Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday 14 October to enable the Sovereign Grant 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.

Motion agreed.

Retirement and Participation Committee Report

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, in previous debates on the future of this House, the phrase “form should follow function” has been used on many an occasion. In the clear introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, she stressed the committee’s remit, in that it was allowed to deal with only a small segment of the role and make-up of the Lords. However, in ignoring input, the proposals cannot ensure long-term expertise to undertake our fundamental functions of scrutiny and holding the Government of the day to account.

I was in the first cohort of the 15 so-called people’s Peers selected by the Appointments Commission. There are only six of us left now; eight died and one retired. The indomitable Countess of Mar was the one female hereditary Peer selected to remain in her time and was an exemplar in how to conduct effective scrutiny, as well as a mentor to several of us and a guardian extraordinaire of the rules and conventions of the House. She retired at 80 and is still missed. Now, with the hereditary principle gone, prime ministerial patronage is supreme, able to drive the input of Peers with few brakes on the process. Surely entry and exit must be considered and balanced.

Our function requires expertise in the widest range of topics—a breadth that requires carefully vetted appointments to the Cross Benches—yet, as we have heard, the Cross Benches will lose the greatest number of Peers in the plan laid out in the report. Professor Meg Russell’s briefing has already been referred to, and my noble friend Lord Patel explained superbly the mathematics involved. The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission must be put on a statutory footing and urgently allowed to appoint if any of this goes forward. To borrow a phrase from my noble friend Lord Sedwill used on the “Today” programme today, the question for each of us is: what can I do for my country?

The report recognises the need for leave of absence for those in major roles at home and abroad, but they have a duty to come back to share their in-depth knowledge or to leave. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked, will the emeritus Peers regain the vote? As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out so clearly, one aspect glossed over in the report—

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

I am sorry to interrupt, but it might be helpful to the House to say that there is a retirement booklet that I arranged to be published which clearly states that, when Members leave this House, they will regain their vote.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

That is most helpful and I apologise for not having read that properly. It was raised earlier in the week as well. I thank the noble Baroness for the clarification.

One aspect glossed over in the report is that some become less able to contribute well before the age of 80; infirmity is not the preserve of older people. There was no reference to an occupational health service, to which those who appear to have dwindling faculties, no insight or other problems could be referred for in-depth assessment. Some of us have been seeking that for some time. Standard appraisal processes would not work effectively, because those who attend rarely would not be adequately known to colleagues and staff. However, the staff here know only too well who should be seen by an occupational health service.

As for wider reform, no one should think that the widely varied and independent Cross-Bench Peers could be elected. They could not be elected if they do not have the funding, know-how or support to run an electoral campaign, and that lack will exclude many.

The report is sensible as far as it goes, but it will not solve all the difficulties of infirmity or simply being “out of touch”. Unless prime ministerial patronage is curbed or ceases, until HOLAC is the route through which all potential Peers are assessed, and until we recognise that younger appointees will be in the House of Lords for decades and they may also fail, our functions may not be enhanced. However, we should heed this thoughtful report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, presented very well. The danger is that it could be consigned to the shelves unless we are brave enough to embrace it and end prime ministerial patronage as it stands today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and all members of the committee who took part in the deliberations and carefully considered the issues. Many doubted that, in the time that was allocated, they could come back to this House with a proposal and some consensus on a workable way forward. It is only through the diligent work they have undertaken that this report is before us today, and we should be grateful to them—I think all noble Lords, bar one, did thank them for their work. They listened to a broad range of views, as I have done tonight. The Government welcome the approach they have taken and the spirit in which their report was produced. We have seen past attempts at reform of this place, and consensus often feels quite elusive. We should recognise that this report has found a way through that, and that all members of the committee agreed with it.

I have been very interested to listen to all the contributions that have been made. This is, of course, a valuable revising and scrutinising Chamber filled with expertise and dedication to public service. However, the expectations of our Members are not just about their experience and expertise but about their judgment borne from their life experience—we do not ask Members with experience to take part only in debates on the area they know the most about; we have them here for their judgment.

I referenced our manifesto. I think the Labour manifesto at the last election was the first manifesto of which I am aware that explicitly recognised the good work of many Peers who improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked me about form following function. We are not dealing with the function of the House of Lords; we are happy with it. The criticism comes from how we are perceived and the way we are constituted. Looking at these issues over the years, we have produced and debated numerous reports—the Wakeham report, the Cunningham report, the Burns report, and now the Taylor report—and each has brought a different perspective to these issues. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, alluded to eloquently, then the frustration starts about how so little progress has been made. I have spoken before about the track record of stagnation and stalled attempts at reform. I have been clear that we want to work with the House to get a better outcome, and on how incremental change can make a difference.

The committee, and many Members who have spoken, often acknowledged that change is needed. There is general, but not universal, agreement that the House is too big and that we need certainty on how we can replace departing Members and bring in new expertise and experience—a point made by many of the Cross-Benchers. We are also clear that we want an active contribution from all Members of this House. That is not to say that all Members have to be full-time—that would not serve the purposes of what we seek to achieve—but we want them to value their membership and contribute during their membership. That is why we committed to a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement.

Some of the arguments against taking any action on this report sounded very similar to those we have heard before when debating other changes. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that these proposals would affect 46% of the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I cannot remember the exact percentage. These proposals would affect 100% of this House, because every current and future Member would be affected by them; they are completely non-discriminatory in that way. The other argument often used is that we should not make this reform until we have made lots of other reforms—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

They are discriminatory because the people here now came in thinking they were staying for life, and those who come in from now on will know that they finish at 80. That is the difference.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is implying that there is no notice. To give notice is the very reason for these proposals. It sounds like they are going to happen tomorrow, but these proposals do not come into force, or start to come into force, until 2029, when there will be a retirement age of 85 which will go down each year to 80 by 2033 or 2034. I just make the point that every time a change is suggested, there are those who say, “We want change, but not this change, in this way, and not now”. I think that to survive and do our best work, we often have to embrace some kind of change. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and others asked why I set up this committee. I think he attributed motives which I would dispute.

On Lords reform issues, our manifesto looked at certain stages, and there are number of issues there. When we were debating at one of its early stages the Bill on hereditary Peers, there were more amendments, more pages of amendments and more pages of Hansard about retirement age and participation—and a number of noble Lords on the other side spoke far more about it—than about hereditary Peers: “Why aren’t we doing anything about this?” So, that is why I set up the committee. I promised this House that rather than just bringing forward legislation, we would give this House the opportunity to examine and look at the issues, to give it the opportunity, as noble Lords asked for, to take some responsibility. No good deed goes unpunished, does it? But there is an opportunity for us to look at this. That is the first point.

Also, I thought we would have learned a lesson from the hereditary Peers legislation. Time and again, my noble friend Lord Grocott brought to this House proposed legislation to say, “We’ll end the by-elections, which means no new hereditary Peers come in and those who are here remain”. That was rejected time and again by the party opposite when it was in government. That would have been a much smoother transition. If the noble Lord wants to intervene on me, please do.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I will just say that it was not whipped by then Government; it was not the party opposite, it was individual Peers. It was a Private Member’s Bill, and Members had authority to challenge the proposal of the legislation. I disagreed with them; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is a friend of mine and sitting opposite, was right on this issue. I felt he was right, but it was not a party thing. We are not dealing with this as a party; we are dealing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have heard the point the noble Lord has made.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I hope the noble Baroness will respond to it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will do, given a chance. The noble Lord, Lord True, when he was Leader of the Opposition, told me that his party opposed it, that it was not his party’s policy. I even offered and got support from the shadow Cabinet for the legislation and the noble Lord will confirm that it was rejected by the party opposite when it was in government. I was told that then Government did not want that policy. I did try. It would have been a better way forward, and I think this is a better way forward as well. Let the House make decisions.

On the need for legislation, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, paraphrased the report very well when he addressed its comments. Does this House really believe that if there is a one-clause Bill to introduce a retirement age, they are not going to change that number when it goes to the other end, to the House of Commons? I think this House could take responsibility and show that we are able to do so. That was the reason I set up this committee. The size of the House is an issue, but the way to address it, as other noble Lords have said, is not just through a retirement age—I do not think that anybody thinks that will be the entirety of the way to address that.

I made the point a moment ago, and I have said it when we have looked at these issues before, including during the passage of the hereditary Peers Bill: this will be an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals, to take action and to show that it can lead reforms rather than resist them. If this House wants to have influence on policy that affects it, the way to do so is to take action ourselves. I hope we will consider that. We have an opportunity here to do so.

