Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I too thank the Lord Speaker for his work in this House, his decades of public service and the very personal nature of his statement, which highlighted the sacrifice that many of our loved ones and family members make when we carry out our public duties. We look forward to hearing tributes to him and his role.

I preface my remarks, as I did in my first comment as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House, by calling for a Statement from the Government on Sudan and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and I repeat that to the Leader.

I wish to start my remarks on the Middle East by condemning the horrific incidents of antisemitism that we have seen in our communities. Alas, the most recent has not been isolated, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Jewish community is not only safe but feels safe in our country. In too many situations, it is and has not. Also, too many young Muslims are fearful of Islamophobia, and even if we see the sustaining of the ceasefire and the eventual peace that we all hope for, we must be aware that one of the likely legacies of this war will be seen in our communities for years to come. We must be prepared for that.

The excruciating and sometimes performative press events that we have seen in the last few days, while children without shelter continue to suffer, mean that healing is going to be important. These too frequent political stunts, when there is a humanitarian crisis continuing, should be very sobering for us. The hostage returns are extremely welcome and an enormous relief for the families—it was a reprehensible war crime for Hamas to have held them in the way that it did—and the return of the bodies of those who, sadly, lost their lives may mean some healing for those who have suffered.

The scale of the recovery is going to be enormous, in both physical and mental terms. Eighty years on, in this country, we collectively recall the Blitz and the damage and trauma it inflicted on London. During the Second World War, 20,000 bombs were dropped on London—a terrifying figure. In Gaza, geographically a quarter of the size of London, 70,000 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in two years. The level of destruction inflicted on London then resulted in over 2.7 million tonnes of rubble needing to be cleared, which literally took well over a decade to complete. In Gaza—remember, a quarter of the footprint of London—the scale of the bombardment has resulted in 60 million tonnes of rubble, more than 20 times that of the Blitz on London.

My first question to the Leader is: what role will the UK play in the enormous task of the scale of the recovery that will be necessary, including rubble clearance and the commencement of reconstruction? We will have to operate at scale, and therefore I appeal to the Government again to move towards restoring our commitment on international development assistance. The reduction to 0.3% by the current Government, with the Opposition now stating that it will reduce it to next to zero, is not right. We need to step up our humanitarian support for the reconstruction of Gaza, not leave the room.

The impact on civilians is well reported: the starvation, the denial of anaesthesia for operations on children, and the creation of conditions that have seen Hamas gangsterism continue. Yet the underreported but grim task—with the likely thousands of corpses that will need to be identified under the rubble—is only now commencing.

When I visited the Gaza border last year, I was struck by the constant nature of the explosions, fire, jet aircraft howls and the dull but persistent sound and sight of drones. Imagine our children not having a single night when this has not been ever present for two years. The psychological and mental scars are deep: an entire generation of children are traumatised. Also, we know that Israeli youngsters, who did not want war or had any role in the policy of having a war, have had their national service and served their nation, but they have gone through hell in the process. Two sets of communities are deeply scarred. So when we talk about peace, we need to understand fully what it will mean, because the trauma will be present—and it is deep.

Therefore, I close with a specific appeal to the Leader, which I have raised previously, on what role the UK can play. We need clarity from the Government on what level of support they will provide to the Palestinian Authority, which is likely to be the transitional authority, and what practical measures the UK will be providing. The UK has excellent experience of post-conflict reconstruction, and we have professionalism and good relations—how are we going to exploit that?

What relationship will the UK have with the emerging stabilisation force? As I saw in the work I carried out in north Iraq after Daesh had occupied Mosul, the UK can play a very important role in restoring education and child trauma support, especially the psychosocial support that is needed. Recovery from the horror must be immediate, intensive and accessible, and the UK can play a direct role in having immediate pop-up education and child trauma centres constructed immediately. This should not be an add-on to the process. There is no mention of education and child support in the 20-point plan from the United States. I hope the Leader may be willing to meet me and some colleagues with regard to ensuring that, if we talk about peace, it is for the long term, not just an immediate ceasefire.

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

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I will briefly make a comment about the Lord Speaker. He is a personal friend, and I first met him in about 1984, because we were both candidates in the 1987 election for the first time. The reasons why he is standing down go to the heart of the integrity of the man. We will miss him, but we will enjoy working with him as he finishes his term before he stands down.

I thank both noble Lords for the comments they made and their tone, and particularly the support to the Government for the work we are undertaking. This is not a party-political issue: across the world, parties have come together and countries are coming together to take part in the process of the ceasefire and what comes next. We all know from experience that, when you have a plan to move forward, there are times when the next step forward is imperfect, sometimes inadequate and difficult, but that step-by-step approach takes us to a place where people can be safe.

We have seen over the past two years, when the hostages were first taken, that there are things that cannot be undone. We cannot unsee the images we saw on our TVs when we saw those hostages being taken, or when we saw children starving in Gaza and houses bombed, but neither can we unsee the joy and the relief of the families who have seen their loved ones returned after the horrors they went through. The noble Lord is right to talk about releasing all the hostages. It is a tragedy that some are now being returned as bodies to be buried, but, for their families to be able to grieve, they must see all the hostages returned. I hope that international efforts can be brought to bear on that.

The noble Lord said he felt the recognition of the Palestinian state was the wrong thing to do. I would challenge that. I think all these things are process, and the only way forward for genuine peace—with a secure, stable and confident Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state—is to have that two-state solution. The recognition of Palestine, along with other countries, as we saw, was very important in that. It is interesting that, after the other countries and the UK recognised Palestine, we saw the Arab countries also condemn Hamas, which we had not seen before. I say to the noble Lord that the path to peace is often an imperfect one, but it has to be taken to ensure the safety of people.

Both noble Lords asked about next steps. The path to peace is going to be difficult, which is why the Wilton Park conference on reconstruction, identifying the ways forward and the role different countries can play will be so important. More detail on that will become available as the conference progresses. I also say that the role of Sir Michael Barber as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance will be crucial in all of this. The noble Lord, Lord True, for the Opposition, asked about issues such as education and the health service in reconstructing Gaza. There is not a viable state there, in the sense that it does not have the public service infrastructure. Dealing with that, and the point he made about the support needed for young people, particularly in the trauma centres, is all going to be part of having a viable state: you have to have a viable public sector that can deliver the services that people need. The work that he will be undertaking, which is also part of a reform agenda, to strengthen the capacity for delivery and improve the service provision, will be essential for the Palestinian Authority to be able to build an effective State of Palestine and take on the full responsibilities there. We need to empower and help form that Palestinian Authority.

On the other point, about how you ensure this, there will now be more agencies on the ground, and it will be important that we see journalists now having access, so that there can be reports back and public awareness. I can easily restate that there is no role for Hamas in the Government of Palestine. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that. It is absolutely crucial that Hamas decommissions its weapons, and that is a precursor to seeing a genuine, sustainable and lasting peace as well.

Both noble Lords made comments on the rise in antisemitism in the country, which alarms us all, but one of the things that alarms me most is the blatant voicing of that—people seem to have a new confidence in expressing antisemitism. I think that goes alongside the rise, but it is equally important to address it. There can be no acceptance of antisemitism or Islamophobia in this country. When our Jewish community does not feel safe, that damages us all. The Government have provided about £80 million funding for CST, and that will continue, but I think all of us have to call out antisemitism, even in its most minor forms, as and when we hear it. It can never be tolerated and it is never acceptable, and we will be failing in our duty to our Jewish community if we do not call it out at each and every opportunity we are called to do so.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps inevitably, there is rather little detail in the Statement. However, it does say—I think that this was endorsed by my noble friend the Leader of the House just now—that

“a viable Palestinian state is the only way to secure, lasting peace for the Middle East”.

