope that I have already been completely clear on that point. These are matters for Ukraine; it is not for other countries to seek to divide, or make decisions on behalf of, a sovereign country. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it has our support and backing in making its own decisions and having its own negotiations.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to the Statement. I will press a her little on how the arrangements for the coalition of the willing will work. The noble Baroness mentioned the three Cs —capability, co-ordination and command structure—but can she say more about how the UK will be involved in determining how its support, potential peacekeeping forces and other resources may be used?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There is not much more I can say because these discussions are continually ongoing. The Prime Minister, when he answered questions on the Statement in the House of Commons yesterday, made clear the huge amount of ongoing military work and how that will operate in practice. These are operational matters that will have to be worked through with all the other countries, to see what part they can play. These are military plans that will be put into effect when they are needed.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the chance to discuss the Statement. This is an extremely difficult time for Ukraine—heaven knows that what they have had to live through over the past three and a half years has been difficult enough. It is also a test for the coalition of the willing. I join my noble friend Lord Dubs in paying tribute to the work that the Prime Minister has done in this regard. As this potential peace process unfolds, at what stage does my noble friend the Leader of the House understand it is envisaged that Russia and President Putin would be welcomed back into the G7, which would become the G8 again? That might be a difficult part of the process.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think my noble friend is getting a little ahead of where discussions are at the moment. While these discussions are ongoing, the most I can say is that our support for Ukraine remains absolutely ironclad—there is no dispute or ambiguity about that. The person responsible for the illegal invasion of Ukraine is Putin; the responsibility cannot be laid at any place other than his door. He can deliver peace immediately just by withdrawing from Ukraine. Until these matters are resolved, we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as pro bono counsel for Ukraine in international legal proceedings. I too pay tribute to the Government for their work and support for Ukraine. I would like some clarity on point 9 of the European counterproposal, which states:
“NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland”.
We do not want Russia to read this as NATO proposing that NATO fighter jets will not be stationed in places that might be seen as more controversial to the north-east of Poland, such as the Baltic states or Finland. We must be particularly careful because the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany contained a provision that said that there would not be foreign troops in what was then East Germany. Russia maintains, to date, that by that provision we had agreed not to station or deploy NATO troops east of the Oder-Neisse. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that NATO will continue to deploy fighter jets in the Baltic states or in Finland, if those countries so wish?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a decision for NATO to take, but I see no change in the current arrangements. The noble Lord mentioned the plan. The ongoing discussions have not yet been agreed, and when they are, the plan will become clearer. No change has been made to NATO’s current position, and the discussions are ongoing.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too join the chorus congratulating the Prime Minister on what he has done. The coalition of the willing—although the phrase has an echo of George Bush Jr—started with three nations and its membership is now up to 36. That is not a simple achievement. The Leader of the House has done something wonderful, and I thank her too for answering our questions. If I were Ukrainian, I would feel that, in 1994, we gave up our nuclear weapons in exchange for a security guarantee by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, but when one of them went into Crimea, the other two did nothing. It requires a lot of belief that, despite Ukrainians having been betrayed before, we are now trying to fix it. Therefore, my thoughts are those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds: are we going to stop and resist whatever happens, so that Ukraine will not be betrayed again? Having given up its weapons, we are now demanding that the country gives up bits of its land.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I fear I am in danger of repeating myself, but if it needs restating, I will do so. We have been absolutely clear that decisions on sovereignty are a matter for Ukraine. Clearly, there are points in the first iteration of President Trump’s 28-point plan that are unacceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine has asked for support with ongoing negotiations. The Prime Minister regularly talks to President Zelensky, and there is no doubt that the support of the Prime Minister and the coalition of the willing—which, as the noble and right reverend Lord said, is now made up of 36 nations—is behind Ukraine. On the one hand, there is the absolute moral principle about the sovereignty of a nation; on the other, there is the recognition that, if Russia were to get its way with Ukraine, we do not know where we would be next. It is a matter of security for the UK and for Europe. I do not know how much more I can emphasise this: it is for Ukraine to make decisions for its own sovereignty, and we will support Ukraine.
Palestinian Refugees
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, in light of President Trump’s comments about the removal of Palestinians from Gaza, do the Government believe that the Palestinians should be given the right to return to their homes there, and what action are the Government taking about the forceable removal of Palestinians and displacement within the Gaza Strip and the Occupied Territories?