The report before us has been genuinely led by the House. Over 100 Members submitted evidence to the committee and it has been interesting to listen to the views of the House today. I have been clear that I am listening to the debate. I have not yet responded to the report formally through the Government but will do so and take note of this debate as well.

I turn to the specifics of the report. The committee makes the point that, because Members of this House tend to be appointed later in their careers, with an average age at introduction of 59, it is entirely logical for our retirement age to be higher than in other professions. By striking the balance at the age of 80 by 2034, which is later than for judges, magistrates and our Bishops, we do not lose the benefit of a Peer’s experience prematurely, but we do address some of the concerns that have been raised and it allows us to bring in the new expertise and talent we need. I was particularly grateful to the committee for looking at transitional arrangements. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, did not seem to take to was that this gives colleagues time to prepare. It will help Members know when they are likely to retire and address how we can bring in new Members.

On the comments from the Cross-Benchers, the 20% has never been formally recognised but I think it is a fair size for the Cross Benches. I would certainly support it, and I will talk to the convenor and others about it. I think nobody in this House would want to see the Cross-Benchers fall behind that kind of level, but certainty would help in trying to address the kind of skill set needed.

On the numbers of HOLAC Peers, I checked this earlier today and I was quite shocked. Two HOLAC Peers came in last year. The party opposite suggested that there must be more HOLAC-appointed Peers, so it is rather a surprise to find that in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2023 there were no HOLAC-appointed Peers. It is a matter for the Prime Minister, but clearly there has to be a much better allocation. The only reason I hesitate over 20% is, as I said before, the imbalance around the House. The House works better, as noted, if the party of government and the Opposition are roughly the same size. That is perfectly doable with a Cross Bench of around 20%, but it needs to be worked out with the Cross-Benchers and looking at the skills needed.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, she seems to be referring to the special pleading made by the Cross-Benchers, to which I am sympathetic. However, I raised the point about the almost complete eradication of our colleagues from Northern Ireland. Will she address that point too?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord was only talking about the DUP, because we have Members on our Benches from Northern Ireland as well. One of the things we need to look at, and we are bringing forward further proposals on this, is that the House as a whole has to better represent the whole of the UK. That has been recognised. Part of the issue is possibly allowances; people talked about the financial cost of travelling further distances and having to stay overnight. We are bringing further proposals; I totally agree that we have to have a House that is more representative on all kinds of levels, but certainly geographically, which is very important.

I turn to some of the other issues that were in the report. The comments about leave of absence from the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, were interesting, in that they think the point on conduct should apply to all, whether they are on leave of absence or Members of this House.

I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to this, but the comments about a retirement association—whether it is called emeritus or not is irrelevant; I do not mind what it is called—were really important. It is one of the things that I suggested some time ago, when we were debating the hereditary Peers Bill. Noble Lords may not be aware of the booklet, but one thing that has always concerned me about this House is that often, as Members age, they come in a bit less and we see a bit less of them. Then they get ill and we do not see them for a long time. They may come in occasionally, and they just disappear and fade away. We do not show them the respect and the value that we put on them by ever saying “Thank you” or recognising their work. They just fade away and we do not see them again.

I want Members to know what is available to them when they retire from the House. They can vote in a general election, as the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Dubs, asked me. That is in the booklet, and I recommend it. It is a way of saying to Members who retire from this House: “We value your service. These are the kinds of facilities that are still available to you, and you remain our friends and colleagues and can come to the House”. It is important that we do that.

I was rather taken aback by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord True, at the beginning—I know he is generally a bit snippy and he is cross about this anyway—when he talked about the issue of capacity, because he knows that one of the first things I did when I became Leader of the House was talk to the Administration about this. We also had a meeting through the usual channels to talk about this issue. I see a number of noble Lords who have been at these meetings acknowledging that. We have progressed that work, as he well knows; the work is under way. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this. My noble friend the Chief Whip has held a series of meetings, following on from the initial meetings we had, with the usual channels, the Clerk of the Parliaments and other House officials, which have been productive. They form the basis of an agreement on a way forward to deal with the issue of capacity.

This is a sensitive issue, and I think we all want to treat our friends, colleagues and other noble Lords with respect and kindness. That has been uppermost in the Chief Whip’s mind as he has been dealing with it. For the next steps, the respective Chief Whips and the Convenor will lead this work to take it forward and will bring a report forward to be agreed in the usual channels and presented to the Procedure Committee. That work is very important and is ongoing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry if I appear snippy. Sometimes, the Opposition are permitted to criticise proposals or to probe them. On the point I am making about capacity, I am aware of the welcome action we agreed on power of attorney, and we have had these discussions. My point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and many others made: this is an ageist and discriminatory measure, in using age as a blunderbuss to take a lot of people out of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, as a proxy for capacity. Why do we not focus on capacity and let the capable aged stay?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if this was a proxy for capacity, we would not be bringing it forward, and we would not do both at the same time. I think the noble Lord misunderstands the reasons why the retirement age has been proposed. I was perfectly willing to accept that our manifesto was rather crude in its approach: it said Members would retire at the end of the Parliament in which they were 80. The proposal brought forward by the committee is much more sophisticated and thoughtful for Members of the House. But the noble Lord seems to think that no Member of the House should ever retire unless they want to. If we constantly do that, the House will continue to grow in size and we will not bring in Members with new experience and expertise to understand what is happening. This is not in any way to disrespect Members who have given many years’ service—a lifetime of service in some cases—to the House or those who thought they would be here until they chose not to be. It is about how we can have an effective House, do our best work as the House of Lords and best contribute to the role we have.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who probably now has a different title that I cannot remember, made a comment about donors, and I entirely agree with him. If the only reason somebody is being made a Member of this House is because they have made large donations to a political party, that is entirely inappropriate and wrong. He also talked about the size of the House and ensuring that, as people left, it was not a case of just creating a vacancy. He is absolutely right, and I agree with him on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was particularly concerned that the House could be packed and flooded with Members to keep a Government in power for a long time. In a sense, that could have happened at any time in our history; we had an unlawful Prorogation under a previous Prime Minister, which the courts were able to deal with. This House has the right to say how Members are introduced. It is not sharing a secret, because I spoke to a number of noble Lords opposite about this at the time, but shortly after I became shadow Leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg said that he would introduce a thousand new Peers to force Brexit through in exactly the way that the Government wanted. A number of us felt that, if he tried that one on, we would introduce one Peer a week, and it might have taken him some time. There are ways of addressing that through our constitutional arrangements at the moment as well.

We have already taken some action on the Appointments Commission. We have strengthened the transparency in appointments and worked with the House of Lords Appointments Commission to update its vetting forms. The vetting has to be stronger, and we are looking at that. We have looked at my own party’s vetting processes as well.

I reiterate my thanks to the committee. It was given an almost impossible task, and it did it with great aplomb and sensitivity. I value the work of this House, but if we say that we will never change, always do things in exactly the same way and leave others to make the change and take no responsibility ourselves, we do not get the change that we want. This is an opportunity for the House to show that we can manage our own affairs. We do not need things to be done to us, and we can show that we have a responsibility for the work that we do. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and I think that is the point to end on: if it is not led by us, it will be led by those who know less and care less. We have a responsibility.

Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Gardiner of Kimble.

Motion agreed.

Direction of Government

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, Andy Burnham is the seventh Prime Minister in the 13 years I have been a Member of this House. Under our unstable one-party government system, Prime Ministers have had an average tenure of 21 months in my time. I worked out that this is precisely the average lifespan of a domestic hamster. Of course, we wish the current Prime Minister a longer time in Downing Street than the lifespan of a hamster. We wish him well if he seeks to make changes to our country for the long-term good on social care, political reform, cutting the cost on businesses and restoring the ease of trade and travel within Europe. These Benches will work with his Ministers to meet this ambition. I wish the new Ministers who have been appointed in this House well and I thank those who left office for their service. We are also interested to see the structure, as referred to by the noble Lord, of No. 10 North. It is not north from where I live, north of the border—it is a bit more No. 10 in the middle—but I will be interested to see how the structure of government operates in reality.

It is fair to analyse the words of the Labour Prime Minister. First, I agree that there is

“a weariness in the heart of a nation”.

I agree that there is a yearning:

“For change. For national renewal”.


These Benches also agree with the Prime Minister’s call for “actions not words”. Finally, we share the need for

“the hope, the spirit, the belief in a better future”.

These sound like Andy Burnham, but they are all actually Sir Keir Starmer’s words in his first speech as Prime Minister.