Can my noble friend say what discussions the Government are currently having with President Trump and his senior colleagues on how to prevent further illegal settlements on the West Bank, which will surely prevent a viable Palestinian state?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right on that, and it is important that there is a viable Palestinian state across the West Bank as well. She will be aware, as I mentioned in my answer, of the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, which will bring all countries together, including the US and the UK. At the heart of that discussion are how we bring a lasting peace to the region and what reconstruction, support and action are needed. There is also the 20-point plan—it is called a peace plan, but it is a route to a plan in many ways. Those are very much items that are key to the agenda of the summit.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, there should not be any doubt that the Palestinian Authority is riddled with corruption from the top to the bottom. It uses formal and informal security forces to intimidate opposition and has been involved in the murder of opposition individuals. It uses its system to promote death against Jews through its education system—the latest books are outrageous. It gives pensions to people who kill Jews. What reforms are the Government going to press upon the Palestinian Authority, which is despised by most Palestinians, to ensure that it can participate in the peace process?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Across the region, it has been clear, including from President Abbas, that there needs to be change in the Palestinian Authority. One of the roles of Michael Barber is to shore up the Palestinian Authority and ensure that, where there is corruption, it is rooted out. We have to have a reformed state. Unless we have security in Palestine and security in Israel, there will not be a lasting peace. That does not mean that anybody is saying that things are working well or could work well easily; it means there are several challenges, and he has outlined some of those. Unless we make some progress and get some capacity into that state, working across the world—I come back to the Wilton Park conference, in which I think that is absolutely crucial—we are not going to see the progress. There has to be a viable state and the credibility and confidence of the people of Palestine as well.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, disarming Hamas will be extraordinarily difficult, but the task will be much harder if, in the meantime, Iran is surreptitiously seeking to rearm it. I would not expect the noble Baroness the Leader to go into detail, but can she reassure the House that sufficient attention will be paid to the potential for further malign Iranian influence in the tragedy of Gaza?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a valid point. We are talking about quite a wide issue and other players in this have made it more difficult to resolve the problem. He can be assured that that is very much on the agenda and is taken note of in all the discussions taking place.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel and make a plea for the people of Gaza. We have talked about all the things that can happen in the long and even medium term but at the moment, with the removal of the IDF from areas of Gaza, people are taking rampant action to terrorise the people of Gaza, with the continual help of Hamas. What are our Government and Governments in the region doing to produce a force which will police Gaza and protect the people of Gaza from anybody trying to destroy the reconstruction of the area? It needs to be done sooner rather than put on the back burner.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that anything is being put on the back burner. The conference and the discussions that have taken place show how much at the front of the agenda this is, with not just the UK and American Governments but all those countries taking part. He talked about the urgency of the issues. We had the conference last week and discussions are going on at Wilton Park. It is about how quickly we can get the support and the protections in. I can assure him there is no suggestion whatever that any of these issues will be on the back burner. I am sure he did not mean to suggest that. The priority is very much getting aid and support in, and dealing with those who do not want peace. The priority has to be a sustainable peace, with reconstruction that brings lasting peace but with a kind of normality. We need to have the health service, the education system, and all these public services up and running for the people in Gaza. It is on the front burner, definitely not the back.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, the release of the hostages and the peace in Gaza were greeted with enormous joy in Israel and Gaza. It was a remarkable event. We know it is the first step, but what surprised, and angers and frustrates, me is that there were men and women marching on the streets of the UK, wishing that the peace had not happened. They were supporting Hamas. They wanted Hamas to continue to kill Israelis. What can the Government do to prevent the spread of such malign messaging? It is not simply support for the Palestinians and the two-state solution—which, incidentally, I am fully in favour of. We must stop this malign messaging. What can we do?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord hits on something particularly tricky. I can only utterly condemn those who did not support the process and did not share in the joy of the ceasefire. Marching on the streets of this country in support of Hamas is completely and utterly wrong, and should never happen or be tolerated. He will have heard the words of the Home Secretary on these issues. Let us be clear: the only way forward is to have tolerance, understanding and a demand for peace. Those who try to thwart that are wrong, and we will have to look at how it can be dealt with. There is no place at all for support for Hamas and no role at all for Hamas.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, from these Benches, I join others in expressing deep appreciation and thanks to the Lord Speaker for his service to this House and assure him of our continued support in the coming months. Noble Lords may be aware that efforts are under way to rebuild the Al-Ahli hospital, managed by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem. It remains the only hospital in operation in the north of Gaza, but most of its buildings are in ruins following multiple airstrikes earlier this year. Hospital staff have remained in place throughout the conflict. They are now in urgent need of medical supplies to continue to deliver life-saving treatment. I ask the Minister to bring her influence urgently to bear to ensure that financial support and medical supplies reach the hospital so that it can continue to serve the people of north Gaza.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments on that and about the Lord Speaker. He is absolutely right that healthcare, particularly in hospitals, is an acute issue. Some of the support that the UK has already announced is specifically for healthcare and given to UK-Med as well. Healthcare and education are those building blocks of life, without which Gazans cannot flourish or even start to lead a normal life that leads towards a long and lasting peace. I can assure him it is at the forefront of the discussions that are taking place.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to recognise those Hamas officials and operatives acting within the Palestinian state so they do not try to rebadge themselves as Palestinian Ministers?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is a valid point. We have made it clear there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state or in the governance of Palestine. Part of the work at Wilton Park will be to say how we identify that and how we manage this. We have seen it happen in other areas as well. We have to ensure that there is full decommissioning and a state that has the confidence of the people of Palestine and the region, because the region as a whole has to be secure. Israel has to feel safe and secure, as does Palestine.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I am being heckled, and I am going to continue. I am not going to be bullied by Conservatives. There is an urgent need for aid and there has not been enough emphasis on that. The Rafah crossing is still closed, aid is not getting through and people are still suffering. Medical aid has not got through. There are 20,000 orphan children, at least. What special emphasis will be placed in the discussions on all those children who have nobody, who are orphaned and need special protection? I ask the Minister, as my noble friend did, about the protection for children, particularly in Palestine.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There were a number of items in there, particularly on the aid being delivered—the noble Baroness asked about the Rafah crossing. It was opened briefly, then closed again; my understanding is that preparations are now being made to reopen it. Though airdrops are clearly a useful way of getting aid in, it has to get in through lorries. I saw either yesterday or this morning that Tom Fletcher was out there working on that as well.

The noble Baroness makes a particular point about the children of Gaza, and she is absolutely right to do so. The traumas many of those children are going to feel from what they have been through will be enormous. Looking at the reconstruction conference taking place at Wilton Park, and the work that Michael Barber is doing as the UK envoy in Palestine, one of the issues has to be looking at the services that are available and how they could be provided at pace, and ongoing. You need recognition that life is not going to be normal; it is not a ceasefire followed by life as normal the next day. The infrastructure of the country is in a dire state. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate about hospitals and schools being destroyed. There is so much work to be done, but the efforts should be in ensuring that those young people growing up now will be part of the future of their country. They can do that only if the right support is in place now and the traumas they have been through, and the tragedies they have suffered, are also dealt with in a way that allows them to play a full part in being the future of their state.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, there will be a different assessment of the role of the United Nations through this conflict. Some will point to the way in which the organisations strive to get aid in; others will point to the many mistakes and failings. But do the Government recognise that the UN has fundamentally lost the confidence of key agents in the Middle East, not least the United States, and Israel itself, and therefore will they commit to working to restore that confidence, including by extensive reform of the institution in key areas?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is important that there is confidence in those institutions, and I think changes have already been made, particularly to UNRWA. But it is agencies on the ground that have experience and infrastructure that will be the ones that will be the best at getting that aid in. So we will take that support to get aid in from those agencies with experience. But, yes, there has to be a building of confidence across the whole region, in all the institutions. I come back to the point that we have not seen journalists in Gaza, and I think part of having that public reporting will also be very important going forward.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with a coalition of oil states having agreed to contribute to Gaza’s reconstruction—and it is inconceivable they will do so if Hamas threatens their potential investment—is it not possible that a population tired of conflict will now want to organise for that reconstruction by seeking to exclude the men of violence? To help that process, can we all support the fostering of a new civil and military authority that promotes that agenda, while at the same time avoiding action that accelerates the movement into the West Bank of those identified as committed to violence, where, if we fail to secure movement on an independent Palestinian state, they are likely to regroup in furtherance of their campaign? And can I personally pay tribute to the Lord Speaker, on his retirement notice, for the service he has given Parliament over the 40 years I have known him? Thank you.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, and his comments about the Lord Speaker. I am not sure I fully understand his question, but it is quite clear that those who have been involved in violence, including Hamas, cannot be part of the future going forward. I think that is absolutely clear and should remain the position. There will be no change to that. There will be a temporary, transitional Government—a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee—and that is the way to go forward.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that rabid antisemitism is being taught in Palestinian schools, which is reminiscent of the narrative of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, and that this is actually in part financed by the British taxpayer?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, any promotion of antisemitism, wherever it takes place, is always wrong. The key thing in the education systems of both Palestine and Israel is that they should promote dialogue between the two countries and also promote peace and collaboration between them.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

The noble Baroness made a couple of references to the importance of the press. Could she update the House on exactly where negotiations are about letting in companies such as the BBC, the Times and the New York Times?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have not got any more specific information for the noble Baroness. We have made it clear that journalists should be allowed back in, because it is reporting: it is the disinfectant of sunlight, in a sense, is it not? Information is the best disinfectant and more information would be very helpful. We are committed to that and we are pressing for it at all times.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

It is worth remembering that there are five refugee camps in Gaza alone. Those refugee camps have been there for five generations. Around 90% of people in them have never had a job in their life. The hatred in those refugee camps is immense. It is going to take 50, 60 or 70 years, at least, before we enable normal relationships between Israelis and those living locally. Can the Minister do something about it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

All of us will do our best. The noble Lord makes an important point, which is that the path to peace is a process. It is never a moment; it is something that is ongoing. Members of the House will recall the process of bringing peace to Northern Ireland: it was not easy. At times, the steps that are taken forward are imperfect, inadequate and unsatisfactory. But they are steps forward. At each stage, we have to recognise where the goal is. The prize of peace, for people in that region, has to be the greatest prize ever for the children, the young people and the old people. Just think about it: people going about their lives saw their loved ones snatched and taken as hostages, and people trying to live their lives in Gaza saw their homes, their hospitals and their schools destroyed. So the path will be difficult and rocky. I do not know whether I recognise the timescale the noble Lord offered, but each day forward when people are not being killed is progress, and that is what we aim for.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 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 Tuesday 21 October to enable the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.