Clerk of the Parliaments
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 July, I informed your Lordships’ House of Simon Burton’s intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 1 April 2026. The recruitment process for his successor has now concluded. The unanimous recommendation of the interview board was that Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson should succeed Simon as Clerk of the Parliaments. Her appointment follows an open and external competition which attracted a wide field of high-calibre candidates. A number of internal and external applicants were interviewed by a board consisting of myself, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convener of the Cross Benches and Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, former First Parliamentary Counsel. I am sure that everyone will join me in congratulating Chloe on her appointment, and we very much look forward to working with her in her new role.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Further to the resolution of the House of 25 July 2024, that for the remainder of the current Session Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “eighteen” and insert “36”.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu in moving this Motion today, so I will say few words about why it appears on the Order Paper.
Last July, following helpful and constructive discussions in the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend hereditary Peers by-elections for 18 months. Those 18 months have now passed, and if we were to do nothing, they would have to restart. We have all listened to the discussions that we have had recently, and the usual channels have agreed that is not desirable to restart those by-elections and that the suspension of the by-elections should continue until the end of this Session. This Motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect this Session to end. Having listened to the debates we have had recently on this and related issues, I hope this Motion reflects the will of the House and that Members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Middle East
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the Lord Speaker for his work in this House, his decades of public service and the very personal nature of his statement, which highlighted the sacrifice that many of our loved ones and family members make when we carry out our public duties. We look forward to hearing tributes to him and his role.
I preface my remarks, as I did in my first comment as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, by calling for a Statement from the Government on Sudan and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and I repeat that to the Leader.
I wish to start my remarks on the Middle East by condemning the horrific incidents of antisemitism that we have seen in our communities. Alas, the most recent has not been isolated, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Jewish community is not only safe but feels safe in our country. In too many situations, it is and has not. Also, too many young Muslims are fearful of Islamophobia, and even if we see the sustaining of the ceasefire and the eventual peace that we all hope for, we must be aware that one of the likely legacies of this war will be seen in our communities for years to come. We must be prepared for that.
The excruciating and sometimes performative press events that we have seen in the last few days, while children without shelter continue to suffer, mean that healing is going to be important. These too frequent political stunts, when there is a humanitarian crisis continuing, should be very sobering for us. The hostage returns are extremely welcome and an enormous relief for the families—it was a reprehensible war crime for Hamas to have held them in the way that it did—and the return of the bodies of those who, sadly, lost their lives may mean some healing for those who have suffered.
The scale of the recovery is going to be enormous, in both physical and mental terms. Eighty years on, in this country, we collectively recall the Blitz and the damage and trauma it inflicted on London. During the Second World War, 20,000 bombs were dropped on London—a terrifying figure. In Gaza, geographically a quarter of the size of London, 70,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in two years. The level of destruction inflicted on London then resulted in over 2.7 million tonnes of rubble needing to be cleared, which literally took well over a decade to complete. In Gaza—remember, a quarter of the footprint of London—the scale of the bombardment has resulted in 60 million tonnes of rubble, more than 20 times that of the Blitz on London.
My first question to the Leader is: what role will the UK play in the enormous task of the scale of the recovery that will be necessary, including rubble clearance and the commencement of reconstruction? We will have to operate at scale, and therefore I appeal to the Government again to move towards restoring our commitment on international development assistance. The reduction to 0.3% by the current Government, with the Opposition now stating that it will reduce it to next to zero, is not right. We need to step up our humanitarian support for the reconstruction of Gaza, not leave the room.
The impact on civilians is well reported: the starvation, the denial of anaesthesia for operations on children, and the creation of conditions that have seen Hamas gangsterism continue. Yet the underreported but grim task—with the likely thousands of corpses that will need to be identified under the rubble—is only now commencing.
When I visited the Gaza border last year, I was struck by the constant nature of the explosions, fire, jet aircraft howls and the dull but persistent sound and sight of drones. Imagine our children not having a single night when this has not been ever present for two years. The psychological and mental scars are deep: an entire generation of children are traumatised. Also, we know that Israeli youngsters, who did not want war or had any role in the policy of having a war, have had their national service and served their nation, but they have gone through hell in the process. Two sets of communities are deeply scarred. So when we talk about peace, we need to understand fully what it will mean, because the trauma will be present—and it is deep.