The new Prime Minister’s speech on taking office, when cross-referenced with that of his predecessor, is a little like an Elgar’s variation on a theme but with a little more espressivo and emotion. Keir Starmer said that too many people no longer believe Britain would be better for their children and promised to work until they “believe again”, and Andy Burnham ended with almost exactly the same emotional destination. He said that Britain should start to “believe again” and that he wanted to “bring back hope”.

Expectations are high, but as my former Scottish Liberal colleague Russell Johnston said:

“You don’t change the taste of the whisky by changing the shape of the bottle”.


Nor are the fundamentals and the challenges facing the Government any different because of the new Prime Minister. The tasks ahead of him are enormous, and I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that we have extra time. Indeed, tomorrow we have a debate in the House where we will be exploring further what the Government’s plans are under the new Prime Minister.

Some of the Prime Minister’s statements are welcomed by these Benches, especially in the areas we have campaigned for, where hitherto action was not as rapid as we had hoped—for example, on waste dumping, championed by my noble friend Lady Sheehan in this House; on reducing the tax burden on hospitality businesses; or on securing what we hope to be real changes to the political system on donations, on clarity, on transparency and on regulation, as my noble friend Lord Pack indicated at Questions today. On the last point, we believe there need to be full cross-party talks on protecting our democratic processes—this is of vital importance—but we also need democratic reform. I would be grateful if the Leader gave an indication of what she understands the Prime Minister’s priority to be on the electoral system and democratic reform, not just on devolution.

On water reform, for example, we had been told that we would have legislation around now, but in the Makerfield by-election Andy Burnham told the Guardian that he was in favour of public ownership. He recently told the FT that he is in favour of control, not nationalisation. Can the Leader offer clarification as to what we will receive when it comes to water reform, Thames Water in particular, and when we will receive it? It is urgent. Dumping is being carried out as we speak today. Andy Burnham also told the Financial Times that he wanted to address not just the cost of living but the cost of businesses, particularly energy costs. We welcome this, but there needs to be more clarity as to what he means by it.

He said that there is a slight difference between his approach on growth and that of his predecessor. He agreed that the number one priority of government should be growth, but he said it should be “good growth”. I wondered what that means. Is good growth not investing in fossil fuels or being pragmatic on fossil fuels? Is it trade agreements where we ditch human rights clauses? Is good growth that we increase imports from poor standards in China? More clarity as to what good growth means would be helpful. For example, many people welcomed the cap on bus fares, and I understand why. That was the first announcement by Mr Burnham. It is paid for by a further cut of development assistance for clean travel in the poorest country in the world, so more clarity is needed.

On travel, we welcome the Government’s announcement on the extension of disabled travel, championed by Tom Gordon MP in the House of Commons. We welcome the concession on digital ID. In particular, we welcome the talks on social care. Sir Ed Davey took part willingly in the talks with the Prime Minister on the need to seek cross-party consensus, and I know that the Official Opposition took part in those talks as well. Can the Leader explain a little more what we may see as a result of these talks? As Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham have both said, we need action, not words, and we need reform, not talk. On care, on electoral reform and on fiscal decentralisation, these Benches will be constructive in working with the Government, but we need a lot more information about what and when on the Government’s programme.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I am not repeating the Statement today; I am answering questions. We agreed that earlier. I welcome him back to his position as Leader of the Opposition. Long may he stay in that role—I say that genuinely. I also thank him for his comments about Sir Keir Starmer. Many of us were very proud of the work in the Government he led. He took us into government from the worst defeat the Labour Party had had, and those two years in government are years of which we can be proud. We wish him well as he continues in his role of public service, however he chooses to do that.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord True, asked about the differences and the similarities. There are always differences with a change of Prime Minister, but both Prime Ministers are Labour and they share the same values. Those values guide people in different ways. The heart of what they believe in is very similar, but they will discharge that in the ways that they know best from their experiences. The noble Lord, Lord True, had lots of questions on these things, as he often does. I listened with some interest when he was talking about the 1970s. Some of us do not think the 1970s were that bad. I lived through them as a teenager—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am talking about the music. For those of us who lived through the 1970s in our teenage years, there are lots of things to be pleased with. The point the Prime Minister is making is that every action has consequences. In the 1970s we saw deindustrialisation, more centralisation and privatisation of the most basic utilities. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the water industry. There are consequences—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Noble Lords opposite want to heckle. There will be time to answer questions. I now have something like five minutes left to answer these questions, which I am trying to do. I would like to be able to do so, if I may.

Water privatisation has had an impact on how the water industry is now run. The lack of investment in our infrastructure since those times has consequences. That is the point the Prime Minister is making about looking back. It is not to say who is to blame; it is to ask what we can learn from what we did in the past. How can we do it better and how can we avoid such mistakes again?

The noble Lord, Lord True, has completely misunderstood the purpose of No. 10 North. The Prime Minister has been clear about the value of ensuring that all parts of the country think they can connect and have a role to play in the growth of this country. There is no doubt about having a central point at which decisions are taken, with the full authority of the Prime Minister, engaging with the Treasury and working together to say, “This is our focus on what we can deliver for the nation”. I have to say that the cost of the door is neither here nor there. We should perhaps look at our own House before we look at that. We in this country should be proud that we want to decentralise more and see important decisions being taken across the country.

I do not have time to answer the questions on welfare reform, and I am sure there will be others on that issue, but I just say to the noble Lord how important it is. The two reviews whose results we are waiting for—the Milburn review on youth unemployment and the review of PIP undertaken by Stephen Timms—really will inform the decisions that are to be taken. We have to look at the long-term consequences of decisions that have been taken in the past. Welfare spending is predicted to remain pretty stable and the rise that has been predicted is half of that which happened under his Government.

However, if we do not get a grip on this then there will be serious problems, not just in the finances but for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It is a priority on this side of the House; it is completely wrong that we have over a million young people who are in neither education nor employment. They are not working or learning. We have to address that, but just removing any benefits will not do that. We have to get them off benefits and into work so that they are not claiming benefits but paying taxes. That is a huge priority for this Government, and one that we will deliver on.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke about democracy. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s comments on electoral reform. He said that he needs a mandate for that. He is not going to set up a commission without a mandate, and he referenced that in terms of the general election. He has his own view, and I think views across the House vary on this issue, but he is absolutely committed to ensuring that we preserve and protect our democracy while ensuring that everyone across the country values it. He is particularly interested in the voting system, but the money coming into politics, how we conduct our politics and the integrity of the voting system are all crucial issues.

I am sorry; because of the length of time for which the noble Lords spoke, I cannot answer any more questions, but I will endeavour to do so during the Back-Bench questions, as we have longer. The noble Lord, Lord True, complained about us not having a debate before the Recess. We have a debate this Thursday as well, which came partly from the discussions we had after he complained about that. I think only six Members of his group have signed up to it, including the Front Bench. Given what he said, I thought that rather more might have wanted to do so, but we were pleased to offer extra time for questions today.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we now move on to up to 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions. Questions should be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If Members start giving speeches, all they will do is prevent other Members asking questions. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, on this point about good growth, does it remain the Government’s policy that any company that is operating lawfully and fulfilling its legal responsibilities should be encouraged to grow its revenue and profits, hire people and pay its taxes, or is it the implication of the Prime Minister’s statement about “good growth” that there are companies which we would rather not do those things?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I expected a better question from the noble Lord, if I am honest. The whole purpose of growth is that it benefits the country, the company and the employees of that company. When those conditions are fulfilled, of course that is good growth. The noble Lord will see from measures coming forward how much we want to support business. Some of the things he can look at—this ties in with the welfare reform argument—are getting young people into work and working with companies and businesses to support them to take on those young people. So yes, we want good growth across the country.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the coverage of the Prime Minister’s Statement has been rather dismissive of his references to, and reliance upon, his experience as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it seems to me that this experience is central to the Government’s mission. Can my noble friend the Leader tell us more about the Government’s ambition to place regional and local government at the heart of their agenda for delivery?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

One of the things the Prime Minister said early on, when we met in Cabinet and in other meetings we have had, is how much he learned from being the Mayor of Greater Manchester. He brings to the table now as Prime Minister his experience not just as a previous Secretary of State and a Government Minister in Westminster but of what can be achieved when power is decentralised. It is a case of ensuring that we devolve not just responsibility but the power to make decisions to those who are best placed to understand the needs of their areas, how to bring growth to their areas and how to bring the hope and optimism that noble Lords have spoken about.