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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.

The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.

The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.

As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.

I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.

I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.

These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.

The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.

As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.

I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.

I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.

The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.

On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.

I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.

Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.

Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.

I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.

I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.

We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.

I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 2 September, Wednesday 10 September and Tuesday 16 September to enable Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.

Motion agreed.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I wish to notify the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments. It reads:

“I want to take the opportunity to write to confirm what we have already discussed.


My appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments was for a five-year term, which comes to an end on 1 April 2026. At that point, I will retire. While there are several months of my term ahead, I do want to take this opportunity now to say what a great privilege it has been to hold the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments. I am honoured to be the 65th person to do so.


My term has seen many extraordinary events. When I took my Oath of Allegiance to Her late Majesty, COVID restrictions were still in place, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh soon passed away. I was the first Clerk of the Parliaments for many decades to see a change of the Sovereign I serve, and to witness both the demise of a Monarch and a Coronation. The House has undergone many other changes during my term too, but the professionalism and dedication of my many hard-working colleagues has been a consistent feature. It has been a great privilege to lead such a wonderful team and I thank them all. And my gratitude to my colleagues, present and past, stretches right back over what will be 38 years’ service in the House when my term as Clerk of the Parliaments ends.


Throughout my term, and in all my work supporting the House and its members, I have remained committed to our values; to delivering a healthy workplace culture; to effective bicameral working; and to responsible management of public money.


I would be grateful if you would convey my deep appreciation to members across the House for their generous help and advice throughout that time. The future holds many challenges for the House, and for my colleagues, not least the continuing need to focus on maintaining and renewing the Palace of Westminster to keep everyone safe and to provide a legacy for future generations. I am confident that the House and those who support the House and its members will rise to meet those challenges.


I wish you, my colleagues and my successor all the best for the years ahead”.


That is the end of the letter. I expect recruitment for the new clerk to launch shortly after we return following the Summer Recess. I am consulting the leaders of the other parties, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Lord Speaker to ensure that a recommendation for Simon’s successor as Clerk of the Parliaments is made to His Majesty in good time. As is customary, I will put a Motion before the House nearer the time of his retirement in the spring, and that will enable Members to pay appropriate tribute to Simon’s distinguished service.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, has consented to place his prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

1: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“ResignationIn section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (resignation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) Where a notice under this section is given and signed by a person on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity to give or sign the notice, the notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new clause which makes clear that a notice under section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be given and signed on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity; and which provides that such a notice must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 to 4 and 6. In Committee and on Report, the House considered amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, regarding the sensitive matter of allowing Peers who lack capacity to be able to retire through a power of attorney. On Report, the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment so that we could consider and discuss the issue further ahead of the debate today.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, for meeting me after Report to discuss this issue. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has engaged with me on this issue, which many of us have personal experience of and feel passionately about. As I have said throughout, I think we are all trying to get to the same place on this matter and there is agreement across the House on the position that Members who lose capacity should be able to retire from your Lordships’ House with the dignity they deserve.

As I noted in previous debates, after becoming Leader I formally raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments and sought my own legal advice. I had discussed this already with a number of noble Lords, the usual channels and the Clerk of the Parliaments. Following the debate in Committee, where I was grateful for the support across the House, I committed to continue to pursue this and, as a result, a solution was agreed by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the Parliaments confirmed that he would accept a notice of resignation or retirement submitted to him by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who had lost capacity where that person holds either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act.

Following discussions with noble Lords and the debate on Report, it became clear that the view of the House was that it would be preferable to find a solution in statute that would put it beyond doubt that Peers who lack capacity are able to retire via power of attorney. Any solution would also need to ensure that the current position of the clerk could not be reversed in the future.

I as Leader, and we as a House, have a duty to get this right. On Report I committed to engage in further discussions on the issue, and I believe that the amendments tabled in my name now present a solution that will satisfy the concerns raised in previous debates.

I will briefly outline the position for the House. Amendment 1 in my name makes clear that a notice under Section 1(1) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 may be “given and signed” by a person acting on behalf of a Peer who lacks capacity, and it provides that such a notice

“must be given and signed in accordance with Standing Orders of the House”.

It would then be for the Standing Orders and any associated guidance in the Companion, both of which will be subject to the approval of the Procedure Committee and then the House, to set out how these arrangements are to operate in practice. That of course will be subject to further work and discussions that I hope will start over the Summer Recess so that the Standing Orders and the guidance are in place as soon as possible. I would expect them to include the details of sorts of instruments under which the clerk would accept a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer, the requirements on a person when submitting a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer and the steps to be taken when that notice is received. I will of course consult noble Lords who expressed interest in the area, including those who signed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, and the usual channels.

I am very grateful for the support across the House for these amendments. I think these are the only amendments to the Bill to have attracted the support of all the usual channels, and I am grateful for that. This approach aims to provide the certainty that noble Lords have sought on this issue, but it also reduces the risk of wider ramifications for the existing legal framework on capacity and powers of attorney. To return to a subject I have raised before, it also gives the House ownership of the details of these arrangements, allowing us to make modifications as and when required. This is so that the House can remain agile and responsive to ensure that they remain workable, particularly in the event of any future changes.

In resolving this issue and providing legal clarity, I have decided to table amendments to make alterations to the commencement provisions in the Bill. This is to ensure that the families of Peers who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of the parliamentary Session. As a result, as we have seen from Amendment 3, I now intend for the Bill to come into force on Royal Assent, specifically and only in relation to the amendments I have tabled on power of attorney. The other substantive provisions of the Bill will commence as planned at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent.

I thank noble Lords again for working constructively on this issue. I have listened to the House’s views on this important issue at every point to seek to find a solution. In Committee, I listened, acted and brought forward a solution and, on Report, I listened again. I feel that this amendment provides the certainty and durability that the House was seeking. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the other amendment in this group, Amendment 5, is in my name. It is a small change, consequential to the amendment your Lordships made during our first day on Report. Since the Bill now seeks to abolish the system of hereditary by-elections and to let those who currently sit in the House leave in the same manner as the rest of us—by one of the routes set out in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, or by some far higher authority—Amendment 5 changes the requirement in Clause 6(4) for their Writ of Summons to expire at the end of the Session, as originally proposed.

I am very grateful to noble Lords—temporal and spiritual—from all corners of the House who supported this change to the Bill. I believe it is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitment. As well as being kinder and less abrupt, it is consistent with the ways that we have treated other groups of noble Lords who have had their time in this House brought to an end: the Irish Peers in the 1920s and the Law Lords after 2009.

I thank the Leader for her support and echo the comments made about the amendment on power of attorney. It is often awkward for those of us in this House to debate the composition of our House or to confront the consequences it has for our Members, but she has been clear throughout in her praise for the public service given by our hereditary colleagues over many years. I thank her for saying that throughout and for the consensus she has achieved on the amendments she has brought today. It is a very good thing that an amendment is going to the other place bearing not just her name but those of my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Pannick. I hope we might be able to find some further areas of consensus still, but I am grateful for this one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. It is good we have found an elegant solution—I have rarely been accused of being elegant, but I am happy to take it on this occasion—to a problem we all recognise. It is better in statute, as the noble Lord said. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that I did not realise there had been an awkwardness in the House about discussing measures in this Bill. It did not feel awkward at the time, but I think I know what he means. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendments—particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who has added his name, and others. In that spirit, I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

2: Clause 6, page 3, line 2, after “section 1” insert “, (Resignation)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

6: Title, line 2, after “Lords;” insert “to make provision about resignation from the House of Lords;”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, which amends the long title, is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting a new clause after clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the other place admitted the Bill to this House for our scrutiny in December of last year. Since then, we have spent eight days—nine including today—considering the legislation, which is a total of over 51 hours of scrutiny. A total of 146 amendments were tabled in Committee, with 124 debated and a further 36 tabled on Report. The Government, including myself, are grateful for the debates we had on the Bill. I particularly thank the usual channels for the collaborative effort on the amendments relating to resignation, which we have just had, and regarding the power of attorney, as well as a number of other Members—too many to go through by name—who contributed to the wider debate on reform of this House.

With regard to progressing further reform of your Lordships’ House, I have already spoken about my intention to establish a dedicated Select Committee on the issues of retirement age and participation, and the impact that would obviously have on the size of the House. I look forward to progressing those issues following the passage of this Bill.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been ably assisted by a first-rate Bill team and other officials behind the scenes. I thank them for their hard work in helping me, my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, who stood at this Dispatch Box. I am also grateful to the number of noble Lords who, over several months—even before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House—met me both privately and in small groups to discuss issues about which they had particular concerns or suggestions they had for the Bill.

A number of noble Lords have followed the journey of this Bill from the beginning, and it has been quite a journey. It will now go to the other place with amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and will no doubt return to our House for further review. It is my hope that we will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitments on this Bill and see legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her emollient words. I hope very much that in the time that elapses between now and our return in September careful thought will be given by the Government and the other place to the merits of the amendments and debates in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will think positively, even if not in the context of this Bill, about proposals from your Lordships that all Ministers in your Lordships’ House be paid and that we reaffirm the right of the monarch to create peerages that do not require the holder to sit in this place; those ideas are worth taking forward.