Therefore, I close with a specific appeal to the Leader, which I have raised previously, on what role the UK can play. We need clarity from the Government on what level of support they will provide to the Palestinian Authority, which is likely to be the transitional authority, and what practical measures the UK will be providing. The UK has excellent experience of post-conflict reconstruction, and we have professionalism and good relations—how are we going to exploit that?
What relationship will the UK have with the emerging stabilisation force? As I saw in the work I carried out in north Iraq after Daesh had occupied Mosul, the UK can play a very important role in restoring education and child trauma support, especially the psychosocial support that is needed. Recovery from the horror must be immediate, intensive and accessible, and the UK can play a direct role in having immediate pop-up education and child trauma centres constructed immediately. This should not be an add-on to the process. There is no mention of education and child support in the 20-point plan from the United States. I hope the Leader may be willing to meet me and some colleagues with regard to ensuring that, if we talk about peace, it is for the long term, not just an immediate ceasefire.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I will briefly make a comment about the Lord Speaker. He is a personal friend, and I first met him in about 1984, because we were both candidates in the 1987 election for the first time. The reasons why he is standing down go to the heart of the integrity of the man. We will miss him, but we will enjoy working with him as he finishes his term before he stands down.
I thank both noble Lords for the comments they made and their tone, and particularly the support to the Government for the work we are undertaking. This is not a party-political issue: across the world, parties have come together and countries are coming together to take part in the process of the ceasefire and what comes next. We all know from experience that, when you have a plan to move forward, there are times when the next step forward is imperfect, sometimes inadequate and difficult, but that step-by-step approach takes us to a place where people can be safe.
We have seen over the past two years, when the hostages were first taken, that there are things that cannot be undone. We cannot unsee the images we saw on our TVs when we saw those hostages being taken, or when we saw children starving in Gaza and houses bombed, but neither can we unsee the joy and the relief of the families who have seen their loved ones returned after the horrors they went through. The noble Lord is right to talk about releasing all the hostages. It is a tragedy that some are now being returned as bodies to be buried, but, for their families to be able to grieve, they must see all the hostages returned. I hope that international efforts can be brought to bear on that.
The noble Lord said he felt the recognition of the Palestinian state was the wrong thing to do. I would challenge that. I think all these things are process, and the only way forward for genuine peace—with a secure, stable and confident Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state—is to have that two-state solution. The recognition of Palestine, along with other countries, as we saw, was very important in that. It is interesting that, after the other countries and the UK recognised Palestine, we saw the Arab countries also condemn Hamas, which we had not seen before. I say to the noble Lord that the path to peace is often an imperfect one, but it has to be taken to ensure the safety of people.
Both noble Lords asked about next steps. The path to peace is going to be difficult, which is why the Wilton Park conference on reconstruction, identifying the ways forward and the role different countries can play will be so important. More detail on that will become available as the conference progresses. I also say that the role of Sir Michael Barber as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance will be crucial in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord True, for the Opposition, asked about issues such as education and the health service in reconstructing Gaza. There is not a viable state there, in the sense that it does not have the public service infrastructure. Dealing with that, and the point he made about the support needed for young people, particularly in the trauma centres, is all going to be part of having a viable state: you have to have a viable public sector that can deliver the services that people need. The work that he will be undertaking, which is also part of a reform agenda, to strengthen the capacity for delivery and improve the service provision, will be essential for the Palestinian Authority to be able to build an effective State of Palestine and take on the full responsibilities there. We need to empower and help form that Palestinian Authority.
On the other point, about how you ensure this, there will now be more agencies on the ground, and it will be important that we see journalists now having access, so that there can be reports back and public awareness. I can easily restate that there is no role for Hamas in the Government of Palestine. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that. It is absolutely crucial that Hamas decommissions its weapons, and that is a precursor to seeing a genuine, sustainable and lasting peace as well.
Both noble Lords made comments on the rise in antisemitism in the country, which alarms us all, but one of the things that alarms me most is the blatant voicing of that—people seem to have a new confidence in expressing antisemitism. I think that goes alongside the rise, but it is equally important to address it. There can be no acceptance of antisemitism or Islamophobia in this country. When our Jewish community does not feel safe, that damages us all. The Government have provided about £80 million funding for CST, and that will continue, but I think all of us have to call out antisemitism, even in its most minor forms, as and when we hear it. It can never be tolerated and it is never acceptable, and we will be failing in our duty to our Jewish community if we do not call it out at each and every opportunity we are called to do so.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps inevitably, there is rather little detail in the Statement. However, it does say—I think that this was endorsed by my noble friend the Leader of the House just now—that
“a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure, lasting peace for the Middle East”.
