House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Earlier today, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay reminded your Lordships’ House about the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the legislation that removed the majority of hereditary Peers from your Lordships’ House. He gave an assurance from that Dispatch Box that the remaining hereditaries would not be removed until stage 2 of reform of your Lordships’ House was in place. He was asked what weight could be given to that assurance—what credence could be placed on it—and he told your Lordships’ House that it was a “matter of honour”. He could have said that the assurance would last only for 25 years, but he did not. He could have said that it would last only until a Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to remove the remaining hereditaries from your Lordships’ House, but he did not. He said neither of those things. He said it was a matter of honour.

Earlier today, in our very first debate, the Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave your Lordships assurances about the future from that same Dispatch Box. I have no doubt that she gave your Lordships those assurances in good faith. But if any noble Lords were just a tiny bit sceptical about the durability of those assurances, they might perhaps be forgiven in the light of what happened to the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

If it helps the noble Lord, I think he is talking about some 25 years ago. I am talking about a rather shorter period of time —a matter of months—to set up a Select Committee. He might be reassured by that, because I am not likely to forget that in a matter of three months.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I was not talking about those assurances; I was talking about the assurances the noble Baroness gave in our first debate about the durability of the status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

That is not my assurance; it is the assurance from the House of Lords Commission, from Members of all parties across the House.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I dare say, but the noble Baroness repeated those assurances from the Government, from that Dispatch Box, and that carries as much or as little weight as the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he introduced the original legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Does the caveat that she has just entered about future Parliaments apply to the assurances she gave on behalf of the Government from that Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon on the future status of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It does not, because that is not the legislation we are talking about. That is a decision of this House, and I find it very difficult to understand why anybody would want to change that position in this House. I have faith in your Lordships’ House, so it does not apply, and I think the commission has said that in relation to those officeholders and future officeholders as well. If, at some point in the future, this House took a different decision, I would oppose it very strongly—I think it would be totally the wrong decision, and I find it impossible to consider that it would happen. But when it comes to legislation, it is the case that one Parliament does not bind another. Indeed, I think his party has changed its mind on the Grocott Bill from the last Parliament to this one, so we do see changes as we move forward.

My impression is that, as the noble Duke has said, the House wants to make progress as a matter of urgency. None of us knows our longevity in any position or any place, but we are talking about a very short space of time. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised this issue with me. I would have thought that a Select Committee could be up and running very soon after Royal Assent. The normal Select Committee rules would apply. I think the terms of reference are quite clear: there are two specific issues. I understand what other Members have said about the need to broaden this out, but the danger there is that we do not get anywhere —which has happened time and again. The House has to make a decision: does it wish to make further progress or not? I think and hope it does. I want to, and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two points there. First, the strategic defence review is coming up, and we will have the response of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is not here at the moment. He has spoken already about the strategic defence review that he is leading, and the Government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor’s toes before the next Budget. The Government are taking all these issues into account to look at how we can best do this, but we have also had quite stagnant growth in this country for some time. Increasing the growth of our economy will be crucial to looking at how we fund all our commitments overseas and public services here.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I join the unanimous support that the House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has sought to do in the past few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not yet met with success—and it is clear, is it not, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to a Statement in the other place on this issue that the crisis has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this President. I quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot say that and why the Prime Minister cannot say that, but it is, sadly, the truth. Is it not clear that, given what has happened even in these last few days, however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget, greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated last week?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Committee stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, in considering the purposes of this Bill, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the circumstances in which our hereditary colleagues continue to sit in your Lordships’ House. They are here because of an agreement which was reached in 1999 that they would continue to sit in your Lordships’ House until stage 2 of the projected reform had taken place. The late Lord Irvine said that that agreement was binding in honour; he said it was a guarantee. He gave those undertakings as—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he said “the late Lord Irvine”; I remind him that the noble and learned Lord is not late.