For my own part and, I venture to suggest, in the hopes of many other noble Lords, I would like to think that the joint amendment on power of attorney could be the symbol of other accords that might be reached as this reform goes forward. I remain committed to the principles I set out at the beginning of Committee, which include—along with a more reasonable attitude to those of our colleagues who have long sat among us—a voluntary understanding to address the perceived issue of numbers, and a reinforcement of the conventions on the conduct of this House and its relations with the other place. That would liberate this House from the unnecessary late nights that no one here enjoys. I hope that will still be possible, for without the fullest trust, respect and good will between the Government of the day and His Majesty’s Opposition—and I value the candour and friendship of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—this House cannot function. The brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 Peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full good will.

Be that as it may, in asking my colleagues to agree that the Bill do now pass—which I know many on this side in their hearts regret—I invite the whole House to assent to the principle that no person should again enter this House to any degree by right of heredity. That has long been the professed wish of Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches.

My only regret now is that it has not been accompanied, as was promised in honour in 1999, by properly worked-out proposals for reform. The British people have never been asked to assent to an all-appointed House in perpetuity. This Bill, as presented, would have left, along with a sprinkling of Bishops, a House of life Peers created by a statute passed as recently as 1958—an all-appointed House, which is almost unique in the world. No other liberal democracy would long tolerate that a Prime Minister of whatever party—even one such as that of Mr Farage, which is not yet represented here—should have full control of the numbers and people sent here. Add to that the untrammelled power to purge and throw out Members of the sitting legislature. Such a constitutional settlement could not, and should not, long endure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, when I made a short intervention at an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in reply, questioned—not seriously, I hope—whether or not I still liked her. The answer is that of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole House, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not bear personal grudges against political opponents merely because they are enacting decisions with which we may disagree. I accept, as do my noble friends, that the Government are fully entitled to get their business through and pass their manifesto legislation, even if I do not like it. The Bill removes the process by which new Peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly.

But nowhere in the Labour manifesto did it state that currently sitting Members of the House would be summarily removed, which is an additional measure and sets a bad and, in my view, dangerous precedent whereby the Executive can simply remove Members of the second Chamber by dint of their majority in the first—an unheard-of provision that exists in no other modern democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that it would be absurd to suggest that this precedent would ever be repeated, but I suspect he is wrong, as he and his noble friends may well find out to their discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

As this Bill enters its final stages, I ask the noble Baroness the Leader in turn whether she still likes me, or whether there something I have done that so deeply offends her that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish? We often talk of the dignity of the House, but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House than what the Government are now doing in this Bill.

I would like to think that I have done my duty over the past almost 40 years. I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal that we made 25 years ago with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, on behalf of the Labour Party—not a deal that tied the hands of a future Government, as has been claimed, but on which, to their shame, this Government are now reneging.

The House is currently wrestling with the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill. The Government are concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts but at the same time apparently care little for those of us who have worked here with no formal contract. Although none of us in this House is technically employed to serve as Members of the House, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a place of work, or even part-time work. I suppose one could argue that our Letters Patent and Writs of Summons, taken together, constitute at least some form of agreement. Either way, we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth, except here in the upper House of this Mother of Parliaments.

Before I go, I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness the Leader could tell me exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong as to deserve being treated in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal, but he is wrong, because it is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply offensive. I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to respond at length, and I will not, given that this debate on Third Reading has been quite a long one. I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the anniversary of the moon landing. Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is just slightly short of the time we have spent debating this Bill throughout its passage.

A number of issues were raised. Yes, I still have a soft spot for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary Peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice. He said that this Bill was not in the Labour Party manifesto. It was. He may recall that, when we debated the Grocott Bill, I said, and I wrote in the House magazine, that we should accept it and that we would help to get it through, otherwise we would be in a position where all hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour Government. So, he was given some notice of that; he may not have listened to me or read anything that I wrote, but it was said and it was in the Labour Party manifesto.

Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary Peers, or that of any other Member of your Lordships’ House. That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into your Lordships’ House that the country or the Labour Party expects.

I will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, but I think he said that, if we were not to proceed with the Bill in the way it has been drafted, it would unleash a spirit of good will. I hope that was not an indication that carrying out a Bill that is in our manifesto would unleash a spirit of something opposite to good will. I hope that is not what he intended, but that is certainly how it came across.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was concerned that this Bill opens the gates to further reform or change. I have also heard from other noble Lords that, if we finish with this Bill, nothing will ever happen again. Both cannot be true, but I think this House should take more responsibility for what we can do. If we had taken responsibility for the Grocott Bill and managed to get it through, we probably would not be here today.

On the issue about Select Committees, I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster. I am a great believer in bite-sized chunks and the House taking responsibility. If we can make progress on those two issues and, by implication, the impact on the size of the House, I think good progress can be made. If we show we can take responsibility for the work of our House as a House, cross-party, we can do so again in the future. So I do understand the views that have been expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time. It was a clear manifesto commitment.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 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 Tuesday 22 July to allow the Universal Credit Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly anyway, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I do not think it is customary for any Member of this House to start to question the clerks, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. As the noble Lords knows, if this amendment were not allowed, it would not have been possible to table it.

The only point I want to add was prompted by something my noble friend Lord Caine said. I do not think it has been reflected in this debate. Before we decide how to respond to my noble friend pushing his amendment, the noble Lord Caine made the point that, when a Member of this House becomes a Minister, even an unpaid Minister, they have to give up all their outside interests. There is another factor that it is worth us being aware of: the same Ministers are also subject to the ACOBA restrictions for two years after they stop being Ministers. So their employment prospects also have some constraints put on them, after they have not been paid for two years and they have had to give up any outside interests as well. That is something else we should take account of.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue again, following the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It is one of those issues. He and I have discussed it many times, including when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one and I welcome the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers’ union, for which I am happy to supply application forms in due course. As much as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is an unlikely shop steward, I am sure he would be very welcome.

This comes to the heart of the issue. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes; the clerks did rule it in order as an amendment. There was some surprise about the range of amendments we have had on the Bill, but that is not to say they are not in scope. We have to accept they are in scope, however wide they go from the original title of the Bill.

I am glad the noble Lord, Lord True, tabled his Amendment 13A. I think he did so, recognising that the consequence of Amendment 13 would be that not only would we lose Ministers from the Government if it passed, but we would lose them from your Lordships’ House as well. They would have to go immediately, as Ministers, so I welcome his amendment.

First, it is right to say that the work of a Lords Minister is one of the most difficult jobs in government.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friends agree with me—both paid, I hasten to add; both Foreign Office Ministers and our Defence Ministers are paid Ministers but are still here in the Chamber, recognising the duty and responsibility they have to the House, as well as to their departments and the Government.

As I say, the work Lords Ministers do covers not just their ministerial work in the department but any other work related to the Government, and they will answer questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have great pride in the Ministers we have in our Government, and indeed I think the House has always respected Ministers from all the three parties who have been in government in the past.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she quoted somebody else who talked about it being “hard to find someone good”. Actually, we do find good people, but they make a sacrifice in order to do so—she is nodding that she did quote somebody, and I accept that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be clear, I also completely disagree with that, which is why I went on to say that I had worked with excellent Ministers, and we have excellent Ministers today.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else.

On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government.

As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not.

However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving.

So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose.

This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. My understanding—I look to the clerk—is that we will vote on Amendment 13A first, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that he regards Amendment 13 as consequential and would not seek to press it. It would have to be a vote for or against Amendment 13A, rather than Amendment 13.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have some validity. He said that, in practical terms, it probably means increasing the number of Ministers in order to deal with this issue. That would be a one-clause Bill that could be agreed between both Front Benches and would go through very quickly, I would suggest. Will the Leader explore with her colleagues the possibility of doing that? My noble friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view taken at the top of the party, which did not understand this place, not to agree to it. In fairness, there is overwhelming support, and anyone in the House of Commons who understood this issue would surely find it possible to vote for such a Bill without difficulty.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed.

There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us.

Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in this short debate. I have been struck above all by one thing: absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We had a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to say that they supported the principle but would vote against the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord said his amendment has universal support, but it does not. I talked about the principle of supporting our Lords Ministers, and said that I preferred the way forward suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I do not support the amendment, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the principle of ensuring that we have the right support for our Ministers.

[Lord True (Con)]

That was exactly my point, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the point raised by this amendment is very short, and I will therefore make only three short points on it. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is unfortunate that we do not have sight of the relevant legal advice. Here, the Government are not relying on legal advice that is covered by the normal principles of confidentiality; this goes directly to how the House is going to vote on this matter, and it is unsatisfactory and unfortunate that we do not have sight of that legal advice.