Can my noble friend say what discussions the Government are currently having with President Trump and his senior colleagues on how to prevent further illegal settlements on the West Bank, which will surely prevent a viable Palestinian state?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right on that, and it is important that there is a viable Palestinian state across the West Bank as well. She will be aware, as I mentioned in my answer, of the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, which will bring all countries together, including the US and the UK. At the heart of that discussion are how we bring a lasting peace to the region and what reconstruction, support and action are needed. There is also the 20-point plan—it is called a peace plan, but it is a route to a plan in many ways. Those are very much items that are key to the agenda of the summit.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, there should not be any doubt that the Palestinian Authority is riddled with corruption from the top to the bottom. It uses formal and informal security forces to intimidate opposition and has been involved in the murder of opposition individuals. It uses its system to promote death against Jews through its education system—the latest books are outrageous. It gives pensions to people who kill Jews. What reforms are the Government going to press upon the Palestinian Authority, which is despised by most Palestinians, to ensure that it can participate in the peace process?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Across the region, it has been clear, including from President Abbas, that there needs to be change in the Palestinian Authority. One of the roles of Michael Barber is to shore up the Palestinian Authority and ensure that, where there is corruption, it is rooted out. We have to have a reformed state. Unless we have security in Palestine and security in Israel, there will not be a lasting peace. That does not mean that anybody is saying that things are working well or could work well easily; it means there are several challenges, and he has outlined some of those. Unless we make some progress and get some capacity into that state, working across the world—I come back to the Wilton Park conference, in which I think that is absolutely crucial—we are not going to see the progress. There has to be a viable state and the credibility and confidence of the people of Palestine as well.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, disarming Hamas will be extraordinarily difficult, but the task will be much harder if, in the meantime, Iran is surreptitiously seeking to rearm it. I would not expect the noble Baroness the Leader to go into detail, but can she reassure the House that sufficient attention will be paid to the potential for further malign Iranian influence in the tragedy of Gaza?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a valid point. We are talking about quite a wide issue and other players in this have made it more difficult to resolve the problem. He can be assured that that is very much on the agenda and is taken note of in all the discussions taking place.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel and make a plea for the people of Gaza. We have talked about all the things that can happen in the long and even medium term but at the moment, with the removal of the IDF from areas of Gaza, people are taking rampant action to terrorise the people of Gaza, with the continual help of Hamas. What are our Government and Governments in the region doing to produce a force which will police Gaza and protect the people of Gaza from anybody trying to destroy the reconstruction of the area? It needs to be done sooner rather than put on the back burner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that anything is being put on the back burner. The conference and the discussions that have taken place show how much at the front of the agenda this is, with not just the UK and American Governments but all those countries taking part. He talked about the urgency of the issues. We had the conference last week and discussions are going on at Wilton Park. It is about how quickly we can get the support and the protections in. I can assure him there is no suggestion whatever that any of these issues will be on the back burner. I am sure he did not mean to suggest that. The priority is very much getting aid and support in, and dealing with those who do not want peace. The priority has to be a sustainable peace, with reconstruction that brings lasting peace but with a kind of normality. We need to have the health service, the education system, and all these public services up and running for the people in Gaza. It is on the front burner, definitely not the back.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the release of the hostages and the peace in Gaza were greeted with enormous joy in Israel and Gaza. It was a remarkable event. We know it is the first step, but what surprised, and angers and frustrates, me is that there were men and women marching on the streets of the UK, wishing that the peace had not happened. They were supporting Hamas. They wanted Hamas to continue to kill Israelis. What can the Government do to prevent the spread of such malign messaging? It is not simply support for the Palestinians and the two-state solution—which, incidentally, I am fully in favour of. We must stop this malign messaging. What can we do?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord hits on something particularly tricky. I can only utterly condemn those who did not support the process and did not share in the joy of the ceasefire. Marching on the streets of this country in support of Hamas is completely and utterly wrong, and should never happen or be tolerated. He will have heard the words of the Home Secretary on these issues. Let us be clear: the only way forward is to have tolerance, understanding and a demand for peace. Those who try to thwart that are wrong, and we will have to look at how it can be dealt with. There is no place at all for support for Hamas and no role at all for Hamas.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, from these Benches, I join others in expressing deep appreciation and thanks to the Lord Speaker for his service to this House and assure him of our continued support in the coming months. Noble Lords may be aware that efforts are under way to rebuild the Al-Ahli hospital, managed by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem. It remains the only hospital in operation in the north of Gaza, but most of its buildings are in ruins following multiple airstrikes earlier this year. Hospital staff have remained in place throughout the conflict. They are now in urgent need of medical supplies to continue to deliver life-saving treatment. I ask the Minister to bring her influence urgently to bear to ensure that financial support and medical supplies reach the hospital so that it can continue to serve the people of north Gaza.