The Prime Minister has laid out a number of things already. On his visit to Truro last week, he talked about how we could look at having a devolved model in that part of the country, as well as about giving advice and support to other parts of the country that do not currently have elected mayors about how they may benefit from the powers that can be given to them. That is not just rhetoric; it is born out of the experience of what he was able to achieve in Manchester, working across the country with other mayors—from all parties, as he has been clear—and the difference that can make. That is high up on the agenda. Part of the role of No. 10 North is to bring that together and show how it has a real drive from the Government, with a focus very much on that policy.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was on a tour of the United Kingdom in recent weeks, and I welcome that. He recently visited Northern Ireland and referred to a border poll and to the Troubles Bill. However, the one thing that was not mentioned was the inter-state case being taken to the Republic of Ireland against the United Kingdom on the amnesty issue, from a Government in Dublin who have been operating a concealed amnesty since 1998. Can the Leader of the House assure us that representations will be made to the Irish Government to withdraw that outrageous case straightaway so that we can have a proper relationship and not deal with a hypocritical situation where the Republic can allow over 500 people to be murdered on our border and refuse 108 applications for people to be extradited?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord, and I think he has spoken to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about this matter. Having taken advice from my noble friend the Northern Ireland Minister, who is sitting next to me, I know that she has had conversations with the Irish Government on this and those conversations will continue. If he wants to take that up further with her then we will be happy to talk to him, but he can be assured that conversations and discussions continue on that issue.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister yesterday said that the other place had ignored for far too long the question of IPPs. Will the noble Baroness accept that this House has most certainly not ignored it? Across the whole House, there has been a concerted campaign to rid this stain from our justice system. He promised legislation “soon”. What does “soon” mean? We need to get this legislation up and running, whether it begins in this House or in the other place, as soon as we return in October.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is right, and I have made this point; there have been a number of discussions and debates in this House on the issue. It is a difficult issue, and I know he is aware of its complications and how complex it is. I think it is understood that for people who have served significantly more than the sentences imposed on them at the time to be held so much longer is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, said that we should end the sentences and he was quite clear-cut, and across the House there has been quite a strong view on that.

When any prisoner is released, we have to deal with issues of public safety, whether that is on IPP, on early release or at the end of sentences. That is why we have invested so much additional money and support into the Probation Service; I think it was £700 million extra for recruiting new probation officers. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an exact timetable for this, and I certainly could not promise to bring it back in October because the legislation has yet to be drafted—it was not drafted before, and we need to ensure that we get it right. Can I keep in contact with him on this? I am happy to do that and keep him informed. I am sure he will have views on how the legislation could be drafted. I will keep him and the House updated, but there will be no undue delay. This is something on which we want to move forward as quickly as we are able.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

These Benches wish the Prime Minister well and assure him of our prayers. I welcome his attendance at COP 31 in Turkey in a couple of months’ time and that he recognises the impact of climate change—he referenced the glacial collapse at the Nepal-China border with tragic loss of life and this being the hottest summer on record. How can the Government work to rebuild the cross-party consensus that there was just a few years ago about the urgent need to take action for the common good for those who share this single island planet home, both now and in the future?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure it is a question that should be necessarily addressed to the Government; perhaps addressing it to the Opposition might be more helpful. But, yes, it would be good to have a cross-party consensus on the actions that need to be taken. It is quite clear that climate change has a devastating effect across the world and has consequences in the UK that need to be addressed. The Prime Minister’s attendance at COP has been signalled early on for a good reason—he wants it to be recognised that he will be there and wants to play a full part. As the issues progress, the right reverend Prelate will see matters coming forward to this House. The Prime Minister has been very clear, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments about working together on these issues. This is a Prime Minister who has always had to work through consensus to get things done, and he has been clear that that is how he would rather progress things, so there will be discussions ongoing and I would hope to see greater support from the party opposite on these matters.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the strong message yesterday from the Prime Minister on hope. Hope is definitely the right message, but it can be sustained only if it is followed by real, visible, continuing delivery. It is great to see the progress on small boats, NHS waiting times and school results and even growth in the economy in an uncertain time. What are the Cabinet and the Prime Minister thinking about to sustain that growth and build the momentum that we need?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is good on hope and optimism, and I like to think that the Prime Minister may follow in my footsteps. I was reflecting earlier that it was 10 years ago that I gave a lecture on the benefit of hope and optimism in politics; perhaps it had some impact—perhaps not. The whole purpose of having optimism and growth is because, if people are optimistic about the future, if they believe their lives will get better and believe their children’s lives will be better than their lives, that galvanises them into an energy that the country benefits from. Part of that is economic growth, but part of it is the democratisation issues that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to. It is people feeling they have some control over their lives and their future and can have an impact on decisions about how they live and how they work. It is not just an abstract concept.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, because, on the one hand, he said there was nothing different and then he talked about all the new initiatives that had come forth from the new Prime Minister; both cannot be true. But when the Prime Minister is talking about these initiatives, he is talking about concrete change to let people know that they can have a greater say in their lives—in how they work, how they live and where they live. That will help our economy to grow and bring the economic growth needed if we are going to deliver on these changes.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why do the Government not rule out any tax rises in the next Budget, given the disaster of the previous two Budgets when speculation about tax rises and actual tax rises destroyed jobs, drove up unemployment, closed businesses, undermined confidence and abolished hope?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am always intrigued when the party opposite talks about disastrous Budgets, because I remember one very pertinent one. But I think the noble Lord is on to something with one of the things he said, and a very interesting debate on the economy this morning on Radio 4 raised it. He talked about the speculation and the discussion before the Budget. Part of the radio debate was that it does not happen to the same extent in other countries at all; it is something very peculiar to the UK. It does have an impact and, as much as it would be very nice to be able to give him an answer and say I can rule this in and rule that out, it adds to the fuel of speculation. One of the reasons the Government have brought the Budget forward to 28 October is to try to limit that time for speculation, so that you get a complete answer. I hear calls from the party opposite, “Can you rule this in, can you rule that out, can you say this, will you commit to that?” No, but there will be a Budget, and everything will become clearer.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I actually watched the whole of the Prime Minister’s Statement in person, and the key things he identified were some of the fundamental challenges that this country faces. The key thing that I took away was the fact that he said Brexit had caused huge damage. If that is the case—and I agree with him—why on earth are the Prime Minister and his Cabinet still having those ludicrous red lines of no single market and no customs union? Joining those are the easiest way of getting growth into our economy.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It is very easy to say that Brexit is the total reason for all the problems. It is part of it. In his Statement, the Prime Minister did not say that all these problems were caused by Brexit. He went back to the 1970s, back to the deindustrialisation of the country and back to some disastrous privatisations and he also referenced the poor Brexit deal that was not in the best interests of the UK. The Government do have their red lines and we are not going to go back into the European Union, but, as has been said from the Dispatch Box before and will be said again, we do want a much better relationship. We will look at decisions that can be taken and agreements that can be made to improve the position, but we are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future at all.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear next from the Cross Benches, then the Labour Benches and then the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the Government have cut VAT, cut business rates and reinstated the £2 bus fare. Simultaneously, the cost of their borrowing continues to rise to increasingly frightening levels. The Prime Minister tells us that he is funding this through reprioritising spending within government, so can the Minister tell us what has been deprioritised?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has looked at a number of issues and said, “Where can we do things better and do things differently?” It has been about deprioritising some issues and reprioritising others. I have not got a complete list; I will get some more information for when I come to the Dispatch Box next time on this. He has wanted to give a breathing space because, for most people at the moment, it is really hard just day to day and looking at price increases. We need to have a breathing space for people. We need to support the kind of fiscal discipline that can bring the cost of borrowing down. As we do that and say more will be available in the Budget, we need to find a way through so we take the pressure off families.

It is worth noting that, in the first half of this year, this country was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and wages have increased more in the first two years of this Government than they did under a decade under the previous Government. One of the issues we have to contend with is the international situation, which is very volatile. No one could have predicted that the Strait of Hormuz would have been such a political and economic issue at this time. The Government are looking at all ways. Noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister say that one of the reasons he appointed the former Defence Secretary to be Chancellor of the Exchequer is because he understands the competing pressures that we have to meet. As the Budget comes forward—and work is going on apace on that at the moment—it is a way to get money working better for the country and just give a breathing space to families and individuals who are trying to make ends meet at what is quite a difficult time for them.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Leader say more about how we can significantly embed the work being done to create what I believe will be around 50,000 new apprenticeships by the end of this Parliament for young people aged 18 to 24 years? I know that she mentioned already a lot of work being done by the Milburn review and others across government, but how is the Prime Minister going to really bring this together to ensure that there is a road to success for all young people in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question, because it gets to the nub of many of the issues. Support is already being given to young people to start in these new guaranteed jobs, and those jobs are being taken up now as we speak. If you can reshape the system so that people do not feel they are being written off, and there is money available for employers to take on apprentices, with jobs available at the end of that system, then that is what matters.