Secondly, whatever view one takes on the underlying position, we now know that there are two contrary and conflicting legal opinions out there. That necessarily gives rise to ambiguity, which is something we should avoid if we possibly can. That brings me to the third point: we can avoid ambiguity here, because this amendment makes very clear what the position is going to be going forward, and we have the ability to put the matter beyond any doubt. Given that the Bill is already going back to the other place in respect of a number of points, I suggest that this amendment ought to be accepted. If the Leader of the House is unable to accept it, these Benches will support my noble friend in the Lobbies.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a helpful way forward. This amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee, except that it seeks to permit Peers to retire by allowing a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement, which is then given to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

The debate we had in Committee was very useful. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, it was an example of the House at its best, coming together to resolve an issue concerning the dignity of our Members that we all need to be resolved. There was cross-party support for addressing this issue, which has lingered unresolved for far too long, and which the House should have addressed a long time ago.

At the Dispatch Box last time, I made a commitment to report back to the House, and I am able to do so positively today. I will give some of the background of why this matters to me: I was concerned about it before I was Leader of the House, when I was Leader of the Opposition. I know that previous Leaders and Chief Whips were given the same advice as I was—that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by lasting power of attorney or by power of attorney.

I had a case with a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that Member to retire, and when they approached the Clerk of the Parliaments they were told that the Member could not be retired but he could take a leave of absence. I found that completely and totally unacceptable, because we did not give that Member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity. I investigated further, and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. Given that the circumstances in which a power of attorney is accepted are significant, for this House not to accept it seemed rather strange, and I thought it was unacceptable. You can sell your family home, you can resign somebody as a director of a company, but you could not retire from the House.

I raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments, but I also sought my own government legal advice. I have discussed the matter with noble and learned colleagues around the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments, and we reached an immediate practical solution. Members may or may not have seen the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report. The Clerk of the Parliaments contacted me to say that, having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards—which I will come on to—he would be willing to accept the notice of resignation submitted to him on behalf of a Peer who has lost capacity, holding either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under Section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act coming into force. The safeguards were that the clerk would see the power of attorney, which is a standard procedure in all cases, and that if there was any doubt or any concern, he would raise that with the Whips.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I have a number of other points to make that might be helpful.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I will be brief. What is the basis of the clerk’s—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As to the noble and learned Lord’s impatience, I ask him to bear with me as I go through this.

The basis of that is the legal advice received on that. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about not sharing legal advice, even though that is a commonly held view in government, but I will come to that as I may have a way forward that will help him. I think he understands the risks of sharing legal advice and knows full well why the Government do not share it.

We have moved on, and it is now possible. There are families of noble Lords who presently are looking at this to ensure they can retire Members who are ill. That decision is based on a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney, so we are clear that we can accept both of those.

The noble Lord referred to the risk that the position may change again. The matter has already been considered and approved by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord True, is also a member. The report that I showed was published on 24 June with details, and the relevant amendments have been made to the Companion. To state the obvious—I am sure that noble Lords understand this—to reverse that would require further consideration by the committee and then notification to the House. I am confident that the position is practical and sustainable and will not be reversed. The House has a clear view on this matter: Members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney. We should let that work through and ensure it takes full effect.

Having listened to the discussion that has taken place, I want to proceed further. I have long held the view, and have discussed it with noble Lords across the House, that this House should take some responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is: does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? As I have said previously on issues such as retirement and participation, I want the House to step up to its own responsibilities.

I question whether we need primary legislation to resolve this, and I do not think we should pass legislation that is not needed, but I am also concerned that as drafted, the amendment could risk unintended consequences. Unlike the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, this amendment makes provision only for lasting power of attorney. This is part of a broader area of law that involves both enduring power of attorney, which is recognised in the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary power of attorney, more regularly used when someone manages an individual’s affairs when they are temporarily abroad or unwell.

There are also the provisions that the noble Baroness referred to in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and legislation prior to that which was carefully developed and set out when a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney should or should not be relied upon. Those ensure that safeguards are in place. By singling out just the lasting power of attorney and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context. This is a complex issue. I have to admit to noble Lords that when I first embarked on this, I thought it was a straightforward issue, and the more I have looked at it, the more complex it has become. I am wary of looking at simple legislative fixes for what are complicated issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. In the period before Third Reading, if the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with that approach, would she be prepared, at the very least, to share with the House, or with those who are interested in this issue, the substance of the legal advice, so that we can understand what the issues and uncertainties may be?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the best way forward would be for the government lawyers to talk with lawyers in the House with an interest, including the noble Lord, so that we can find a way forward. It is in the interests of the House to resolve this and for lawyers to talk to lawyers. I am not a lawyer and I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, once accused me of being a lawyer —I say that with some pride—but I think we are all in the same place and want to find a way forward.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness the Leader sits down, has any thought been given to the fact that the law of Scotland may not be precisely the same as England’s? I was not able to catch what she was saying in her original statement as to what the formula is she is using, but care has to be taken to see that the law of Scotland would be covered by whatever solution is being put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right and I am grateful to him for the discussions we have had on this point. In the legislative solution, there would have to be reference to Scotland as well. That is why I am confident that our current position, for the Procedure and Privileges Committee, is the right one and works.

However, I accept the views of noble Lords who want to put this matter beyond risk. If it is possible to do that through discussions then, as I have said to the noble Lord, I am happy to delay Third Reading to enable those discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope it is available to the noble Lord, because we want to get this right. None of us wants to be in a position in which a noble Lord whose family think it is appropriate for them to retire is in legislative limbo and cannot do so. If we pass this today, we would be in that position. I am very happy to have discussions with government lawyers between now and Third Reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories—a formidable legal team. I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House, who spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I am very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks, and I am willing to accept that. However, I am afraid I do not think the commitment she has made, though generous, is enough, and I noted that it quite understandably included the ominous phrase “if agreement can be reached”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord. To be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we cannot support him in that amendment and therefore we cannot have discussions on it between now and Third Reading, because it will be part of the Bill. We would have to wait until ping- pong and have discussions then, which is why this is a better route forward. I am sorry if noble Lords do not quite understand the procedure around how we would have to manage this, which is why I suggest we have discussions. We are even prepared to delay Third Reading to allow for those discussions to take place, so that we can reach a solution that satisfies the whole House. It is a perfectly reasonable way forward.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

It is a shame that it is take it or leave it, as far as discussions are concerned.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is a former Chief Whip and he will understand the procedures of the House. If he puts his amendment to the vote today and it is not agreed, the vote we had in Committee stands and the clerk has accepted it. If his amendment is agreed, it is therefore part of the Bill and we cannot address that until it has been to the House of Commons. It is not that we are saying take it or leave it; we are saying that we are unable to do so within our procedures. The way that the House can have the discussion is at Third Reading. It is in the noble Lord’s hands.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

I do not agree with that exactly. It would be perfectly possible to have discussions, even if it was in the Bill. Even if there are particular problems, once it is in the Bill it can be brought back at Third Reading.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, to assist the House, paragraph 8.153 in the Companion says that:

“An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading”.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)]

There is still ping-pong. However, I accept what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said.

I am quite surprised there is such controversy about what I thought was a fairly common-sense amendment. We would like to get a solution that everyone could agree on. There is a principle here that errors or problems with legislation should be addressed by legislation. If we have something that we all agree is wrong in a Bill then it should be corrected in the Bill. I have accepted what the noble Baroness has said about having discussions before Third Reading and that the Third Reading could be delayed to enable those discussions. I am sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly. I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That is true, but it would have been open to my noble friend to make the decision that he felt was best in terms of how he could best serve his country: by continuing the work or by bringing that experience to the debates that were present before your Lordships’ House. This is why we have the leave of absence provision. Those who serve in the Diplomatic Service make use of it at the moment.

As I said in Committee, we understand the no-less-noble demands on the time of our colleagues who serve as husbands and wives, as parents and grandparents, and as carers—they help reflect the population we all serve—but the Government and the House are right to insist that we all take our duties here seriously and that we are seen to be doing so. We already have a minimum attendance requirement through Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, requires just one day of attendance per Session, which he and others have rightly argued is not really commensurate with the command that we have received from our sovereign.

That Act became law in 2014 thanks to a consensus and an initiative taken here in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the initiative was taken by a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who would, I think, be staggered to hear the argument advanced by the leader of the Liberal Democrats here today that he supports the principle but does not want to take this opportunity to make this change. If that is the pace of change favoured by the Liberal Democrats, it is no wonder that they have not finished the job they set out to do in 1911.

Under the 2014 Act, which your Lordships decided, 16 noble Lords have been removed for failing to clear the very low hurdle that it established. We do not criticise them; we know that some of them were seriously ill. Perhaps that Act helped them take a decision that it would have been rather painful for them to take more actively. However, it still leaves a large number of people who, in the words of the Government’s manifesto,

“do not play a proper role in our democracy”.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us that we are summoned here to give counsel not just on the topics on which we consider ourselves experts but on the certain arduous and urgent affairs that change throughout the course of a Parliament. Also in Committee, my noble friend Lord Bethell reminded us how the collective deliberative act of parleying that we all undertake here requires getting to know one another and establishing bonds of trust and understanding—not just turning up and disappearing into rival Division Lobbies. That is how we establish the consensus that the Leader of the House rightly wants us to achieve.