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments on that and about the Lord Speaker. He is absolutely right that healthcare, particularly in hospitals, is an acute issue. Some of the support that the UK has already announced is specifically for healthcare and given to UK-Med as well. Healthcare and education are those building blocks of life, without which Gazans cannot flourish or even start to lead a normal life that leads towards a long and lasting peace. I can assure him it is at the forefront of the discussions that are taking place.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to recognise those Hamas officials and operatives acting within the Palestinian state so they do not try to rebadge themselves as Palestinian Ministers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is a valid point. We have made it clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state or in the governance of Palestine. Part of the work at Wilton Park will be to say how we identify that and how we manage this. We have seen it happen in other areas as well. We have to ensure that there is full decommissioning and a state that has the confidence of the people of Palestine and the region, because the region as a whole has to be secure. Israel has to feel safe and secure, as does Palestine.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am being heckled, and I am going to continue. I am not going to be bullied by Conservatives. There is an urgent need for aid and there has not been enough emphasis on that. The Rafah crossing is still closed, aid is not getting through and people are still suffering. Medical aid has not got through. There are 20,000 orphan children, at least. What special emphasis will be placed in the discussions on all those children who have nobody, who are orphaned and need special protection? I ask the Minister, as my noble friend did, about the protection for children, particularly in Palestine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
There were a number of items in there, particularly on the aid being delivered—the noble Baroness asked about the Rafah crossing. It was opened briefly, then closed again; my understanding is that preparations are now being made to reopen it. Though airdrops are clearly a useful way of getting aid in, it has to get in through lorries. I saw either yesterday or this morning that Tom Fletcher was out there working on that as well.
The noble Baroness makes a particular point about the children of Gaza, and she is absolutely right to do so. The traumas many of those children are going to feel from what they have been through will be enormous. Looking at the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, and the work that Michael Barber is doing as the UK envoy in Palestine, one of the issues has to be looking at the services that are available and how they could be provided at pace, and ongoing. You need recognition that life is not going to be normal; it is not a ceasefire followed by life as normal the next day. The infrastructure of the country is in a dire state. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate about hospitals and schools being destroyed. There is so much work to be done, but the efforts should be in ensuring that those young people growing up now will be part of the future of their country. They can do that only if the right support is in place now and the traumas they have been through, and the tragedies they have suffered, are also dealt with in a way that allows them to play a full part in being the future of their state.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, there will be a different assessment of the role of the United Nations through this conflict. Some will point to the way in which the organisations strive to get aid in; others will point to the many mistakes and failings. But do the Government recognise that the UN has fundamentally lost the confidence of key agents in the Middle East, not least the United States, and Israel itself, and therefore will they commit to working to restore that confidence, including by extensive reform of the institution in key areas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is important that there is confidence in those institutions, and I think changes have already been made, particularly to UNRWA. But it is agencies on the ground that have experience and infrastructure that will be the ones that will be the best at getting that aid in. So we will take that support to get aid in from those agencies with experience. But, yes, there has to be a building of confidence across the whole region, in all the institutions. I come back to the point that we have not seen journalists in Gaza, and I think part of having that public reporting will also be very important going forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with a coalition of oil states having agreed to contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction—and it is inconceivable they will do so if Hamas threatens their potential investment—is it not possible that a population tired of conflict will now want to organise for that reconstruction by seeking to exclude the men of violence? To help that process, can we all support the fostering of a new civil and military authority that promotes that agenda, while at the same time avoiding action that accelerates the movement into the West Bank of those identified as committed to violence, where, if we fail to secure movement on an independent Palestinian state, they are likely to regroup in furtherance of their campaign? And can I personally pay tribute to the Lord Speaker, on his retirement notice, for the service he has given Parliament over the 40 years I have known him? Thank you.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, and his comments about the Lord Speaker. I am not sure I fully understand his question, but it is quite clear that those who have been involved in violence, including Hamas, cannot be part of the future going forward. I think that is absolutely clear and should remain the position. There will be no change to that. There will be a temporary, transitional Government—a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee—and that is the way to go forward.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that rabid antisemitism is being taught in Palestinian schools, which is reminiscent of the narrative of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, and that this is actually in part financed by the British taxpayer?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, any promotion of antisemitism, wherever it takes place, is always wrong. The key thing in the education systems of both Palestine and Israel is that they should promote dialogue between the two countries and also promote peace and collaboration between them.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