Defence and Security

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: you cannot suddenly turn on a tap for defence expenditure, say it is however many billions of pounds more and then spend it the next day. Supply chains, research and development, and recruitment must be put in place. That is where the work of the strategic defence review that I mentioned will be vital. We totally concur with her important point.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, the comfortable world in which we lived up to two weeks ago has gone, and we now have to face some harsh realities. The stark truth is that we can no longer rely on a country that votes with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations for our defence or that of Europe. Does the Leader of the House agree that, while the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of an increase in defence spending is welcome, it is just a start? Does she also agree that we need to look radically at the entire remit of government spending to accommodate the very substantial increase in the defence budget, which, alas, is now necessary?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He makes the point, which I also made in an earlier answer, that this is a generational shift: the world has changed, and we have to respond to that. The role that the Prime Minister has taken is one of leadership. It is important that we recognise that we want to maintain our alliance with the United States—we hope that that goes from strength to strength—and that we want to work within Europe in a leadership role. Some will try to lead us to make a false choice, but we will not do that. The noble Lord also made the point that this is a step in the right direction; it is not the end. The Government have committed to 3% following on from 2.5%, and that will be important. As a nation, we will have to come to terms with what our defence capability should be, how we fund that and how we maintain that moving forward. He is right to say that this is part of a process; it not the end of the story.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I have been to Kfar Aza kibbutz and seen for myself the dreadful, terrible devastation which occurred on October 7, and I have visited the town of Sderot both before and after October 7 and seen a terrible difference. The Statement referred to Emily Damari, the only British hostage remaining in Gaza, whose mother I had the privilege of meeting last week. Would the Leader tell us what specific action His Majesty’s Government are taking, through Qatar or other intermediaries, to try to secure her release? In view of the part played by Iran in fomenting violence across the region, and the remarks of the Supreme Leader to which my noble friend referred, will the Government reconsider their decision not to proscribe the IRGC?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Clearly, Emily’s mother had the same effect on the noble Lord as she had on me when I met her. We must try to understand how she must feel, with not knowing. When I spoke to her, she had not heard from her daughter for some considerable time. Not knowing is almost worse than understanding what is happening. Some of the reports of Emily’s bravery are quite incredible; that will become evident and hopefully she can be returned home. Ongoing efforts using every means appropriate to ensure that Emily comes home to her family are being taken by the Government. That is an ongoing process.

The issue about the IRGC is under review. It is sanctioned and that will continue. The noble Lord will know that there is never ongoing reporting back or dialogue on these issues, but it is a matter under constant review. We will do everything we can to ensure that we take the appropriate action in that regard.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

With respect to the noble Lord—he knows I have great respect for him—I do not think that he was listening to what I have just said in answer to his noble friend. All this Bill does is to replace the bar of the two-thirds majority which the Fixed-term Parliaments Act provided with a slightly lower bar, but there is still a bar and it is perfectly conceivable that we could have a House of Commons in which the Government did not have a majority.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am listening to the noble Lord with care and I think that there is a fundamental flaw in his argument. On that basis, does he not accept that a simple majority is used for every piece of legislation in the House of Commons? Why should calling a general election be any different? A simple majority is a sensible bar and a sensible test of whether the country should have an election.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

The answer to the noble Baroness is this: if legislation is put before the House of Commons and it fails because there is no simple majority for it, there is a simple answer—the legislation fails. You do not have a situation that could go on for years in which a Government remain in office in a state of paralysis because that is what a majority of the House of Commons wants. That is the mischief that would arise in relation to this Bill.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Howard of Lympne

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a debate about the integrity of Mr Dominic Grieve, and I shall do my very best to avoid mentioning his name again. It is a debate on the terms of the amendments before your Lordships’ House this afternoon. My noble friend the Leader made a cogent and compelling case for the government amendments and I do not intend to elaborate on it at any length. She made it clear that the effect of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham would be to confer on Parliament a negotiating power that has always resided in the hands of the Executive in our country. That is why, as my noble friend the Leader said, Professor Vernon Bogdanor has described the amendment as a “constitutional absurdity”. It is a measure of the weakness of the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Hailsham that he was driven, in the end, to impugn the validity of the Article 50 vote in the House of Commons—a vote passed by a very large majority in the very House whose cause he purports to champion as the basis of his amendment.

I want to elaborate briefly on a point just made by my noble friend Lord True. My noble friend Lord Hailsham said, at the very outset of his speech, that the purpose of his amendment was to give the House of Commons the opportunity to consider it. It is a simple and irrefutable fact that the House of Commons will have that opportunity without passing my noble friend’s amendment. The House of Commons will have that opportunity if the Government’s amendment is passed, because that amendment has not been considered by the other place. So, when the Government’s amendment comes to the other place, it will be open to them to accept it, reject it or amend it. They can amend it in the terms of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. The very purpose of his amendment—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords—

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

I will give way when I have finished my sentence. The very purpose of the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount can be achieved without its passing.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but I may be helpful on House of Commons procedure. If an amendment goes from this place to the House of Commons and is amended, the chances are that the only amendment that could be voted on is a government one. At the moment of interruption, only government amendments are voted on. Back-Bench amendments would not be voted on.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

The operative phrase in the noble Baroness’s observation was “the chances are”. I believe that, if the House of Commons wished to consider the amendment in the terms put forward by the noble Viscount, it would be able to do so.