There is, I think, an emerging consensus in your Lordships’ House that the current attendance requirement of a single day per Session, without having to speak, vote or sit on a committee, is too low. Thanks to the spreadsheets compiled by the Library at the request of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we know who we are talking about without having to name names or point fingers. We can proceed calmly and empirically. The Convenor of the Cross Benches is among those who have looked very closely at those numbers and been satisfied that a 10% requirement would not affect what he called in Committee the

“low-frequency, high-impact Members”—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 719.]

who bring sparing but specialist experience, particularly to the Cross Benches.

I have to say to my noble friend Lord Gove—sadly, he was not yet among us in Committee, so he missed my quoting “Evita” in citing the example of our noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber—that I have much sympathy for what he says. Lord Lloyd-Webber was driven from your Lordships’ House and attacked for being a composer first and a politician second; as I said in Committee, I found it disappointing that he was not able to be here with us, when the pandemic hit, to give his experience on behalf of our performing arts, the West End and the theatres around the country that were facing plight. I must say, the 10% threshold that the Convenor of the Cross Benches has looked at would raise the bar slightly but would not prevent us having the expertise of people like Lord Lloyd-Webber joining us sparingly, but importantly, for our debates. I think that my noble friend Lord Gove will find that our noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead will clear that bar quite easily.

There are certainly some further questions that the House will need to address in future—for instance, how we turn attendance into more active participation so that we are not encouraging people to game the system by simply making speeches for the sake of appearing in Hansard, and so that people are not just turning up and reciting speeches written by lobby groups into the pages of the Official Report. We are all embarrassed by our colleagues from all corners of the House who turn up to lurk below the Bar for a few paltry minutes or skulk off after the first Division of the day—it would be a disgrace for us to expel hard-working Members from your Lordships’ House and not address that problem—but we can do this in bite-sized chunks, as the Leader of the House said.

There is no reason why proper consideration of those issues, whether through a Select Committee or future debates on the Floor of the House, should prevent us taking this initiative today, saying that we expect better and raising the bar a little higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it earlier, here is another mischief that we can rectify through this Bill. I think that this amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would be a sensible and timely upgrade to the 2014 Act. We have seen that Act in operation for a decade now. We can strengthen it in the light of what we have seen over the past 11 years. It would provide the authority that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, says will be necessary if we are to make progress on this important issue. We can allow ourselves the time to consider other matters without delaying taking a step that would, I think, genuinely improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House.

I do hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment when the debate is concluded and that we can all embrace this important, timely and modest improvement to the functions of your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this issue again today. I am grateful for the discussions that we have had on it and, indeed, for the discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. My sense is that there is a lot of support—I have been encouraged by it—for a participation requirement, although I do not think that there is consensus on what the level should be. The noble Earl seems happy with 10% but, in our previous debates, a number of noble Lords have been against 10% and been concerned that attending once a fortnight, as it would turn to be, might cause ridicule to the House. I have to say, I do not know what the appropriate figure is, but it is right that we discuss it and look at what it could look like.

Noble Lords have raised a number of issues in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others said, requiring attendance once in a Session does not really invite participation. There is an issue here: we all think that we know what we mean when we talk about participation and what levels are appropriate, but quantifying that is different. This is why I think that having a debate around one particular field—in this case, the figure of 10%—is very helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that it would reduce the range of voices. It does not reduce the range of voices if they are the voices of people who do not attend this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that the noble Baroness, Lady May, would easily score on that point as well. We have to consider how best to address this issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked an important question about something that I raised last time— I just want to emphasise that. I have said a number of times that if the House can take responsibility for its own behaviour and actions then it should do so. As for what the House could do with its Standing Orders, that is not 100% clear. There are lots of things that we can do via Standing Orders and, where we can, we should take responsibility and do it. However, it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to look at participation/attendance and retirement in the round and to find an appropriate way forward, and at what needs legislation and what could be done prior to or without legislation. That would be a valid way to move forward and one that I could commit to.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is very keen to set a figure in stone and in statute. I am not keen to do that. I have gone round the houses a little on this and said it before, but this Bill is before the House as it is because the principle of this was discussed 25 years ago, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. On attendance and participation, particularly the areas that have been discussed, there is consensus that something should be done, but I have not seen consensus around the House on a particular number. It would be worthwhile for Members across the House to look at this and see how it could be done. It may be that 10% is the appropriate figure, but we have not said what it should be for participation. That is something which the House needs to look at. How do we do it? Should it be in statute?

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised what might happen at the other end. If we sent an amendment to the other place saying that we want 10% attendance, those in the other place who attend a lot more regularly might think that 10% was difficult to justify and might have other views on it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The other place did pass the 2014 Act, which requires us to turn up only once per Session.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That was a long time ago. I do not think that it anticipated that people would turn up just once per Session.

Despite the inventive proposal from the noble Lord, Lord True, to have Peers who do not have to attend at all, as the Prime Minister stated recently—the Opposition have said something similar—our expectation is that Members of this House want to play a role in this House, participate in our activities and engage, as the noble Lord said, with other Members. It is not just about sitting here listening to other people debating but about playing a full role. The point about expertise is an important one, though we are not all here just for our expertise, as we do not have an expert on every single issue. We are here for the judgment we bring, having listened to debates.

The timescale for a committee of the House to look at these issues is important. If we let the momentum drop when so many noble Lords are keen to progress on this, we would be failing in our duty. I anticipate setting up such a committee very soon after Royal Assent, to look at these issues in the round and make proposals for your Lordships’ House to consider, and to consider whether we can move more quickly on things that can be done without or prior to legislation.

I assure the noble Earl that I am very keen that we make progress and deal with these issues as quickly as possible. I hope that reassures him that I have no intention of putting this issue on the back burner. All the points that he has raised are entirely valid. It is not just the reputation of the House we are concerned about but the value of the work that we do. It is impossible to do that work if somebody turns up only occasionally, possibly just to vote or to be here for only one amendment. If we are dealing with legislation, they probably should see that legislation through in its entirety, as a number of noble Lords do.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this and hope that it is a view that he will put to the committee when it discusses these issues. I respectfully ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Black Rod

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has appointed Lieutenant General Ed Davis to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Sarah Clarke, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships’ commands.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As we have done previously, the usual channels will make brief tributes to the retiring Black Rod. Sarah Clarke took up her appointment as Black Rod in February 2018, joining us directly from a position as championships director at Wimbledon. Her uniform here was definitely more formal attire, but who would have thought that managing Wimbledon and dealing with Centre Court personalities would be good training for her role here? It could be said that she went from tennis rallies at Wimbledon to ping-pong in the House of Lords.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I liked it.

When the office of Black Rod was created in 1361, the decree stated that the post should be held by

“a gentleman famous in arms and in blood”,

a reference to the postholder being a man who had served in the military. Sarah Clarke made history as the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod.

On taking up her appointment, Sarah had rehearsals for the part of the role that the public and MPs will be most familiar with—having a door slammed in her face as part of the historic theatre of the State Opening. At her first rehearsal, she marched along to the Commons and walked straight in: they forgot to slam the door. At the second attempt, they remembered to slam the door, but the timing was not quite right and she was a hair’s breadth away from a broken nose. Sarah also believed that there should be a hard, robust knock on the door so that it could be heard in Central Lobby. The result was a rather stern email from the heritage team along the lines of, “Do not knock splinters off the door, please”.

Sarah’s tenure here since 2018 has been a momentous time in our nation’s history and she always discharged her duties with diligence, dedication, care and professionalism. In just under seven and a half years, she has led 252 Introductions to your Lordships’ House; there have been six State Openings and seven Prorogations. One of the highlights of our parliamentary calendar is a state visit and all of us know the huge logistical arrangements required behind the scenes. They are organised by Black Rod and her team to ensure a seamless visit. Sarah has overseen five state visits to this Palace, ensuring that visiting dignitaries enjoy the experience. Even on her final day in post, she was here to welcome President Macron.

However, it was Sarah’s leadership and calm professionalism, following the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II, when she worked tirelessly—literally around the clock—with the Royal Household to ensure that the lying-in-state and final journey of Her late Majesty reflected the mood and respect of the nation. Hundreds and thousands of members of the public walked through Westminster Hall to pay their final respects, and hundreds of millions watched on TV from all over the world. This would not have been possible without the fantastic support of the House staff, particularly the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Neil Baverstock, and the Deputy Yeoman Usher, Fiona Channon. It is impossible to refer to that time without mentioning our excellent doorkeepers, many of whom became familiar faces when the lying-in-state was livestreamed on TV and proved to be most compulsive—and certainly most emotional —viewing.

Sarah’s leadership and commitment at that time were the embodiment of the truly excellent public servant that she is. We have enjoyed and valued our time with her. I have spoken of her professionalism, her dedication and her leadership, but we also remember her forthrightness, her friendship and her sense of fun. After Sarah and I spoke last week about her departure— I confess it was over a small gin and tonic—she emailed me, and I hope she will not mind if I share that email with your Lordships’ House:

“It has been the greatest honour to serve as Black Rod. I have deeply appreciated the huge support the House and Members have given me in over seven and a half extraordinary years with so many historic moments. I leave knowing I did my best to deliver my duties, met and worked with incredible people and certainly had a truly memorable and enjoyable time here. I could not have asked for more”—


neither could we. While we might fondly imagine that Sarah will have more time at home to spend with her partner Catherine and her two dogs Marge and Wilma—they really are called Marge and Wilma—I am certain she will fill her new role with the same dedication and commitment that we have seen.