We are not just waiting for the Milburn review; there is work ongoing already on some of the things that Alan Milburn has said in his conclusions, such as increasing face-to-face assessments, providing personalised work programmes and providing employment support, with £3.5 billion for employers taking on those who want to work. People have dismissed this Government too quickly in saying we have done nothing on welfare reform, but an important thing that we have done is providing a right to try work for people with disabilities. Too often, it had been assumed that people with disabilities could not work, and if they could, they had to give up any benefits and simply leave those, and if it did not work out for them, they would have to apply again. Now, there is a gap where they can apply to work, can try to work and get the opportunity to do so. When it comes to these types of issues, we need to pay for success rather than keep paying for failure, which is what happened over the last 10 years.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The sense of positivity that the Prime Minister brought to the House in the last two days, particularly in respect of hope and growth and tax, as the Minister said, is in marked contrast to the previous regime, and it is genuinely welcome. Unfortunately, however, growth is now predicted to be negligible for this quarter and the next, and the gilts market has responded by raising our interest rates to a record higher than the aforementioned Liz Truss Budget. Can I therefore pick up the point the Minister made in reply to my noble friend Lord Redwood in respect of Budget measures? I take the point about her not wanting to rule things out. In fact, the Labour Party manifesto, which the Prime Minister has agreed to follow, specifically ruled out increases to income tax, increases in VAT and increases in corporation tax. Leaving aside the sleight of hand with national insurance, it would be possible to rule out wealth taxes and increases to capital gains tax. I ask this because I can tell the Minister that the market is frozen, and people are not making decisions. We might end up with the same mess that we had last time. I urge her Government to think carefully about whether it is possible to indicate or to tell the market that certain tax rises will be ruled out.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for his comments, which were in marked contrast to those of his leader, who did not think that we should have been saying some of these things. He makes a valid point, but as soon as you get into speculating about one area of the Budget or another—“Can you rule this out, can you rule that in?”—there is a problem. One of the reasons that the Government have brought the Budget forward is to limit that speculation period, so that things will be clear as soon as possible. If you listen to the interview that I heard this morning, one of the greatest problems that is affecting gilt and other markets is how much speculation happens in terms of asking the Government to rule things in or out. I hope to see the noble Lord here on 28 October, when there will be a debate in this House following the Budget, but I think the Government are right to bring it forward to avoid, as much as possible, the kind of speculation the noble Lord is talking about.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, particularly on the areas of hope, optimism and devolution. As someone from Northern Ireland, I encourage the Leader of the House to talk to the Prime Minister about ways to make the institutions in Stormont more functionable and workable and to enable growth in the local economy. With that in mind, can she discuss with him the possibility of the reform of the institutions to make them equitable and fair?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As a former leader of her party and a former Minister in Stormont, the noble Baroness knows how complex these issues have been and how hard-fought the institutions were. As a Northern Ireland Minister myself, I remember the discussions that went on, at length, to get there. It is really important that we all work together, and I think the Prime Minister has shown his commitment to Northern Ireland by visiting Northern Ireland so early as Prime Minister. We must also work together because the institutions need to be effective. Politicians may argue about it, but the people of Northern Ireland are desperate for parties to work together, and desperate to see the organisations being as effective as possible. I can assure her that I will discuss these issues with the Secretary of State and with the Prime Minister, and with my noble friend who is the Minister for Northern Ireland in this House.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is very refreshing to have a Prime Minister who looks like he wants to be Prime Minister and is enjoying it. I also welcome his very first announcement that showed his interest in sport. When he was a spad, back when I was Sports Minister, he made it quite clear that Sport England would still be consulted over the loss of playing fields.

The Prime Minister is committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, yet it is being decimated in many ways, particularly on cross-community consent. Could the noble Baroness put forward any measures that would give us more confidence that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is being honoured in full, as the Prime Minister wants?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, what comes across is how important confidence was. That was voted for by the people of Northern Ireland with a sense of optimism. We have to redouble our efforts to recommit to all the values that were expressed in that, and the hope that was expressed in that. Northern Ireland only operates with cross-party consensus and agreement. When that is damaged, it is not just the institutions that are damaged but the future of Northern Ireland too. When there are protests et cetera on TV, it damages the economy of Northern Ireland as well. We may not agree on everything, but I share with the noble Baroness a commitment to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland should be as positive as possible. I hope we would both agree to work across parties and make all efforts to ensure that can happen. She is right that the Prime Minister is enjoying being Prime Minister, but he is only enjoying it because he wants to achieve something, and Northern Ireland will be part of that.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, back in 2010 I knew the Prime Minister slightly; he has probably forgotten me. He was a rather nice man, I thought, and I did offer to help him with his first election campaign for leader. He did not accept me, and the MPs who knew him did not vote for him. The question I have is this: in his Statement, the Prime Minister did not mention defence spending. This coming year, we are meant to be spending 2.75% on defence and, by 2030, we are meant to be spending 3%. Can my noble friend the Minister help with that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am pleased to be called the noble Lord’s noble friend. He may not have stayed for the whole three and a half hours of the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, but I certainly heard him talk about defence. He was very clear that one of the reasons that the Chancellor is the Chancellor is because he has been Defence Secretary and understands these issues. What he was clear about was that the Budget and the spending review will set out how we get to 3.5% by 2035, and also establish the path to 3%, and how that will be done. He was very clear on that.

I think that there are two sides to this. As a country, we have to step up on defence. I would say to the noble Lord that we promised in our manifesto, at the last election in 2024, to get to 2.5% spending on defence in this Parliament. We have already achieved that, and I have to say that the party opposite never got to 2.5%—but circumstances and times are changing. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister did talk about this in the Statement. I do not expect every Member of this House to listen to the full three and a half hours, but it might be worth the noble Lord reading Hansard, because the Prime Minister was quite clear about his commitment when he spoke yesterday in Parliament.

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome our Prime Minister’s ambition to deliver good growth in every postcode, but good growth depends on good health. Our Prime Minister has already demonstrated his commitment to addressing social determinants of health in the Greater Manchester region. Can the Leader of the House confirm that reducing health inequalities and addressing wider determinants of health will be at the heart of the regional growth agenda?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

A healthy nation is always the aim of every Government. If we look back to when the National Health Service was first set up, we see that it was set up as part of the Department of Housing, because those two things are inextricably linked. I remember being at a friend’s 60th birthday party a while ago. She said the three things you needed for a long and happy life were home, good health and work—she added “someone to love”, because she was very happily married. Those are the determinants that make life worth living. If we have not got a healthy nation, we will not have a productive nation.

As well as physical health, we need to do more on mental health issues, which have become a serious issue. If you look at the number of people who are not working because of mental health issues, you see that that is something that desperately needs changing across the country. So, yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The Health Bill was recently introduced in the other place. It will be coming to this House, where we will have the opportunity to discuss those kinds of issues.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish the new Prime Minister well. The key question is whether he represents a change in style or substance. Going back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord True, what are the three new things versus the Starmer Government that the Prime Minister wants to bring in, and what are the three things that he wants to stop?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not answering questions such as that. It is more than a change of style. There is a change of style, but the same values remain. As measures come forward, both in the Budget and as we progress the programme, and then when we see a King’s Speech in due course, we will see the changes. However, totting up a change here or a difference there, as if it were some kind of balance sheet, is not the way we want to do politics.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next, then the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I too think that words of thanks need to be paid to Sir Keir Starmer, because he did many things, in particular making our country respected outside of these islands; people took note of that, so he was in my prayer. The new Prime Minister will also be in my prayer.

The question I have to ask is on the statement I made in your Lordships’ House about large majorities in Parliament. In the words of Francis Pym, large majorities do not make for good government, because one day they may turn against you—which we saw over the reform of the welfare state. Can we be assured that the new Prime Minister will have the nerve to depend on all Members of Parliament to bring necessary reform to the welfare bill?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

First, I am grateful that the noble and right reverend Lord is remembering both our Prime Ministers in his prayers; I am sure they will appreciate that. The noble and right reverend Lord is right to highlight the work of Prime Minister Starmer on international issues. When he became Prime Minister, I do not think it was anticipated or expected that we would see so many international issues at crisis point and needing intervention. As a result of his premiership, our country is more valued and respected on the international stage than it was previously. Even today, Prime Minister Burnham will be talking to President Macron, and they will be building on the work of the coalition of the willing, which has been so important in Ukraine.