The noble Baroness made a couple of references to the importance of the press. Could she update the House on exactly where negotiations are about letting in companies such as the BBC, the Times and the New York Times?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have not got any more specific information for the noble Baroness. We have made it clear that journalists should be allowed back in, because it is reporting: it is the disinfectant of sunlight, in a sense, is it not? Information is the best disinfectant and more information would be very helpful. We are committed to that and we are pressing for it at all times.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
It is worth remembering that there are five refugee camps in Gaza alone. Those refugee camps have been there for five generations. Around 90% of people in them have never had a job in their life. The hatred in those refugee camps is immense. It is going to take 50, 60 or 70 years, at least, before we enable normal relationships between Israelis and those living locally. Can the Minister do something about it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
All of us will do our best. The noble Lord makes an important point, which is that the path to peace is a process. It is never a moment; it is something that is ongoing. Members of the House will recall the process of bringing peace to Northern Ireland: it was not easy. At times, the steps that are taken forward are imperfect, inadequate and unsatisfactory. But they are steps forward. At each stage, we have to recognise where the goal is. The prize of peace, for people in that region, has to be the greatest prize ever for the children, the young people and the old people. Just think about it: people going about their lives saw their loved ones snatched and taken as hostages, and people trying to live their lives in Gaza saw their homes, their hospitals and their schools destroyed. So the path will be difficult and rocky. I do not know whether I recognise the timescale the noble Lord offered, but each day forward when people are not being killed is progress, and that is what we aim for.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 21 October to enable the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.
The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.
The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.
As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.
I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.
I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.
These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.
The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.
As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.
I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.
I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.
The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.
On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.
I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.
Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.
Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.
I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.
I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.
We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.
I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.
Clerk of the Parliaments
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon)
My Lords, I wish to notify the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments. It reads:
“I want to take the opportunity to write to confirm what we have already discussed.
My appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments was for a five-year term, which comes to an end on 1 April 2026. At that point, I will retire. While there are several months of my term ahead, I do want to take this opportunity now to say what a great privilege it has been to hold the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I am honoured to be the 65th person to do so.
My term has seen many extraordinary events. When I took my Oath of Allegiance to Her late Majesty, COVID restrictions were still in place, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh soon passed away. I was the first Clerk of the Parliaments for many decades to see a change of the Sovereign I serve, and to witness both the demise of a Monarch and a Coronation. The House has undergone many other changes during my term too, but the professionalism and dedication of my many hard-working colleagues has been a consistent feature. It has been a great privilege to lead such a wonderful team and I thank them all. And my gratitude to my colleagues, present and past, stretches right back over what will be 38 years’ service in the House when my term as Clerk of the Parliaments ends.
Throughout my term, and in all my work supporting the House and its members, I have remained committed to our values; to delivering a healthy workplace culture; to effective bicameral working; and to responsible management of public money.
I would be grateful if you would convey my deep appreciation to members across the House for their generous help and advice throughout that time. The future holds many challenges for the House, and for my colleagues, not least the continuing need to focus on maintaining and renewing the Palace of Westminster to keep everyone safe and to provide a legacy for future generations. I am confident that the House and those who support the House and its members will rise to meet those challenges.
I wish you, my colleagues and my successor all the best for the years ahead”.
That is the end of the letter. I expect recruitment for the new clerk to launch shortly after we return following the Summer Recess. I am consulting the leaders of the other parties, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Lord Speaker to ensure that a recommendation for Simon’s successor as Clerk of the Parliaments is made to His Majesty in good time. As is customary, I will put a Motion before the House nearer the time of his retirement in the spring, and that will enable Members to pay appropriate tribute to Simon’s distinguished service.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 2 September, Wednesday 10 September and Tuesday 16 September to enable Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.