Finally, I warmly welcome our new Black Rod, Ed Davis, to your Lordships’ House. As a former Royal Marines officer and a former Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar, he brings a wealth of experience. We are confident that his previous diplomatic experience will serve him well in juggling the competing demands of this role, and we look forward to working with him.

[Lord True (Con)]

It is a pleasure, on behalf of these Benches, to follow the Lord Privy Seal, who spoke beautifully for us all as our Leader in her generous tribute to our outgoing Black Rod, Sarah Clarke. I rather liked the joke; I wish I had thought of it myself.

By a curious coincidence, I found myself sitting last night in the evening sun watching Carlos Alcaraz display his dominance of Centre Court. As I looked round that historic arena, packed with 15,000 contented people—well, perhaps not quite so contented, because he was playing a British tennis player—I thought: who in their right mind would exchange that glorious theatre for a dingy 19th century building riddled with mice and moths? Who would swap Centre Court’s giant retractable roof, costing just £70 million—

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has come up with an elegant formulation—as he did several years ago in the committee he chaired—for a way out of the conundrum that we have. However good our provisions in terms of people leaving the House are, if we do not have any constraint—any guardrails at all—on people coming into the House, when we have a general election where there is a large majority, we will always see the ratcheting effect. We have seen that recently; there is every possibility that we will see it again in the future. It is tremendously important that we try to take some steps now.

The size of the House overall does matter. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gove, is in his place, and I am delighted that he obviously has become deeply affectionate and committed to the work of this House. I disagreed with most of his speech, but one thing he said that was incorrect was that the House was in danger of being bullied by those outside into thinking that it was too big and had to change. That is not the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, just said, this House has repeatedly recognised the need for it not to grow exponentially, and has repeatedly recognised the danger of it being larger than the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that other second chambers across the world manage to find the right combination of expertise and experience without rising in their overall numbers to pretty near four figures—which is where we are in danger of going.

I believe it is tremendously important. There are those who say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. Look at the average attendance figures. People aren’t claiming their allowances. None of this matters”. I spent five years as Lord Speaker and, in those five years, I do not know how many speeches I made about the House of Lords. The thing that most people knew about the House of Lords was not that it was brilliant at scrutiny, and not that it had fantastic Select Committees, but that only China’s National People’s Congress, in the whole world, had more members.

That issue of reputation should not be the only one that drives us; we should recognise that we need a House peopled with enough Members to do the job we ask it to do, but we do not have to have an expert on every single issue in the world. We have Select Committees that can call for evidence; we can hear that expertise. We need a House of a reasonable size and I suggest that it should be no larger than the House of Commons. Others have suggested much smaller Houses. They look at the United States Senate. They look across the world and say that other people manage with less. I believe that, as a part-time House, we need larger numbers because not everyone is here all the time and that is important—

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

The noble Baroness saw me shaking my head. I was doing so only because I always refute that we are a part-time House. We are a full-time House with long hours, but many of our Members do not have to be here full-time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This is the first time I have been angry in this debate. The noble Lord is casting malign intent on me and others in my party about the Bill. I hope he will retract and rethink what he said.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry if I have angered the Leader, but this comes from conversations I have had with noble Lords in other corners of the House about amendments on the Bill. They worry—and I know she will take this seriously, because she will not want them to worry—about the consequences of how they vote and how they are perceived to vote, particularly hereditary Peers sitting on other Benches with their future uncertain. I am sorry if that has angered her. It should anger and concern us all. I know she will say it should not need saying, but I know she will also not want any noble Lord to have that fear as they approach this Bill or any other.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns—who, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has pointed out, performs his duties here without any fear or favour—has been asked to look at many important issues for our nation. He has worked harder and longer than anyone to find a way to tackle the question of the size of your Lordships’ House, not least in chairing the Lord Speaker’s committee established by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The recommendations that he and his colleagues from across the House made show that it is possible to address the size of the House without changing the law, and the Prime Minister at the time, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, showed that it was possible too with the restraint that she exercised. The actions of subsequent Prime Ministers of both parties show that not all occupants of No. 10 have been persuaded to do that, and the current occupant of No. 10 has not made any commitment, notwithstanding the words that the noble Baroness used when she was Leader of the Opposition in winding the debate on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

If the House is serious about reducing its size and asserting its independence in the face of the Executive, I hope the noble Lord will continue to press the matter that he has been pressing on behalf of a House that asked him to do it for so long, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us the reassurances that I know we all want to hear. I am sorry if it has angered her to ask for them, but I think it is important that she is able to reassure noble Lords on that point.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords on a number of items, but I will say that that is the first time in this debate that we have had such discourtesy from a Member of the party opposite, with his allegation that somehow I will punish those who take a different view on this. He should look at his words again and rethink them, because the tone of the debate has not been like that throughout. I am sorry that he descended to that level.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for bringing this forward. He has been consistent throughout about the issues of the size of the House and prime ministerial patronage. Others are perhaps more recent converts on those issues, but he has had consistency. He and his committee looked at these issues forensically in a way that the House could respect, because it was based on facts and numbers, and they looked at this in a sensible way.

On hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said earlier, I am tempted to ask whether perhaps he was thinking that I should say we should do it “My Way” and no other way. For the final time, to follow a theme, “A Little Less Conversation” sometimes could be more helpful—I just like to lighten the mood.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in addressing some of the other comments that have been made, that I think it would be completely wrong if departures from this House, whether by hereditaries or due to retirements or participation, should merely create vacancies to be filled. We have manifesto commitments, and I think it has been the will of this House, that we should reduce the size of the House—not because of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, and the things he put forward, but because we are all looking at how we as a House do our best work. How do we properly contribute to debates? How do we ensure voices are heard around the House? When the House gets too large, there are concerns that not all Members are playing a role. When he talks about reducing the size of the House, he is right to say that temporary reductions are not what the House is looking for.

I have reflected on the comments I made when I responded to my noble friend Lady Hayter previously. I have a concern that if the Select Committee becomes a kitchen sink of issues, it becomes a talking shop and no progress is made. I think everybody is trying to avoid that happening. But I do think—and I spoke to her and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this—that retirement and participation are obviously two major drivers for reducing the size of the House. It is implicit in that that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House, we do not then seek to merely create vacancies to be filled. It is an opportunity to reflect on the ideal size and look forward to that.

There is always an issue about how much you constrain the Prime Minister’s patronage, and that has to be taken into account in the committee as well. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said the Prime Minister is the sole person who proposes Members for this House. He knows that is wrong, as I know that is wrong, as the Prime Minister passes on the nominations from other parties. It was made clear in the Statement—which I think the noble Lord was quite disparaging about—that the ability to nominate Cross-Benchers will remain and, through the Prime Minister, those nominations of people who have first-rate public service can also come to the Cross Benches as well.

I will address some of the other points. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said—and I may have misunderstood her when she was speaking, so she can correct me—that it has always been accepted that the Government would be the largest party but not the overall majority. My party is not the largest party, though we are in government. I have used these figures before in your Lordships’ House, and I think it is part of the reason we are now discussing the size of the House. The relative size of the parties—the relative numbers across the board, including the Liberal Democrats—is as important as the size of the House. After about 12.5 years of a Labour Government, my party, the then government party, left office with, I think, fewer than 30 more Peers than the Conservative Party. When the Conservative Party left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour. I find that totally unacceptable. It has never happened before in that way, and the disparity between parties is partly why we are discussing these issues now.

The noble Lord made it as a party-political point about hereditary Peers; it long predates that. The Grocott Bill that we tried to put forward previously was rejected by the party opposite—not by everybody, as I had several noble Lords today ask why their party did not take advantage of this before. There has to be an issue about how you get a balance of numbers across the House. I have the view that this House does its best work when the two parties of government—the main party of government and the opposition party—have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when I think we have the most respect, we work at our best and that works well. The only other time—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Leader of the House has been consistent in saying this in opposition and in government. Is that therefore a firm commitment that she does not want to see the Labour Party outnumbering the main party of opposition in this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not in a position to make a firm commitment. The House absolutely does its best work when the two main parties have roughly equal numbers, but it also depends on the House fulfilling its responsibilities and abiding by the conventions of the House. The noble Lord will know that, when we were in opposition, we would never have got up to the shenanigans that we have seen from the party opposite. I do not think, for example, that we ever proposed a closure Motion halfway through discussing an amendment—that was the first time I had seen that happen—so we do abide by the conventions. The noble Lord, Lord True, used to say to me regularly that what goes around comes around; I think he was right in principle, but perhaps not in action these days.

[Lord True (Con)]

The Minister loves this word “shenanigans”; whenever I see a briefing in the newspapers, I know where it has come from. She cited one shenanigan; can she give another? The Opposition have made repeated offers, and we are negotiating in the usual channels to deliver the Government’s legislation. The Minister knows the commitments that we have given. We do not discuss usual channels on the Floor, but can we please put “shenanigans” to bed and get back to good relations?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am afraid that my use of the word “shenanigans” has been copied by many others since, and it was not original on my part. To go down a bit of a rabbit hole, we have seen a lot of raw degrouping of amendments in this Session of Parliament. That aside, we are all looking for the House to do its best work, and to be treated responsibly, listened to and engaged in legislation.