On good government and Governments taking on their own Back-Benchers, the important thing with Governments that have both large and small majorities is to work with and listen to people. Among Labour MPs, I see engagement and a real willingness to deal with issues such as welfare reform and the Budget. The key thing is always how it is done. The measures that were taken last time included providing people with disabilities with the ability to test work to see if it works for them. If it does not work, they can go back on benefits, but we try to give them support to go into work. Those kinds of measures will be warmly welcomed. Talking to MPs—last night I was with Back-Bench MPs in the Commons—I see a real willingness to engage with this issue and ensure that we do better for those people who are not in employment or education, who are not earning or learning; they cannot be written off. The determination is there. It is not a case of taking it on but of listening to and working with people to get the best possible result for those who need work, and for the country as a whole through the benefit that will bring to our economy.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement refers to the rewiring of the British state and poses the question of

“who, in government, drives growth?”

In that context, can my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what role is envisaged for the new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade? There is no doubt that, if we are going to achieve the growth that we want, we will have to utilise the science and technology expertise in this country, not just to grow businesses but to ensure that they remain in the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend brings his experience of science to his question. This is absolutely crucial. If we do not have innovation or new technologies, we are not going to maximise the potential for growth. It is significant that, when we look at these issues and at where the advantages and disadvantages are, particularly on AI, we see for the first time around the Cabinet table a Minister with direct responsibility for AI. He will look at where it brings benefits and at where there are problems that need to be addressed.

My noble friend talked about rewiring the state, but we are bringing the talents of all departments together. That is part of the role of No. 10 North, where there will be one door for people to go through. People will not have to go to different departments; there will be better co-ordination. The No. 10 Delivery Unit here in London will also be an important part of showing how you can make a difference. Once you have got the policy, you have to make sure the policy works. Too often, across all Governments, we pass legislation, step back and wait for it to happen. If we are going to bring change, we need to know that that legislation is there for a reason, and we need to make sure we implement it and that it has effect.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, domestic abuse charities have issued warnings about the safety of victims following the early release of prisoners. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of early release to victims of domestic abuse, and what assurances can the Minister offer them?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness hits on one of the really difficult issues around this. That is why so many of the categories of people who would previously have been under early release will not be receiving early release. Whenever somebody is released, even if it is at the end of their sentence, it is important that the surviving victim understands the protection that is available to them. Whereas previously we had exclusion orders, in future there will be restricted areas. We are also putting additional money into the Probation Service for additional probation officers. This will be the biggest change we have seen in how victims are protected from offenders. There will also be a far more aggressive tagging regime; more people will be tagged. So a number of measures will come together.

When the Prime Minister and Alex Norris, the Justice Secretary, were looking at this issue, at the forefront of their minds was how this will impact on those who have survived attacks and abuse. Most of us will know people who have been through that ordeal: people who have sometimes had to give evidence in court and go through all that, and sometimes have not even got to court. This is absolutely crucial. The noble Baroness will be aware of some of those measures, but there may be new measures coming forward of which she is not aware. I will keep her informed on how we can progress this.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader and I were both members of the Government when our now Prime Minister had his first go at solving the social care issue. I invite my noble friend to, first, welcome the commitment of the leader of the Liberal Democrats to take part in this, and to perhaps explore how we can ensure that, this time, the loyal Opposition party can do the same, to land the big prize that reform of social care would bring to millions of people.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

So many of us in this House are dealing, and will deal, with the care of family and friends; it is a huge strain, both financially and emotionally. The prize of getting this right is enormous, and it is very easy, when any solution is suggested, for people to say, “We cannot do that, that is too expensive”, or “This will not work”. We have to be a bit more creative, and all of us here may be the beneficiaries of this if we get it right. I hope it will be this House, and not the other House, that has to wait that long. I would invite all of those who care about this issue to put any prejudices aside and not to start making red lines over what we can and cannot discuss. We have to find a way through, and the Prime Minister, while not scarred, will remember the previous difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady May, looked at this as well, and had similar problems when she tried to find a way forward. Rather than just criticising people for something that people do not think is acceptable, there is a way of saying that this is such a crucial issue that touches the lives of nearly everybody. Around this House, we all know lots of people who are going through this at the moment. If we can find a way through this, we will give peace of mind and dignity to millions of people across the country.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

The Prime Minister said in his Statement that he will

“build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy”.

to drive growth and job creation. That is fantastic news, and I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister on those words. Does this mean that HMG will now listen to every single business group in this country, and heed their overwhelming advice to repeal those parts of the Employment Rights Act that are currently undermining jobs?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I was disappointed when the party opposite set its face against the Employment Rights Act in the way that it did. It is important, and most employers which are good employers find the benefits from it in both their balance sheets and their productivity. I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about repealing anything in the Employment Rights Act, but we want to work with employers on how we implement it and ensure that they can get the best from their workforce. One of the things that we are doing is providing the grants and support we were talking about to take on young people and people with disabilities. Unless we look at the whole nation for employment, employers are losing out, and the country is losing out as well.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, and he faces a daunting task in reversing the Conservative legacy. This includes 25.3 million people living below the minimum living standard, declining life expectancy, potholed roads in every street, 7.6 million on NHS waiting lists in England alone, social care in disarray, universities in crisis, the poorest 20% paying a higher proportion of their income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%, and the UK languishing at or near the bottom of the G7 and the OECD league of investment in productive assets. I am not sure there is enough paper in this place, but will the Leader consider producing a list of Conservative failures?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I will do my best in the time available, but I might not be able to repeat them all. One thing that is important to note is that decisions, and consequences of actions taken, do not happen in a vacuum. I come back to the example I gave earlier: the failure of some of the privatisations, water being an example, where we then failed to invest in the water companies. We are paying for the consequences, from dirty rivers and water supplies being cut off. At the end of the day, we have to look back and see what went wrong, and why some of those things had such a disastrous effect on the lives of people in this country. As a Government, we can do better. It is important to be optimistic and to offer hope, but also to offer concrete change that really makes a difference; not just providing economic growth, but a better quality of life for every citizen of this country, and—to coin a phrase—growth in every postcode.

Humble Address

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Privy Seal]

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, to return to His Majesty the thanks of this House for His Majesty’s most gracious Message, and to assure His Majesty that this House, always desirous of availing itself of every opportunity to manifest its dutiful attachment to His Majesty’s Royal Person and Family, will cheerfully concur in all such Measures, as shall be necessary and proper for giving effect to the object of His Majesty’s Message.

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

My Lords, welcome back. It would probably be helpful if I briefly explained to the House the context for this Motion. On 15 July, the King sent a gracious Message to this House seeking consideration of the financial support of the Royal Household and to ask this House to adopt such measures as the House of Commons proposes suitable. The Motion I am moving replies to that King’s Message. It indicates that the House will concur with provisions that the Commons proposes and that when the Commons sends us the expected Bill, we will consider it through the usual procedures. I hope that explains the intention behind the humble Address.

Motion agreed nemine dissentiente, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain.

Tributes: Lord Laming

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, today I pay tribute to Lord Laming. His lifetime of public service has left an indelible mark on the whole fabric of British social work, public management and the very conscience of our nation. Herbert’s journey into the public sphere began with a deeply practical grounding, dedicating 20 years to Hertfordshire County Council and ultimately serving as director of social services, before rising to become Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate from 1991 to 1998.

However, it was his subsequent work on the national stage that elevated him into the public consciousness as a fearless seeker of accountability. Following the tragic death of eight year-old Victoria Climbié, the Government turned to Lord Laming to chair the landmark inquiry, in which he diagnosed a yawning gap between policy aspiration and front-line delivery. He famously observed that protecting a child

“needed nothing more than a manager doing their job by asking pertinent questions”.

His work directly laid the foundations for the Every Child Matters framework in the Children Act 2004. Years later, following the tragedy of baby P, he was called on once more to deliver an urgent national review, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to ensuring that the child’s welfare remains paramount.

Since entering this House in 1998, Herbert Laming was a pillar of the Cross Benches. His parliamentary peers recognised his fairness and integrity by electing him Convener of the Cross Benches from 2011 to 2015, followed by a distinguished tenure as Chairman of Committees. He spent decades reminding us that policies are only as good as their front-line execution. He combined a razor-sharp administrative intellect with a deeply compassionate heart. We owe him a debt of gratitude for forcing our country to look closer, to act more quickly and to better protect some of the most innocent and vulnerable in society. His legacy will endure for generations, and we remember him as a man of great generosity, spirit and decency—and as good company. We had many chats in my office, and I will always remember him first and foremost as a great friend. I know he is going to be sorely missed across your Lordships’ House, but weren’t we lucky to have him here with us? We send our deepest and most heartfelt condolences to all his family and friends.

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for her marvellous tribute. Like her, I convey our sincerest sympathy to Herbert’s family and friends.

I never heard Herbert raise his voice. Perhaps he did if he ever had a recalcitrant dog, but I doubt that, because Herbert would have calmed the dog, as he calmed every situation, however difficult—and there were quite a few in his life. As the Leader said, he has left a legacy that goes far beyond anything that most of us could ever even aspire to. As she said in her notable tribute, he did outstanding service in chairing two of the most harrowing and important inquiries and reports ever undertaken in the United Kingdom, in the Climbié and the baby P cases. In his typically painstaking, ever-listening and ever-giving to others way, his work revolutionised child care. I can only underline everything that the Leader said about those reports and recommendations. They have come to define the best of modern, professional and inter-agency standards.

He was a consummate professional, though he believed, and said so, that career paths could be closed because of too tightly prescribed routes in life. Much of Herbert’s career actually happened by accident, as he acknowledged. He said:

“We are writing off a huge amount of human potential”,


telling young professionals that

“qualifications had got us through the door, but from now on it was what we did that mattered”.

He was a practical man, with an every-open ear and eye. What you did for others was what he saw.

Some of his greatest insights into the need for inter-agency co-operation came from a very varied career. He started work as a probation officer in Nottinghamshire, near Stanton Ironworks, where my parents met—something we used to joke about quite often. In probation, he went on to study mental health, becoming a psychiatric social worker, and that informed his long, magnificent service in Hertfordshire, which the Leader referred to.

I first met Herbert in No. 10, in the early 1990s, when John Major was pushing through a programme of public service reform, which was aimed at placing greater emphasis on the needs of the user, transparency of outcomes and public accountability. Herbert was made Chief Inspector of Social Services in 1991, and he remained so until 1998. He was an enormous ally in all those efforts to improve public services for users. He was always, as I found then, an inspiration to talk to and a breath of fresh air. He was not a softy. He was hard-headed but kindly-hearted, as the Leader said.

Constant learning was something he applied to himself throughout his life:

“We must … never allow ourselves to think that we know everything”,


he said in an interview late in his life. Amen to that. And how much we learned from his great service in this House, not least as the Convenor of the Cross Benches. He was uniquely considerate of others. I must place on record my personal gratitude to him, as the Leader has in her case, for his sound advice in my many roles in this place.

Perhaps I might end by quoting what was said to me earlier by a younger Conservative colleague, more than 40 years Herbert’s junior: “I do not intend to speak”, she wrote, “But I wanted to let you know of Herbert’s kindness. I turned to him privately many times, as he was so generous with his time and his wise words. I will miss him so much”. We could all say the same of this dear man, who was a giant of public service and who will go on touching the lives of people at risk for generations to come. We will all miss him.

Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Privy Seal]

That it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the Draft Conversion Practices Bill presented to both Houses on 25 June (CP 1604), and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 22 January 2027.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can absolutely confirm that I discussed it with both the Government Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. We do not generally convene as a three; we speak separately and together, often.

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

My Lords, it might help the House to know that, by the time the noble Baroness spoke to the Chief Whip, the Motion had already been tabled and we had been alerted.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The usual channels were not convened, informed or written to. When we were notified that a Motion had been tabled, that is not the way that the usual channels operate our business. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm the point that the Leader indicated. Had the other Benches been informed—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I do not why they are laughing; this is their Prime Minister. He said that he wanted to see politics done differently. He said he wanted to see more consensus—which means working together to debate the policies of the Government—and more of a partnership approach from the Government, treating Parliament properly, for both policy and legislation.

We can judge parties and Prime Ministers by their words or by what they do. Those were fine words, but we are going to judge the Government by what they do. If they choose to absent themselves from scrutiny, while one House of Parliament is sitting, we will know that those were just words and that the Prime Minister has no intention to do politics differently or take Parliament seriously and does not respect the House of Lords, and we will draw our conclusions and behave accordingly.

There is an opportunity for the Lord Privy Seal to demonstrate that the Prime Minister’s own words to Labour MPs had some meaning, to make a generous response to my noble friend Lord True—enabling him to withdraw his Motion and for us to debate the Government’s policies, which appear to be popular on the other side—and to answer questions. We can do that this week, when this House is sitting. I look forward to what she has to say.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord True, and thank those Ministers who have served in government and have now left government. Their service has been exemplary, they have all been dedicated and hard-working and we are grateful for their continued support and wish them well. I welcome the fact that my noble friend the Chief Whip has been reappointed. It is not necessarily the greatest secret of the House at the moment, but we look forward to working with him. I look forward to working with him as well, and I thank him for his comments about my reappointment to the Cabinet.

At the start of this Session, in the King’s Speech, we, as group leaders, pledged and spoke of a reset, returning to our usual ways of working in a collegiate and productive way that best benefits this House and the work that we are entrusted to undertake. As a matter of clarity—I know that the Chief Whips have spoken outside—yesterday’s Motion was tabled at around 5 pm. I later went down to see the Leader of the Opposition. When I first tried to speak to him, I was told that he was unavailable to speak to me, although he realised within a few minutes that that was not a good idea and came down. I am grateful to him for that, although it was not, as the noble Lord knows, the most productive conversation.

[Lord True (Con)]

For clarity, I had no knowledge that the Leader of the House had been told that. Of course, as soon as I heard that she had been told that, I came immediately down to the corridor, as she has just acknowledged. There was no question whatever of my refusing to see the Leader of the House on any occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, because I was told by his office that he was unavailable to see me at that point. I did say that he then came down to see me, but I am grateful for the clarification that he was not involved in that decision by his office.

The Motion was tabled at around 5 pm and, as the Chief Whips have agreed, there were no discussions with the usual channels until around 9.30 pm.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

Around 9 pm.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Okay, 9 pm. I have to say, given what was said—we all agreed on how we would say this when we had the King’s Speech—I was a bit surprised and, as I say, disappointed that there was no consultation, discussion, engagement or even notice from the noble Lord. There was no request for a Statement. There was no discussion to say, “Have we got any plans this week for a debate? Would we like to do that?” The first we knew about it was a Motion being tabled. There was no attempt at all to seek to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord in any of the ways to which we committed when we had the debate on the King’s Speech. I must say to the noble Lord that I really thought that we had made some progress then.

As the noble Lord said, business Motions moved by the Opposition are not unprecedented, but they are extremely rare. Only twice in recent history have the Opposition attempted to take control of the Order Paper in this way, and doing so was very much opposed then by the noble Lord opposite. Lord Richard did it in 1996, about 30 years ago, in response to the Scott report. I did something similar in 2019, reflecting a Motion that had been tabled in the House of Commons in relation to Brexit; I hope that none of us would want to return to those bad-tempered days of debate. Fortunately—particularly for the party opposite, including the noble Lord and his predecessors—this has never happened before with a change of Prime Minister.

I completely agree with, and have always committed to, the idea that the House should be given ample opportunity to scrutinise the Government. However, in politics, as in life, patience is a virtue. This is day 2 of a new Prime Minister. The Government are still being formed; we saw an appointment just now. Of course, we will welcome scrutiny—Ministers will come to this House and Parliament will do its job in scrutinising the work of the new Government—but this Motion is unnecessary. It is not the way this House does business. There have not been any extensive policy changes at this point, and the Prime Minister has committed to move forward on the basis of the manifesto on which this party was elected at the 2024 election.

On an issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, this morning, the Prime Minister announced a targeted intervention on VAT to help with the cost of living. Today, a Written Ministerial Statement was laid to update the House on these matters, and a topical Oral Question on Thursday relates to these matters. Further, in the autumn, noble Lords will have to scrutinise the regulations that give effect to the policy. That is hardly dodging scrutiny.

I have also laid a Written Ministerial Statement today to inform Parliament of the machinery of government changes that have taken place, and my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent has answered a PNQ on the topic. My point is that the scrutiny of government is continuing. We have a number of Bills before us which also deserve scrutiny, Oral Questions to be asked, Statements to be repeated and replied to, and yesterday 10 Private Notice Questions were tabled—an exceptional number. General debates will take place on Thursday, and we will continue to lay Written Ministerial Statements as required. If this Motion were carried, it would be put at risk a full day of business tomorrow and continued scrutiny of legislation that this House presumably considers important.