The only time I recall a threat of introducing so many new Peers—we have talked about in the past—was when Jacob Rees-Mogg was Leader of the House of Commons. I had just become Leader of the Opposition, and we were threatened with 1,000 new Peers on the Brexit issue, but it never materialised. It was recognised then that the best way of dealing with things is in the way that the House normally does.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a very good point about quality. Appointments should consider quality and commitment. We are not just a House of the great and the good; we are people who are committed to the work that we do, and we bring judgment to the issues we debate. The noble Lord is right to look at that. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Front-Bench appointments in particular is one of the issues that deserves further consideration. This is an issue that the Select Committee would look at more broadly to ensure that we do not just create vacancies to go back to a larger House.

I understand the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I completely accept the purpose of putting it forward. I would say that one flaw in it is that his proposals—and I think this might have been the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was making—do not take into account the relative strength of political parties. Under this proposal, when a Peer departs, the party of government could always appoint a member of their party and not look at the balance of the House overall, and we do need to look at the balance of the House overall. Therefore, I understand the sentiment and I think the noble Lord is right to say that this needs further consideration, but I would ask that he withdraw his amendment. This is something that merits further discussion.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, and indeed for the degree of support for the principle of constraints on appointments and the need for guard-rails. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the House, who I think indicated, as I hoped, that we would be in a position with the Select Committee to discuss the issue of the relative size of appointments and those who are leaving. I do not want to press this to a Division today, as it is not the right vehicle for such a change. The amendment also needs to be considered in the context of other proposals to encourage departures and allocate appointments, as the Leader of the House has said.

Although I did refer to it in my remarks, at this stage I have not tried to deal with the issue of the allocation of vacancies to the different parties. That was set out in the Lord Speaker’s committee report, which said that the allocation between the parties should be made according to the number of votes and seats that they achieved at the previous general election. I still believe that that is a very effective mechanism. It is one that stabilises the numbers and allows for a shift in the proportions depending upon the political success of the parties during an election, so you get movement.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that now this Bill has been amended, and is going back to the other place, the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. After all, it simply takes the Government at their word: that they want a Select Committee to devise proposals to form the basis of a Bill. If the noble Baroness cannot accept it, and my noble friend tests the opinion of the House, we on this side—and, I hope, Peers on all sides who are interested in tying down the nature, scope and timing of reform—will support him in the Division Lobby.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will start with the basis of why I first suggested the Select Committee, as it may help your Lordships. The noble Lord is right that it is always difficult to get extra time for legislation, but it is important that this House has an opportunity to consider how we as a House might want to implement the two proposals—I have always referred to three stages; this was the second—on a retirement age and participation.

I will not repeat things that I have said in the past, but if there is an opportunity for the House to come forward with a view, and a Select Committee to bring forward proposals to your Lordships’ House for consideration, that does not make those proposals easier. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, helpfully interjected earlier and asked me whether there were things we could do more quickly by standing orders, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. That would be something for the committee to look at.

There is an opportunity for a Select Committee to look at those issues, to come forward with proposals for your Lordships’ House, and for us to consider those proposals and decide whether some could be taken forward more quickly. Where it requires legislation, if the House has a view on something on which all noble Lords agree, it would be much easier to persuade the Government by saying, “There’s agreement on this and we want to bring forward a focused Bill to deliver something that the House of Lords broadly agrees with”. That is why it was proposed in the first place.

The noble Lord opposite said that we may not co-operate because there are lots of other things around the issue. I am not quite sure what he means; perhaps we will debate that later. I was clear to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is implicit that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House—if we are looking at exits—considerations need to be made about size. That was clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, implied that this is being done for political reasons, to make it more difficult for the party opposite to hold the Government to account when hereditary Peers have left your Lordships’ House. Even after the hereditary Peers depart, there will still be 243 Members of her party in this House. My party before the election had 171 Members here, and my colleagues held the Government to account very effectively with that number. I am disappointed if the noble Baroness thinks that—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

May I finish my point? Do not get too excited—I will give way soon. I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks that with those additional Members—some 70 more Members than we had when we were in opposition—her party would find it very difficult to hold my Government to account.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for letting me put my point again. I was referring to all the contributions of the hereditaries on all Benches. I am talking about effective contributions that will now be silenced. I fear that will affect the House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is actually not the point that the noble Baroness made at the time. Many Members of your Lordships’ House make effective contributions, and she should recognise those as well.

I enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; he is always inventive and engages well on these issues. However, I say to him that I do not recognise the veto that the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to. My reading of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that if a Select Committee makes recommendations:

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the following Acts, as appropriate … to give effect to the recommendations in statute”.


The Government must then lay those regulations. In practical terms, if a Select Committee were to charge the House with something—if it said, “We would like the House to consider the following options”—how on earth do a Government legislate for all the options a Select Committee may recommend? That is what he would have in his—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I hope I made it clear in my speech that the House would consider the options. The House would then come up with a firm vote on what they may be, and not give the Government a range of options to legislate on. It would be the decision of the House on the retirement age, the participation rates or the threshold. We would consider the options and end up with firm recommendations.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s amendment is uncertain, because I did not read it like that. It says:

“Where a select committee of the House … has been established for the purpose of reporting on possible retirement ages … and that committee makes recommendations to establish or change”


certain conventions,

“a relevant Minister must, within 12 months of the committee reporting, take the action set out in subsection (2)”.

Therefore, the noble Lord will not be empowering the House; he will undermine the House by removing it as a body from the equation. Even aside from that point, however, I disagree that matters of this importance should merely be considered by the Select Committee through a statutory instrument. I am sure our statutory instruments committee would have quite a bit to say about that power and whether it was relevant at all.

The establishment of a Select Committee is a matter for the House; if the House does not want it, it will not be set up. It seems to me that it is a good way forward for the House to provide a view on these issues. Where we can take things forward more quickly, we will do so. Where we can act prior to legislation, we could do so. Where legislation is required, an agreement from your Lordships’ House makes that a smoother process. I think the amendment before us today is unworkable in practice and risks undermining the very role of this House by trying to bypass the House. It may not be what the noble Lord intended, but it is what his amendment would do. It would bypass the House; what happens in a Select Committee is then enacted by secondary legislation. That would be an extraordinary move and one that this House has never seen before. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

I was hoping to put this in context; my noble friend Lady Finn in her remarks did just that too, saying that we really want to make sure that we can continue the very high standard of legislative scrutiny of our present House in a reformed House.

I will just finish my remarks. As already alleged, these respective portions would provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present high standards. This formula could also seek the backing of public consultation and approval to which the noble Baroness very helpfully referred in Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but the debate has concluded and I think he is just about to say whether he wishes to press his amendment to the vote.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her interest. I am not going to be tempted to press to a vote, but if I could possibly finish my remarks, we may be able to round off the context.

I am grateful too for the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench and from my noble friend Lady Finn, and within this grouping for the useful amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on post-reform House of Lords nomenclature. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—I think it has been good natured generally, apart from one slip-up that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is not in his place—I have scared him off. He will not do that again.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing his amendment. It was the most unusual introduction I have ever heard to an amendment in your Lordships’ House. He started by saying that it does not do anything and does not ask the Government to do anything. That is an unusual way to introduce an amendment to any legislation. He seeks to put a preamble at the start of the Bill, as he said.

The substantive issue that he addresses here is introducing an elected element into a second Chamber. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, does not fail him: only last week the House rejected that proposal, although the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto for an alternative second Chamber do not mention elections, so I fear that putting something like this in—although it would make no difference—seeks to pre-empt any outcome of further discussions.

This kind of preamble is now obsolete—although it may have happened in 1911, and I know there is a tendency in your Lordships’ House to look backwards at what happened. There have been some excellent historical references in the House this evening and indeed last week. There is a good reason why this has become largely obsolete: it is completely unnecessary, because the Long Title indicates the purpose and substantive clauses are provided in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who took similar legislation through your Lordships’ House in 1999, said:

“Words that do not mean anything have no place in modern legislation”.—[Official Report, 26/10/1999; col. 276.]


Taking the noble Lord’s own introduction—saying that it does not do anything and does not mean anything—I ask that he withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot hide my disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the Leader of the House—have not accepted my words. But I am pleased to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, ask some totally appropriate questions and remind us of what happened at the end of the First World War with the Bryce Commission. Of course it would be possible to recreate a Bryce Commission and, under the Labour Government that ended in 2010, a Joint Committee of both Houses sat and discussed this. Prior to that, there had been a royal commission. There have been many occasions over the last 100 or so years when people have referred to this preamble and looked at what could be done to put in place some kind of elected House—and none of them has come to anything.

My purpose was simply to continue that historical reminder that this was the broad intention. This is an echo of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. So many other Peers have referred to it over the last 115 years. However, I recognise that I am beaten on this one. I said I would not call a Division on it and I will not. Therefore, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.