The Prime Minister has been very clear: he takes Parliament seriously. I can tell the noble Lord—[Interruption.] It is no good the party opposite making those comments. It is day two of a new Prime Minister, and I would like to have a considered response from him and for the House fully and properly to debate proposals when he brings them forward. As a parliamentarian of nearly 30 years who has been on the Front Bench—in government and in opposition—for over 25 years, I hope that noble Lords recognise my commitment to the work of this House and to scrutiny of government. Rest assured, we will not seek to evade or avoid scrutiny of our Government’s policies, because we will be proud of those policies as they are drafted and brought forward for further discussion.

This Prime Minister did not set the timing for the change of leadership. The Prime Minister did not set the timing for the recess dates. The noble Lord tabled his Motion yesterday. He has known for some time now—it has not exactly been a state secret—when the new Prime Minister was taking office. Procedures such as this should be used only in rare and unprecedented times. The party opposite has ensured that a change of party leader between elections is certainly not unprecedented. I urge noble Lords not to accept this Motion. But, whatever the outcome, can we rise above some of the rancour today, which was unnecessary? I wish all noble Lords a restful Summer Recess, and I look forward to further scrutiny in September.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reciprocate the noble Baroness’s last words and wish that to all Members of this House. This House works extremely hard and certainly merits the time off it will have. I also agree with her—I said this at the outset of my speech—that these things are exceptional. The noble Baroness put forward a Motion of this kind at the time of the debate over prorogation, which was pretty well unprecedented. As I explained in my speech, it is unprecedented—apart from in 1963—for a change of this kind to take place when the House of Commons is not sitting. That is the case for your Lordships’ House being given the opportunity to debate these questions. I do value good relations with the noble Baroness, and if by that incident or anything else—by sin of commission or omission—she has been disobliged, I apologise for that.

Returning to the debate, we had 10 minutes from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I do not really know what he was on about for most of that time. He certainly was not relentless for accountability: he was as relentless as a limp rag when it came to criticism of the Government. He certainly fell below the standard of the time. As far as the party opposite are concerned, what are they so worried about? A short three-hour debate tomorrow would not interfere with any holiday plans. Mr Burnham says that he wants to bring back hope. That must be more than an admission of the hopelessness of two years of Keir Starmer, his Government and their huge toll on business and jobs. It must be an expression of confidence, as we have heard from others, that his policies are better. So why are they so afraid to debate them here, in Parliament, now, when the time is right?

This House is a House of scrutiny, and I believe we should assert our right to be informed and to be heard. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Message from the King

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to deliver to your Lordships a message signed with his own hand.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the message is as follows:

“His Majesty, being desirous that the provision made by Parliament for the financial support of the Royal Household should be considered, asks the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to concur in the adoption of such measures as the House of Commons may propose as suitable”.

Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is with a profound sense of sadness, shared across the House, that I pay tribute today to one of the truly monumental figures of our nation’s legal and parliamentary heritage. The news of the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, shortly before his 100th birthday, is deeply felt by us all.

James Mackay was a man of towering intellect, yet he was defined equally by his quiet humility, his deep faith, an unwavering commitment to public service and great generosity of spirit. Born the son of a railway signalman in Edinburgh, his journey to the highest legal offices of state is a testament to his extraordinary talent, rising to become dean of the Faculty of Advocates before serving with distinction as Lord Advocate. His deep grounding in Scottish law brought a rigorous, analytical clarity to everything he did—a perspective that enriched the entire jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.

In 1987, Margaret Thatcher broke with centuries of tradition by appointing a Scottish lawyer as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. For a decade, serving in both the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments, Lord Mackay occupied the Woolsack with a quiet, revolutionary authority. He was an historic, modernising Lord Chancellor. He shepherded the Children Act 1989 through this House and on to the statute book. It was a piece of legislation that radically reshaped family law, firmly establishing that a child’s welfare is the courts’ paramount consideration. That has stood the test of time.

Although Lord Mackay never sought conflict, he was never afraid of controversy, if he believed it served the public good. He introduced pioneering reforms to the legal profession that expanded access to justice for millions. Yet for all his grand achievements on the national stage, he retained that gentle humanity and his characteristic warmth and friendliness. Whether it was a word in passing in the corridors of your Lordships’ House or pulling up a chair for lunch in the Long Room, you would welcome his company. Like many others, I would listen in admiration, and often awe, when he spoke in the Chamber or in Committee. He would speak without notes, always making insightful and pertinent comments, perfectly crafted—and delightfully concise.

When Lord Mackay retired from this House in July 2022, after more than four decades of dedicated service, it said so much about his character that he did not use his final remarks to dwell solely on the great offices of state or the complex legislation he had championed. Instead, he drew our attention to the Prayers that begin our proceedings each day, stating:

“I believe that I have been sustained until now by answers to what we pray for at our opening every day”.—[Official Report, 20/7/22; col. 1984.]


That was the essence of James Mackay. He possessed a mind capable of mastering the most intricate complexities of constitutional law, with a heart that saw, valued and respected every individual who contributed to the life of Parliament.

Lord Mackay was a giant of the law, a faithful servant of the Crown and a deeply cherished Member of this House. We send our deepest, most heartfelt condolences to his family—his wife Bett and his son and daughters—his friends, his colleagues and all those who knew and loved him. He will be sorely missed.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her warm tribute to our late beloved friend and colleague, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When I say “our” beloved colleague, I mean all of us—all here who knew him and heard him for over 40 years as a Member of this House. I can think of few, if any, Peers who were so sincerely liked and admired on all sides as was James Mackay.

The noble Baroness set out some of his extraordinary achievements: dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Advocate, a Scottish Law Lord, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Chancellor for 10 years, a Knight of the Thistle and latterly honoured by his Queen as Lord Clerk Register of Scotland. Never were such a string of great garlands laid on the brow of a more humble man—not only humble in origin, though he was that, but a man of abiding humility, as our Leader said. Pomposity and pride were utterly alien to him, in the being or seeing of them.

The core of Lord Mackay’s life was the Bible and that higher power on which he long and regularly reflected. He observed the Lord’s day. When I was new in No. 10, I remember Switch explaining to me not only that you should not ring the Lord Chancellor on a Sunday but that you could not—the line would stay dead. His deep Christian faith moulded a bedrock of principle. As our Leader said, he never sought conflict, but he did not flinch from difficulties if the cause was just. As she said, as the first member of the Scottish Bar ever to sit on the Woolsack he set out to break restrictive practices in the law and open access to justice to more people. It did not make him popular, but he saw it through. Among his many legislative achievements were not only the Children Act, to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which brought clarity—like the Children Act—in difficult fields of morality and law.

Lord Mackay never intended to be a lawyer. He had the rare distinction of first class degrees in maths from both Edinburgh and Cambridge, where he was the senior wrangler—which was an achievement—and he taught maths before reading for the Bar. This was testament to the extraordinary clarity and precision of James Mackay’s mind, and his unerring ability to discern the truth of arguments and determine solutions: the very essence of a good judge. Yet how lightly he carried his great wisdom and learning, always expressed in the simplest language, spoken softly, as the noble Baroness said, and with the most beguiling humour. He had unimpeachable integrity and a fierce independence of mind which, perhaps, was his highland character. He graced that great office of Lord Chancellor, speaking truth and justice to power in the Cabinet, defending the rule of law and presiding in this House.

Lord Mackay was a kindly man, generous in his advice to others, courteous to a fault, with a twinkle in his eye and a quizzical air that made you feel, perhaps, that he was puzzled that others could not see the solutions as swiftly as he did. After he went to the Back Benches, he used to sit on the second row, behind the Minister. When you were at the Dispatch Box and you saw by your shoulder that hand creeping over the back of the Bench to haul himself to his feet, you knew you were in for either the most testing challenge to your arguments from one of your friends, or else the most simple and compelling exposition of the case that you had been floundering for an hour to try to explain to the House.

James Mackay was a great parliamentarian, a lover of this place and loved by it. Let us remember our brother as a righteous man. He was never judgmental, but nor was he afraid to judge between good and evil. He was a great reformer and a loving family man, buoyed for 68 years by his remarkable wife and three children, to whom our prayers and sympathy go out. This polity, this House, this United Kingdom will never see the like of Lord Chancellor Mackay again.